Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 5:51 AM
203 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 200 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,739 Year: 18,562/29,783 Month: 507/2,043 Week: 59/386 Day: 9/50 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
6970
71
7273
...
77Next
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14545
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1051 of 1152 (844342)
11-28-2018 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by GDR
11-28-2018 11:04 AM


Re: Matthew 24
quote:

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

Its funny how so many of your arguments are based on what you think people would have done - even when there is no solid case for it.. The author of Luke didnt do those things either but we can be sure he was writing after 70 AD. How can you be so sure that the author of Mark would have done differently ?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 11:04 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1055 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 5:19 PM PaulK has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 17965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1052 of 1152 (844347)
11-28-2018 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by GDR
11-28-2018 11:04 AM


Re: Matthew 24
GDR writes:

I do have a life outside of EvC.

I'm aghast!

Percy writes:

Is stepping outside the story to offer commentary ever something Mark actually does? Anyway, obviously Mark is writing for a community already very familiar with the destruction of the Temple. Mark was writing near enough in time for it to still be a recent event, and near enough to Jerusalem for it to be relevant.

Im sorry Percy but it makes far more sense to believe that the war and the destruction of the Temple at the time the Gospel of Mark was compiled.

I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. It might be me, but is the word "happened" or "occurred" supposed to appear between "Temple" and "at"? And by "compiled" do you mean Mark writing his gospel from source material he had gathered or had access to? But that would mean that you're saying, "It makes far more sense to believe that the war and the destruction of the Temple occurred at the time the Gospel of Mark was written," and that doesn't sound like something you'd say. I'd expect you to say that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple occurred after Mark wrote his gospel. So I guess I need to request clarification about what you mean.

GDR writes:

C'mon Percy. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and by that time the war had been going on for 4 years. Mark doesn't mention the war, and no matter where he was in the area he would be aware of what had happened to Jerusalem and the Temple in very short order.

Percy writes:

Of course, but evidently what he heard was that none of the Temple was left standing, which is untrue. Why would that matter to you - you're not an inerrantist.

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

I ask again, does Mark ever step outside the story to offer commentary about what occurred later? If not, then why would you expect him to do so in this case? And even if so, why do you think Mark would think his audience needful of reminding of something that had happened within the past few years and not so far away?

Percy writes:

I assumed we were talking about where Mark writes about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. I haven't mentioned the end times once in this thread, except just now to deny ever mentioning it.

My point was that Mark wasnt writing about end times but about the destruction of the Temple, however I might be confusing this discussion with you and the one Im having with Tangle. All you atheists sound alike to me. 

I'm not an atheist. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion has the correct story.

GDR writes:

Why on earth would any of them want to carry on a movement that is based on the leader being crucified which very clearly says that he is just another failed messianic figure?

Percy writes:

Let me ask you a question first: Why are you shifting the focus from the resurrection to the crucifixion? It sure isn't the crucifixion that Christians think amazing.

The point is that it would be unthinkable to claim that the messiah would be crucified and yet Paul says that he is not ashamed to preach a crucified messiah because although Jesus was crucified God resurrected Him.

Apparently a crucified messiah wasn't unthinkable, particularly a resurrected one. Paul obviously had no trouble thinking it.

Percy writes:

Actually all it requires is a single person telling a story that other people believe.

But it is a lot more than one person.

You've got stories that say there were a lot of witnesses. What you don't have is the testimony of any witnesses.

Percy writes:

That you have no evidence is neither opinion nor theology - it's a fact. Unevidenced assertions require no rebuttal beyond noting the lack of evidence.

But it isnt unevidenced. The Gospel accounts are evidence. The rest of the NT is evidence. There are obviously written with the obvious intent that they are to be believed. You can reject the evidence and say it is insufficient for you, but it is still evidence.

So your position is that scripture written with the intent that it be believed is evidence. That sorta puts the Bible on an equal footing with any other religion's scripture, like the Koran or the Book of Mormon or Scientology. You guys should all get together and work out who's right, then get back to us.

GDR writes:

Nobody after the Maccabees were put to death did anyone suggest that Judas Maccabees was resurrected even though he talked about resurrection. Everyone assumed that it would be resurrection at the end of time. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Gioria was resurrected in 70 AD. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Kokhba was resurrected in 135 AD. All of these guys led revolts that had varying degrees of military success and were put to death by the Romans. They were simply regarded as failed messiahs and then people looked for another messiah to lead them. (The idea pretty much dies out after 135 AD however.)

Percy writes:

Why do you think this helps your case?

Ill spell it out again. There were at least 12 messianic movements in that era. In every case the messianic figures were put to death including the ones mentioned. The belief was that a messiah, (the anointed one of God), would lead them against the hated Romans and defeat them. Many of these messianic figures actually achieved varying degrees of revolutionary success, but when they were executed nobody said that they were resurrected and the movements that they led immediately came to a halt. Jesus led no army, achieved no military success, and was crucified. Jesus had been crucified and it would have been clear that He was another failed messiah. However a couple of days later something changed and the Gospels tell us what it was.

Why do think including resurrection as part of a messianic story makes it true? As I said in another post, the plot of the dead hero somehow returning to life is as old as time.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 11:04 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1054 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 5:17 PM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15737
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1053 of 1152 (844349)
11-28-2018 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1047 by GDR
11-27-2018 11:20 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:

Your POV seems to be that either you have to accept everything literally or reject the whole thing.


No. There are lots of possibilities. The talking snake is a literary device; it's unlikely that the authors expected anybody to take it literally. The Flood didn't happen; it could be a metaphor or an exaggeration or the authors believed it and were just flat-out wrong. The Tower of Babel is an inaccurate interpretation of a real event. And so on.

GDR writes:

Each book of the Bible is by different authors with a variety of sources and motivations.


That's what people keep telling you but you insist that in some cases their motivation could not possibly be anything but factual reporting of real events.

GDR writes:

You guys don't accept this but there is no other reasonable reason to explain the rise of Christianity other than a firm belief in the resurrection.


I agree: The rise of Christianity was caused (at least partly) by a BELIEF in the resurrection. But belief in the resurrection has nothing to do with whether or not the resurrection happened. Similarly, a belief that the Jews were dangerous caused the Holocaust - but that belief was not founded in fact.

GDR writes:

With that in mind it is also reasonable to understand the Bible through Jesus' message of love.


Clearly not. In your own words, "Each book of the Bible is by different authors with a variety of sources and motivations." For some of them the message was the power of God, the wrath of God and the fear of God, not the love of God.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1047 by GDR, posted 11-27-2018 11:20 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1056 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 5:58 PM ringo has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1054 of 1152 (844357)
11-28-2018 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1052 by Percy
11-28-2018 2:09 PM


Re: Matthew 24
Percy writes:

After Jesus was crucified the apostles considered Jesus a failed messiah? This isn't an important point for me, but now I'm curious. You already know I think the gospels are fiction, but I *have* read them, and that the crucifixion caused them to consider Jesus a failed messiah doesn't sound familiar. If you could save me the trouble of reading the end portion of all the gospels, where do they say this? Thanks.

First off, Im sure that youre familiar with the accounts of Peter denying Him 3 times. As for the next part of your question about the disciples hiding out we have this in John 20.
quote:
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, Peace be with you!

Percy writes:

Me too, though it must be obvious to you that the inerrantist position is by far the stronger because it asserts everything and concedes nothing. The view 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 opens 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."

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

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 isnt really about us getting to heaven but ultimately its about heaven coming to when all of creation is resurrected. Paul writes this in Ephesians 1.
quote:
9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
It is about the renewal of all things. It isnt about the destruction of the world or the universe.
I think that parts of the church have made the focus of the church personal salvation. It then becomes the idea of scaring people into the Kingdom and just as bad it suggests that people come to faith because of whats 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:

I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. It might be me, but is the word "happened" or "occurred" supposed to appear between "Temple" and "at"? And by "compiled" do you mean Mark writing his gospel from source material he had gathered or had access to? But that would mean that you're saying, "It makes far more sense to believe that the war and the destruction of the Temple occurred at the time the Gospel of Mark was written," and that doesn't sound like something you'd say. I'd expect you to say that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple occurred after Mark wrote his gospel. So I guess I need to request clarification about what you mean.

No wonder you had trouble. Part of the sentence is missing.  You are correct about what I would say. If the destruction had happened when Mark compiled the Gospel, ( and yes I am suggesting that like Luke he was using source material and possibly personal knowledge), the He would have recorded the destruction as Jesus prediction had come true. Also He wouldnt have said that there wouldnt be one stone on another.
Percy writes:

I ask again, does Mark ever step outside the story to offer commentary about what occurred later? If not, then why would you expect him to do so in this case? And even if so, why do you think Mark would think his audience needful of reminding of something that had happened within the past few years and not so far away?

As the eye witnesses died off he would feel compelled to record what had happened. Again, Luke even explains that in His Gospel.

Percy writes:

I'm not an atheist. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion has the correct story.

I dont think any person or religion has the whole truth. It seems to me that if you believe in God then I would think that you would have to agree that the resurrection is possible. If God is responsible for the processes that brought about life then I dont think resurrection is much of a trick. The question of course is, did it actually happen. I am convinced that it did. This may sound strange but it actually makes sense to me in all sorts of ways.

Percy writes:

Apparently a crucified messiah wasn't unthinkable, particularly a resurrected one. Paul obviously had no trouble thinking it.

Yes he did, but he had to write several times that he wasnt ashamed to preach a crucified messiah. Crucifixion was a shameful way to die in that culture. Also this is in Deuteronomy 21.
quote:
If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and you hang him on a tree, you must not leave the body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is a curse of God.
As I said. A crucified messiah was unthinkable. It would take something momentous to overcome that belief. That momentous event was the resurrection.

Percy writes:

So your position is that scripture written with the intent that it be believed is evidence. That sorta puts the Bible on an equal footing with any other religion's scripture, like the Koran or the Book of Mormon or Scientology. You guys should all get together and work out who's right, then get back to us.

Well all religions can learn from each other. The point was though that the Gospel writers believed what they wrote. We can choose to believe them or believe they got it wrong. IMHO it is very clear that it isnt a story they concocted for something unfathomable reason. Rightly or wrongly they believed they were writing about an historical event.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1052 by Percy, posted 11-28-2018 2:09 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1061 by Percy, posted 11-29-2018 11:20 AM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1055 of 1152 (844358)
11-28-2018 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1051 by PaulK
11-28-2018 12:33 PM


Re: Matthew 24
PaulK writes:

Its funny how so many of your arguments are based on what you think people would have done - even when there is no solid case for it.. The author of Luke didnt do those things either but we can be sure he was writing after 70 AD. How can you be so sure that the author of Mark would have done differently ?

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

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2018 12:33 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1059 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2018 11:37 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1056 of 1152 (844360)
11-28-2018 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by ringo
11-28-2018 2:27 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
ringo writes:

No. There are lots of possibilities. The talking snake is a literary device; it's unlikely that the authors expected anybody to take it literally. The Flood didn't happen; it could be a metaphor or an exaggeration or the authors believed it and were just flat-out wrong. The Tower of Babel is an inaccurate interpretation of a real event. And so on.

That was kinda my point.
ringo writes:

That's what people keep telling you but you insist that in some cases their motivation could not possibly be anything but factual reporting of real events.

I do. When you look at the stories of OT wars and God commanding them I believe that the war happened but I don't agree that God commanded it. Same with the public stonings.

In the case of the resurrection the circumstances and the manner in which they are written clearly, IMHO , show that they believed that there were recording historical events as accurately as they could. I also believe that there are good reason to believe, for reasons I've at least partly already explained, that the essential aspects are correct.

ringo writes:

I agree: The rise of Christianity was caused (at least partly) by a BELIEF in the resurrection. But belief in the resurrection has nothing to do with whether or not the resurrection happened. Similarly, a belief that the Jews were dangerous caused the Holocaust - but that belief was not founded in fact.

That's all true, but I would argue that without the resurrection Christianity would never have come into being.
ringo writes:

Clearly not. In your own words, "Each book of the Bible is by different authors with a variety of sources and motivations." For some of them the message was the power of God, the wrath of God and the fear of God, not the love of God.

I covered that in my last post to Percy. When we read the Bible it has God commanding genocide and public stonings. When we read it through the lens of Jesus we can say that there is no way that the God of love whose Word or nature was embodied by Jesus would command those things.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by ringo, posted 11-28-2018 2:27 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by ringo, posted 11-28-2018 6:22 PM GDR has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15737
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1057 of 1152 (844362)
11-28-2018 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1056 by GDR
11-28-2018 5:58 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:

In the case of the resurrection the circumstances and the manner in which they are written clearly, IMHO , show that they believed that there were recording historical events as accurately as they could.


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.

GDR writes:

When we read it through the lens of Jesus we can say that there is no way that the God of love whose Word or nature was embodied by Jesus would command those things.


So, as I've been saying all along, you pick your favourite flavour with no justification whatsoever.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1056 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 5:58 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1058 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 7:03 PM ringo has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1058 of 1152 (844371)
11-28-2018 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1057 by ringo
11-28-2018 6:22 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
ringo writes:

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.

I'm not saying that the stories of genocide and public stonings weren't believed by the authors. I believe that the genocides took place, (or at least were attempted), and that the public stonings happened. I am simply saying that whether they believed it or not, these happenings were not commanded by God.

So I do believe that the genocides and stonings are historical events as I do the resurrection.

ringo writes:

So, as I've been saying all along, you pick your favourite flavour with no justification whatsoever.

I am a Jesus follower. I believe on faith that if I want to understand the nature of God I look to Jesus. Also, I can look at the world and see that the bulk of our problems come from people not following Jesus message of love, or the message from Micah in my signature which is pretty good evidence that the route of love is the route that God wants us to follow. I think that we all would agree that the world would be a far far far happier place if this was the way of the world.

I guess we all pick our favourite flavour in one way or another.. None of us have absolute knowledge.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1057 by ringo, posted 11-28-2018 6:22 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1060 by ringo, posted 11-29-2018 10:42 AM GDR has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14545
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1059 of 1152 (844379)
11-28-2018 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1055 by GDR
11-28-2018 5:19 PM


Re: Matthew 24
quote:

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

Its one of many things you believe because they are convenient for your argument. Just like you think the NT writers belief in the Resurrection is sufficient reason to force the Bible into your favoured interpretation.

However, the real evidence that the passage comes earlier than 70AD is that things did not go as predicted. There was no abomination in the Temple. God did not intervene to save the Jews from defeat. No angels came to gather the elect. The version in Luke is changed to acknowledge these things, putting off the End Times to the near future - but it didnt happen then, either.

You dont use that argument because you refuse to acknowledge those failures. Even though they are so plain that they were recognised by the author of Luke.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1055 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 5:19 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1062 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 1:55 PM PaulK has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15737
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1060 of 1152 (844410)
11-29-2018 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1058 by GDR
11-28-2018 7:03 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:

I am simply saying that whether they believed it or not, these happenings were not commanded by God.


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.

GDR writes:

I guess we all pick our favourite flavour in one way or another.. None of us have absolute knowledge.


And you're clearly making up a God that is palatable to you.

Edited by ringo, : Spellyng.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1058 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 7:03 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1063 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 2:17 PM ringo has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17965
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1061 of 1152 (844416)
11-29-2018 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1054 by GDR
11-28-2018 5:17 PM


Re: Matthew 24
GDR writes:

Percy writes:

GDR writes:

When Jesus was crucified, the leaders knew Jesus to be another failed messiah, denied Him...

After Jesus was crucified the apostles considered Jesus a failed messiah? This isn't an important point for me, but now I'm curious. You already know I think the gospels are fiction, but I *have* read them, and that the crucifixion caused them to consider Jesus a failed messiah doesn't sound familiar. If you could save me the trouble of reading the end portion of all the gospels, where do they say this? Thanks.

First off, Im sure that youre familiar with the accounts of Peter denying Him 3 times.

Peter's denial must be one of the more well known elements of the Jesus story, so of course I'm familiar with it, but you said this occurred "when Jesus was crucified," and Peter's denial not only came before the crucifixion but even prior to the hearing before Pilate.

But I didn't inquire about any denial of Jesus. I asked about your claims about the apostles reaction to the crucifixion. I said I wasn't aware that the crucifixion caused the apostles to consider Jesus a failed messiah. I *have* read the gospels, and that the crucifixion caused them to consider Jesus a failed messiah doesn't sound familiar. I'd be ever so grateful if you could save me the trouble of reading the end portion of all the gospels and tell me where they say this.

As for the next part of your question about the disciples hiding out we have this in John 20.

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

Locking the doors is equivalent to hiding out? I guess I hide out every night. Isn't this a bit of a stretch as a reference to hiding out? Or are we "interpreting" again?

The main thing is that you've provided no support for your statement, "When Jesus was crucified, the leaders knew Jesus to be another failed messiah, denied Him and went into hiding not wanting to suffer the same fate." This isn't a big deal, I'm just curious where it says this in the gospels, because I hadn't heard this before.

Percy writes:

Me too, though it must be obvious to you that the inerrantist position is by far the stronger because it asserts everything and concedes nothing. The view 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 opens 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."

In a way that is the point.

Before I read on I have to again ask, then why are we having this discussion?

It is about free will and if we had absolute knowledge then we wouldnt be free to accept Gods command to love.

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?

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.

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.

So yes we are called to pick and choose. Jesus did just that. He combed through the Jewish Scriptures which led to His self understanding of His messianic vocation.

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?

Yes, we should read the Scriptures critically.

Matthew 18:3:

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

Of course there are Biblical passages for all occasions, but this one is definitely not encouraging you to read your scriptures critically.

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.

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.

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 isnt really about us getting to heaven but ultimately its about heaven coming to when all of creation is resurrected. Paul writes this in Ephesians 1.

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

It is about the renewal of all things. It isnt about the destruction of the world or the universe.

I think that parts of the church have made the focus of the church personal salvation. It then becomes the idea of scaring people into the Kingdom and just as bad it suggests that people come to faith because of whats 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.

Yeah, we agree, but eternal salvation still remains Christianity's most effective and widely used selling point.

Percy writes:

I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. It might be me, but is the word "happened" or "occurred" supposed to appear between "Temple" and "at"? And by "compiled" do you mean Mark writing his gospel from source material he had gathered or had access to? But that would mean that you're saying, "It makes far more sense to believe that the war and the destruction of the Temple occurred at the time the Gospel of Mark was written," and that doesn't sound like something you'd say. I'd expect you to say that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple occurred after Mark wrote his gospel. So I guess I need to request clarification about what you mean.

No wonder you had trouble. Part of the sentence is missing.  You are correct about what I would say. If the destruction had happened when Mark compiled the Gospel, ( and yes I am suggesting that like Luke he was using source material and possibly personal knowledge), the He would have recorded the destruction as Jesus prediction had come true. Also He wouldnt have said that there wouldnt be one stone on another.

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:

I ask again, does Mark ever step outside the story to offer commentary about what occurred later? If not, then why would you expect him to do so in this case? And even if so, why do you think Mark would think his audience needful of reminding of something that had happened within the past few years and not so far away?

As the eye witnesses died off he would feel compelled to record what had happened.

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.

Again, Luke even explains that in His Gospel.

What Luke explains in his Gospel is about *his* gospel, not the Gospel of Mark.

Percy writes:

I'm not an atheist. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion has the correct story.

I dont think any person or religion has the whole truth. It seems to me that if you believe in God then I would think that you would have to agree that the resurrection is possible. If God is responsible for the processes that brought about life then I dont think resurrection is much of a trick.

Let me be more clear. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion is remotely close in any of their particulars to the correct story. My God gives purpose to the universe, a purpose unknown to us. Our role, if any, if we're not some side effect or unintended consequence, is miniscule. We have not as yet uncovered or encountered any evidence of God, so people who believe he exists do so solely on a foundation of faith.

The question of course is, did it actually happen. I am convinced that it did. This may sound strange but it actually makes sense to me in all sorts of ways.

When it comes to the spiritual, people believe what they believe independent of evidence. Many feel the need for evidence of what they believe and so they convince themselves that there is evidence, just as you are doing.

Others understand that there is no evidence. Of these some choose atheism or agnosticism, which makes good sense. And some, like me, understand that their faith in God is just something that comes from within and is part of their makeup.

Percy writes:

Apparently a crucified messiah wasn't unthinkable, particularly a resurrected one. Paul obviously had no trouble thinking it.

Yes he did, but he had to write several times that he wasnt ashamed to preach a crucified messiah. Crucifixion was a shameful way to die in that culture. Also this is in Deuteronomy 21.

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

As I said. A crucified messiah was unthinkable. It would take something momentous to overcome that belief. That momentous event was the resurrection.

We agree. Hey, twice in one message, a record.

But you're earlier argument, that the presence of the resurrection in the story is convincing evidence that the story is true, is bollocks. It's an old plotline used over and over.

Percy writes:

So your position is that scripture written with the intent that it be believed is evidence. That sorta puts the Bible on an equal footing with any other religion's scripture, like the Koran or the Book of Mormon or Scientology. You guys should all get together and work out who's right, then get back to us.

Well all religions can learn from each other.

You mean religions can let other religions inform their theology? I think few religions would admit that ever happens, and particularly not Christianity.

The point, though, was that the Gospel writers believed what they wrote. We can choose to believe them or believe they got it wrong. IMHO it is very clear that it isnt a story they concocted for something unfathomable reason. Rightly or wrongly they believed they were writing about an historical event.

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.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1054 by GDR, posted 11-28-2018 5:17 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1069 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 9:24 PM Percy has responded
 Message 1070 by Phat, posted 11-30-2018 6:47 AM Percy has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1062 of 1152 (844429)
11-29-2018 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1059 by PaulK
11-28-2018 11:37 PM


Re: Matthew 24
PaulK writes:

Its one of many things you believe because they are convenient for your argument. Just like you think the NT writers belief in the Resurrection is sufficient reason to force the Bible into your favoured interpretation.

Firstly I contend that Mark was written prior to the war for reasons I have already given. Actually it is obvious that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem whether or not Mark wrote the Gospel before or after the war.

I am not saying that because the NT writers believed that the resurrection was an historical event proves that it was true. My point is only that the question is whether or not they concocted the accounts for their own purposes. IMHO it is very clear that they did believe what they wrote. The question is whether they got it right or not, and we come to our own conclusions about that.

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

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

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

PaulK writes:

You dont 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2018 11:37 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1064 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2018 2:42 PM GDR has responded
 Message 1067 by Percy, posted 11-29-2018 6:11 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1063 of 1152 (844431)
11-29-2018 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1060 by ringo
11-29-2018 10:42 AM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
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:


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.

As I have said before my Christian faith is based essentially based on two things. 1/ God is a God of love and wants us to reflect that into the world. 2/ God resurrected Jesus vindicating and confirming His life and message.

The stories of genocide were written by scribes saying that God commanded genocide and public stonings. This of course comes from prophets claiming that God had told them this. These prophets were beholding to the leaders for their welfare and even their lives, in many cases, and in others were interested in their position in the community.

The Gospels were written accounts of what they believed actually happened. They aren't saying that God told them this but writing about events they claim to be historical. You can't look at the two on the same footing.

As I believe in the resurrection of Jesus as confirming His message about the nature of God then I can see that the position of "loving your enemy" is totally incompatible with ordering genocide and public stonings.

It isn't that hard.

ringo writes:

And you're clearly making up a God that is palatable to you.

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.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1060 by ringo, posted 11-29-2018 10:42 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1068 by Percy, posted 11-29-2018 8:55 PM GDR has responded
 Message 1071 by ringo, posted 11-30-2018 10:50 AM GDR has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14545
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1064 of 1152 (844432)
11-29-2018 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1062 by GDR
11-29-2018 1:55 PM


Re: Matthew 24
quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

The Abomination certainly didnt happen, and if you really think loads of angels turned up to gather the chosen of the Son of Man from all over the world I want to see actual evidence.

You are also wrong to think that the prediction is purely political - the religious element - the expectation of past prophecy being fulfilled - is very strong.

quote:

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

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1062 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 1:55 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1065 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 4:46 PM PaulK has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4608
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1065 of 1152 (844435)
11-29-2018 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1064 by PaulK
11-29-2018 2:42 PM


Re: Matthew 24
PaulK writes:

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

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

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1064 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2018 2:42 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1066 by PaulK, posted 11-29-2018 5:16 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
6970
71
7273
...
77Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018