Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-11-2018 3:52 AM
231 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Pressie (4 members, 227 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,778 Year: 18,601/29,783 Month: 546/2,043 Week: 98/386 Day: 1/47 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
7172
73
7475
...
78Next
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1081 of 1160 (844573)
12-02-2018 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1080 by GDR
12-01-2018 3:32 AM


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

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.

I was confused at first, but now I see that you're replying to my Message 1067, not Message 1068.

There was no unusual Jewish unrest anywhere near the time of Jesus. He'd have to be beyond astute and well into the prophetic to see that 30 or 40 years on there would be a Roman/Jewish war.

There was a strong revolutionary movement...

Around Jesus's time? What makes you think so? I could unearth no historical evidence of a Jewish revolutionary movement during this period. The gospels were written after the first Jewish/Roman war, and they obviously projected the unrest of that period backward in time to what they thought was the time of Jesus. That they got this so wrong is more evidence that they got much else wrong, too.

He was predicting the outcome and that Yahweh would not be bailing them out as the revolutionaries hoped.

The apostles were not revolutionaries. Can you find anyplace in the gospels or the epistles where Jesus preached revolution against the Romans? He preached the opposite. For example, his admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's is a clear indication that he cared not what king ruled on earth.

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.

If Jesus is one of the three persons of God, as you believe, then he would not have gotten the time of the first Jewish/Roman war wrong.

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.

So from context it seems by "they" you mean the people Jesus was talking to (as opposed to the people 30-40 years on who would have been Christians). Of course they would care about the Temple. I never said otherwise. What I did say is that the destruction of the Temple would be irrelevant to Christians 30-40 years on who wouldn't care about the Temple.

Percy writes:

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.

Or it's like one guy claiming there was a spectacular car accident that never happened, but people believed him and passed the story on, elaborating variously on the details.

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...

Ephesians 6 and Marc 13 are not connected by "physical destruction of the Temple." Ephesians 6 doesn't even mention the Temple or the destruction of anything.

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.

If Ephesians 6 isn't a set of rules then what is it? Here's the beginning:

quote:
Ephesians 6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2Honor your father and motherwhich is the first commandment with a promise 3so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth. 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.
etc...etc...etc...

See, rule after rule after rule.

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.

I didn't say Mark was fabricating anything. Maybe he believed what he wrote ("compiled," as you like to say), maybe he didn't. Who knows?

And Mark absolutely *was* establishing a timeframe. He wanted his audience to know how long ago Jesus had foretold the destruction of the Temple that lay in their recent past. We don't know when Jesus lived or died or if he was even real. Maybe it was 38 years between Mark 13 and 70 CE, maybe it was something else. But if you believe Mark 13 then you have to believe that when Jesus says that "this generation will certainly not pass away before all these things have happened" he means that at least some of the current generation will still be alive to witness the destruction of the Temple. Mark was setting a timeframe for Jesus's ministry, that it was one to three generations ago. He was understandably vague since he didn't really know how long ago Jesus lived.

IMHO Jesus predicted the destruction but that it didnt happen as soon as He thought it would.

You do realize you're saying that one of the three persons of God got something wrong.

However, the point was that this is what would happen if they went ahead with a revolution.

Again (and again), it makes no sense to tell people not to revolt 30 or 40 years before the revolt.

This would vindicate His message of non-violent revolution and they would then understand that Daniels prophecy was fulfilled in Him.

I assume you're referring to Daniel 9. People can, and have, claimed Daniel means anything they need it to mean. This is from Wikipedia:

quote:
The prophecy has proved notoriously difficult for interpreters, leading to its reputation as the "dismal swamp" of critical exegesis.

They would understand that Jesus was the Son of Man referred to in Daniels dream.

I assume you're referring to Daniel 2. Why would Mark 13 cause the apostles to realize that Jesus is the Son of Man from Daniel's dream? Who even cares that he's the Son of Man? The NT writers just co-opted that term from the OT and declared it meant part of the godhead and was prophecy fulfilled in the NT, but it doesn't mean that. The interpretation is invented, something you're familiar with.

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.

Are you still talking about Mark 13? Because in Mark 13 Jesus's resurrection still lies in the future, so you can't refer to it as a past event.

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 prophecy. 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.

You're repeating the same problematical statements here that I rebutted above. The 38 years isn't gospel - Mark had no idea how long ago Jesus's ministry was. He thought roughly a generation or two. And of course it's a prophecy. And Mark is a normal person who has, like all of us, imperfect knowledge and so didn't know that some of the Temple complex remained standing. Or maybe he meant only the Temple itself, not the whole complex. But one thing's for sure - he couldn't write about events until after they happened.

Percy writes:

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.

Daniel is a quagmire that can mean anything you want it mean. Using it just makes your claims more suspect.

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.

Where does any gospel say the apostles were planning armed revolution?

The angels would be to point out the establishment of the Kingdom for all nations,

I can't guess what passage you're referring to now, and you ended this sentence with a comma - did something get chopped?

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.

You have an active imagination. Assuming you're back to Mark 13, Jesus never mentions 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.

I doubt that very much. You're well outside the traditional bounds of liberal Anglicanism.

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.

I was just kidding. Take your time. I'll note that you've now moved on to my Message 1068.

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 their statement that it was God who commanded it is there out bias, fear, justification or some other human failing.

What are you talking about? All I did was repeat your claim that the OT authors were compelled by rulers or driven by a need for approval and were not inspired by God, and now you're contradicting yourself and saying they *were* inspired by God, just not the fundamentalist version of inspiration where the content is dictated (I'm not sure that's really the fundamentalist view of inspired writing, but for now we'll just go with what you say it is), but a different view where they were only inspired to write stuff down, and what they wrote was constrained by their own limitations as human beings. What happened to the source of their supposed "inspiration" being compellment by rulers and a need for approval?

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,...

And you know this how?

...I think it is pretty clear that the other accounts, like Luke, are meant to be taken historically.

So you're just going to take Luke's word on his say so?

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.

Yes, it fits very well. Jesus is not part of God transcending this world with a message of love. He's merely part of this world where beating servants and slaves is just fine because it was standard practice at the time.

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.

It's kinda hard to avoid the fact that Jesus is advocating flogging. Would a loving God really say that if a servant or slave screws up that he should be beaten? You're just rationalizing your unsupported assertions that the OT authors are suspect the NT authors aren't. The fact of the matter is that that's just something you happen to believe, not something you can show is likely true.

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.

Again, you're just brewing your own. You take what you feel comfortable with and discard the rest.

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.

The God you follow is not consistent in any way with "3 pillars of Anglican Christianity which are Scripture," because you pick and choose according to what best comports with your sensibilities.

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

When it comes to religious beliefs, everyone who believes they have anything specific right is wrong. The only reason we're having this discussion is that you think your religious beliefs are the result of rational analysis when they definitely are not.

Well, there are 2 of your posts answered with one to go. Its after midnight and Im going to bed.

G'nite.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1080 by GDR, posted 12-01-2018 3:32 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1082 by Phat, posted 12-02-2018 10:34 AM Percy has responded
 Message 1085 by GDR, posted 12-02-2018 10:58 PM Percy has responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 11574
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1082 of 1160 (844574)
12-02-2018 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1081 by Percy
12-02-2018 10:13 AM


Bringing Philosophy To The Table
This is an interesting discussion! I think in ways that are similar to GDR, as you have brought up before. ---in that I freely speculate what God is like in regards to my belief that there is a communion of sorts between the people and God.
Percy writes:

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.


I disagree. Imagination is not worthless if well thought out. If I were arguing with a 14 year old troll about God, the argument may well likely be worthless, but if I were arguing with the late Stan Lee, for example, the discussion would likely become quite philosophical and entertaining. In essence, I am throwing my hat in the ring with the idea that we all make up the God that we want (or stand on lack of evidence for such a critter)
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.
What sort of evidence can one provide apart from methodical reasoning and creativity?

Jesus, being the first (and the last) human to exhibit this nature, was in my opinion aware of some basic human attitudes that needed revising (or repented of) and spoke to the people of his time with that goal in mind. Being human, and being bound by time, He did not know the specifics of how this all would play out in an eternal sense. Being in communion with the Creator only meant that He intuitively knew what the Creators desire was for the people. This is why, in my opinion, there had (and has) to be a Trinity....Jesus both is and is not God (the Father) in that He is bound (was bound) by time and cultural constraint. Speaking off the cuff (as GDR does) and without a lot of evidence, I believe that Jesus knew how God(Monotheistic Creator of all seen and unseen universally) desired things to be for humanity...but was not fully God in the sense that He would have had a definite eternal and timeless perspective on when such things would fully manifest or even if they would.(a nod to Open Theism)
As a teacher, Jesus taught that the communion which He had with the Creator was available to all of us. Thus, anyone who is in touch with the spiritual (I would argue that there is more than one spirit but that the Monotheistic Creator is definitely unique from the rest of the deities, spaghetti monsters, philosophies and cultural beliefs of humans) can in essence be in touch with eternal goals and prophetic desires without knowing the future as to the reality of these prophecies. Does that make any sense?

As an added edit: You critics endlessly talk about evidence, as if we can only accept a world where everything is absolute according to our terms and defintions. Philosophy, in contrast, allows for speculation and argument despite no evidence. Granted it does throw the argument into an anything goes mode of relativism, but the argument can at least hopefully progress at that point.

Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky

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 1081 by Percy, posted 12-02-2018 10:13 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1083 by Straggler, posted 12-02-2018 5:02 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1084 by Percy, posted 12-02-2018 5:03 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10267
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 1083 of 1160 (844607)
12-02-2018 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1082 by Phat
12-02-2018 10:34 AM


Re: Bringing Philosophy To The Table
Phat writes:

You critics endlessly talk about evidence, as if we can only accept a world where everything is absolute according to our terms and defintions.

You create this false dichotomy a lot. Previously touched upon in Message 670

There is a huge difference between the characterisation you make of those demanding evidence as some sort of obsessives who walk round measuring things with Geiger counters before they accept something exists and the truth of the matter.

You talk about feelings and experiences as evidence of God. But we KNOW that people have these sorts of feelings, experiences and convictions about things (lottery numbers, the rapture occurring in September, alien abductions etc.) all the time and that they arent indicative of anything such that they can be called evidence. They have been, and continue to be, cited by other cultures as evidence of holy beings that you yourself dismiss as obvious fictions (e.g Zeus).

But when you cite these feelings etc. we are all supposed to ignore all of what we know and simply accept that your feelings are evidential support for this unseeable being you happen to have a deep attachment to for reasons that are clearly consistent with your cultural references (I.e living in a Christian country)

Why is it reasonable of you to expect people to do that?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1082 by Phat, posted 12-02-2018 10:34 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 17968
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 1084 of 1160 (844608)
12-02-2018 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1082 by Phat
12-02-2018 10:34 AM


Re: Bringing Philosophy To The Table
Phat writes:

Percy writes:

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.

I disagree. Imagination is not worthless if well thought out.

You have to know how you know things. If you don't know how you know something then you don't really know it. Say there's something you think you know, like that Safeway has more supermarkets in Denver than any other chain. How do you know this? How do you know it's not Shop 'n Save or King Soopers? Your imagination is not going to help you, not in this or in knowing anything at all.

Imagination is one of the tools you can employ to interpret evidence, but by itself it is useless. Without evidence you've got nothing. If you don't believe this then use your imagination (not the Internet) to tell me what a cacomistle or a fylfot is.

If I were arguing with a 14 year old troll about God, the argument may well likely be worthless, but if I were arguing with the late Stan Lee, for example, the discussion would likely become quite philosophical and entertaining.

And if it were underpinned by evidence the discussion might actual include things that are true.

In essence, I am throwing my hat in the ring with the idea that we all make up the God that we want (or stand on lack of evidence for such a critter)

What most people who sincerely hold some sort of spiritual beliefs have in common is that they want to employ unsound methods of knowing things, like using persuasiveness as criteria.

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.

What sort of evidence can one provide apart from methodical reasoning and creativity?

You can reason creatively about evidence, but if you have no evidence then no amount of reasoning or creativity will arrive at anything true about the real world..

Jesus, being the first (and the last) human to exhibit this nature,...

Assuming that by "this nature" you mean reasoning and creativity, why would you say something like that? What about ancient scientists like Archimedes, Aristotle and Pythagoras, to name just three before Jesus. And what about Galileo, Newton and Einstein, to name three scientists exhibiting "this nature" after Jesus. See, you just said something you thought true but had no evidence for, and I proved you wrong with evidence.

The rest of what you say is so far off my map that I won't comment. I'll just repeat that to know something true about the real world requires evidence.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1082 by Phat, posted 12-02-2018 10:34 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4609
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1085 of 1160 (844625)
12-02-2018 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1081 by Percy
12-02-2018 10:13 AM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
OK I finally have bit of time to get started on this.
Percy writes:

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.

Once the arrest was made Peter would know that it wouldnt go well.
Percy writes:

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.

Youre right that it wasnt fear of the Roman guards that was the problem. It wasnt like Jesus had a military following that would concern the Romans. However, as the text said they were afraid of the Jewish leaders., who would have considered them guilty of heresy.
Percy writes:

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.

He was arrested at night, everything was close together and none of the so called trials would last long. It could easily have been done in that time frame.
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 is because as we can see in Josephus that when the other messianic leaders were put to death their movements ended and their mission failed. Ive called them failed messiahs, but you can use whatever term you want.
Percy writes:

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.

They are still thinking that Jesus as messiah will somehow lead them in the defeat of the Romans, to get rid of them and restore the Kingdom of Israel. I have no idea if they were thinking of a military victory or something else, but they were still thinking that the messiah would get rid of the Romans and put them back in power.

Percy writes:

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

Cmon, it does say that they feared the Jewish authorities behind locked doors.
This is John writing well after the resurrection. He isnt saying that somebody said this at the time. These are Johns words using the Scriptures to make his point. A crucified messiah is a messiah who was put to death and had failed to do what they believed a messiah was supposed to do.
Percy writes:

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.

I seem to have to answer this about every third post. It isnt absolute knowledge. We all have to work it out for ourselves. The Bible is a library of 66 books with hundreds of authors with different agendas, motivations and literary skills. You can I suppose, but it doesnt make sense, to read them all with the same understanding. If you want to insist that to believe the resurrection accounts you have to believe that Yahweh commanded genocide and public stoning then so be it.
GDR writes:

As far as the command to love is concerned it is pretty obvious that the more we apply that in our cultures that better off everyone is.

Percy writes:

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

If God exists then if we go in the direction He wants us to go then the world should go better. We can see that the world that is driven by love is a better place so I see that as evidence of the fact that that is how He wants us to live our lives.

Percy writes:

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.

The majority of the quotes that we have from Jesus in the Gospels refer directly to or indirectly to the OT. If we want to understand what Jesus is about we need the OT. Im not diminishing the OT but when we look at the passages that say that Yahweh commanded genocide and public stoning and compare that to Jesus message such as love your enemy, we have to either go with Jesus or a scribe centuries earlier. I choose Jesus. I know some try but you cant have it both ways. They are incompatible.

Percy writes:

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.

You might be surprised. An easy place to start with Wright is this book.Simply Good News
Percy writes:

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.

Of course I cant know, It is a faith, but if God resurrected Jesus , (which I believe on the evidence of the Gospels as well as personal experience), then I can take that as a starting point for an inerrant Jesus and go with that. The important part is that we are commanded to love and that is the essence of my faith. The rest is theology which, if we choose to study it, we form our own beliefs. I realize that isnt at all a conclusive argument, but there is no conclusive argument for any position including atheism.
Percy writes:

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)

I am a Christian in that I believe that Jesus died on the cross, that God resurrected Him and gave Him dominion over the Kingdom of those who believe in His message of love, and have a heartfelt desire to live out that message of love in their lives. I believe that Jesus is the climax of the Israel story which records the progressive revelation of God to the Jews in the OT and that He inspired individuals to record their histories, their ambitions and dreams, their understandings of the divine in the various literary forms that are used. That does not mean that the Bible was dictated by God, and as a result it does contain contradictions that come from human biases, fears and errors. Just as the writers had their faults, we have ours and we wont always understand the Bible perfectly. We are just called to understand with the God given gift of wisdom and with prayer.
Actually as far as the eternal part goes we should remember that Jesus had an actual day on which He was born. John 1 tells us that it was the Word, (or logos) of God that existed from the beginning, and that Jesus embodied that Word so that we would understand the true nature of God. Yes, Jesus was resurrected into a new physicality that was able to move between Gods heavenly universe and the universe that we perceive, but as resurrection and new life is for all creation we do share our timelessness with Jesus.
Hopefully that answers your question.
Percy writes:

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.

Actually Jesusmessage of love is there in the OT as well. This is from Leviticus 19.
quote:
15 Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. 16 Do not go about spreading slander among your people. Do not do anything that endangers your neighbors life. I am the LORD. 17 Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in their guilt. 18 Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
Granted that this refers to their neighbour as their fellow Israelites but like I said earlier, it is a progressive revelation. However Leviticus later in the same chapter says this which takes what was said earlier a bit further.
quote:
33 When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. 34 The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
As we get further into the OT we find this verse in Proverbs 25.
quote:
21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink.
Jesus with His profound knowledge of the OT made clear that our understanding of neighbour was to include people of all nations.
Percy writes:

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.

I dont actually cull them out. When the Bible tells us that God commanded the genocide of the Canaanites I reject that He did that at all because it is completely inconsistent with the Word of God embodied by Jesus. However, I dont reject the idea that there was a war, but, I do contend they either believed that God told them to slaughter the Canaanites or they used that as justification. If we look at the results we can see that they were unsuccessful and in over the long term they continued to wind up in slavery to their pagan neighbours. Even though they claim that God told them to go to war we should see them being victorious but it didnt really work out that way. Id say that God can speak to us through that and tell us that we should be very discerning when someone tells us that God told them to do something, especially when we hear someone telling us that we should go to war with our neighbours.
Percy writes:

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.

I completely disagree. There were a large group of zealots at that time. There was a revolt put down by the Romans in 6AD led by Judas the Galilean who was executing by the Romans ending that revolt. There was another revolt around 46AD led by Judas of Galilees sons who also were executed thus ending that revolt. Ultimately Jesus is saying that this will wind up with the Romans destroying Jerusalem and the Temple. That is how Romans responded to rebellion. It wouldnt be that hard to predict, but it would be a very unpopular message.
Percy writes:

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.

I understand where you are coming from but if they were going to make something up I contend that this isnt at all what they would come up with. Look at the Gospel story of the Transfiguration. If they were going to make up a story to indicate that Jesus was still alive somehow they would have had Him glowing in a cloud or something along that line. They arent going to come up with Him eating fish on the shore. The whole story is not something a small group made up of lower class Jews would come up with and there is no discernible, IMHO, motivation for them to do it anyway.

OK. Still trying to catch up here. Ill start responding to your last post to me as well.

Percy writes:

Around Jesus's time? What makes you think so? I could unearth no historical evidence of a Jewish revolutionary movement during this period. The gospels were written after the first Jewish/Roman war, and they obviously projected the unrest of that period backward in time to what they thought was the time of Jesus. That they got this so wrong is more evidence that they got much else wrong, too.

OK. I searched about and here is a wiki site. Zealots There is a theory which Im inclined to believe that Judas was a zealot which would explain his betrayal of Jesus. It would make sense in that Jesus was going around saying that they should play nice with the Romans.
Percy writes:

The apostles were not revolutionaries. Can you find anyplace in the gospels or the epistles where Jesus preached revolution against the Romans? He preached the opposite. For example, his admonition to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's is a clear indication that he cared not what king ruled on earth.

I didnt say that the apostles were revolutionaries. Jesus however was preaching an anti-revolutionary message and would expect that his apostles would take that message to the revolutionaries. Jesus was saying that Caesar is an earthly king but that the real King is the one He called Father.
Percy writes:

If Jesus is one of the three persons of God, as you believe, then he would not have gotten the time of the first Jewish/Roman war wrong.

I know that a lot if not most Christians believe that God knows the future such as what Ill have for lunch next Thursday. I just dont see that as part that means the future is closed. (Ive heard the arguments why that isnt the case.) I was convinced of this by the writing of John Polkinghorne.
Percy writes:

So from context it seems by "they" you mean the people Jesus was talking to (as opposed to the people 30-40 years on who would have been Christians). Of course they would care about the Temple. I never said otherwise. What I did say is that the destruction of the Temple would be irrelevant to Christians 30-40 years on who wouldn't care about the Temple.

The first Jewish Christians would still have worshipped in the Temple. I think that it is fairly clear that Jesus meant to reform Judaism and that it wasnt His intent that He would found a different religion. Mind you, Christianity can be thought of as a Jewish sect.
Percy writes:

Ephesians 6 and Marc 13 are not connected by "physical destruction of the Temple." Ephesians 6 doesn't even mention the Temple or the destruction of anything.

It is connected indirectly. Ephesians is again making the argument that it isnt the Romans that are the enemy but that the enemy is evil itself. Ephesisans 6 tells us this.
quote:
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devils schemes. 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. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
This again is the anti-revolutionary message that Jesus preached. The enemy isnt an enemy of flesh and blood but against the spiritual forces of evil.
Percy writes:

If Ephesians 6 isn't a set of rules then what is it? Here's the beginning:

quote:
Ephesians 6 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2Honor your father and motherwhich is the first commandment with a promise 3so that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth. 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.

etc...etc...etc...
See, rule after rule after rule.

These are rules based on Jesus command to love. They are not rules such as dont eat pork or dont do any work on the Sabbath. They are rules of the heart which is a very different thing. It is giving practical suggestions of how it looks when we love our parents or our children.
Percy writes:

I didn't say Mark was fabricating anything. Maybe he believed what he wrote ("compiled," as you like to say), maybe he didn't. Who knows?

And Mark absolutely *was* establishing a timeframe. He wanted his audience to know how long ago Jesus had foretold the destruction of the Temple that lay in their recent past. We don't know when Jesus lived or died or if he was even real. Maybe it was 38 years between Mark 13 and 70 CE, maybe it was something else. But if you believe Mark 13 then you have to believe that when Jesus says that "this generation will certainly not pass away before all these things have happened" he means that at least some of the current generation will still be alive to witness the destruction of the Temple. Mark was setting a timeframe for Jesus's ministry, that it was one to three generations ago. He was understandably vague since he didn't really know how long ago Jesus lived.

I can agree with that although I dont get your point in the very last sentence. His readers at the time would know how long ago Jesus lived and Mark certainly would have.
GDR writes:

IMHO Jesus predicted the destruction but that it didnt happen as soon as He thought it would.

Percy writes:

You do realize you're saying that one of the three persons of God got something wrong.

As I said earlier I believe that the future is open and as a result the future is unknowable even to God. Im saying that Jesus understood the political climate and predicted how things were going to go. There was a smaller revolt about 15 years after Jesus crucifixion that didnt result in the destruction. It took the 66-70AD war to do that.
Percy writes:

I assume you're referring to Daniel 9. People can, and have, claimed Daniel means anything they need it to mean.

I didnt phrase my point at all well. The point that Iwanted to make was that Daniel 9, said this:
quote:
And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.
which showed that what Jesus was saying was a physical event concerning the Temple and not about end times.
Percy writes:

I assume you're referring to Daniel 2. Why would Mark 13 cause the apostles to realize that Jesus is the Son of Man from Daniel's dream? Who even cares that he's the Son of Man? The NT writers just co-opted that term from the OT and declared it meant part of the godhead and was prophecy fulfilled in the NT, but it doesn't mean that. The interpretation is invented, something you're familiar with.

Actually it is Daniel 7 and a first century Jew would have very much understood what He meant. Compare these passages. Mark 13
quote:
26 At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
and Daniel 7
quote:
13 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
It would have been very clear to His Jewish audience.
GDR writes:

This then along with the fact that Jesus had been resurrected which established Him as the one who had been given dominion over the Kingdom of those who followed His message of sacrificial love.

Percy writes:

Are you still talking about Mark 13? Because in Mark 13 Jesus's resurrection still lies in the future, so you can't refer to it as a past event.

This isnt about the resurrection. It is still part of Jesus anti-revolutionary message. He is saying that when they see what happens to the Temple it will vindicate His anti-revolutionary message, will understand Him as the Messiah and will understand that His has been given authority by the Father. Jesus is prophesying this through the understanding of His vocation that He has gleaned from His study of the Hebrew Scriptures and through prayer. Frankly it is how we bridge the gap between Jesus as wholly man and Jesus as holy God, or Lord.
Percy writes:

You're repeating the same problematical statements here that I rebutted above. The 38 years isn't gospel - Mark had no idea how long ago Jesus's ministry was. He thought roughly a generation or two. And of course it's a prophecy. And Mark is a normal person who has, like all of us, imperfect knowledge and so didn't know that some of the Temple complex remained standing. Or maybe he meant only the Temple itself, not the whole complex. But one thing's for sure - he couldn't write about events until after they happened.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree. I really dont have anything to add that I havent already said. Frankly it is a matter of interest but not a matter that affects my theological beliefs.
Percy writes:

Where does any gospel say the apostles were planning armed revolution?

There was no plan but they obviously believed that somehow Jesus was going to overthrow the Romans. They only method they would know of would be armed rebellion. There are the arguments about sitting on His right and left which would be about when He achieved earthly power for example.
Percy writes:

I doubt that very much. You're well outside the traditional bounds of liberal Anglicanism.

Actually I dont consider myself a liberal Anglican but I may lean a little in that direction. Have you ever read Borg or Crossan? Those are the Liberal ones.
GDR writes:

As I said I believe they were inspired to write their accounts to the best of their ability and knowledge, but again, it wasnt dictated to them by God. I do believe though that God speaks or reached out to us through the Scriptures,...

Percy writes:

And you know this how?

To the best of my ability I am using the three legs of Anglicanism which are Scripture, tradition and reason. I would also add personal life experience but that I know that wont carry any weight with anyone except myself.
Percy writes:

So you're just going to take Luke's word on his say so?

Yes
Percy writes:

Yes, it fits very well. Jesus is not part of God transcending this world with a message of love. He's merely part of this world where beating servants and slaves is just fine because it was standard practice at the time. It's kinda hard to avoid the fact that Jesus is advocating flogging. Would a loving God really say that if a servant or slave screws up that he should be beaten? You're just rationalizing your unsupported assertions that the OT authors are suspect the NT authors aren't. The fact of the matter is that that's just something you happen to believe, not something you can show is likely true.

The Jews were always being enslaved, so they would understand the reference. This is a parable or a metaphor. However, I agree that the passage is problematic but it is clear in reading through the NT that Jesus is not in favour of beating servants or slaves, whether it is specifically referred to or not. We can see in Pauls book called Philimon that He is calling for better treatment of slaves and that would come from his understanding of what Jesus taught.

Percy writes:

When it comes to religious beliefs, everyone who believes they have anything specific right is wrong. The only reason we're having this discussion is that you think your religious beliefs are the result of rational analysis when they definitely are not.

Well I guess that is your specific belief and again well just have to agree to disagree.
There Im caught up with you. If you reply can you please edit things down a bit.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1081 by Percy, posted 12-02-2018 10:13 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1088 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2018 3:26 AM GDR has responded
 Message 1096 by Percy, posted 12-03-2018 4:14 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4609
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1086 of 1160 (844628)
12-02-2018 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1071 by ringo
11-30-2018 10:50 AM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
Hi ringo
Sorry to be so slow responding. Percy takes up all the time I have.
GDR writes:

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

ringo writes:

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.

I know that the Bible talks about God sending Jesus. I'm not sure that I see it that way. Jesus seems to have come to the self understanding of His vocation through the Scriptures and through prayer. Jesus went into Jerusalem with the faith that somehow God was going to redeem what it was He was doing. He understood the Daniel passages and referred to them. He believed that by sacrificing Himself He would save many. Even Caiaphas talked about the giving of one life to save the many.

By faith Jesus believed this to be His vocation, again, by faith not by absolute knowledge. God honoured Jesus' faith and sacrifice by resurrecting Him.

People, not God crucified Jesus and it was God that resurrected Him. Jesus had free will to do what He did in Jerusalem or not to do it. What He did was out of love for His people and for mankind. God honoured that ultimate act of self sacrifice.

ringo writes:

"Jesus faked his death for our sins" is just preposterous.

He didn't fake death He died. God resurrected Him in a resurrected body ahead of the time of a resurrection or renewal of all creation.
GDR writes:

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

ringo writes:

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

Of course and there are those like Faith that find it palatable because she believes this is God's justice.

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 1071 by ringo, posted 11-30-2018 10:50 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1087 by Faith, posted 12-03-2018 3:17 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 1089 by ringo, posted 12-03-2018 11:02 AM GDR has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 1087 of 1160 (844629)
12-03-2018 3:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1086 by GDR
12-02-2018 11:47 PM


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

ringo writes:

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

Of course and there are those like Faith that find it palatable because she believes this is God's justice.

No, I don't find it palatable. As ringo said, I don't like what happened in the Old Testament [meaning of course God's commands to wipe out whole tribes in judgment against them] but I believe it happened, and that it is just because it is God's justice. I don't have to like it or even understand it, only believe it and learn from it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1086 by GDR, posted 12-02-2018 11:47 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 6352
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 1088 of 1160 (844630)
12-03-2018 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1085 by GDR
12-02-2018 10:58 PM


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

Im not diminishing the OT but when we look at the passages that say that Yahweh commanded genocide and public stoning and compare that to Jesus message such as love your enemy, we have to either go with Jesus or a scribe centuries earlier. I choose Jesus. I know some try but you cant have it both ways. They are incompatible.

You've said this before a couple of times, it's a rather interesting psychological ruse. When referring to to New Testament it's a wonderous wotk inspired by God, but when describing the Old Testament it's hand-waved away as something unimportant written by an inferred lowly scribe centuries before - and by inference presumably no longer God's Word.

That's real confirmation bias at work, cherry pick what you like downgrade and reject what you don't, because, of course, it's all supposedly the Word of God and it's all written by scribes and its all written centuries ago.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1085 by GDR, posted 12-02-2018 10:58 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1094 by GDR, posted 12-03-2018 2:34 PM Tangle has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 15740
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1089 of 1160 (844646)
12-03-2018 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 1086 by GDR
12-02-2018 11:47 PM


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

Jesus seems to have come to the self understanding of His vocation through the Scriptures and through prayer.


That seems to be pretty common among evangelists.

GDR writes:

Jesus went into Jerusalem with the faith that somehow God was going to redeem what it was He was doing.


That seems to be pretty common among evangelists.

GDR writes:

He believed that by sacrificing Himself He would save many.


"Saved' from what, exactly? The wrath of God?

GDR writes:

By faith Jesus believed this to be His vocation, again, by faith not by absolute knowledge.


So you're reducing Jesus to the level of any other evangelist.

GDR writes:

People, not God crucified Jesus and it was God that resurrected Him.


That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't God just prevent the crucifixion?

GDR writes:

He didn't fake death He died. God resurrected Him....


If He didn't stay dead, that's a fake death. Losing your wallet with your ID and finding it again is not the same as losing it for good.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1086 by GDR, posted 12-02-2018 11:47 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1090 by Phat, posted 12-03-2018 12:48 PM ringo has responded
 Message 1095 by GDR, posted 12-03-2018 3:09 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 11574
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1090 of 1160 (844654)
12-03-2018 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1089 by ringo
12-03-2018 11:02 AM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
If He didn't stay dead, that's a fake death.
Thats a stupid argument. If your biological processes cease, you are dead. Are you claiming that the only way a person could live again later is if the biological processes did not actually cease?

And are you implying that God was being deceptive? The problem with your reasoning is that you assume that humans already know what death is and is not (due to science) and thus that Jesus could not have actually died.


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 1089 by ringo, posted 12-03-2018 11:02 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1092 by ringo, posted 12-03-2018 1:10 PM Phat has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14547
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1091 of 1160 (844655)
12-03-2018 1:00 PM


The Son of Man
Matthew 24:30


...they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

This is a reference to Daniel 7:13

Lets look at the context:


9 I watched till thrones were put in place,
And the Ancient of Days was seated;
His garment was white as snow,
And the hair of His head was like pure wool.
His throne was a fiery flame,
Its wheels a burning fire;

10 A fiery stream issued
And came forth from before Him.
A thousand thousands ministered to Him;
Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him.
The court was seated,
And the books were opened.

11 I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time.

13 I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.

14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed.

The end of the Beast attacking the Jews - ended by Gods judgement, the Son of Man ruling over all. How can this be seen as anything else than God intervening to save the Jews?

(As a side note, since the other beasts of the image survive it is likely that they are meant to be the other Diadochi kingdoms)

Edited by PaulK, : Fix tag


    
ringo
Member
Posts: 15740
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1092 of 1160 (844656)
12-03-2018 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1090 by Phat
12-03-2018 12:48 PM


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

If your biological processes cease, you are dead.


You should know better than that. People dying temporarily is pretty common these days. But if they don't stay dead, they're not dead.

Phat writes:

Are you claiming that the only way a person could live again later is if the biological processes did not actually cease?


It isn't a claim. It's a fact. If some processes stop - e.g. breathing or heartbeat - they can be started up again. If some other processes stop, particularly the electro-chemical processes, they can not be reversed - i.e. the person isn't only merely dead, he's really most sincerely dead.

Phat writes:

And are you implying that God was being deceptive?


Or, more likely, the authors who wrote about it were making it up.

Phat writes:

The problem with your reasoning is that you assume that humans already know what death is and is not (due to science) and thus that Jesus could not have actually died.


My reasoning is not that He didn't die. My reasoning is that He didn't rise from the dead. That is sound reasoning because people don't rise from the dead. If He APPEARED to rise from the dead - i.e. if the authors were not just making it up - then He was never really dead.

In any case, the bottom line is the same: A death that doesn't last is not a significant death.


And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1090 by Phat, posted 12-03-2018 12:48 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1093 by xongsmith, posted 12-03-2018 1:32 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1114 by Phat, posted 12-06-2018 12:48 PM ringo has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1863
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 1093 of 1160 (844657)
12-03-2018 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1092 by ringo
12-03-2018 1:10 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
How many of us have read Christopher Moore's "Lamb"?:
https://www.amazon.com/...Childhood/dp/0380813815/ref=sr_1_1

During the missing years, Biff is paralyzed by the Buddhist nuns and it last a few days, with them making fun of him. Much later Biff manages to apply the paralysis ointment to Jesus' lips, making him appear to be dead for a while.

Edited by xongsmith, : questions end with question marks

Edited by xongsmith, : No reason given.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1092 by ringo, posted 12-03-2018 1:10 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1101 by xongsmith, posted 12-04-2018 3:37 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4609
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 1094 of 1160 (844659)
12-03-2018 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1088 by Tangle
12-03-2018 3:26 AM


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

Im not diminishing the OT but when we look at the passages that say that Yahweh commanded genocide and public stoning and compare that to Jesus message such as love your enemy, we have to either go with Jesus or a scribe centuries earlier. I choose Jesus. I know some try but you cant have it both ways. They are incompatible.

Tangle writes:

You've said this before a couple of times, it's a rather interesting psychological ruse. When referring to to New Testament it's a wonderous wotk inspired by God, but when describing the Old Testament it's hand-waved away as something unimportant written by an inferred lowly scribe centuries before - and by inference presumably no longer God's Word.

That's real confirmation bias at work, cherry pick what you like downgrade and reject what you don't, because, of course, it's all supposedly the Word of God and it's all written by scribes and its all written centuries ago.

The problem is, as I have said numerous times, the Bible isn't a book. It is a library of books written by different authors, in different times and in a changing culture in changing circumstances.

So yes, it is very reasonable to understand different books the Bible differently. As I have also said before, it is Christianity not Bibleianity. I understand the entire Bible through the lens of Jesus, and what we have recorded of His life and message in the Gospels.


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1088 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2018 3:26 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1098 by Tangle, posted 12-03-2018 5:04 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4609
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 1095 of 1160 (844661)
12-03-2018 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1089 by ringo
12-03-2018 11:02 AM


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


Jesus seems to have come to the self understanding of His vocation through the Scriptures and through prayer. esus went into Jerusalem with the faith that somehow God was going to redeem what it was He was doing.

ringo writes:

That seems to be pretty common among evangelists.

I don't see the point in your response. No other evangelist that we know of expected and was resurrected.
GDR writes:

He believed that by sacrificing Himself He would save many.

ringo writes:

"Saved' from what, exactly? The wrath of God?

I think that Jesus' self understanding is difficult to know. Caiaphas made the claim that better "one should day for the many' in which he presumably meant that this would ward off rebellion in which many would be killed. I think that Jesus may have thought that, but I still go back to Daniel 7. This passage was clearly very central in how Jesus understood His vocation. His mission was a "Kingdom of God" mission. It looks very much that He believed that if He went into Jerusalem and suffered death as other prophets before Him had done, that God would validate His message in the manner of Daniel 7. I'll quote it again.
quote:
13 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

This would be a way that His message of love, peace and forgiveness could be taken to all nations , and not just the Jews. It is about building for the time when that message of love, peace and forgiveness is complete.

How many lives have been saved in the centuries since then, from people and nations who have to some degree or another taken on that message.

ringo writes:

That doesn't make any sense. Why wouldn't God just prevent the crucifixion?

Once again, it is about free will. We have been given stewardship over our world for better or for worse. It seems that God responds, which He did by resurrecting Jesus, but He doesn't intervene.

He speaks to our hearts through that still small voice but as often as not we ignore it and choose selfishly.

ringo writes:

If He didn't stay dead, that's a fake death. Losing your wallet with your ID and finding it again is not the same as losing it for good.

In terms of what we consider death He died. Resurrection is about new life, that ultimately is the plan for all of creation.

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 1089 by ringo, posted 12-03-2018 11:02 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1111 by ringo, posted 12-05-2018 2:15 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
7172
73
7475
...
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018