Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

quote:

---

It’s a discussion about when Mark was written and has nothing to do with inerrancy. The point is, is that if it had happened prior to Mark’s Gospel being compiled, Mark would have recorded it, likely wouldn’t include saying not one stone on another and would have shown that what Jesus predicted would happen actually had happened.

---

It’s funny how so many of your arguments are based on what you think people would have done - even when there is no solid case for it.. The author of Luke didn’t do those things either but we can be sure he was writing after 70 AD. How can you be so sure that the author of Mark would have done differently ?

I'm aghast! I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. It might be me, but is the word "happened" or "occurred" supposed to appear between "Temple" and "at"? And by "compiled" do you mean Mark writing his gospel from source material he had gathered or had access to? But that would mean that you're saying, "It makes far more sense to believe that the war and the destruction of the Temple occurred at the time the Gospel of Mark was written," and that doesn't sound like something you'd say. I'd expect you to say that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple occurred after Mark wrote his gospel. So I guess I need to request clarification about what you mean. I ask again, does Mark ever step outside the story to offer commentary about what occurred later? If not, then why would you expect him to do so in this case? And even if so, why do you think Mark would think his audience needful of reminding of something that had happened within the past few years and not so far away? I'm not an atheist. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion has the correct story. Apparently a crucified messiah wasn't unthinkable, particularly a resurrected one. Paul obviously had no trouble thinking it. You've got stories that say there were a lot of witnesses. What you don't have is the testimony of any witnesses. So your position is that scripture written with the intent that it be believed is evidence. That sorta puts the Bible on an equal footing with any other religion's scripture, like the Koran or the Book of Mormon or Scientology. You guys should all get together and work out who's right, then get back to us. Why do think including resurrection as part of a messianic story makes it true? As I said in another post, the plot of the dead hero somehow returning to life is as old as time.--Percy

No. There are lots of possibilities. The talking snake is a literary device; it's unlikely that the authors expected anybody to take it literally. The Flood didn't happen; it could be a metaphor or an exaggeration or the authors believed it and were just flat-out wrong. The Tower of Babel is an inaccurate interpretation of a real event. And so on. That's what people keep telling you but you insist that in some cases their motivation could not possibly be anything but factual reporting of real events. I agree: The rise of Christianity was caused (at least partly) by a BELIEF in the resurrection. But belief in the resurrection has nothing to do with whether or not the resurrection happened. Similarly, a belief that the Jews were dangerous caused the Holocaust - but that belief was not founded in fact. Clearly not. In your own words, "Each book of the Bible is by different authors with a variety of sources and motivations." For some of them the message was the power of God, the wrath of God and the fear of God, not the love of God.

First off, I’m sure that you’re familiar with the accounts of Peter denying Him 3 times. As for the next part of your question about the disciples hiding out we have this in John 20.

quote:

---

19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, Peace be with you!

---

In a way that is the point. It is about free will and if we had absolute knowledge then we wouldn’t be free to accept God’s command to love. It would turn the understanding the Bible into a Pharisaical style of belief that if we follow this set of instructions God will reward us. So yes we are called to pick and choose. Jesus did just that. He combed through the Jewish Scriptures which led to His self understanding of His messianic vocation.
Yes, we should read the Scriptures critically. I read the Scriptures with the understanding that in order to understand Jesus, a first century Jew steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures, who was forever quoting those Scriptures, then I need to have knowledge of the OT. However, to understand the OT I need to do it through the lens of Jesus. When I read Jesus saying that we are to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, that we are forgiven as we forgive and that those who live by the sword die by the sword it is very clear that God would not have ordered genocide or public stoning.
As I’ve said numerous times, it is even clear in Scripture that it isn’t our theology that God is concerned about, it is our hearts. Are we following God’s command to love; do we feed the hungry; home the homeless etc or are we about looking after number one. The thing about theology though is that it can affect our hearts and minds.
If we are of the belief that the Bible is inerrant then we can justify all sorts of things. In the last few decades for example we have seen cases of when there is evil perceived in places of the world that affects or has affected our own cultures that the knee jerk reaction is to go drop bombs on it. ( I do think that there is such a thing as a just war, but not very often.)
If however, we look to Jesus in a world where His fellow Jews are being brutalized and taxed into poverty by the Romans, His message is that they were to win over the Romans by loving them, with His argument being essentially that it isn’t the Romans who were the enemy but it is evil itself. Ultimately He is saying that the only weapon that will defeat evil is love If He had simply died on the cross then how would that affect anything. I have trouble with that on several levels. The Bible message isn’t really about us getting to heaven but ultimately it’s about heaven coming to when all of creation is resurrected. Paul writes this in Ephesians 1.

quote:

---

9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him

---

It is about the renewal of all things. It isn’t about the destruction of the world or the universe.
I think that parts of the church have made the focus of the church personal salvation. It then becomes the idea of scaring people into the Kingdom and just as bad it suggests that people come to faith because of what’s in it for themselves. The Bible actually talks about dying to self and giving our hearts to God so that we want the things of God. I realize nobody, least of all me, does this well. Only Jesus did that. The point is that we should truly want to be like that. No wonder you had trouble. Part of the sentence is missing.  You are correct about what I would say. If the destruction had happened when Mark compiled the Gospel, ( and yes I am suggesting that like Luke he was using source material and possibly personal knowledge), the He would have recorded the destruction as Jesus’ prediction had come true. Also He wouldn’t have said that there wouldn’t be one stone on another. As the eye witnesses died off he would feel compelled to record what had happened. Again, Luke even explains that in His Gospel. I don’t think any person or religion has the whole truth. It seems to me that if you believe in God then I would think that you would have to agree that the resurrection is possible. If God is responsible for the processes that brought about life then I don’t think resurrection is much of a trick. The question of course is, did it actually happen. I am convinced that it did. This may sound strange but it actually makes sense to me in all sorts of ways. Yes he did, but he had to write several times that he wasn’t ashamed to preach a crucified messiah. Crucifixion was a shameful way to die in that culture. Also this is in Deuteronomy 21.

quote:

---

If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and you hang him on a tree, you must not leave the body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is a curse of God.

---

As I said. A crucified messiah was unthinkable. It would take something momentous to overcome that belief. That momentous event was the resurrection. Well all religions can learn from each other. The point was though that the Gospel writers believed what they wrote. We can choose to believe them or believe they got it wrong. IMHO it is very clear that it isn’t a story they concocted for something unfathomable reason. Rightly or wrongly they believed they were writing about an historical event.

I can't be sure. I have simply explained why I believe it to be the case.

That was kinda my point. I do. When you look at the stories of OT wars and God commanding them I believe that the war happened but I don't agree that God commanded it. Same with the public stonings.In the case of the resurrection the circumstances and the manner in which they are written clearly, IMHO , show that they believed that there were recording historical events as accurately as they could. I also believe that there are good reason to believe, for reasons I've at least partly already explained, that the essential aspects are correct. That's all true, but I would argue that without the resurrection Christianity would never have come into being. I covered that in my last post to Percy. When we read the Bible it has God commanding genocide and public stonings. When we read it through the lens of Jesus we can say that there is no way that the God of love whose Word or nature was embodied by Jesus would command those things.

The same would apply to the stories of genocide and other atrocities: the authors believed they were recording historical events as accurately as they could. There is no justification for you believing one and not the other. So, as I've been saying all along, you pick your favourite flavour with no justification whatsoever.

I'm not saying that the stories of genocide and public stonings weren't believed by the authors. I believe that the genocides took place, (or at least were attempted), and that the public stonings happened. I am simply saying that whether they believed it or not, these happenings were not commanded by God.So I do believe that the genocides and stonings are historical events as I do the resurrection. I am a Jesus follower. I believe on faith that if I want to understand the nature of God I look to Jesus. Also, I can look at the world and see that the bulk of our problems come from people not following Jesus message of love, or the message from Micah in my signature which is pretty good evidence that the route of love is the route that God wants us to follow. I think that we all would agree that the world would be a far far far happier place if this was the way of the world.I guess we all pick our favourite flavour in one way or another.. None of us have absolute knowledge.

quote:

---

I can't be sure. I have simply explained why I believe it to be the case.

---

It’s one of many things you believe because they are convenient for your argument. Just like you think the NT writer’s belief in the Resurrection is sufficient reason to force the Bible into your favoured interpretation.However, the real evidence that the passage comes earlier than 70AD is that things did not go as predicted. There was no abomination in the Temple. God did not intervene to save the Jews from defeat. No angels came to gather the elect. The version in Luke is changed to acknowledge these things, putting off the End Times to the near future - but it didn’t happen then, either.You don’t use that argument because you refuse to acknowledge those failures. Even though they are so plain that they were recognised by the author of Luke.

And I am simply saying that there's no reason for believing that, no more reason than there is for believing that Jesus was an example of the "real" God. And you're clearly making up a God that is palatable to you.Edited by ringo, : Spellyng.

Peter's denial must be one of the more well known elements of the Jesus story, so of course I'm familiar with it, but you said this occurred "when Jesus was crucified," and Peter's denial not only came before the crucifixion but even prior to the hearing before Pilate.But I didn't inquire about any denial of Jesus. I asked about your claims about the apostles reaction to the crucifixion. I said I wasn't aware that the crucifixion caused the apostles to consider Jesus a failed messiah. I *have* read the gospels, and that the crucifixion caused them to consider Jesus a failed messiah doesn't sound familiar. I'd be ever so grateful if you could save me the trouble of reading the end portion of all the gospels and tell me where they say this. Locking the doors is equivalent to hiding out? I guess I hide out every night. Isn't this a bit of a stretch as a reference to hiding out? Or are we "interpreting" again?The main thing is that you've provided no support for your statement, "When Jesus was crucified, the leaders knew Jesus to be another failed messiah, denied Him and went into hiding not wanting to suffer the same fate." This isn't a big deal, I'm just curious where it says this in the gospels, because I hadn't heard this before. Before I read on I have to again ask, then why are we having this discussion? Since we don't have absolute knowledge, or where religion is concerned even any knowledge, how do you know there was ever any command from God to love? Or even that there's a God? That pretty much describes Christianity, what with the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule and all that. Do you realize how far outside the mainstream of Christianity you are? You seem much more like a skeptic, which makes it very difficult to understand why you're defending your Biblical interpretations so fiercely. You're not Jesus. You're not eternal and one of the three persons of God. As a follower of Jesus it is not for you to pick and choose scripture to construct your own spiritual world. Are you sure you're a Christian rather than just someone who really knows his Bible and likes parts of it a great deal? Matthew 18:3:

quote:

---

And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

---

Of course there are Biblical passages for all occasions, but this one is definitely not encouraging you to read your scriptures critically. And yet he apparently did. It's all there in black and white. Yeah, we agree, but eternal salvation still remains Christianity's most effective and widely used selling point. Why would he have thought it necessary to interrupt his story, to step outside his story, to mention something already familiar to his community? Why would he have been so intimately familiar with the Temple that he knew about the western wall (a retaining wall) and the state the Romans left it in? Or maybe he considered the Temple to be strictly the Temple portion only, and not the entire complex. There are many possible explanations, not just yours. The advantage of any interpretations I make is that they don't require that someone have the ability to foretell the future. Now you're playing both sides of the fence. You can't argue that Mark wrote about the destruction of the Temple because eyewitnesses were dying off - the event hadn't happened yet. You could only make that argument if Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple. What Luke explains in his Gospel is about *his* gospel, not the Gospel of Mark. Let me be more clear. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion is remotely close in any of their particulars to the correct story. My God gives purpose to the universe, a purpose unknown to us. Our role, if any, if we're not some side effect or unintended consequence, is miniscule. We have not as yet uncovered or encountered any evidence of God, so people who believe he exists do so solely on a foundation of faith. When it comes to the spiritual, people believe what they believe independent of evidence. Many feel the need for evidence of what they believe and so they convince themselves that there is evidence, just as you are doing.Others understand that there is no evidence. Of these some choose atheism or agnosticism, which makes good sense. And some, like me, understand that their faith in God is just something that comes from within and is part of their makeup. We agree. Hey, twice in one message, a record.But you're earlier argument, that the presence of the resurrection in the story is convincing evidence that the story is true, is bollocks. It's an old plotline used over and over. You mean religions can let other religions inform their theology? I think few religions would admit that ever happens, and particularly not Christianity. My mind is open concerning how much the gospel writers believed what they wrote, but what difference does it make? Just believing something true doesn't make it so.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Firstly I contend that Mark was written prior to the war for reasons I have already given. Actually it is obvious that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem whether or not Mark wrote the Gospel before or after the war.I am not saying that because the NT writers believed that the resurrection was an historical event proves that it was true. My point is only that the question is whether or not they concocted the accounts for their own purposes. IMHO it is very clear that they did believe what they wrote. The question is whether they got it right or not, and we come to our own conclusions about that.I am simply saying that I believe that essentially they got it right even though some of the details differ, and I have many times explained why I think that to be the most reasonable conclusion. You are just restating what you have previously and I have already answered that. The only thing new is here is "God did not intervene to save the Jews from defeat".Jesus was saying that if you carry on with the revolution the Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed. He saw a military revolution to be a case of fighting evil with evil and that evil and when you do that evil wins. Here is a quote from Ephesians 6.

quote:

---

12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

---

Jesus was saying that God wouldn't intervene to save the Jews from defeat. Firstly you are wrong that they didn't happen, but secondly as I have already said that Jesus isn't telling the future supernaturally but predicting the future with the knowledge of the political situation.I agree that they are plain and you have plain got it wrong. I gather that you were raised in the church and you are projecting on to the Christian faith what you beleived about the Christianity prior to rejecting it.

At least your replies are short. Replying to Percy is a full time unpaid position. As I have said before my Christian faith is based essentially based on two things. 1/ God is a God of love and wants us to reflect that into the world. 2/ God resurrected Jesus vindicating and confirming His life and message.The stories of genocide were written by scribes saying that God commanded genocide and public stonings. This of course comes from prophets claiming that God had told them this. These prophets were beholding to the leaders for their welfare and even their lives, in many cases, and in others were interested in their position in the community.The Gospels were written accounts of what they believed actually happened. They aren't saying that God told them this but writing about events they claim to be historical. You can't look at the two on the same footing.As I believe in the resurrection of Jesus as confirming His message about the nature of God then I can see that the position of "loving your enemy" is totally incompatible with ordering genocide and public stonings.It isn't that hard. No, I'm following the God whose nature was perfectly embodied by Jesus as told in the NT.For that matter, everyone follows a god that is palatable to them. That god might be a religion, or it might be any number of earthly things such as money, power or love of others. Everyone bases their life on something.

quote:

---

Firstly I contend that Mark was written prior to the war for reasons I have already given.

---

And those reasons are obviously bad. That was my point.

quote:

---

I am not saying that because the NT writers believed that the resurrection was an historical event proves that it was true

---

Indeed not, and I did not say that you did. You did however claim that that belief made it reasonable to interpret the Bible in the light of Jesus teachings. By which you mean your interpretation of teachings attributed to Jesus.

quote:

---

I am simply saying that I believe that essentially they got it right even though some of the details differ, and I have many times explained why I think that to be the most reasonable conclusio

---

Except that the differences are far more than details. Please explain to me how it is possible that the author of Matthew thought that the Disciples went to Galilee and met Jesus there if, in fact, Jesus personally told some of them not to go to Galilee, and because of that none of them left the area around Jerusalem until after the Ascension and Pentecost - which get no mention in Matthew at all.

quote:

---

You are just restating what you have previously and I have already answered that. The only thing new is here is "God did not intervene to save the Jews from defeat".

---

I think that producing a better argument for the earlier date is worthwhile. And the fact that you refuse to use it is quite telling.

quote:

---

Jesus was saying that if you carry on with the revolution the Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed. He saw a military revolution to be a case of fighting evil with evil and that evil and when you do that evil wins. Here is a quote from Ephesians 6.

---

That is your opinion but it requires adding a lot to the text. A more straightforward reading is that the Romans would push the Jews too far by setting up the Abomination and then the Jews would revolt.

quote:

---

Jesus was saying that God wouldn't intervene to save the Jews from defeat.

---

The references to earlier Jewish apocalyptic writings suggest otherwise, especially in the absence of any explicit statement to the contrary.

quote:

---

Firstly you are wrong that they didn't happen, but secondly as I have already said that Jesus isn't telling the future supernaturally but predicting the future with the knowledge of the political situation.

---

The Abomination certainly didn’t happen, and if you really think loads of angels turned up to gather the chosen of the Son of Man from all over the world I want to see actual evidence.You are also wrong to think that the prediction is purely political - the religious element - the expectation of past prophecy being fulfilled - is very strong.

quote:

---

I agree that they are plain and you have plain got it wrong. I gather that you were raised in the church and you are projecting on to the Christian faith what you beleived about the Christianity prior to rejecting it.

---

Wrong. Utterly wrong. The beliefs I was raised with were more like yours. Except for the distortion of the text you are engaged in here - and the obvious dishonesty and evasion.

I think we have made all our points clear and we disagree. As I am being accused of being dishonest I think we have it all covered.