|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
ringo writes: 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. 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 I do believe that the genocides and stonings are historical events as I do the resurrection.
ringo writes: 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. So, as I've been saying all along, you pick your favourite flavour with no justification whatsoever. I guess we all pick our favourite flavour in one way or another.. None of us have absolute knowledge.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: 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. 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. 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.
PaulK writes: 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 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: Jesus was saying that God wouldn't intervene to save the Jews from defeat.
PaulK writes: You don’t use that argument because you refuse to acknowledge those failures. 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. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
At least your replies are short. Replying to Percy is a full time unpaid position.
GDR writes: I am simply saying that whether they believed it or not, these happenings were not commanded by God.ringo writes: 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.
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. 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.
ringo writes: No, I'm following the God whose nature was perfectly embodied by Jesus as told in the NT. And you're clearly making up a God that is palatable to you. 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.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: 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. 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.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: Yes it was before but you’re splitting hairs. It was obvious where this was going and Peter out of fear did not wanted to be associated with Jesus.
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.Percy writes: It isn’t in the Gospels. It is from the fact that when the leaders of the other messianic movements were put to death the movement died and for lack of a better term they would have been considered failed messiahs. As I have quoted elsewhere the disciples out of fear of the Jewish leaders were in a locked room. The disciples even after the resurrection were still thinking that Jesus was somehow going to lead them against the Romans. (Acts 1). There is no reason to consider the movement at that point anything but dead and no reason to carry it on. There was no army or anyone else with influence or power to carry it on.
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. Percy writes: They were in a locked room out of fear of the Jewish leaders. I’d say that they were hiding out.
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?Percy writes: It comes from the Gospel narrative without being implicitly spelled out as well as a very basic understanding of the factions in Jerusalem at that time.
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. Percy writes: Because the Bible is not a single book with a single author. It is written over hundreds of years, under different circumstances and with different motivations. So yes, we should reject some things and accept others. There is no absolute certainty in our understandings. I have explained how I have to my conclusions about how I understand the Bible.
Before I read on I have to again ask, then why are we having this discussion? Percy writes: I do keep covering the same ground. The idea that we are the result of a myriad number of natural processes from the mindless particles of the BB to the world we live in today requires a way more faith than I can come up with. As far as the command to love is concerned it is pretty obvious that the more we apply that in our cultures that better off everyone is. Once again, as I am convinced that the resurrection is historical I take on faith that God wants us to live our lives based on that command spoken or unspoken.
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? GDR writes: It would turn the understanding of the Bible into a Pharisaical style of belief that if we follow this set of instructions God will reward us.Percy writes: I am certainly outside fundamentalism but I’m by and large fairly consistent with most of Anglicanism. My main influence with my theological beliefs is NT Wright who Newsweek called the world’s leading New Testament scholar.
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. Percy writes: I’m a follower of an inerrant Jesus and not an inerrant Bible. The two aren’t compatible.
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?Percy writes:
The Kingdom of Heaven is not about personal salvation. It also isn’t about reading the Scriptures. It is about having hearts that love others as we love ourselves. The Kingdom of Heaven is about those who listen to that still small voice that calls us to love and act on it. It is a Kingdom as talked about in Daniel 7 and is for the here and now and on into eternity.
Matthew 18:3:
quote:Of course there are Biblical passages for all occasions, but this one is definitely not encouraging you to read your scriptures critically. GDR writes: 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.Percy writes: Sure and an inerrantist would say that it must be true and then somehow try to square it up with loving your enemy. It can’t be done. It is one or the other and I’m going with what The Gospels say that Jesus said, rather than accepting the word of some scribe centuries earlier.
And yet he apparently did. It's all there in black and white. Percy writes: I don't think that's true. I think we all see the resurrection story is a significant part of the appeal of Christianity, though even more compelling is the claim that Jesus died for our sins so that we might have eternal salvation in heaven.GDR writes: 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: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 should 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. Percy writes: Maybe, but if Christianity is about getting rewarded with eternal life then it becomes again all about the self. If people become Christian for that reason then I question whether they really understand the faith. I realize I’m being judgmental here but it is how I understand Christianity rightly or wrongly. IMHO I have a god that gave me life, gave me intelligence and an understanding of right and wrong and only asks in return that I reflect the love that He has given me into the world. Yeah, we agree, but eternal salvation still remains Christianity's most effective and widely used selling point.As I have said numerous times salvation is not about our doctrines but about the heart. As a Christian I pray that God will give me a heart that loves the way that He desires. (He still has a lot of work to do. ) See psalm 37:4. Also salvation is for all creation and how that plays out in the end is up to God and not me, and frankly I don’t concern myself as to who is in and who is out. As far as I’m concerned if asked about hell I pretty much go along with CS Lewis and the metaphors that he uses. He also says that those who are in hell are those who choose it. Percy writes: Well, I still maintain that if the destruction had already taken place the Gospel would read differently. My understanding does not require anyone to have specific knowledge about the future, but it requires someone with knowledge of the circumstances to use that knowledge and predict what will happen.
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.Percy writes: My comment wasn’t about the Temple but Mark’s motivation for compiling the book at all.
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. Percy writes: Yes, but all the synoptics overlap to varying degrees so I think that it is safe to assume that they used much of the same source material. I know many people say that Matthew and John used Mark as source material but personally I disagree.
What Luke explains in his Gospel is about *his* gospel, not the Gospel of Mark.Percy writes: One of us must be learning something. I think that I’ll go with the idea that it’s you.
We agree. Hey, twice in one message, a record.Percy writes: 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. I don’t think I said that. My point is that the accounts are written in a way that it is clear that the Gospel accounts were written by people who believed them to be true. That is not conclusive evidence as they may have been wrong. Also, it isn’t something that they would have come up with. It is completely outside what Jews at the time believed about a messiah. (Maybe the plot lines came from copying the Gospels.)
Percy writes:
Another point of agreement. Great we’re up to 3. 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. PS. Can we stick to one post at a time instead of sending another one prior to me replying to one you’ve already sent. As I said this becomes a full time unpaid position.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: I don’t think he even had to be that astute in regards to the likelihood and the outcome of the revolution. There was a strong revolutionary movement and the Romans would do what they always did and were good and at and merciless. He was predicting the outcome and that Yahweh would not be bailing them out as the revolutionaries hoped. His message again was that if you fight evil with evil, evil always wins. Likely the war happened later than Jesus thought it would, but that is just a guess on my part. Yeah, bad ones. Your version has it that Jesus was an astute political forecaster who could see 30 years into the future for information irrelevant both to the people he was talking to (the forecasted events were too far in the future) and to the people in the future (who by that time would be Christians and wouldn't care about the Temple).They would still care about the Temple. They were Jews who believed that Jesus was the hoped for messiah even though He wasn’t what they had anticipated. He was about defeating the Romans by changing their hearts and rebuilding the Temple in the hearts of those that followed His message of love. The Temple was still a place of worship and would have been meaningful to them.. Percy writes: I only said that in response to some others on this forum who have been suggesting that they made the whole thing up. Certainly the fact that they believed it is not proof that they got it right. Yes, of course I care most that they got it right and I am convinced that essentially they did even though there are differences in the details.
This paragraph can't seem to decide which is the key issue. Is it whether the gospel writers believed what they wrote, or is it whether they got it right? Shouldn't you care most about whether they got it right? After all, who cares whether they believed it themselves as long as they got it right.Percy writes: They can’t both be right about the details where they differ but they can both be right on the main event. It is like witnesses to a car accident. They might differ on the details but the accident did happen.
Accounts that differ on some points cannot both be right.Percy writes: I’m not sure what you are referring to but I assume it is the passages about the sky falling etc. That is a political message about what will happen if they go ahead with the revolution. It is just Jewish hyperbole for a great political upheaval. It is roughly the same language used in Isaiah 13 where it is very much an earthly event, even termed as the day of the lord. It was about defeating the Babylonians. It wasn’t about end times at all.
Maybe I'm recollecting incorrectly, but didn't you answer by inventing interpretations considerably at odds with what the passages clearly say?Percy writes: The connection is that Jesus is talking about the physical destruction of the Temple as a result of looking for a physical solution in fighting a revolution. Ephesians is saying that the enemy is spiritual in that it is evil itself and you aren’t going to defeat evil with more evil as I said earlier.
I think your familiarity with the Bible gets you in trouble. You frequently connect unrelated Biblical passages as if they supported your claims when they don't. Ephesians 6:12 is from a letter that was once thought Pauline but is now believed otherwise about the struggle being spiritual rather than physical. Mark 13:1-2 is Jesus talking about the destruction of the Temple, a very physical event. Percy writes: Ephesians isn’t a set of rules but it talks about what Jesus’ command of loving our neighbours looks like when it is implemented.
And you once said religion should not be reduced to a set of rules that one follows in order to receive some reward, but what is Ephesians if not a lengthy set of rules? Percy writes: Again, if Mark was writing this after the war you are basing it on the idea that Mark is doing that to prove Jesus was correct in what He had predicted. I just don’t see that. In the first place we are looking at an event about 38 years after Jesus would have said this. I rather think that that would be seen as being outside the boundaries of this generation. If Mark was trying to fabricate something I doubt that he would have used that to establish a time frame. Not in Ephesians 6:12 he's not. It's not even Jesus talking, it's just the writings of someone once thought to be Paul. And if you meant Mark 13 then Mark doesn't say anything about God not intervening to prevent a Jewish defeat. He does say this, though:
quote:This is Mark having Jesus say roughly when the Temple will be destroyed, more evidence that Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple. IMHO Jesus predicted the destruction but that it didn’t happen as soon as He thought it would. However, the point was that this is what would happen if they went ahead with a revolution. This would vindicate His message of non-violent revolution and they would then understand that Daniel’s prophesy was fulfilled in Him. They would understand that Jesus was the Son of Man referred to in Daniel’s dream. This then along with the fact that Jesus had been resurrected which established Him as the one who had been given dominion over the Kingdom of those who followed His message of sacrificial love. In light of this I can’t see it having been written after the war for several reasons. Firstly it doesn’t make sense that Mark would say that this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place. It did happen 38 years later making his predicting it happening in this generation something of a stretch. There is nothing saying that he is using this to confirm a prophesy. He just isn’t making an issue of it. It is one line in 2 of the Gospels. Thirdly, as has been pointed out some of the Temple did remain standing to this day. Percy writes: The abomination in the Temple refers back to the desolation of the city and the sanctuary in Daniel 9;27 and Daniel 11:31 which says You mean there *was* an "abomination" in the Temple? God *did* intervene to save the Jews from defeat? Angels *did* come to gather the elect? I don't think so.quote:It is about the destruction of the Temple. Jesus’ message was that God wouldn’t intervene to save the Jews from defeat. They were going the way of the pagan nations in responding to the Romans with an armed revolution. They would see this as God’s judgment on them. As I said before if you fight evil with evil then evil is bound to win. The angels would be to point out the establishment of the Kingdom for all nations, GDR writes: I agree that they are plain and you have plain got it wrong.Percy writes: He kept insisting that it was about end times and clearly is about Jesus talking about what would happen if they engaged in violent revolution with the Romans.
I can't see why you're saying this to PaulK. I can't see where he got anything wrong or you got anything right.Percy writes: Actually I’m pretty middle of the road Anglican. The more liberal ones consider me conservative and the more conservative ones consider me liberal.
Your views seem way out there for a Christian. You must get into some interesting discussions with your fellow parishioners.Percy writes: I haven’t had much time today but it’s now midnight and I’m trying to get through 2 of your replies.
And if you replied to all my messages instead of just half you'd have to work double shifts!Percy writes: You are using a fundamentalist view of inspiration. I believe that God inspired people to write down their story which does not mean He dictated it. The stories are there with human weakness and bias. Like I said earlier I believe that the accounts of genocide and stoning were accurate but there statement that it was God who commanded it is there out bias, fear, justification or some other human failing.
So the OT authors were just schmucks working under threat or a need for approval - no "inspired by God" there.Percy writes: As I said I believe they were inspired to write their accounts to the best of their ability and knowledge, but again, it wasn’t dictated to them by God. I do believe though that God speaks or reached out to us through the Scriptures, But the NT authors were recounting what they believed to be actual historical events - no "inspired by God" there, either.Interesting that you're passing up on the "inspired by God" claim. You make an overly broad claim about the historicity claims of the gospel writers. Only Luke claimed his account historical. I think it is pretty clear that the other accounts, like Luke, are meant to be taken historically. Percy writes: This is a parable or metaphor that fits in with the world of Jesus’ day. The point was that if we live a life that is the opposite of the golden rule as commanded by Jesus then, as we see in CS Lewis’ book the Great Divorce, we lead ourselves to our own destruction. Jesus is certainly not advocating flogging.
Put in other terms, you denigrate the OT authors because their accounts are not consistent with a loving God, and you elevate the NT authors because theirs are. Or are they? This is Jesus, one of the three persons of God, encouraging violence against slaves:
quote: GDR writes: 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. Percy writes: No. I am following God as I truly believe Him to be. I agree that if He wasn’t palatable to me I wouldn’t follow Him. As I’ve said before that if I really believed that God commanded genocide and public stoning, or for that matter wanted me to kill infidels, then I might believe in that God but I wouldn’t follow Him. Once again you're conceding what everyone has been saying. But in your next message you'll continue on as if you didn't realize you'd already conceded. I have done my best to show that God as I follow Him is consistent with the 3 pillars of Anglican Christianity which are Scripture. I’m not saying that I have everything right but I have done my best through prayer and study to answer Pilate’s question of what is truthWell, there are 2 of your posts answered with one to go. It’s after midnight and I’m going to bed. Cheers. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
OK I finally have bit of time to get started on this.
Percy writes: Once the arrest was made Peter would know that it wouldn’t go well.
Am I really splitting hairs? Or are you conflating events. Was it the crucifixion that sent the apostles into depression and hiding, or the arrest? Make up your mind.Percy writes: You’re right that it wasn’t fear of the Roman guards that was the problem. It wasn’t like Jesus had a military following that would concern the Romans. However, as the text said they were afraid of the Jewish leaders., who would have considered them guilty of heresy.
Out of fear of what? Arrest? Peter was present when the guards showed up to make tt the arrest, and they only arrested Jesus, which was what they had been instructed to do. Once the guards were gone what did Peter have to be afraid of? He already knew they had no interest in arresting him, so he couldn't have been afraid of being reported of being an associate of Jesus and being arrested because just minutes before he had been right there beside Jesus when Jesus was arrested and he was not. Though fear makes sense, the gospel stories, which seem nearly identical about this, don't even make clear why Peter denied Jesus. This is a part of the Jesus story you should discard. It probably got included in all three synoptics because it shows Jesus foretelling the future again, and because of the drama that it caused Peter such pain.Percy writes: He was arrested at night, everything was close together and none of the so called trials would last long. It could easily have been done in that time frame.
Peter's denial marks the beginning of the story of Jesus's last day on Earth, about which the synoptic accounts differ. Matthew's and Mark's accounts could possibly fit in a single day if Pilate is just sitting around doing nothing on the day of a big feast and is available and willing to hear complaints about an obscure Jewish preacher who, despite supposedly causing all this ruckus and trouble, Pilate has never heard of. But Luke's account cannot possibly be true because there is too much going on for it to happen in so short a period of time. Jesus could not have gone before the priests and elders and then before Pilate and then before Herod Antipas and then before Pilate again and then before a crowd and then to his crucifixion in a single day.Percy writes: It is because as we can see in Josephus that when the other messianic leaders were put to death their movements ended and their mission failed. I’ve called them failed messiahs, but you can use whatever term you want.
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.Percy writes: They are still thinking that Jesus as messiah will somehow lead them in the defeat of the Romans, to get rid of them and restore the Kingdom of Israel. I have no idea if they were thinking of a military victory or something else, but they were still thinking that the messiah would get rid of the Romans and put them back in power.
The question in Acts 1:6 is not asking Jesus to lead an army to expel the Romans. It's about whether Jesus will employ his divine and miraculous powers to restore the kingdom of Israel. Percy writes: C’mon, it does say that they feared the Jewish authorities behind locked doors. Ah, I see, we're "interpreting" again. John 20:19 says nothing about hiding out. There are only locked doors.This is John writing well after the resurrection. He isn’t saying that somebody said this at the time. These are John’s words using the Scriptures to make his point. A crucified messiah is a messiah who was put to death and had failed to do what they believed a messiah was supposed to do. Percy writes: I seem to have to answer this about every third post. It isn’t absolute knowledge. We all have to work it out for ourselves. The Bible is a library of 66 books with hundreds of authors with different agendas, motivations and literary skills. You can I suppose, but it doesn’t make sense, to read them all with the same understanding. If you want to insist that to believe the resurrection accounts you have to believe that Yahweh commanded genocide and public stoning then so be it.
What you call explanations are not really explanations. What you say usually only raises questions or objections, to which you often merely reply, "I've already explained," forcing people to repeat themselves (another thing that makes messages longer). If you truly believe that all religion is man-made, that the Bible is not literally inerrant, and that it's okay to make your own subjective Biblical interpretations, then you've opened up a Pandora's box where every view is equal. If you're free to say that some passage has "this meaning," then someone else is free to say it has "that meaning." If you're free to say that "this much" of the Bible is open to interpretation, then someone else is free to say it's "that much." I think we're all still wondering why you seem blind to the obvious implications of your approach to making interpretations.GDR writes: As far as the command to love is concerned it is pretty obvious that the more we apply that in our cultures that better off everyone is.Percy writes: If God exists then if we go in the direction He wants us to go then the world should go better. We can see that the world that is driven by love is a better place so I see that as evidence of the fact that that is how He wants us to live our lives.
Hey, agreement again, but where is the connection to God? Percy writes: The majority of the quotes that we have from Jesus in the Gospels refer directly to or indirectly to the OT. If we want to understand what Jesus is about we need the OT. I’m not diminishing the OT but when we look at the passages that say that Yahweh commanded genocide and public stoning and compare that to Jesus’ message such as love your enemy, we have to either go with Jesus or a scribe centuries earlier. I choose Jesus. I know some try but you can’t have it both ways. They are incompatible.
I know nothing of Anglicanism, but given your cavalier attitudes about which parts of the Bible are true or false, or how various parts should be interpreted, I very much doubt you're a traditional Anglican. For example, both Old and New Testament are considered the primary authority of Anglicanism (I'm just Googling around), while you see the Old Testament as suspect because in your view its authors were subject to coercion and desire for approval. I also didn't see anything about Anglicanism considering religion man-made, or picking and choosing among Bible passages. Percy writes: You might be surprised. An easy place to start with Wright is this book.Simply Good News I've never heard of N. T. Wright, but I bet his views align with your own as much as Anglicanism does, that if I studied him that I'd see very little resemblance to the things you've said in this thread.Percy writes: Of course I can’t know, It is a faith, but if God resurrected Jesus , (which I believe on the evidence of the Gospels as well as personal experience), then I can take that as a starting point for an inerrant Jesus and go with that. The important part is that we are commanded to love and that is the essence of my faith. The rest is theology which, if we choose to study it, we form our own beliefs. I realize that isn’t at all a conclusive argument, but there is no conclusive argument for any position including atheism.
Can you really know that you follow an inerrant Jesus? Your information about Jesus can only come from a single source, the New Testament, and if you don't listen to that then your inerrant Jesus is just someone you made up.Percy writes: I am a Christian in that I believe that Jesus died on the cross, that God resurrected Him and gave Him dominion over the Kingdom of those who believe in His message of love, and have a heartfelt desire to live out that message of love in their lives. I believe that Jesus is the climax of the Israel story which records the progressive revelation of God to the Jews in the OT and that He inspired individuals to record their histories, their ambitions and dreams, their understandings of the divine in the various literary forms that are used. That does not mean that the Bible was dictated by God, and as a result it does contain contradictions that come from human biases, fears and errors. Just as the writers had their faults, we have ours and we won’t always understand the Bible perfectly. We are just called to understand with the God given gift of wisdom and with prayer. I can't see how this is related to my response to your comment, "Yes, we should read the Scriptures critically." 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? (if you're not going to answer 'em I'm just gonna repeat 'em)Actually as far as the eternal part goes we should remember that Jesus had an actual day on which He was born. John 1 tells us that it was the Word, (or logos) of God that existed from the beginning, and that Jesus embodied that Word so that we would understand the true nature of God. Yes, Jesus was resurrected into a new physicality that was able to move between God’s heavenly universe and the universe that we perceive, but as resurrection and new life is for all creation we do share our timelessness with Jesus. Hopefully that answers your question. Percy writes: Actually Jesus’message of love is there in the OT as well. This is from Leviticus 19. There you go denigrating the OT again. Is that really Anglicanism? Between you and Faith there is some real strange theology going on here. The OT's God is vengeful and deadly, but Faith says that if God does it then it's good and whoever got it had it coming, while you say the OT is suspect. So you put greater credibility on the NT but insist on picking and choosing, like you reject the Ananias/Sapphira story.quote:Granted that this refers to their neighbour as their fellow Israelites but like I said earlier, it is a progressive revelation. However Leviticus later in the same chapter says this which takes what was said earlier a bit further. quote:As we get further into the OT we find this verse in Proverbs 25. quote:Jesus with His profound knowledge of the OT made clear that our understanding of neighbour was to include people of all nations. Percy writes: I don’t actually cull them out. When the Bible tells us that God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites I reject that He did that at all because it is completely inconsistent with the Word of God embodied by Jesus. However, I don’t reject the idea that there was a war, but, I do contend they either believed that God told them to slaughter the Canaanites or they used that as justification. If we look at the results we can see that they were unsuccessful and in over the long term they continued to wind up in slavery to their pagan neighbours. Even though they claim that God told them to go to war we should see them being victorious but it didn’t really work out that way. I’d say that God can speak to us through that and tell us that we should be very discerning when someone tells us that God told them to do something, especially when we hear someone telling us that we should go to war with our neighbours.
But where is this God? He exists only as a character in the Bible (and in the books of other religions, but I'm sticking to Christianity), but you hold much of it in such low esteem that you cull out those portions you find unpalatable. You don't really believe in any God of the Bible. You believe in a God of your own making, which makes perfect sense since as you said, all religion is man-made. You're brewing your own.Percy writes: I completely disagree. There were a large group of zealots at that time. There was a revolt put down by the Romans in 6AD led by Judas the Galilean who was executing by the Romans ending that revolt. There was another revolt around 46AD led by Judas of Galilee’s sons who also were executed thus ending that revolt. Ultimately Jesus is saying that this will wind up with the Romans destroying Jerusalem and the Temple. That is how Romans responded to rebellion. It wouldn’t be that hard to predict, but it would be a very unpopular message.
This is still absurd. No one can make detailed and accurate predictions of events 35 years off. Mark is writing after the destruction of the Temple.Percy writes: I understand where you are coming from but if they were going to make something up I contend that this isn’t at all what they would come up with. Look at the Gospel story of the Transfiguration. If they were going to make up a story to indicate that Jesus was still alive somehow they would have had Him glowing in a cloud or something along that line. They aren’t going to come up with Him eating fish on the shore. The whole story is not something a small group made up of lower class Jews would come up with and there is no discernible, IMHO, motivation for them to do it anyway. I don't think you did either, sorry about that. You actually said it about the crucifixion, not the resurrection. You argued that any 1st century Jew making up a believable story would not include something as unbelievable and unacceptable as a crucified messiah, therefore the gospels are not made up. I argue that an idea that catches on, wherever it came from and whether it's true or not, will be exploited and promoted. We see this all the time. For instance, a third of the country has enthusiastically taken up the notion that Trump tells the truth, is an honest businessman, is a great president, and is being unfairly attacked in the press. Inconceivable I know, but the idea caught on and took off like wildfire. Concerning the resurrection, "Oh no, he's dead, sadness and weeping" followed by "Wonder of wonders, he's alive, cheering and celebration" is a very old and much used plotline. There's nothing particularly inconceivable about a plot where crucifixion is followed by resurrection. OK. Still trying to catch up here. I’ll start responding to your last post to me as well.
Percy writes: OK. I searched about and here is a wiki site. Zealots There is a theory which I’m inclined to believe that Judas was a zealot which would explain his betrayal of Jesus. It would make sense in that Jesus was going around saying that they should play nice with the Romans.
Around Jesus's time? What makes you think so? I could unearth no historical evidence of a Jewish revolutionary movement during this period. The gospels were written after the first Jewish/Roman war, and they obviously projected the unrest of that period backward in time to what they thought was the time of Jesus. That they got this so wrong is more evidence that they got much else wrong, too.Percy writes: I didn’t say that the apostles were revolutionaries. Jesus however was preaching an anti-revolutionary message and would expect that his apostles would take that message to the revolutionaries. Jesus was saying that Caesar is an earthly king but that the real King is the one He called Father.
The apostles were not revolutionaries. Can you find anyplace in the gospels or the epistles where Jesus preached revolution against the Romans? He preached the opposite. For example, his admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's is a clear indication that he cared not what king ruled on earth.Percy writes: I know that a lot if not most Christians believe that God knows the future such as what I’ll have for lunch next Thursday. I just don’t see that as part that means the future is closed. (I’ve heard the arguments why that isn’t the case.) I was convinced of this by the writing of John Polkinghorne.
If Jesus is one of the three persons of God, as you believe, then he would not have gotten the time of the first Jewish/Roman war wrong.Percy writes: The first Jewish Christians would still have worshipped in the Temple. I think that it is fairly clear that Jesus meant to reform Judaism and that it wasn’t His intent that He would found a different religion. Mind you, Christianity can be thought of as a Jewish sect.
So from context it seems by "they" you mean the people Jesus was talking to (as opposed to the people 30-40 years on who would have been Christians). Of course they would care about the Temple. I never said otherwise. What I did say is that the destruction of the Temple would be irrelevant to Christians 30-40 years on who wouldn't care about the Temple.Percy writes: It is connected indirectly. Ephesians is again making the argument that it isn’t the Romans that are the enemy but that the enemy is evil itself. Ephesisans 6 tells us this. Ephesians 6 and Marc 13 are not connected by "physical destruction of the Temple." Ephesians 6 doesn't even mention the Temple or the destruction of anything.quote:This again is the anti-revolutionary message that Jesus preached. The enemy isn’t an enemy of flesh and blood but against the spiritual forces of evil. Percy writes:
These are rules based on Jesus’ command to love. They are not rules such as don’t eat pork or don’t do any work on the Sabbath. They are rules of the heart which is a very different thing. It is giving practical suggestions of how it looks when we love our parents or our children.
If Ephesians 6 isn't a set of rules then what is it? Here's the beginning:
quote:etc...etc...etc... See, rule after rule after rule. Percy writes: I can agree with that although I don’t get your point in the very last sentence. His readers at the time would know how long ago Jesus lived and Mark certainly would have.
I didn't say Mark was fabricating anything. Maybe he believed what he wrote ("compiled," as you like to say), maybe he didn't. Who knows? And Mark absolutely *was* establishing a timeframe. He wanted his audience to know how long ago Jesus had foretold the destruction of the Temple that lay in their recent past. We don't know when Jesus lived or died or if he was even real. Maybe it was 38 years between Mark 13 and 70 CE, maybe it was something else. But if you believe Mark 13 then you have to believe that when Jesus says that "this generation will certainly not pass away before all these things have happened" he means that at least some of the current generation will still be alive to witness the destruction of the Temple. Mark was setting a timeframe for Jesus's ministry, that it was one to three generations ago. He was understandably vague since he didn't really know how long ago Jesus lived.GDR writes: IMHO Jesus predicted the destruction but that it didn’t happen as soon as He thought it would.Percy writes: As I said earlier I believe that the future is open and as a result the future is unknowable even to God. I’m saying that Jesus understood the political climate and predicted how things were going to go. There was a smaller revolt about 15 years after Jesus’ crucifixion that didn’t result in the destruction. It took the 66-70AD war to do that.
You do realize you're saying that one of the three persons of God got something wrong.Percy writes: I didn’t phrase my point at all well. The point that Iwanted to make was that Daniel 9, said this: I assume you're referring to Daniel 9. People can, and have, claimed Daniel means anything they need it to mean.quote:which showed that what Jesus was saying was a physical event concerning the Temple and not about end times. Percy writes: Actually it is Daniel 7 and a first century Jew would have very much understood what He meant. Compare these passages. Mark 13 I assume you're referring to Daniel 2. Why would Mark 13 cause the apostles to realize that Jesus is the Son of Man from Daniel's dream? Who even cares that he's the Son of Man? The NT writers just co-opted that term from the OT and declared it meant part of the godhead and was prophecy fulfilled in the NT, but it doesn't mean that. The interpretation is invented, something you're familiar with.quote:and Daniel 7 quote:It would have been very clear to His Jewish audience. GDR writes: This then along with the fact that Jesus had been resurrected which established Him as the one who had been given dominion over the Kingdom of those who followed His message of sacrificial love.Percy writes: This isn’t about the resurrection. It is still part of Jesus’ anti-revolutionary message. He is saying that when they see what happens to the Temple it will vindicate His anti-revolutionary message, will understand Him as the Messiah and will understand that His has been given authority by the Father. Jesus is prophesying this through the understanding of His vocation that He has gleaned from His study of the Hebrew Scriptures and through prayer. Frankly it is how we bridge the gap between Jesus as wholly man and Jesus as holy God, or Lord.
Are you still talking about Mark 13? Because in Mark 13 Jesus's resurrection still lies in the future, so you can't refer to it as a past event.Percy writes: We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I really don’t have anything to add that I haven’t already said. Frankly it is a matter of interest but not a matter that affects my theological beliefs.
You're repeating the same problematical statements here that I rebutted above. The 38 years isn't gospel - Mark had no idea how long ago Jesus's ministry was. He thought roughly a generation or two. And of course it's a prophecy. And Mark is a normal person who has, like all of us, imperfect knowledge and so didn't know that some of the Temple complex remained standing. Or maybe he meant only the Temple itself, not the whole complex. But one thing's for sure - he couldn't write about events until after they happened.Percy writes: There was no plan but they obviously believed that somehow Jesus was going to overthrow the Romans. They only method they would know of would be armed rebellion. There are the arguments about sitting on His right and left which would be about when He achieved earthly power for example.
Where does any gospel say the apostles were planning armed revolution?Percy writes: Actually I don’t consider myself a liberal Anglican but I may lean a little in that direction. Have you ever read Borg or Crossan? Those are the Liberal ones.
I doubt that very much. You're well outside the traditional bounds of liberal Anglicanism.GDR writes: As I said I believe they were inspired to write their accounts to the best of their ability and knowledge, but again, it wasn’t dictated to them by God. I do believe though that God speaks or reached out to us through the Scriptures,...Percy writes: To the best of my ability I am using the three legs of Anglicanism which are Scripture, tradition and reason. I would also add personal life experience but that I know that won’t carry any weight with anyone except myself.
And you know this how?Percy writes: Yes
So you're just going to take Luke's word on his say so?Percy writes: The Jews were always being enslaved, so they would understand the reference. This is a parable or a metaphor. However, I agree that the passage is problematic but it is clear in reading through the NT that Jesus is not in favour of beating servants or slaves, whether it is specifically referred to or not. We can see in Paul’s book called Philimon that He is calling for better treatment of slaves and that would come from his understanding of what Jesus taught.
Yes, it fits very well. Jesus is not part of God transcending this world with a message of love. He's merely part of this world where beating servants and slaves is just fine because it was standard practice at the time. It's kinda hard to avoid the fact that Jesus is advocating flogging. Would a loving God really say that if a servant or slave screws up that he should be beaten? You're just rationalizing your unsupported assertions that the OT authors are suspect the NT authors aren't. The fact of the matter is that that's just something you happen to believe, not something you can show is likely true. Percy writes: Well I guess that is your specific belief and again we’ll just have to agree to disagree. When it comes to religious beliefs, everyone who believes they have anything specific right is wrong. The only reason we're having this discussion is that you think your religious beliefs are the result of rational analysis when they definitely are not.There I’m caught up with you. If you reply can you please edit things down a bit. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Hi ringo
Sorry to be so slow responding. Percy takes up all the time I have. GDR writes: 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.ringo writes: I know that the Bible talks about God sending Jesus. I'm not sure that I see it that way. Jesus seems to have come to the self understanding of His vocation through the Scriptures and through prayer. Jesus went into Jerusalem with the faith that somehow God was going to redeem what it was He was doing. He understood the Daniel passages and referred to them. He believed that by sacrificing Himself He would save many. Even Caiaphas talked about the giving of one life to save the many. But those two points are not compatible. If God was a God of love, he could just forgive our sins. He wouldn't need to send His Son/Self to die for our sins at all. The crucifixion is proof that God is a God of blood, much more compatible with the God of the Old Testament than with your version. By faith Jesus believed this to be His vocation, again, by faith not by absolute knowledge. God honoured Jesus' faith and sacrifice by resurrecting Him. People, not God crucified Jesus and it was God that resurrected Him. Jesus had free will to do what He did in Jerusalem or not to do it. What He did was out of love for His people and for mankind. God honoured that ultimate act of self sacrifice.
ringo writes: He didn't fake death He died. God resurrected Him in a resurrected body ahead of the time of a resurrection or renewal of all creation.
"Jesus faked his death for our sins" is just preposterous.GDR writes: For that matter, everyone follows a god that is palatable to them.ringo writes: Of course and there are those like Faith that find it palatable because she believes this is God's justice. Nonsense. There are plenty of Christians who don't like what happened in the Old Testament but they believe it happened.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: I’m not diminishing the OT but when we look at the passages that say that Yahweh commanded genocide and public stoning and compare that to Jesus’ message such as love your enemy, we have to either go with Jesus or a scribe centuries earlier. I choose Jesus. I know some try but you can’t have it both ways. They are incompatible.Tangle writes: You've said this before a couple of times, it's a rather interesting psychological ruse. When referring to to New Testament it's a wonderous wotk inspired by God, but when describing the Old Testament it's hand-waved away as something unimportant written by an inferred lowly scribe centuries before - and by inference presumably no longer God's Word. That's real confirmation bias at work, cherry pick what you like downgrade and reject what you don't, because, of course, it's all supposedly the Word of God and it's all written by scribes and its all written centuries ago. The problem is, as I have said numerous times, the Bible isn't a book. It is a library of books written by different authors, in different times and in a changing culture in changing circumstances. So yes, it is very reasonable to understand different books the Bible differently. As I have also said before, it is Christianity not Bibleianity. I understand the entire Bible through the lens of Jesus, and what we have recorded of His life and message in the Gospels. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
GDR writes:
Jesus seems to have come to the self understanding of His vocation through the Scriptures and through prayer. esus went into Jerusalem with the faith that somehow God was going to redeem what it was He was doing.ringo writes: I don't see the point in your response. No other evangelist that we know of expected and was resurrected. That seems to be pretty common among evangelists.GDR writes: He believed that by sacrificing Himself He would save many.ringo writes: I think that Jesus' self understanding is difficult to know. Caiaphas made the claim that better "one should day for the many' in which he presumably meant that this would ward off rebellion in which many would be killed. I think that Jesus may have thought that, but I still go back to Daniel 7. This passage was clearly very central in how Jesus understood His vocation. His mission was a "Kingdom of God" mission. It looks very much that He believed that if He went into Jerusalem and suffered death as other prophets before Him had done, that God would validate His message in the manner of Daniel 7. I'll quote it again. "Saved' from what, exactly? The wrath of God?quote: This would be a way that His message of love, peace and forgiveness could be taken to all nations , and not just the Jews. It is about building for the time when that message of love, peace and forgiveness is complete. How many lives have been saved in the centuries since then, from people and nations who have to some degree or another taken on that message.
ringo writes: Once again, it is about free will. We have been given stewardship over our world for better or for worse. It seems that God responds, which He did by resurrecting Jesus, but He doesn't intervene. That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't God just prevent the crucifixion? He speaks to our hearts through that still small voice but as often as not we ignore it and choose selfishly.
ringo writes: In terms of what we consider death He died. Resurrection is about new life, that ultimately is the plan for all of creation. If He didn't stay dead, that's a fake death. Losing your wallet with your ID and finding it again is not the same as losing it for good.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Percy writes: At the time of the actual arrest Peter obviously still had it in his head that the messiah would lead them against the Romans. His response initially was to get out his sword and start the battle. Once Jesus was hauled away it was clear to him that there would be no battle and that it was over. Jesus’ resurrection of course changed all that.
Why do you say this, since I had just finished saying that when Jesus was arrested Peter was right there with him and was not arrested. Why would Peter fear it wouldn't go well? Because it fits well with the rest of the narrative you've invented? Or do you have an actual reason?Percy writes: The arrest happened at night. The priests were anxious to get it done that way as they didn’t want the crucifixion done on Passover. When it was day the council of elders including the chief priests that had arrested him held a consultation and took Him to Pilate. (As Mark says this was early in the morning.) This consultation is described in Luke and takes up 4 verses. It would have been very brief. I just explained why it couldn't "easily have been done in that time frame." Declaring that it could so be "done in that time frame" is not really a response.Luke tells of a brief hearing with Pilate who then says essentially that it is a Jewish issue and tells them to go see Herod who was in Jerusalem. They spent time with Herod who did spend more time with Him and once more sent Him back to Pilate. Up to this point it could be easily done by noon and probably earlier. There is one more hearing with Pilate who finally acquiesced and Jesus was led away to be crucified. The distances in Jerusalem aren’t great. This could all have easily been done by early afternoon, particularly remembering that the Jewish priests were in a hurry to get this done as they wanted it over with as long as possible before Passover when there would be even more of a crowd in Jerusalem than there was then. Percy writes: Here was Jesus back again and they still thought that now was the time He would restore the Kingdom to Israel. This meant getting the Romans out and having a Jewish theocracy established presumably by military means but they may well have thought that Jesus had something else in mind. However it still would have meant getting rid of the Romans.
This idea seems out of the blue. Nothing in Acts says anything like this. The apostles merely ask Jesus if he will restore the kingdom of Israel. There's nothing about defeating the Romans or anything military at all, and Jesus's ministry was never about that. Your claim that the apostles somehow thought that Jesus's ministry was about a military campaign to expel the Romans from Israel is made up out of whole cloth.Percy writes: Well maybe, but Peter was fearful enough that He denied being a follower of Jesus several times. However as Jesus had no military there wasn’t much to fear from the Romans and as Jesus had been put to death they were leaderless so the Jewish authorities wouldn’t have been as concerned but still they would want to lay low for a while. The Jewish leaders would not want to see someone else take up leadership and continue the movement. After the resurrection the Jewish leaders would have been more concerned about squashing the stories of the resurrected Jesus than they would have anything else.
Yes, that's exactly what it says, and nowhere does it say anything about hiding out. Further, the gospel stories have significant internal inconsistencies. The apostles supposedly fear the Jewish authorities yet a short time later walk freely about Jerusalem. And the doors aren't even necessarily locked. John 20:19 in the NIV has the doors locked for fear of Jewish leaders, while RSV only has them shut for fear of the Jews. Actually, the doors being shut rather than locked would make hiding make a lot more sense - they didn't want passing Jews to look in and see that they were there. Locked doors just make it seem like they were pretty sure the Jewish leaders knew where they were but wanted to prevent their entry. Maybe your impressions of what this passage means come from the RSV or similar translation.Percy writes: I’ve said several times it is belief. However these accounts are written and we make up our minds one way or another of what we believe and what we reject. I have a hunch that if you read an account of the Viet Nam war in a library in the US it won’t read the same as one in Hanoi. People will believe what they are going to believe. Yes, I read the Gospels to tell of the resurrection of Jesus even though some details don’t line up. (Actually, if everything did line up perfectly I think it would be good reason to be more suspicious.) I do discount the claims that God ordered genocide and public stoning, not that the events didn’t occur but the idea that God commanded it. Do I have absolute knowledge of any of this, absolutely not. It is faith, but I also believe that there is good reason for my faith. It is something that I am prepared to base my life on.
I'm guessing there's general agreement (if I'm wrong about this then people should let me know) that while it is apparent that you think you're answering this, you're really not. There are lots of words, but in the end it appears that you alternate between two positions: a) that what you believe is true and supported by evidence (like that everything that happened after Jesus's arrest could have happened in a single day); and b) that it's just belief.Percy writes: Fine, but then you are left with a believe that love exists from a chance combination of mindless particles and a myriad of mindless processes resulting in love. I can’t muster up enough faith to hold a belief like that. I know you believe that God exists so if God is able to create life then I don’t see why it is necessary to reject the idea that He resurrected Jesus. It would be easy in comparison I would think.
How do you know that love is the direction God wants you to go. Just because that's more palatable to you? That's fine if that's how you want to go, but that leaves you bereft of any way to persuade people who have grown attached to evidence leading the way toward what is true about the real world. The fact of the matter is that love (which doesn't completely capture what we really mean, but it's concise and will serve for now) will make the world a better place whether that's what God wants or not, or whether God exists or not.Percy writes: As I’ve said before Jesus constantly refers to the OT in delivering His message. I’ve also said that you can draw a loving God out of the OT. I’ve also said that IMHO it is a progressive revelation of God through the narrative that is the Scriptures. Yes I do believe that many OT writers did deliver the wisdom of God to the Jewish people. Again though, I use the teaching of Jesus to sort it out as best I can.
Yes, you are correct, they are incompatible. And so you feel forced into a choice, and you have chosen to favor the NT and denigrate the OT. If you can't admit the meaning of your own words then what's the point of this?Percy writes: I’ve given many times what I consider to be evidence. The evidence is the Gospel stories and I have given reasons why I believe that they can be essentially believed. I have read a considerable amount about 1st century Jewish history including Josephus. I have read multiple theologians with a wide variety of views. I have a particular interest in people like John Polkinghorne, John Lennox and Alister McGrath who combine their scientific and mathematical knowledge with their theology. I have had to pick and choose between these various authors as to the conclusions I have come to, and I have had to have done the same thing with the Bible. I have no doubt that I am wrong on any number of things but like you I’m simply doing the best that I can to discern what I believe is the truth of all of this. I'm not looking for conclusive arguments. I'm just looking for any evidence at all for what you believe. So far we've heard zero evidence for the existence of God, Jesus and the truth of the confabulous parts of the Bible, and you've agreed that it's fine to reject parts of the Bible. I don't see how that's a basis for knowing anything. It's just a basis for arriving at what you already feel comfortable with.Yes, I’m comfortable with a God of love, but I’ve heard people like Dawkins say that they are comfortable with their atheism and really uncomfortable with the notion of there being a fod and doesn’t want there to be one. I’m sure that you are comfortable with what you believe. Percy writes: They do if you are looking for absolute answers. If you believe that the Bible is inerrant then you can pick out a verse and that is the end of the argument. If however you accept that the Biblical writers don’t always get it right then we have sort out what it is that we believe. I’m ok with that. I can’t give you absolute answers. If the Bible was not dictated by God or at least written by men inspired by God to write what truly happened, then you really have no evidence for anything you believe, except the trivial stuff like Jerusalem is a real place and so forth. Which is fine, except that when that notion is presented to you then you deny it, insisting that the Bible serves as a reliable basis upon which to build a body of belief. The inerrantists have a much, much stronger position than you.Again I am content to have as unprovable absolutes that God is a god of love and that He resurrected Jesus and go from there. Again, though I reject the idea that there is no basis for what I believe and I have gone over them numerous times on this forum. Percy writes: I have the NT, I have Tacitus and the Babylonian Talmud. You reject all of these as being insufficient but they are evidence.
Everybody that exists or has existed had an actual day on which they were born. You have no evidence Jesus even existed.Percy writes: ..and you’re not I suppose. I didn’t intend to get dragged into this but I find that when you post one thing on here it leads into something else. I did not intend to get into this discussion and if you believe it is simply about me preaching then let’s end it. It often does seem to be something of a norm here to insult people’s views and motivations. To me that reads like a bunch of religious mumbo jumbo full of nonsense and meaning nothing. During this exchange I've sometimes been struck by the notion that to you this may not be so much a discussion as an opportunity for you to preach your beliefs.I have to go out, delivering a sewing machine to a Syrian refugee family that our church sponsored and He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy writes: I’ve wondered that myself. They do seem slow on the uptake. My only suggestion is this. It was firmly planted in their mind that a messiah’s job was, as I’ve said before, to defeat their enemies and rebuild the Temple. They couldn’t seem to get this out of their head. Why do you think this? What did Jesus do or say during his ministry to even hint at this? How could Jesus preach a spiritual kingdom while the apostles, despite all evidence to the contrary, thought Jesus preached a material kingdom? Possibly when the Gospels were compiled they wanted to be accurate, so they maintained the failure of the disciples to understand , and emphasized Jesus’ Kingdom message of peaceful revolution. It is clear though that the disciples didn’t get it until later, and even in Acts 1 they seemed to think that now that Jesus was resurrected that He was there to either lead them in battle, or possibly do something miraculous to rid them of the Romans. That’s all I’ve got.
Percy writes:
They are good points and I wish I had a really good answer. I have covered it to a degree above. Jesus had been performing miracles, (although I’d say more accurately that God through Jesus performed the miracles), and so Peter being the loyal soldier immediately leapt to His defence. I suppose that with Peter’s confidence in Jesus’ miraculous capabilities, he might have imagined this as a start of the battle thinking that others would join in but that is a stretch.
You don't say, so I'll assume you mean the battle to reestablish Israel. Are you actually claiming that the apostles thought that battling the priest's guards was the beginning of the battle with Rome? If you are then that's ludicrous, laughable, ridiculous and nonsense. Where would the apostles get the idea that Jesus planned to do battle with Rome, and why would they attack Jewish guards to begin that battle?About Peter pulling out a sword, only John, the last and most absurd gospel, says this. By the way, John is also the account that mentions soldiers, captains and officers, which is why I earlier referred to Jesus's arrest as being carried out by guards. Looking at all the accounts, people are free to believe Peter did or didn't pull out a sword in these fictional accounts, but looking at the gospels as a whole, nothing in them hints at armed apostles, at least not until the arrest. Percy writes:
This is getting tougher and if I had a clever answer I’d give it to you. I will say this though. As I’ve said the Gospel accounts are compilations of earlier material. The central theme of the whole NT is the resurrection, and what that means theologically and what it means to our lives. With something as unexpected and miraculous as the resurrection it would not be surprising if legends had formed around the person of Jesus. Possibly this is a case of that. More importantly, the basic story (the various gospel accounts of the arrest are minor variations around a basic story), wherever it came from, is inconsistent with everything that came before. Up to this point in Jesus's ministry there has been no violence by apostles, then at Jesus's arrest the apostles suddenly have swords? That's silly. One apostle is so skillful that he slices off an ear of one of the guards (which Jesus miraculously restores in Luke only, casting further doubt on the story).I also think that when we read the epistles they almost exclusively focus is on understanding and building the Jesus movement based on His life and teaching. They don’t seem to attach any importance to the details of Jesus’ life and experience. It is all pretty exegetical. Percy writes: Yes, from earlier material including eye witnesses.
The entire Jesus tale related in the gospels is just a collection of vignettes that someone wove together into a narrative.Percy writes: I think that they did. There was throughout their Scriptures the idea that God would come and lead them in battle, and there were those who believed that it would be through a messiah. It seems to me that it is quite conceivable that even though Jesus wasn’t building up an army that somehow they believed that Yahweh was going to make it happen. Even in Acts 1 they asked the question of when was God going to restore the kingdom to Israel. Earlier they wanted to sit on His right and left with Jesus on the throne.
Again, the apostles never believed that Jesus intended to lead a war against the Romans. And you've managed to avoid addressing the question about why Peter would fear being arrested after he was already ignored by those doing the arresting.Percy writes: Yes, but they wanted the Romans to do it which meant crucifixion. Also crucifixion would emphasize the point that Jesus was not the messiah.
The gospels only say the priests wanted to put Jesus to death, not have him crucified.Percy writes: I don’t know which Gospel is correct. It is one of the contradictions in the accounts. I’m not bothered by the contradictions, and actually I contend that it confirms that there was no collusion. Obviously they used much of the same material although my personal opinion is that the book of Mark wasn’t one of the sources. The important part for me is that they all agree that Jesus was resurrected. We don’t know how privy Jesus’ followers were to what was going on, and the there were a variety of post resurrection experiences so I would expect variations in the accounts.
All the gospels except John relate a brief hearing before Pilate (who had to attend a festival later that day).John has Pilate talking to the Jews, then going in to talk to Jesus, then going out to talk to the Jews, then going in to talk to Jesus, then going back out to talk to the Jews. Which gospel is correct, if any? By what means did this sequence of events, witnessed by no followers of Jesus, become known to John decades later? And on what was to be a busy day why would Pilate be available early in the morning for a hearing of a man he never heard of? Was Pilate at the beck and call of the Jewish priests? Not likely. Percy writes: Well the accounts say that Herod had heard about Jesus and was interested. He also would be very keen to squelch any problems prior to the Passover and not on it.
Yes, Herod did spend some time with Jesus, Luke saying that Herod "questioned him at some length." Was Herod Antipas, too, just available at a moment's notice? Nothing on the schedule that day? Just happened to be in Jerusalem with no meetings with the local priests and rabbis planned?Percy writes: Well, I wasn’t there but I’m sure that amongst the population that lived in Jerusalem they could draw a crowd, but on Passover the next day there would be a much larger crowd. They would not want Jesus’ crucifixion to be a distraction and possible source of problems on the Passover itself.
Huh? Why would there be a big crowd for Passover on the day before Passover? There was a festival planned for that day, which is why Jesus appeared before a large crowd.Percy writes: They clearly thought that Jesus would expel the Romans from Israel but you’re right there is no indication of how they thought He would achieve this.
Yes, they obviously did. There's no hint that they believed that Jesus planned to achieve this by leading an army to expel the Romans.Percy writes: I probably could have phrased that better. They believed Jesus to be the Messiah, the anointed one of God. They had expectations of what a messiah was supposed to do, and part of that again was expelling the Romans. They see Him being arrested and I suppose that they might consider that in leaping to His defence Jesus would perform a miracle and they would all be out of the situation. If Jesus was the messiah it would be pretty much inconceivable to them that He would be arrested.
A brief aside. Why did you earlier state that the apostles thought the arrest at the Last Supper was the beginning of the battle with Rome if they knew "Jesus had no military"?Percy writes: Actually the Gospels don’t really give us much of a time frame but I would imagine that the meeting with Jesus followers in Acts 2 would have been early on but how quickly things spread after that is not indicated.
Makes sense. But there's still nothing in the gospels saying that, and in short order the apostles were evangelizing freely around Jerusalem.Percy writes: I agree, but I have read a reasonable amount about the world that Jesus ministered in, as well as reading writers who have studied that 1st century world. I think that by putting 2 and 2 together in the Gospels we can come up with some fairly well formed conclusions.
If they weren't concerned then it goes without mention in the gospels, and I guess we should include Acts. There are many things you're claiming that have no Biblical support.Percy writes: People will come to their own conclusions. As I continue to read I find myself disagreeing with positions that I held earlier. To be honest, discussions like this force me to rethink my position on various things. Then if it's just belief, why are you arguing for any particular viewpoint? Why can't anyone choose the Biblical passages they like (or none at all) and develop their own set of beliefs, just as valid as your own, and using the same approach that you've used. Do you think people should only use your approach if they accept that they must arrive at the same conclusions you did?I may argue for a particular viewpoint, not to try to validate my Christian beliefs but the discussion can be interesting. You may have noticed by the way this discussion has gone that I’m easily drawn down various rabbit trails and away from the basic topic. For example our discussion on when Mark was written. I have my view point as it is a point of interest, but neither view validates or refutes my Christian beliefs. GDR writes: Yes, I read the Gospels to tell of the resurrection of Jesus even though some details don’t line up. (Actually, if everything did line up perfectly I think it would be good reason to be more suspicious.) I do discount the claims that God ordered genocide and public stoning, not that the events didn’t occur but the idea that God commanded it. Do I have absolute knowledge of any of this, absolutely not. It is faith, but I also believe that there is good reason for my faith. It is something that I am prepared to base my life on.Percy writes: You’re right of course, although I see it as defending my beliefs more than trying to convince people to move to my position. Nothing wrong with faith, but if your beliefs are formed in the way you describe, why do you argue that they're the right ones instead of just encouraging people to use your approach.As I have said several times my belief is based on believing in a good and loving God and that God resurrected Jesus. That is my starting point but I just happen to enjoy theology, (all based on self study), and so although it can be frustrating it is helpful for me to defend my views. Maybe someone will benefit from it as well, and that I suppose would be a good thing. Percy writes: That however isn’t what love is. It is love’s affect on the brain.
At least there is hard evidence supporting that view (e.g., this non-technical article: What Is Love? MRI Scan Reveals What Stages Of Romantic Love You're In Via Brain Map).Percy writes: Wouldn’t that make you a deist? I would ask you though, how reasonable is it to believe that a god would bring about life as we know it in our world and then just ignore it. What evidence is there that abiogenesis is a natural process, and if it is then I would ask; where did that natural process come from.
I do believe in God, but not the Christian God nor the God of any religion. I don't know anything about this God, but the belief that springs forth within me unorigined and unevidenced is that he gives purpose to the universe, though I have no idea what that purpose might be or whether it involves us at all. He isn't a God who listens to prayers or creates life (abiogenesis is a natural process anyway) or intervenes to create religions or intervenes on Earth at all.Percy writes: Absolutely, you can understand God to be loving or vengeful or both. I’d say that inerrantists would go with both, but I would argue that it has to be one or the other. In the NT however, with few exceptions God is pictured as loving, forgiving, merciful and just.
And you can draw a vengeful God out of the NT.Percy writes: It is and I think that the Bible is fairly clear in that with the differences we can see in the Torah and then up to the latter profits such as Isaiah, Daniel etc. Then of course you have Jesus who draws it all together as a picture of what Israel was supposed to be.
I looked up "progressive revelation." It's apparently a common Christian belief.Percy writes: Yes, I do prefer it, but I also believe it. The question in a way though is do I prefer it just because of me, or do I prefer it because it resonates with that still small voice of God. I’d go with the latter and say that I am only capable of grasping God’s message of love because He loved me first.
Yes, you give priority to Jesus and the NT over the OT because the OT writers were coerced by their leaders and were driven by the need for approval. This isn't based upon any evidence - you've just decided to denigrate without evidence the OT because you prefer Jesus's message in the NT.Percy writes: I'm not looking for conclusive arguments. I'm just looking for any evidence at all for what you believe. So far we've heard zero evidence for the existence of God, Jesus and the truth of the confabulous parts of the Bible, and you've agreed that it's fine to reject parts of the Bible. I don't see how that's a basis for knowing anything. It's just a basis for arriving at what you already feel comfortable with.GDR writes: ’ve given many times what I consider to be evidence.Percy writes: But I have given evidence. However, there is nothing to be given that can’t be challenged. Just one example is that it is evident that the Gospels were written by people who wrote them to be historical. That is evidence. It isn’t conclusive but you just say it isn’t evidence and we go around again. There are other examples like that but there is no irrefutable argument to be had.
And they've been challenged every time.Percy writes: He talks about Jesus twice although I accept that there is a reasonable possibility that one of the instances was revised later.
Josephus provides no evidence of Jesus. Percy writes: Presumably your beliefs are supported by experience, knowledge of the world, learning from others etc. I have all of those but I do have the Bible which is evidence that you reject.
You can't compare yourself to me because you take far more specific positions than I do. Also, I concede I have no evidence for my spiritual beliefs while you think your religious beliefs are supported by evidence.Percy writes: I don’t see where I defend my beliefs more than anyone else including yourself. I have also said several times that I have no doubt that some of my beliefs are erroneous. Trouble is, I don’t know which ones.
You can claim that you're not looking for absolute answers, but the determination with which you defend your beliefs belies that.percy writes: Absolutely I believe that others could come to legitimate beliefs that are different than mine. Of course I’ll go on thinking that I’m right until convinced otherwise. But I also know that even then they could be right and I could be wrong.
Repeating what I've said before, you alternate. You say you just have belief until someone challenges it, then you steadfastly defend the Bible passages you've chosen and the specifics of what you believe, then you switch back again to say it's just belief.Put a different way, do you think that other people using your approach could legitimately arrive at different beliefs than you, or do you think you've got the right beliefs and that other beliefs are wrong? You seem to think both at the same time. Percy writes: Well at least my beliefs make sense to me even if to no one else. I have tried to give you evidence from a scriptural and historical background but you reject it, which is fine because it is faith.
I'm seeking the evidence you claim to have that supports your beliefs. My beliefs are far too sparse for preaching them to be possible, and it wouldn't occur to me to do that anyway. My beliefs don't make any sense to me, why would I think they'd make sense to anyone else?Percy writes: I apologize if I’m preaching to you. I don’t mean to be. I am just trying to express my views which are very important to me.
Of course it isn't simply about you preaching. But when you do preach at me it *is* jarring. I am not preaching my spiritual beliefs at you, and indeed that would barely be possible since I believe so little.Percy writes: I know I get that. Maybe I can of off topic a little on this. You said, "Jesus was resurrected into a new physicality that was able to move between God’s heavenly universe and the universe that we perceive, but as resurrection and new life is for all creation we do share our timelessness with Jesus." I don't mean to insult you, but to me this is just a bunch of nonsense. Step outside your Christianity a little bit and try to see your statement as a non-Christian might experience it.I have a book I read a few years back by Brian Greene called The Hidden Reality. He was out here giving a lecture so I actually have an autographed copy. I had earlier read his book The Fabric of the Cosmos. (I just bought another copy to give to a very bright 13 year old in our church who is really interested in science.) In the inside flap of the cover of The Hidden Reality it says this: quote:Here are some of the chapter headings. Hovering Universes in Nearby Dimensions and Science and the Multiverse and Eternity and Infinity and The Many Worlds of Quantum Measurement and Black Holes and Holograms. I get Scientific American and a few years back the headline was Hidden Worlds of Dark Matter — a Hidden Universe May be interwoven Silently With our Own. In the article the writers theorize about other dimensions or universes and they even speculate that they could be populated although in fairness they do discount the idea. Try explaining the uncertainty principle to non scientifically minded people. It would be like trying to explain the resurrection to non-Christians.Step outside your knowledge of science a little bit and try to see your statement as a non-science minded person might experience it. It seems to be ok for science to talk about a co-existing universe but not for Christianity. I realize that we that we come at it from different perspectives. If God’s heavenly universe is parallel to ours then the idea of Jesus moving between these universes isn’t quite so fantastic. Ultimately the Christian message seems to be that we are an emergent property of a greater reality and that ultimately our two universes become one, in an act of re-creation. I agree that it’s pretty esoteric but so is a lot of science. Maybe some day science will discover heaven. Maybe we just need an even bigger collider. AbE Percy writes: I can't have been. Faith isn't here. I assume you were just raptured in mid sentence. Edited by GDR, : No reason given.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
GDR writes: The problem is, as I have said numerous times, the Bible isn't a book. It is a library of books written by different authors, in different times and in a changing culture in changing circumstances.Tangle writes: The point is that we can understand different parts of the Bible differently.
Yes, we all know that. It's been repeated by pretty much everyone here for years. It doesn't help you. Tangle writes: In my view Jesus is the Word of God. The Bible is the word of God in that God speaks through it to us. We don't all hear it the same though. Again, it isn't absolute knowledge.
Is it? I'd certainly agree if it was fiction, but the Word of God? tangle writes: As I've said in other posts I don't throw away the OT. It is crucial to understand what Jesus has to say as He was steeped in it and makes constant references to it that would be understood by His Jewish audience. However, as I have said, to understand the OT you need the NT and particularly the Gospels. Sure, so you throw away the OT as just something some scribes wrote while the something some other scribes wrote is the Truth.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Tangle writes:
The Bible was man made. However that does not negate the God speaking into the hearts of those ancient Jews and that they in turn wrote in their words what they understood Yahweh to be and what He desired of them. So I'll just repeat what I said, I'd certainly agree if it was fiction, but the Word of God?The Bible can be understood differently by different people is self-evidently true given the absurdity of beliefs that now exist amongst even Christians. But the question is why? Why would god - who can do anything - obscure his message so badly that anybody can make pretty much anything they like out of it? Why make it all so damn unconvincing? Why make it look as if it's all a fabrication? Why make it look entirely man made? 'As though it was written by scribes?' Why not give us something that would prove its provenance down the ages? Why do something so bloody useless? CS Lewis wrote this in his book Miracles. quote:The Bible was written not only by scribes. The accounts of battle were, but there is more than that. As I said to Percy it is a progressive revelation of our understanding of deity. Mankind’s understanding of God throughout the Bible continued to evolve until as John puts it, the Word became flesh. John does not write that the Word became a book, or that the Word was a collection of books. You want absolute knowledge. Absolute clarity would essentially remove our free will to choose what it is we base our lives on. We can base our lives on the loving god that we see in Jesus. It can be the vengeful god that we see in places in the OT. It can be personal power and prestige. It can be money. We freely choose what to put our faith in. If there was absolute clarity that freedom would be lost.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Percy you agreed in one of your lest posts that you are a deist. I have spent hours defending my beliefs and I’d like to see how you defend yours.
Here is the wiki definition of a deist. quote: Essentially then you believe that God is an uncaused first cause but then washed His hands of the project and left us to fend for ourselves. Is that correct? Do you consider it rational to believe in such a God who goes to the bother of creating life, regardless of how it was accomplished, but then not continuing to have a hand in how it all plays out? You said that you believed there is purpose to all of this so what is that purpose?Has this God left us permanently, so that at some point when this world ends will it all have been futile and pointless? I realize that you claim that there is a lack of evidence for what you believe but there still must be a reason why you believe as you do in the face of a lack of evidence. Why is it then that you are a deist as opposed to a theist or an atheist?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024