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 5:46 AM
200 online now:
PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (3 members, 197 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
...
7071
72
7374
...
77Next
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14545
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1066 of 1152 (844437)
11-29-2018 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1065 by GDR
11-29-2018 4:46 PM


Re: Matthew 24
You mean because you have been caught being blatantly dishonest.

The differences in the Gospels (plus Acts) are not mere details. That is a fact.

The Abomination did not occur as Jesus predicted. Do not forget that it is the sign of the Tribulation starting, the sign to flee. That makes sense if it is a Roman provocation - setting up a pagan altar or the like in the Temple - but there was nothing of the sort.

There is nothing saying that God will not intervene - indeed the arrival of the Son of Man echoes Daniel 7:11, which occurs after the defeat of the 4th Beast. More, you say that other aspects echo Isaiah 13 - which is all about God bringing destruction in Babylon. Odd indeed, if it is not meant to indicate that God will intervene against Rome.

There are plenty more problems for your position. I just wish you could be honest about it and admit to the problems instead of telling obvious falsehoods.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1065 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 4:46 PM GDR has not yet responded

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


Message 1067 of 1152 (844438)
11-29-2018 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1062 by GDR
11-29-2018 1:55 PM


Re: Matthew 24
GDR writes:

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.

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).

Actually it is obvious that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem...

Why do you see the need to say this? Of course Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in Mark 13. There isn't a scintilla of ambiguity in the passage:

quote:
Mark 13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!

2Do you see all these great buildings? replied Jesus. Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.


Except many stones *were* "left on another," and "every one" was not "thrown down."

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.

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.

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.

Accounts that differ on some points cannot both be right.

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.

Maybe I'm recollecting incorrectly, but didn't you answer by inventing interpretations considerably at odds with what the passages clearly say?

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:
12For 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.

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.

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?

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

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:
Mark 13 30"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

This is Mark having Jesus say roughly when the Temple will be destroyed, more evidence that Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple.

PaulK writes:

You dont use that argument because you refuse to acknowledge those failures.

Firstly you are wrong that they didn't happen,...

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.

...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.

You're "interpreting" again.

I agree that they are plain and you have plain got it wrong.

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.

Your views seem way out there for a Christian. You must get into some interesting discussions with your fellow parishioners.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Spelling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1062 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 1:55 PM GDR has not yet responded

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


Message 1068 of 1152 (844439)
11-29-2018 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1063 by GDR
11-29-2018 2:17 PM


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

At least your replies are short. Replying to Percy is a full time unpaid position.

And if you replied to all my messages instead of just half you'd have to work double shifts!

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 beholden to the leaders for their welfare and even their lives, in many cases, and in others were interested in their position in the community.

So the OT authors were just schmucks working under threat or a need for approval - no "inspired by God" there.

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.

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.

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.

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:
Luke 12:47 "The servant who knows the masters will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows."

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.

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.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1063 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 2:17 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1080 by GDR, posted 12-01-2018 3:32 AM Percy has responded

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


Message 1069 of 1152 (844440)
11-29-2018 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1061 by Percy
11-29-2018 11:20 AM


Re: Matthew 24
Percy writes:

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.

Yes it was before but youre splitting hairs. It was obvious where this was going and Peter out of fear did not wanted to be associated with Jesus.
Percy writes:

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.

It isnt 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.

Percy writes:

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?

They were in a locked room out of fear of the Jewish leaders. Id say that they were hiding out.
Percy writes:

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.

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.

Percy writes:

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

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.

Percy writes:

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?

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.

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:

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.

I am certainly outside fundamentalism but Im by and large fairly consistent with most of Anglicanism. My main influence with my theological beliefs is NT Wright who Newsweek called the worlds leading New Testament scholar.

Percy writes:

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?

Im a follower of an inerrant Jesus and not an inerrant Bible. The two arent compatible.
Percy writes:

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.

The Kingdom of Heaven is not about personal salvation. It also isnt 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.
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:

And yet he apparently did. It's all there in black and white.

Sure and an inerrantist would say that it must be true and then somehow try to square it up with loving your enemy. It cant be done. It is one or the other and Im going with what The Gospels say that Jesus said, rather than accepting the word of some scribe centuries earlier.

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 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:
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 should 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:

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

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 Im 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.
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 dont concern myself as to who is in and who is out. As far as Im 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:

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.

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.
Percy writes:

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.

My comment wasnt about the Temple but Marks motivation for compiling the book at all.

Percy writes:

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

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.
Percy writes:

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

One of us must be learning something. I think that Ill go with the idea that its you.
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 dont 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 isnt 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:

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.


Another point of agreement. Great were up to 3.

PS. Can we stick to one post at a time instead of sending another one prior to me replying to one youve 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by Percy, posted 11-29-2018 11:20 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1078 by Percy, posted 11-30-2018 8:38 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11563
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1070 of 1152 (844445)
11-30-2018 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1061 by Percy
11-29-2018 11:20 AM


Persuading The Peanut Gallery
percy writes:

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

Integrity counts here. How persuasive is the storyteller?
Not all stories can be corroborated through evidence and in these cases, the persuasiveness of the authors and characters go a long way in carrying forth the belief throughout the culture. Here at EvC, we have touched on many of the issues regarding a need for belief balanced against the duty of skepticism and demand for evidence.
Percy writes:

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.

Perhaps GDR believes that our role is based on the persuasion of scripture and its authors. Did Jesus really say what it was written that He said? If so, He counts as a persuasive individual in regards to current belief. As does Paul. If, on the other hand, the authors are not known, the persuasion factor drops by quite a bit. The belief then becomes empty.
percy writes:

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.

GDR seems persuasive. So does PaulK. Consider what each of them is attempting to persuade the peanut gallery to conclude.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by Percy, posted 11-29-2018 11:20 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1072 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2018 11:08 AM Phat has responded
 Message 1079 by Percy, posted 11-30-2018 8:54 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 1071 of 1152 (844455)
11-30-2018 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1063 by GDR
11-29-2018 2:17 PM


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


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.

GDR writes:

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.


It is hard because it doesn't make a lick of sense. Jesus' death was totally unnecessary and his resurrection was just a copout. "Jesus faked his death for our sins" is just preposterous.

GDR writes:

For that matter, everyone follows a god that is palatable to them.


Nonsense. There are plenty of Christians who don't like what happened in the Old Testament but they believe it happened.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1063 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 2:17 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1074 by Phat, posted 11-30-2018 11:44 AM ringo has responded
 Message 1086 by GDR, posted 12-02-2018 11:47 PM ringo has responded

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


Message 1072 of 1152 (844456)
11-30-2018 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1070 by Phat
11-30-2018 6:47 AM


Re: Persuading The Peanut Gallery
quote:

Integrity counts here. How persuasive is the storyteller?

Persuasiveness and integrity are not the same thing. And persuasiveness can as easily deceive as enlighten.

quote:

GDR seems persuasive. So does PaulK. Consider what each of them is attempting to persuade the peanut gallery to conclude.

GDR wishes us to believe that the evidence supports his claims whether it is true or not. He tried to claim that the list of works in Message 994 adds significantly to our knowledge of the historical Jesus. Is that true ? Hyroglyphx never made that claim and GDR has never gone beyond a reference to that single post.

Just as GDr never supports his claim Jesus was saying that God would not intervene to help the Jews. That may be his idea of what Jesus was saying but it isnt in the text - and the OT references in the text suggest otherwise. Its just what he wants Jesus to have said, and never mind the Bible.

Its not hard to find other examples. Not at all.

And that pretty much proves the point I started with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1070 by Phat, posted 11-30-2018 6:47 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1073 by Phat, posted 11-30-2018 11:40 AM PaulK has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11563
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1073 of 1152 (844458)
11-30-2018 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1072 by PaulK
11-30-2018 11:08 AM


Re: Persuading The Peanut Gallery
Its just what he wants Jesus to have said, and never mind the Bible.
I will admit that most believers attempt to make sense of the tales in light of this presupposition. Critically examining the Bible without accepting any of the offers of communion and character from Jesus or God seems like a fruitless profession. Its like having a job running around ruining kids days by telling them Santa Claus is a myth...what actual good does it do to society? In the case of Santa, of course, the goal would be for everyone to grow up and face reality. When this same motive is applied justifying arguments against cherished beliefs, however...it serves no useful function...unless one actually believed that the whole world would be better off atheist.

I would prefer that we arrive at a consensus of a God that we could believe in without looking and sounding foolish.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1072 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2018 11:08 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1077 by PaulK, posted 11-30-2018 12:11 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11563
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1074 of 1152 (844459)
11-30-2018 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1071 by ringo
11-30-2018 10:50 AM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
If God was a God of love, he could just forgive our sins.
Many would abuse this privilege. It would be the same as if a credit card company granted everyone forgiveness of their holiday debt. Some would abuse the privilege, going back and racking up new bills again and again...knowing that they would be forgiven.

Or handing out spare change every day to the same alcoholic who promptly goes next door, buys a bottle, and passes out. You really aren't doing him any favors.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1071 by ringo, posted 11-30-2018 10:50 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1075 by ringo, posted 11-30-2018 11:59 AM Phat has responded

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


Message 1075 of 1152 (844463)
11-30-2018 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1074 by Phat
11-30-2018 11:44 AM


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

Many would abuse this privilege.


So what? If you really love somebody, you open yourself up to abuse. If God defends Himself from all possibility of abuse, He is clearly NOT a God of love.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1074 by Phat, posted 11-30-2018 11:44 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1076 by Phat, posted 11-30-2018 12:01 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11563
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1076 of 1152 (844464)
11-30-2018 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1075 by ringo
11-30-2018 11:59 AM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
well...you do have a point.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1075 by ringo, posted 11-30-2018 11:59 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 1077 of 1152 (844468)
11-30-2018 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1073 by Phat
11-30-2018 11:40 AM


Re: Persuading The Peanut Gallery
quote:

Critically examining the Bible without accepting any of the offers of communion and character from Jesus or God seems like a fruitless profession.

In my experience, there is no communion to accept. And how can we assess the characters of people known only through stories of questionable reliability without critical examination ? Even with it, it may not be possible - but thats no excuse to refuse to make the effort.

quote:

Its like having a job running around ruining kids days by telling them Santa Claus is a myth...what actual good does it do to society?

Except for not being a job, not running around and not talking to kids. And I have to say, are all your pastimes dedicated to doing good to society ? Even if getting at the truth of these matters does not, I can think of many things less good that I might be doing.

quote:

When this same motive is applied justifying arguments against cherished beliefs, however...it serves no useful function...unless one actually believed that the whole world would be better off atheist

This site is supposed to be about debate and getting to the truth. If you reject those because they support atheism and demolish cherished beliefs then you shouldnt be here and you should be arguing against the very existence of this site.

quote:

I would prefer that we arrive at a consensus of a God that we could believe in without looking and sounding foolish.

That isnt going to happen. But why would you want it to happen ? Arent you just wanting people to agree on a lie that makes them feel good ? Yuck.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1073 by Phat, posted 11-30-2018 11:40 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 1078 of 1152 (844483)
11-30-2018 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1069 by GDR
11-29-2018 9:24 PM


Re: Matthew 24
GDR writes:

Percy writes:

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.

Yes it was before but youre splitting hairs.

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.

It was obvious where this was going and Peter out of fear did not wanted to be associated with Jesus.

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.

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:

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.

It isnt in the Gospels.

So we're talking about the gospels, and then suddenly you're not. Why am I not surprised?

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.

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:

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?

They were in a locked room out of fear of the Jewish leaders. Id say that they were hiding out.

You say a lot of things the text doesn't support.

Percy writes:

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.

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.

Ah, I see, we're "interpreting" again. John 20:19 says nothing about hiding out. There are only locked doors.

And about considering Jesus a failed messiah, you haven't provided a shred of support. In fact, John 19:32-37 speaks of prophecy being fulfilled, something bound to encourage the apostles.

Percy writes:

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

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.

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.

Percy writes:

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?

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.

Maybe if you just stuck with the evidence.

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.

Hey, agreement again, but where is the connection to God?

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.

It isn't what you're convinced of that matters, but what you can support with evidence and explanation. Don't just endlessly repeat what you believe - actually argue it.

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:

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.

I am certainly outside fundamentalism but Im by and large fairly consistent with most of Anglicanism.

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.

My main influence with my theological beliefs is NT Wright who Newsweek called the worlds leading New Testament scholar.

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:

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?

Im a follower of an inerrant Jesus and not an inerrant Bible. The two arent compatible.

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:

GDR writes:

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.

The Kingdom of Heaven is not about personal salvation. It also isnt 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.

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)

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:

And yet he apparently did. It's all there in black and white.

Sure and an inerrantist would say that it must be true and then somehow try to square it up with loving your enemy. It cant be done. It is one or the other and Im going with what The Gospels say that Jesus said, rather than accepting the word of some scribe centuries earlier.

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.

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.

Certainly they don't understand it the same way you do.

I realize Im 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.

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.

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.

Take delight in a pretend being?

Also salvation is for all creation and how that plays out in the end is up to God and not me, and frankly I dont concern myself as to who is in and who is out.

Me either, since there's nowhere to be in or out of.

As far as Im 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.

Typical religious hooey.

Percy writes:

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.

Well, I still maintain that if the destruction had already taken place the Gospel would read differently.

You keep replying with statements of belief instead of evidence and supporting arguments.

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.

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.

Try this exercise. Pick a gospel, any gospel, and scan through it asking yourself how the information came to the author. The impossibility of much of it being available to anyone is obvious. For instance Matthew 1:18. How did Matthew know that Mary was with child of the Holy Spirit?

Percy writes:

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.

My comment wasnt about the Temple but Marks motivation for compiling the book at all.

But we were discussing Mark's having Jesus prophesize the destruction of the Temple - why wouldn't you stay on topic and respond about the destruction of the Temple? Can you comment now?

Percy writes:

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

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.

Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. John possibly used Mark in very minor ways. Your beliefs are way outside the mainstream.

Percy writes:

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

One of us must be learning something. I think that Ill go with the idea that its you.

I'm learning a lot, including that many of your views are not widely held.

Percy writes:

But your 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 dont think I said that.

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.

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.

I think tons of people possess the talent to write fiction as if it were true. Memoirs of a Geisha, written like an autobiography, is one example that comes to mind.

That is not conclusive evidence as they may have been wrong. Also, it isnt 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.)

What makes you keep saying this? Do you never read fiction that has amazing twists? The Jews tried a couple hundred years of messiahs that didn't work out because they kept getting themselves killed, then the Jews finally hit upon the idea of a dead messiah that miraculously returned to life and then immediately disappeared, er, I mean ascended to heaven. But trust us, thousands of witnesses saw him before his departure, cross our hearts.

PS. Can we stick to one post at a time instead of sending another one prior to me replying to one youve already sent. As I said this becomes a full time unpaid position.

I'll see what I can do. Maybe we can get you an internship that pays a little - can you code?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1069 by GDR, posted 11-29-2018 9:24 PM GDR has not yet responded

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


Message 1079 of 1152 (844484)
11-30-2018 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1070 by Phat
11-30-2018 6:47 AM


Re: Persuading The Peanut Gallery
Phat writes:

percy writes:

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

Integrity counts here. How persuasive is the storyteller?

How persuasive? You're reducing truth to rhetorical skills? Is that what you base your decisions on? Boy, I'd love to be a glad handing, fast talking salesman when you walk onto my used car lot. Or maybe you want to buy a bridge?

Not all stories can be corroborated through evidence and in these cases, the persuasiveness of the authors and characters go a long way in carrying forth the belief throughout the culture.

In the absence of evidence you've got nothing on which to base a decision. Seeking out other qualities like "persuasiveness" will get you nowhere but cheated. Can I sell you some Dutch tulip futures?

Here at EvC, we have touched on many of the issues regarding a need for belief...

If you want to talk about a need for belief than you're on your own.

...balanced against the duty of skepticism and demand for evidence.

Skepticism and evidence - now you're talking!

Percy writes:

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.

Perhaps GDR believes that our role is based on the persuasion of scripture and its authors. Did Jesus really say what it was written that He said? If so, He counts as a persuasive individual in regards to current belief. As does Paul. If, on the other hand, the authors are not known, the persuasion factor drops by quite a bit. The belief then becomes empty.

All belief not underpinned by evidence is empty. The main difference between my and GDR's spiritual beliefs is that I know mine have no evidence.

percy writes:

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.

GDR seems persuasive. So does PaulK. Consider what each of them is attempting to persuade the peanut gallery to conclude.

It doesn't matter what they're attempting to persuade people of. It isn't the what that matters, it's how you get to the what. If the how doesn't include evidence then the what is worthless.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1070 by Phat, posted 11-30-2018 6:47 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 1080 of 1152 (844502)
12-01-2018 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1068 by Percy
11-29-2018 8:55 PM


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

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).

I dont 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.
They would still care about the Temple. They were Jews who believed that Jesus was the hoped for messiah even though He wasnt 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:

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.

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.
Percy writes:

Accounts that differ on some points cannot both be right.

They cant 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.
Percy writes:

Maybe I'm recollecting incorrectly, but didn't you answer by inventing interpretations considerably at odds with what the passages clearly say?

Im 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 wasnt about end times at all.
Percy writes:

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.

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 arent going to defeat evil with more evil as I said earlier.

Percy writes:

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?

Ephesians isnt a set of rules but it talks about what Jesus command of loving our neighbours looks like when it is implemented.

Percy writes:

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:
Mark 13 30"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

This is Mark having Jesus say roughly when the Temple will be destroyed, more evidence that Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple.
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 dont 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.
IMHO Jesus predicted the destruction but that it didnt 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 Daniels prophesy was fulfilled in Him. They would understand that Jesus was the Son of Man referred to in Daniels 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 cant see it having been written after the war for several reasons. Firstly it doesnt 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 isnt 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:

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.

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
quote:
31 His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.
It is about the destruction of the Temple.
Jesus message was that God wouldnt 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 Gods 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:

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.

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.
Percy writes:

Your views seem way out there for a Christian. You must get into some interesting discussions with your fellow parishioners.

Actually Im pretty middle of the road Anglican. The more liberal ones consider me conservative and the more conservative ones consider me liberal.
Percy writes:

And if you replied to all my messages instead of just half you'd have to work double shifts!

I havent had much time today but its now midnight and Im trying to get through 2 of your replies.
Percy writes:

So the OT authors were just schmucks working under threat or a need for approval - no "inspired by God" there.

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.
Percy writes:

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.

As I said I believe they were inspired to write their accounts to the best of their ability and knowledge, but again, it wasnt dictated to them by God. I do believe though that God speaks or reached out to us through the Scriptures,
I think it is pretty clear that the other accounts, like Luke, are meant to be taken historically.
Percy writes:

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:
Luke 12:47 "The servant who knows the masters will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows."
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.
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:

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.

No. I am following God as I truly believe Him to be. I agree that if He wasnt palatable to me I wouldnt follow Him. As Ive 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 wouldnt follow Him.

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. Im not saying that I have everything right but I have done my best through prayer and study to answer Pilates question of what is truth
Well, there are 2 of your posts answered with one to go. Its after midnight and Im 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1068 by Percy, posted 11-29-2018 8:55 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1081 by Percy, posted 12-02-2018 10:13 AM GDR has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
7071
72
7374
...
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