Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

You can’t seriously be claiming that all of this is just a turn of phrase like raining cats and dogs.....And it goes on in similar vein for several passages talking about famine, earthquakes etc.I know you think you have explained all this away by cross referencing passages, stating that he’s flitting between two different subjects etc. etc.But it really isn’t credible to dismiss this as hyperbole or fanciful phraseology in the way that you are doing just because it would be problematic if read as is. Its too explicit and there’s too much of it to just be comparable to raining cats and dogs.

I am absolutely lost as to why you think treating faith as evidence will lead to conclusions that are correct about things unseen when that demonstrably fails so spectacularly when applied to anything we can actually check.

quote:

---

24 But in those days, following that distress, ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
26 At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

---

You can't take a 21st century style of writing and automatically apply it to a very different time and culture. Once again, that language reads very much like Isaiah 13:10 where it is being applied to great earthly upheaval as a result of war. Again, looks how that passage starts.

quote:

---

15 So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’spoken of through the prophet Daniellet the reader understand 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until nowand never to be equaled again.

---

Look at what He is advising them to do. He's telling them to go to the mountains, leave possessions behind, don't even take your coat. He is saying get out of Dodge just as quick as you can and hope you don't have to deal with winter weather. If it is meant as an end times prophesy they obviously wouldn't be any better off hiding out in the hills than they would be at home. He is obviously talking about a military invasion with the same sort of language used by Isaiah (13:10) to describe destruction from war.Also in the passage I just quoted He refers to these passages in Daniel 9.

quote:

---

25 Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

---

Jesus very obviously is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.I have already shown you in Daniel 7 where it talks about one like a son of man being presented to the Father and given dominion over the Kingdom. When this destruction happens they will understand what Jesus was talking about and know that He is the Son of Man spoken of in Daniel 7, explaining the last 2 verses of your original quote.You cannot take a passage like this and understand it using a 21st century POV. Again, it is a very different world and culture with it's own styles and idioms.

It's language very clearly referring to the end of times and the return of the prophet. It says so in terms. It couldn't be clearer. The ONLY reason you are fighting the obvious is because it blows everything you believe out of the water. I'm not believing or disbelieving anything, I'm reading the words in your book and showing them to you. There is absolutely no evidence of that. Pretty much all scholars accept that two of the four authors - whoever they were - had Mark's stuff in front of them when they wrote their. Between 50 and 75% has been copied. It had to come from somewhere, but no one actually knows because nothing was written. Maybe Mark invented the entire thing based on a concatonation of previous myths and stories. So tell me why people believed that Mohammed flew to heaven on a winged horse and didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah. That makes no sense to you either, why does it to millions of others? Why do you think that beliefs need to make sense? The people needed to believe that they would be saved from their troubles. They were primitive, superstitious people that could be persuaded by charismatic speakers these things are easily exploited. Even today. Well yes, that's what I said. What they don't believe is the thing that makes you a Christian and not a Jew or a Muslim, that Christ ressurected. Why not? They were there. The obvious and glaring reason was that the prophecy was not fulfilled as promised. Not in their generation. Simple.

Look a biblical predicted end of times within a generation that didn’t happen would be hugely problematic for any Christian unwilling to just accept it as failed prediction.I’ve seen various strategies employed to get round this. Many redefine the term ‘generation’. Example1 or Example2You have chosen instead to claim that Jesus is talking about 2 separate things at the same time, to play linguistic gymnastics with the words used and to invoke other passages in the bible in a bout of cross referencing justification.Do what you need to do I guess....

Back up the thread you admitted that not only could you not explain God's genocides but your other great hero Pokinghorne can't either.

I doubt it. Even today, you and Phat don't know what evidence means. In other words, it isn't evidence. Such as unicorns, leprechauns, etc. If you "simply believe" without any real evidence, your "reality" is open to any kind of made-up nonsense.

The point is that the 1st century Jew would not have agreed with your interpretation.

It very clearly isn't. How do you explain the whole issue about heading to the hills etc. Why would you do that if it is about end times. How do you explain the similar language in Isaiah where it is about the Babylonians. You just keep saying that it has to be about end times without showing why you think I'm wrong and don't respond to why it isn't about that at all. You sound like Faith saying that the Bible has to be read as we understand the language now. You want it both ways. If you are arguing with Faith it's nonsense to read it as inerrant and you argue with me as if that's the only way to understand it. Well there's no evidence one way or the other. It could be they had Mark but it is also possible that they were compiled from the same sources. As I have pointed out, there is no motive for him to do that. Mohammed actually had achieved political and military and his followers were looking for more of the same. Not everyone were witnesses and there was still the opposition to Jesus from virtually every group with power in the country. It was in 70 AD. Also, as I mentioned earlier I don't see the prophesy as something Jesus knew supernaturally anyway, It was from understanding His world at the time.

He is explaining the connection between the two. I'm just looking for truth as are you.

I did explain it. The Israelite leaders wanted more land and more power and so they invoked Yahweh's name to justify it. It isn't that hard.

That would be wrong. That is how they used language. As I said several times you can go back to Isaiah 13 where similar language is used regarding the Babylonians.

You don't have to go back to Isaiah. You can ask your Jewish neighbour. Judaism has never taken your idea of a Messiah seriously.

To be nearer God? Who knows, you book is full of these contradictions. It doesn't matter where else it is I don't have to explain anything in your book, if I do that I'm simply reinterpreting to suit myself. All I have to do is show you the words which as plain as day are all about something global and enormous and imminent and which is impossible not to mean the end times. And quite plainly that's how they were seen at the time. There's nothing in the language then or now that needs to be read any other way. It's not nuanced, it's not ambiguous it's very straightforward and easily understood. You're not listening. I'm pointing out to both of you that it's all a pile of made up nonsense. There's no evidence of any prior written document. That's the end of it. All that's known is that the others replay what is in Mark. It was NOT. The events used by Jesus have not happen at any time from the beginning of time to now. Reread them.

What does that have to do with the subject ?