Biblical Translation--Eden

Autumman says,[qs/]Luke 9:27 Jesus says, "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God."Luke 21:32 Jesus says, "This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled."That "generation did pass away" and those "standing there" did die, and the kingdom of God is still being waited for two thousand years later.Isn't that interesting.[qs] Sorry I came in on this very late it looks like a very interesting discussion. I would like to comment on one of the issues here to shed a little light on the subject.As a matter of fact the Kingdom has come that you are requesting in your above statement. At an earlier date Christ told Peter, "I will give you the Keys to the kingdom". On the first Pentecost after his resurrection, Peter used those keys to preached the first sermon of the new covenate, to show how to enter the kingdom. The Church is the kingdom and the kingdom is the Church. Notice the words of the Apostle Paul. "He has translated us out of darkness, into the kingdom of his dear Son". Paul was talking to people that were alive and speaking about thier present condition and situation. Christ's prophecy that day, did come true and those people did not die until they saw the Kingdom coming with Power and demonstration of the Holy spirit, as was witnessed by the miracles that day by the Apostles. Daniel 2:44, Says, "In the days of thses kings, he will set up a kingdom on the earth that will not be destroyed from the face of the earth". The Churc or kingdom has been here for 2000 years and is not going anywhere. ThanksD Bertot

[qs/]Which "church" are you talking about? There are now so many different "churches" with so many different interpretation and orthodox views it is hard to keep track. They all point at each other claiming that they are the true followers of Christ. In 325 A.D. there was only one authorized "church/kingdom" and it was the Roman Universal {Catholic} Church. Your New Testament canon was descided upon at Nicaea where the Roman Emperor Constantine presided over the council of Christian bishops. The Holy Roman Empire is at the foundation of the Protestant Reformation movement that transpired in Europe on Oct. 31, 1517 by Martin Luther in Wittenberg, Germany. So, again, What "church" are you talking about?Regards,[qs] The Church I am speaking of is the one mentioned in the New Testament.Ofcourse there will always be false ideas and false positions along side the truth. Even God (Christ) had to deal with erroneous ideas during his days here. He always referenced the scriptures to correct thier error. In other words he accepted the old testament as Gods written word. The Roman Catholic church was a slow process of error from that New Testament pattern.It took reformation to return to the exact pattern set out in the New Testament.It is only part true tht the council of Nicea decided what the scriptures were. It was well know long before that council what constituted the accurate, verifiable written documents. they simply confirmed what was already known for hundreds of years previous.They did not decide what would be reguarded as truth, they confirmed what the truth already was and known. In other words the refomation would have no meaning, if the reformers did not have a standard to return to. The documents and manuscripts are all there long before that councils decisions.As you did not respond directly to my argument previously presented. I assume atleast from a scriptual standpoint you agree with the argument I presented about the kingdom and the Church. And atleast aknkowledge that the Church might be the kingdom correct?It has always interested me that people will use the scriptures, and speak about them as if they are true to present and argument, then as soon as they see the validity of the argument presented from the totality of scripture they automatically start questioning thier reliability. You cant eat your cake and have it too.Thanks
D Bertot

[qs/]Since we still do not know what "church and/or kingdom" you are actually talking about, I will simply say, No! That "generation" did pass away, and "all" that was to be fulfilled was actually not fulfilled. If "all" had been fulfilled it would not have taken the Reformation movement to "fulfill" any portion of it.[qs] Thannks for your response, but sounds and looks like you are confusing a whole host of issues with the simple explantion of the establishment of the kingdom itself. I find it hard to believe you do not know we are talking about Christ's Church or kingdom. He said I will build my Church. To make the statement that it was not fullfilled is simply an assertion. The New testament says it was established and demonstrated in the book of Acts. I see nothing to respond to in the above statement, that I have not already answered. Simply read any book of the New Testament.As for the things that were written in the Book of revelations, they pertain to specific events that the Chritians were suffering at the hands of persecution and nothing to do with the Establishment of the Church or Kingdom. The things that were shortly come to pass, were things that the lord was going to do for the Children of God. It certainly does not imply, even indirectly that the establishment of the Church or Kingdom had not come to pass.I am sure you are a very nice person, but this is a very confused argument you have made in this post. Maybe you could elaborate alittle clearer. I think my argument stands as valid, until it can be demonstrated to be otherwise. I see no Clitch as you call it.ThanksD Bertot

[/qs]You appear to be under the mistaken impression that in the first centuries of the Common Era {a.k.a. A.D.} one "kingdom-like Christian church" was founded by those who had lived during and shortly after the Jewish messianic movement. That happens to not be the historical facts. There were many followers of many different sects of "christianity" in the first centuries of the Common Era. There were the Marcionites and Dualists and Gnostics who believed quite differently from Irenaeus and Clement and others who regarded themselves as the leaders of the Orthodox Christian doctrine. The battle between these various Christian groups continued on until Emperor Constatine embrased the Orthodox Christian doctrine. These Ecclesiastical Christians now had the entire Roman Empire to back their arguments, and only then were the so-called "heretics" put to rest. Not until 1945 were the Gnostic manuscripts found at Naj Hammadi, Egypt. These Gnostic manuscripts revealed in vivid detail a completely different Christian movement than the Orthodox Christianity that was embrased by the Roman Empire.Historically, there was no "Divine-Kingdom/Chruch" established in the Middle East at the beginning of the Common Era.So again; What church/kingdom are you addressing?[qs] Hi Autumnman, You are indeed an enigma, a blessed contradiction of randomness and ideas. I mean that in the best possible spirit.From your previous post I thought we were discussing the words of Jesus in one place verses his words in another place. You seem to use the New Testament like a two-edged sword. On the one hand you quote his words in one place, then qoute his words in another place to try and show a contradiction or how a prophecy might not have come true or something. When however, I show how the words, concepts or ideas do not contradict eachother, you ignore my argument from the scriptures that you yourself quoted and run to the historicity question. What exacally is it that you are wanting to discuss. I have now presented 2 arguments from scripture that you quoted and used to formulate your argument, with no response to thos e specific arguments that I made.Do you want to discuss the NT documents or the words and belifes in the NT? Those are 2 totally different issues.[qs/]Historically, there was no "Divine-Kingdom/Chruch" established in the Middle East at the beginning of the Common Era.[qs] Again you seem to be involving yourself in contradiction with the above quote. If the NT documents are to be believed, say with Gnostic gospels, then there was a Kingdom/Church established in 33AD.
It seems as though you are automatically dismissing the NT in favor of some other documents.Ofcourse I can not know what it is that you want to discuss until you stay with one thing or the other., ie, the NT or its hisoricity.In my previous discussions with SilentH, PaulK, RAZD and others it was very hard to discuss issues not knowing exacaaly what they were or what positions they hold. For example I am a fundamentalist Christian, who believes in the scriptures as the verbally inspired word of God. Possibly if could tell what you are and exacally what you believe it might make the process alittle easier.ps. Could someone show me again how to highlight QUOTES. I seem to have forgotten.ThanksD Bertot

To Autumnman. I have to scoot off to work now, but I will get back to your responses later. Thanks D Bertot.

To Autumnman. Thanks for your response and I certainly do not want to redirect the discussion you already had going with the other fellows. If I am please let me know.You brought up some very interesting points in your post, they are a bit disjointed but interesting nonetheless. When you say you want to discuss the NT documents, I assume you mean thier authenticity and verafiability. If we are going to discuss any points of doctrine at any given time, we really should seperate the two. Because before we can discuss doctrine together we need a common frame of reference., ie do you even believe the Bible to be true. Agreed? There a few basic questions that need to be discussed before we can begin. What constitues an Historical record. You say according to HISTORICAL RECORDS, etc, etc. What records are you talking about?Secondly, couldnt the NT documents with nearly 5000 manuscripts be considered a reliable source of information. You see there are more mmanuscripts supporting the NT than any other written document in existence. As I said before, what constitues a historical record. What documents are you using to support you claim that there was only one Church after Nicaea. And do you think that this was the only history transpiring at that time.Further you said many Churches were being established in 33 AD. I agree, but what is your source for your statement, what do you use as a historical document for this statement. Could not the Apostles have established the very Church you are talking about in you statement? This is a historical fact, if it were the only history taking place at that time. For example the book of Acts is repleat with very accurate historical facts and information at that time period. This was true because the person writing the document was an Eye witness to the events and his surroundings. One group of people may have claimed they were the only true church, but that does not make it so just on thier assertion.Further more the Gospels not the early church fathers prescribed Christ as God, Jesus himself claimed divinity long before any council prescribed. As a matter of fact, thats how they knew of it to teach it.Remember the big question. What constitutes an historical document?
If Socrates is acceptable with less verifiable textual information, then why not the NT, with vasty more. Think about it. The book of Acts is history. F.F Bruce thought so. So do Phillip Comfort and Bruce M Metzger to mention a few.Thanks D Bertot

Jaywill, thanks for your imput, I would certainly like to take a look at it. However, in fairness to my main apponent in this discussion, I went back last night and pulled out of my library the Nag-Hammadi library and the Gnostic Gospels, and confirmed what I knew from a long time ago. They do not contain a tenth of a tenth of the historical, arcehological and verifiable information that allow each one of the NT books do, that can pass the Acid test in this category. I am prepared to demonstrate this with stinging accuracy, should my apponent challenge me to do so.Those suprious books seem to be nothing more than disjointed ramblins of individuals, who were obviously unwilling to reveal thier true identity and locations. No real mention of Times Locations, or even peoples you can find from an archelogical standpoint. Go back and review those letters and books to see if what I am saying is not true.The reason the books of the NT have remained is due to thier veracity, historical content, and sustainability from any testable measure. The Gospels, Acts and the Pauline letters were well know and in use long before any council decided what should be included.You can reproduce the entire NT, excluding 11 verses from the Church fathers letters and correspondences. You cannot do this with any of the other spurious writings, not because they were suppresed but because they could not pass any of the simplest test.ThanksD Bertot

Jaywill, thanks for your imput, I would certainly like to take a look at it. However, in fairness to my main apponent in this discussion, I went back last night and pulled out of my library the Nag-Hammadi library and the Gnostic Gospels, and confirmed what I knew from a long time ago. They do not contain a tenth of a tenth of the historical, arcehological and verifiable information that allow each one of the NT books do, that can pass the Acid test in this category. I am prepared to demonstrate this with stinging accuracy, should my apponent challenge me to do so.Those suprious books seem to be nothing more than disjointed ramblins of individuals, who were obviously unwilling to reveal thier true identity and locations. No real mention of Times Locations, or even peoples you can find from an archelogical standpoint. Go back and review those letters and books to see if what I am saying is not true.The reason the books of the NT have remained is due to thier veracity, historical content, and sustainability from any testable measure. The Gospels, Acts and the Pauline letters were well know and in use long before any council decided what should be included.You can reproduce the entire NT, excluding 11 verses from the Church fathers letters and correspondences. You cannot do this with any of the other spurious writings, not because they were suppresed but because they could not pass any of the simplest test.ThanksD Bertot

To Autumnman. Brinigng someone along to admissions is slow adrduous process, but it is worth it in the end. Thank you for admitting in a round about way that the book of Acts could be considered a reliable historical document. Initally you stated in other posts that there were no historical documents that would support what the NT has to say and that it could not be considered reliable. We will see.Thanks for somewhat answering my question about what constitues a historcal record or account as reliable. admittedly, I must say that I know no thinking person that would use your limited definition of, an event of human activity that is as verifiable today as when it took place, certainly there must be other criteria that could substantiate facts, actual facts.. Logically there would be no way to have confidence in any event because no one today The N.T. Book of Acts does indeed have some historical accounts woven through it, but, the above quotes from Acts are not historical in any way shape or form.[/qs]Not only does it have historical accounts, that is what sets it apart from the spurious gospels you mentioned earlier. Further your staunch statement about those events not happening should be Supported with some historical document if you are that sure they did not happen. Remember you are setting up what constitues historical criteria, but you seem to be using only yourself as a source to say they did not happen, agreed? Provide the evidence that they did not take place. The basic point I am making initially is that the NT documents are and can be considered as a reliable document wheather you beleive the miracles or not. That should be our starting point. Thomas Jeffersons way was to simply erase all the miracles, that simply wont work. there are other witnesses outside the NT that say they did happen, but I will wait for your source document that falsifys them.Again, based from you own words in another post would you admit that atleast from the book of Acts, the Church it describes could have been established as it says it was, Yes or No? Of course to reply in the negative you would need to show why the book of Acts is not reliable as a historical document.Further, based on the argument I gave from Mark 9:1, in a previous post and the arguments I presented, would it also be possible that the Church is the Kingdom as Christ described and that that prophecy was indeed fulfilled.?If you wish, at this time you may now start presenting your arguments as to why the NT could not and cannot be considered as reliable historical documents. I say they are.ThanksD Bertot

Sorry I had to do this again, the first one got goofed up in transmission. To Autumnman. Brinigng someone along to admissions is slow adrduous process, but it is worth it in the end. Thank you for admitting in a round about way that the book of Acts could be considered a reliable historical document. Initally you stated in other posts that there were no historical documents that would support what the NT has to say and that it could not be considered reliable. We will see.Thanks for somewhat answering my question about what constitues a historcal record or account as reliable. admittedly, I must say that I know no thinking person that would use your limited definition of, an event of human activity that is as verifiable today as when it took place, certainly there must be other criteria that could substantiate facts, actual facts.. Logically there would be no way to have confidence in any event because no one today saw events before thier actual existence. How do you know the events you quoted in the book of Acts did not happen were you there? Further, I did not know we were now discussing the miracles in the scriptures, how about we stick with the basic stuff first and respond to that later. Also, people arguing over which is the true Church would fall into the category. At this point we are interested in the scriptures origin and verifiability. Not only does it have historical accounts, that is what sets it apart from the spurious gospels you mentioned earlier. Further your staunch statement about those events not happening should be Supported with some historical document if you are that sure they did not happen. Remember you are setting up what constitues historical criteria, but you seem to be using only yourself as a source to say they did not happen, agreed? Provide the evidence that they did not take place. The basic point I am making initially is that the NT documents are and can be considered as a reliable document wheather you beleive the miracles or not. That should be our starting point. Thomas Jeffersons way was to simply erase all the miracles, that simply wont work. there are other witnesses outside the NT that say they did happen, but I will wait for your source document that falsifys them.Again, based from you own words in another post would you admit that atleast from the book of Acts, the Church it describes could have been established as it says it was, Yes or No? Of course to reply in the negative you would need to show why the book of Acts is not reliable as a historical document.Further, based on the argument I gave from Mark 9:1, in a previous post and the arguments I presented, would it also be possible that the Church is the Kingdom as Christ described and that that prophecy was indeed fulfilled.?If you wish, at this time you may now start presenting your arguments as to why the NT could not and cannot be considered as reliable historical documents. I say they are.ThanksD Bertot

To Autunman. At the end of my last post I forgot to add that I think you missed the question I was asking. I was not asking what you considered an historical Event, but what you would consider a Historical document. I am sorry I forgot to make that distinction. Sorry.Also, nobody ever told me if I was mooseing in on you fellas already existing debate. It looked very involved. I certainly do not want to impose or be a post hog. Please let me know with regard to that question.D Bertot

To Jaywill. Please feel free to jump in on this thing at anytime. Having read you fellas previous posts it appears I dealing with some real brainiacs here.I agree with you about peoples redefining of history. Thats why I am trying to keep the on course and deal with one issue at a time.Dr Anthony Flew called Humes principle the 'Falsifiability factor', if I am not mistaken. He used this principle over and over in his debate with Dr Thomas B. Warren, in 1977. This is very interesting debate and can be viewed at thebible.net free of charge, simply scroll all the way down to the bottom of the first page and you can view it.ThanksD Bertot

Autumman. there still seems to be some confusion in your mind about events and records. It is simply pointless for us to discuss events until we have established a common ground about documents. If you dont mind I will disregard (not avoid) those comments about events and discuss them later. Having said this, in you above statement you have confused the NT with point 2 when in actuality the documents fall into catergory one. Please dont confuse the issue when I am talking about documents and you are discussing events. If indeed you are a brainiac, do I really need to listed the cast of Historians and independent writers that speak of Christ's exitence. If I need to I will, but it certainly would be a waste of space and time to list what the average first year seminary student knows. I get the impression you are deliberatley ignoring the cast of people that we both know and establish the existence Christ and the numerous events of Jesus' life. Furthermore you are obligated to demonstrate why Luke the historian is unreliable. Enough said. If you need me to do so i certainly will provide those characters you are avoiding to mention. Question do you believe the things written about Pontius Pilate? Whaaaat? Read John 16:13. the Apostle's word were the words of Christ throught the Spirit. Then re-read any specific esptile.
I mean this in the best possible way, please avoid doctinal discussions, if you do not have a working Knowledge of the scriptures. Why do they cast doubt you have not even began to establish that they are unreliable as mentioned in thier sources. it is reasoning in circles to say the miracles cast doubt and then say the documents are not reliable because the speak of miracles. First demolish all of the textual evidence then you can start on the events. Agreed? By what strech of the imagination is this a strech. What do you mean? No, no, no dont restate your position on this question address what I said about it. This constitues a disagreement not a respone. You will get thehang of this debating thing, just kidding dude. Acts chapter 2 says he did. Now get to the task of showing why it is not reliable as a historical document, not from its content but from its manuscripts and documents itself. Also he is a God humility and love not a present day world leader., ie "My kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servents would fight." Get itThanksD Bertot
ps I was not being sarcaric about he brainiac comment I meant it as a compliment.

To Autunman. Not bore you to tears but a couple of things I for got to mention in my last post.About the Epitles not mentioning the teachings of Christ. The Apotle Paul in 1Cor chapter 1 says, "What man knows the mind of another man except he reveal it unto hin, likewise what man knows the mind of God, except he reveal it unto him, we have the mind of Christ." He not only taught the teachings of Christ but he claimed verbal inspiration in this place and numerous others.Secondly, with regard to position of corroberating evidence for the NT documents, you are viewing the NT as a single work all written at the same time. The truth is that the epistles, the Acts, then the Gospel around the same time, is the order but independent of eachother, in diffrent places and different times. The Epistles and specfically Acts certainly should be considered supporting documents for the Gospels themselves, written by histoians that verify thier reliability from the enternal biographical and historical evidence they present. Then those authors and historians like Pliny the Younger (you forgot to mention him) and many others corroberate it even further..Just a couple of point I forgot to mention.Thanks
D Bertot

To Autunman, sorry to be loading you down, that was not my intention. Thank you for your quote from Erdman. I think it is ironic that you use this as a source, because it contains much historical information that I dont think you would agree with. For example would you agree that Mark got this from a real historical person named Peter, do you agree with the location and date, do you agree with their sources. Do you agree there is strong early TRADITION, whatever that may be? See the problem here, you quoting something that really supports my positon. You would not use it for simply your argument without acknowledging most of it, correct?Further I did not say they did not know each other,I simply said they did not compile all of this in one meeting like the council of Nicaea or something. The books were written in different locations with amazing accuacy with alot of information cooberated by independent sources. Tactitus, Suetonius, Orosius, etc. then of course by the earliest Church Fathers, where one can reproduce nearly the entirity of the NT. How is that for cooberation. Ofcourse all of the quotes from historians and Church fathers are all forged, no doubt. And ofcourse all of this overwheling evidence is still not enough. If it were a spurious gospel dug up today it ofcouse would be accepted simply because it is old and contradicts the weak unsupported NT documents,Ha Ha.I will present the completely overwhelming information for the book of Acts in the next post. If anyone is interested take a look at Werner Keller's, The Bible as History. It staggers the imagination.I hope this does not constitute a response to the very lenghty post I made previously.Thanks D Bertot