Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Prophecy for Buzsaw
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 136 of 385 (78384)
01-14-2004 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by PaulK
01-14-2004 2:54 AM


Personality as evidence
I submit that we use personality to judge the validity of any given prophecy.
1) All prophecy has been written by humans
2) All laws of physics, all history ever recorded, and all definition of words has been formulated by humans.
3) We cannot deny that an insane man COULD write out a logical math formula which would be accurate despite his insanity.
4) We cannot deny that a bunch of stories telling one story COULD be written by a bunch of people whom could ALL be insane.
5) I deduce that IF the math problem could be correct despite the authors insanity, the stories COULD be "correct".
Now...you ask me to define correct. Well...what is on trial here?
The possibility of a "personality" known as God.
CONCLUSION: It is all based on Faith. Everything. Even laws are only laws based on our collective sanity to interpret them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2004 2:54 AM PaulK has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 385 (78395)
01-14-2004 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by NosyNed
01-13-2004 8:50 PM


Re: Just when ??
Buz, when was the last time in, oh say, 4,000 years that there has not been wars, rumours of war and famines? Something has been "beginning" for this long?
I've never emphasised the war/earthquake/famine statements in this discourse prophecy as the significant aspects of this prophecy, nor did Jesus. He told the desciples very clearly not to get excited about these, because these are not what they were to look for as to his return or the end of the age. These statements are significant though in establishing the generation argument though, for it takes time for many wars as well as many earthquakes as well as many famines to pass in history.
1. He is simply saying THESE MUST COME FIRST BEFORE THE VERY SIGNIFICANT SIGNS I AM GOING TO TELL IN THIS PROPHECY.
2. The second thing he wants them to understand is that THE TIME FOR THE SIGNIFICANT END TIME STUFF IS GOING TO BE WAY OUT IN THE FUTURE. THE TIME IS NOT IMMINENT. LOTS OF STUFF COMES FIRST.
3. The third thing he wants them to understand is that THIS PROPHECY IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE TEMPLE. SIGNIFICANTLY, I WANT YOU TO KNOW WHEN THE END TIME AND MY RETURN IS TO COME. THE TEMPLE IS ONLY THE BEGINNING OF WHAT'S COMING.
4. The fourth thing is what I want you to see about the discourse prophecy in all three accounts; that it was not just about the temple IN ANY OF THE THREE GOSPELS and the emphasis is the same in each and every account, showing that though some didn't record certain aspects of the questions, you go by what is relevant in all three of the gospels. This is how the gospels work and this is why more than one recording; so all the pertinent info would be included as each remembered or chose to write.
5. There are no contradictions in the three accounts; only ommisions by some which were covered by others.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by NosyNed, posted 01-13-2004 8:50 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2004 1:05 PM Buzsaw has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 138 of 385 (78431)
01-14-2004 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Buzsaw
01-14-2004 10:23 AM


Re: Just when ??
I'll just go over your points
1) is trivial
2) You have shown no indication that Jesus intends the disciples to understand this "stuff" is "way out in the future" - only that it is not immediately imminent. The indications in the text support a timescale of years or decades - not centuries. For instance Jesus explicitly warns the disciples that they should stay alert for the signs as if it could come in their lifetime (Mark 13:33).
3) I accpet that the prophecy is not JUST about the Temple - obviously. However, I do not accept that the destruction of the Temple comes at the beginning. There is NO statement to this effect. So far as I can see your claim is based on nothing more than a questionable reading of Matthew 24:3 which contradicts a plain reading of the other Gospels. Inserting a questionable reading of a statement that is likely an addition made by the author of Matthew is hardly a legitimate interpetation of Mark or Luke.
4) Relying on a composite account is questionable, as it does not allow for later additions. It also violates your rule about requiring 2 or 3 witnesses. It is better to go with the material common to all 3 or at least 2 of the 3.
5) This is your assumption. It is hard to see how you could have evidence to support it - and you can place very little weight on it. If your argument relies on this then you have a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Buzsaw, posted 01-14-2004 10:23 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2004 12:27 AM PaulK has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 385 (78554)
01-15-2004 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by PaulK
01-14-2004 1:05 PM


Re: Just when ??
1) is trivial
......i.e. non response.
2) ........ The indications in the text support a timescale of years or decades - not centuries.
Really? Let's itemize and see.
1. Wars and rumors of wars.
2. Many false christs arise.
NOTE: Important statement at this point: "be not troubled: the end is not yet." {end time not yet} So even after many wars and rummors of wars, time of end and end of prophecy in future.
3. "Nations shall rise against nations and kingdoms against kingdoms"
NOTE: How many of these in a few decades? Not many likely.
4. Famines and earthquakes in MANY DIFFERENT PLACES.
NOTE: Again, sounds like centuries here.
5. Again, this reminder by Jesus: "But these things are the BEGINNING of trouble."
NOTE: So EVEN AFTER all these wars, uprisings, earthquakes in many place and famines WE HAVE ONLY BEGUN towards the end of the age and the prophecy.
6. Many false prophets arise to lead many astray
7. Gospel will be preached to ALL NATIONS, before the end time of the age can come. No way has this occured in the then present generation.
8. trouble and tribulation unprecedented in the history of the world.
9. Sun and moon darkened AFTER ALL THIS STUFF. {Revelation says a third darker.} Never happened yet.
10. Some kind of stars fall from heaven and the heavens "shaken."
Nothing resembling this yet.
11. People disappear from earth suddenly for no explanable reason. Not yet
12. The generation that sees "the fig tree bud" will not pass untill all is fulfilled.
13. The gentiles occupy the city of Jerusalem until THE TIMES OF THE GENTILES ARE FULFILLED.
>>>>>>>>FULFILLED IN THE 1967 SIX DAY ISRAEL ARAB WAR WHEN JEWS FOR FIRST TIME SINCE THE PROPHECY REOCCUPY THE CITY.<<<<<<<
NOTE: The word "until," meaning Jews will reoccupy the city before the generation passes and the end time comes.
14. The fig tree and ALL THE OTHER TREES BEGIN TO BUD, implying the land has been desolate a long time. No way in a generation.
So you see, Paulk, read over all these events and then tell me how all this "stuff" can come and go in the few decades of a generation. NO WAY!
For instance Jesus explicitly warns the disciples that they should stay alert for the signs as if it could come in their lifetime (Mark 13:33).
Jesus is giving a message for all generations of Christians here, as in much of his teachings. It is obvious that his desciples could not see all these events in their generation. That idea is ludicrous.
3) I accpet that the prophecy is not JUST about the Temple - obviously. However, I do not accept that the destruction of the Temple comes at the beginning. According to history, that is the first of all the significant events to occur as well as it being the first question asked.
Your witness rebutal is moot as nobody knows exactly who all of the apostles were present. We are only told who asked the questions.

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 01-14-2004 1:05 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2004 3:30 AM Buzsaw has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 140 of 385 (78576)
01-15-2004 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Buzsaw
01-15-2004 12:27 AM


Re: Just when ??
1) Sorry but pointing out that your assertion is so obvious that there is nothing to discuss is certainly a response.
2) OK lets go over your items and remmember that they could overlap.
There's nothing excusive about wars and false Christs, for instance.
1) and 2) could easily be fulfilled in a few years.
3) World War II only LASTED from 1939 to 1945. Even allowing for a slower pace in the ancient world a few decades is fine. Alexander the Great ruled for only 13 years.
Looking at a timeline of Rome the 70 years from 30 AD included:
a) The Invasion of Britain
b) The conquest and loss of Armenia
c) The Iceni revolt
d) The Jewish revolt
e) Civil war (the Year of Four Emperors)
http://www.ualberta.ca/~csmackay/CLASS_378/Four.Emps.html
f) More wars in Britain
g) Wars against the Dacians
And that's just the Romans - and probably not all of their conflicts.
4) It doesn't say that famines and Earthquakes strike in MANY different places and since there is at least one major Earthquake every year this is not a great problem either. Especially as war increases the risk of famine.
That leaves us with the tribulation which takes a relatively short time. So there is no problem
Of your remaining items :
7) is more of a problem for you than for me. It is no problem for me if Jesus underestimated the time required - and the fact that there were Christians in Asia Minor, Greece and Rome itself within 20 years of his death indicates that a rapid spread among the lands Jesus would have known of is entirely possible.
11) is not in this prophecy. You can't include it.
12) This is your reading - and it contradicts any claim that the described events could take more than one generation. Even in your interpretation only the start date is open to argument - the events themselves must fit into a timespan of decades, not centuries.
13) And here you quite blatantly contradict your own point 12 by trying to make the Tribulation last for the best part of 2000 years. Even if you use the Bar Kochba revolt as the start date of the exile you have more than 1800 years from the exile to the date you use for the "return". Lukes reference to the siege of Jerusalem preceding the Exile corresponds to the start of the Tribulation in the other versions - so it is certainly included within your "generation". Therefore the exile cannot last more than a generation. Where then do you have the START of your exile ? Remembering that the Tribulation must start before the exile ? It seems that the only point that could be problematic for my position is your assertion that 1947 MUST be seen as the fulfilment of the return mentioned by Luke. However that is the point in question, is it not ? If the prophecy does not work you cannot expect me to accept that you are right anyway and agree that the Bible must be distorted to fit what you want to be true.
14) The fig tree - and all the other trees - are an image used for teaching. This is not a literal event.
In summary, none of your valid points indicates a timespan greater than decades. Point 12 clearly does indicate that the whole process from start to finish cannot take more than decades. This contradicts your point 13. I also point out that your points 11 and 14 are completely bogus.
As to the rest, your claim that Jesus is speaking to future generations of Christians has no support in the text. Your interpretation that it CANNOT refer to the disciples at all has absolutely no support in the text and is contradicted by the fact that it is directly addressed TO them.
3) I notice that my point 3 remains unaddressed, despite the fact that you need to show that the destruction of the Temple not only happens early but BEFORE the start of your "generation". This is one of the major pieces of evidence that the prophecy has failed and you need to be able to answer it.
And my "witness" point is valid. If something appears only in a single version of the story then you only have the word of one man that it happened. Your "point" is an irrelevant statement attempting to deny that obvious truth.
[URL for "Year of Four Emperors" added in edit]
[second edit starts here]
I suggest that there are two major points you need to deal with to stand any chance at all.
Firstly you need to deal with where the destruction of the Temple fits into the prophecy. Secondly you need to deal with the issue of the generation of Mark 13:30. I'll put up a post on the first as a reply to this.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-15-2004]
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-15-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Buzsaw, posted 01-15-2004 12:27 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2004 2:38 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 144 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2004 12:42 AM PaulK has replied

joshua221 
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 385 (78616)
01-15-2004 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by PaulK
01-13-2004 2:51 AM


Well since a "could be" prophecy is not good enough under the rules anyway. But the point is that since most Christians believe that the references to Babylon in the Revelation even the "could be" rests on a rather questionable interpretation. Do you take the reference to Babylon as being a woman (17:5) literally ?
Even if you do not go so far in being literal, does the city of Babylon sit on seven mountains (17:9) ? Is there any realistic chance of a king ruling from Babylon in the forseeable future (17:10) ? Is there any chance that Babylon could rule over a major empire in the forseeable future (17:15) ?
Yes (17:5)
For the last three Questions: Seven Mountains: Yes chance of king? Yes Babylon ruling over a major empire? Yes
A further answer will surely be made, I have to read into Revalation a bit more, and probably take a little time to surf around.

Revelation 22:16 - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 01-13-2004 2:51 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2004 8:34 AM joshua221 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 142 of 385 (78623)
01-15-2004 8:34 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by joshua221
01-15-2004 8:02 AM


Well you should be looking into geography and politics to answer these questions.
I would have to say that so fat as I can tell, right now, the only possible reason for assuming that Babylon is likely to have any significance as a seat of rule is the assumption that Revelation is both accurate prophecy and refers to the literal Babylon. But that begs the question.
Can you give any real reasons for thinking that there will be a kingdom with Babylon as it's capital in the forseeable future other than those assumptions ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by joshua221, posted 01-15-2004 8:02 AM joshua221 has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 143 of 385 (78682)
01-15-2004 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by PaulK
01-15-2004 3:30 AM


Where does the destruction of the Temple fit ?
Both Mark and Luke have Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple (or rather the Herodian additions). The Disciples question him on the signs that will show that the destruction is imminent and the Discourse is Jesus' answer.
Matthew 24:3 puts the question differently, which is technically a contradiction but it is only significant if it changes the interpretation of the prophecy. Since my interpretation is compatible with both versions it does not propose a significant contradiction between the Gospels. Any interpretation that requires Matthew's version rather than that provided by Mark and Luke not only asserts that there is a contradiction, it also goes against the majority of the accounts.
So where does the destruction of the Temple fit ? There is no explicit reference in the prophecy. It might be argued that Luke has an implicit reference but this requires the assumption that Luke does indeed refer to the siege of 70 AD - which is fine if we're assuming that Luke added it after the fact, but if we assume that that section is a prediction then reading actual events into it would beg the question of whether this is a successful prophecy.
So since the disciples asked Jesus for signs preceding the destruction of the Temple, we must assume that the signs given are indeed signs of the destruction of the Temple, which must therefore follow the events given. Certainly we must include the "Abomination of desolation" (and as I have argued this event itself is linked to the continued existence of the Temple). But surely the sun darkening (Mark 13:24), the falling stars (Mark 13:25) and the appearance of the "Son of Man coming in clouds wth great power..." (Mark 13:26) also qualify.
All these things therefore must come before the destruction of the Temple. The time for this prophecy, then, came to an end in 70 AD when the Temple was destroyed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2004 3:30 AM PaulK has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 385 (78803)
01-16-2004 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by PaulK
01-15-2004 3:30 AM


Re: Just when ??
It doesn't say that famines and Earthquakes strike in MANY different places and since there is at least one major Earthquake every year this is not a great problem either. Especially as war increases the risk of famine.
1. It says "diverse" which means many different. You don't know that there were earthquakes every year. The implication is that they would be destructive and notable enough for historical record. How many famines in the first half of the first century? Again this is implying major historical events.
2. Jesus said the gospel would be preached to all the world. That's what he meant and you can't prove otherwise, no matter how you spin.
3. The gathering of the elect of Jesus, (i.e. Christians) from earth to heaven is in Mark 13:28. Check it out.
4. I've proved that the text implicates the generation of the latter events of the prophecy when the fig tree buds and though the budding is symbolic, it symbolizes the return of the nation with the Jews again occupying the land and specifically the city. That the fig tree and all the other trees are now literally budding after centuries of desolation is significant reality also, given that it was the returned Jews who made that happen.
5. Your point that the tribulation must last 2000 years is nonsense. It is one of the major events of the latter days and which we are beginning to see in many foreign lands. There has always been some tribulation, but Jesus said this would be greater than anything yet known.
6. You can't sweep the gentile nations (plural) occupation and re-entry of Jews under the rug - get real.
PaulK, I'm sorry but I'm too busy to deal with all the spin and yada you come up with in your weak attempt to cram 19 centuries into one generation in order to defend your looser ideology. History speaks for itself, especially the recent phenomenon of the return of the long dispersed Jews to return to the land as prophesied even long before Jesus was born. If you can't see the significance of it all, that's too bad. I am highly criticised and admonished for rejecting the alleged evidence you people think you have for what you believe, yet you continually reject relatively recent historical evidence for my views.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by PaulK, posted 01-15-2004 3:30 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 01-16-2004 3:18 AM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 01-16-2004 2:07 PM Buzsaw has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 145 of 385 (78820)
01-16-2004 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Buzsaw
01-16-2004 12:42 AM


Re: Just when ??
Well lets go over your points
1) "Diverse" means different - it doesn't have to be *that* many.
2) Your false accusation of spin is noted. However you proved no factual argument you just assert that Jesus must have meant the whole world. In fact knowing about the New World WOULD have required supernatural knowledge so assuming that would beg the question. Equally given the historic spread of Christianity a spread to the known world of the time would not have been out of the question within a timescale of decades. Even then it is equally possible that Jesus could have underestimated the time. You can't just dismiss all these and then use your questionable interptation to sweep aside all the contrary evidence.
3) A "gathering of the elect" is mentioned. People disappearing "from the Earth suddenly for no explicable reason" is not. It does not say where nor who the elect will be gathered.
4) There is no support from the text that your assertion that the budding of the fig tree refers to a literal event. It is described as a "parable" (Mark 13:28, Luke 21:29, Matthew 24:32). And the meaning is clearly stated - when the signs appear the return of Jesus is close at hand. The fig tree is not even placed in the list of events - it is placed after that.
5) As I have pointed out Luke's reference to the siege of Jerusalem (21:20) parallels the start of the Tribulation in the other Gospels (compare Luke 21:21-23 with Mark 13:14-19). And the captivity follows that (Luke 21:24). Luke follows that with the return of Jesus.
All you can do is to insist that the Tribulation has to occur in the future - but you offer nothing from the prophecy we are discussing.
6) I'm not sweeping anything under the rug. I'm pointing out that the Olviet Discourse is NOT a good match for the historical events. And then YOU try to sweep that under the rug. That's exactly what your point 5 does. You don't deal with the evidence I've produced, you just call the conclusion "nonsense" because it contradicts your beliefs. If you think that the Bible MUST agree with your personal beliefs no matter what it actually says then openly declare it. If you don't then stop assuming that the Bible agrees with you and start reading it.
As for your final point, I guess that you consider points like the historical facts and the actual text of the Bible to weak to contradict your opinions. But the fact is that your evience is being rejected for good reasons- which you can't rebut - while in this thread you are rejecting the evidence because you don't like the conclusions it points to. Those are the facts. Your points 2 and 5 alone show you rejecting evidence without good reason.
So what really seems to be happening is that you reject my arguments for no good reason. And you reject my rebuttals to your arguments for no good reason.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2004 12:42 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2004 9:16 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 146 of 385 (78895)
01-16-2004 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Buzsaw
01-16-2004 12:42 AM


Dealing with 1947
Just to once and for all deal with any accusations that I am sweeping things under the rug, I'm going to take a more detailed look at Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse.
I have already pointed out the following facts :
1) The most likely date for the writing of Luke - as well as some less likely ones that are still seriously proposed - is AFTER 70 AD when the "exile" began (there was no formal exile at that point, but enough Jews left that it is usually taken as the start of the Exile even now).
2) The exile and return is NOT found in Mark or Matthew - nor is the siege of Jerusalem. This is not a minor detail - it is a major event that we would not expect either Mark or Matthew to omit. Accordingly we already have good grounds to suspect that this part is an addition.
3) Even most fundamentalists do not beleive that Luke was a disciple. The traditional author is the Gentile physician Luke, mentioned by Paul. There is no evidence that Luke was present at the Olivet discourse and even tradition disagrees.
A deeper look only adds to the evidence that this is an addition.
Remember we are dealing with a prophecy about the destruction of the Temple. As I have already pointed out Mark and Matthew's signs include the "Abomination" and the "Tribulation".
Now a Christian living shortly after 70 AD would know:
1) That the Temple had been destroyed
2) That that had been immediately preceded by a long siege of Jerusalem (in Luke but not Mark or Matthew).
3) That there had NOT been an "Abomination that causes desolation" (in Mark and Matthew but not Luke)
4) That the Sun had not been darkened, nor had the stars fallen from heaven - nor had there been "affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation" as Mark puts it (Mark and Matthew but not Luke)
5) That many Jews had fled into exile (Luke, not Matthew or Mark).
And of course a Christian of that time would still believe that Jesus was returning soon.
The case that Luke - or his source has - removed elements of the prophecy that had failed to happen and added references to events that had happened instead cannot be lightly dismissed. Of course Jesus still did not return, so Lukes prophecy also failed. The signs - the siege and the exile happened and so ahd the desturction of the Temple but anybody following the parable of the fig tree and concluding that Jesus' return was near would have been very wrong.
So what of the return ? Well as we know it did not happen in the timescale allowed by Luke. And we have good reason to think that it comes from Luke - or his sources -not Jesus. Moreover given that the genuine Messianic prophecies have a Jewish kingdom centred on Jerusalem (not to mention that there were prophecies of return from exile - even if they referred to the Babylonian exile) - there is no need to assume a genuine prophecy. There were obvious reasons for Luke to expect a return.
To sum up the evidence supports the view that the prophecy had been significantly altered to match what was known at the likely time of writing. The return from exile was added as part of these changes. It is likely that a Christian would expect a return as a corollary of the exile itself which had already begun. Finally both the return from exile and Jesus own return were predicted to come soon after the esiege of Jerusalem and the exile - yet the exile lasted more than 1800 years and Jesus' return has still not appeared. So the prophecy appears to be both a fake and a failure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2004 12:42 AM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2004 9:43 PM PaulK has replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 385 (78959)
01-16-2004 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by PaulK
01-16-2004 3:18 AM


Re: Just when ??
1) "Diverse" means different - it doesn't have to be *that* many.
The implication as the context indicates is that they were to understand that there was to be a lot happen before the end of the age, the first being the wars and then a number of earthquakes and famines in various places around the world and so forth. You're straining at gnats here.
2) Your false accusation of spin is noted. However you proved no factual argument you just assert that Jesus must have meant the whole world. In fact knowing about the New World WOULD have required supernatural knowledge so assuming that would beg the question.
Jesus declared himself to be the divine and supernatural son of God. He is here proving to the world of all ages that this is so by his miracles, which include prophesying the future. If his claims were true, he did indeed know what the world was like. He has here in this discourse just added one more good reason for us today who read these things and see that it has indeed turned out exactly as he prophesied thus far. Regardless as to what he knew, the prophecy would not have been fulfilled until now and the likelihood of that was, humanly speaking, practically nil. The Bible has always been the world's most hated as well as the most loved book in the world. It is no coincidence that among all the books of history the Bible has been the overall best seller ever for sustained periods of time. Jesus was not whistling in the wind here in this prophecy.
Equally given the historic spread of Christianity a spread to the known world of the time would not have been out of the question within a timescale of decades. Even then it is equally possible that Jesus could have underestimated the time. You can't just dismiss all these and then use your questionable interptation to sweep aside all the contrary evidence.
LOL. That plane isn't flying. When he said the whole world as well as "all nations", he meant exactly that, regardless of what he knew.
3) A "gathering of the elect" is mentioned. People disappearing "from the Earth suddenly for no explicable reason" is not. It does not say where nor who the elect will be gathered.
1. Mark 13 verse 28. Did you read it? The angels grab/gather the elect of (guess who?) Jesus. The "elect" of Jesus, according to all the apostles of Jesus are the Christians, his followers.
2. It does so say where. "from extremity of earth to the extremity of heaven." Extemity and uttermost are synonomous. My interlinear uses "extremity." This describes the "rapture" or gathering up of the saints/elect of Jesus from earth to heaven.
3. Of course, this means many folks disappear from the earth. When are you going to get real?
4) There is no support from the text that your assertion that the budding of the fig tree refers to a literal event. It is described as a "parable" (Mark 13:28, Luke 21:29, Matthew 24:32). And the meaning is clearly stated - when the signs appear the return of Jesus is close at hand. The fig tree is not even placed in the list of events - it is placed after that.
Why do you waste my time with this yada? You simply trying to wear me down with yada? I already granted you that they weren't literal but that they bore a literal conotation, being that the return of the Jews and restoration of the nation also literally caused the trees in Israel to bud for the first time in many centuries.
5) As I have pointed out Luke's reference to the siege of Jerusalem (21:20) parallels the start of the Tribulation in the other Gospels (compare Luke 21:21-23 with Mark 13:14-19). And the captivity follows that (Luke 21:24). Luke follows that with the return of Jesus.
All you can do is to insist that the Tribulation has to occur in the future - but you offer nothing from the prophecy we are discussing.
...But Jesus is saying that after all the wars, famines, earthquakes and so forth way down in verse 24 that a latter day tribulation will occur, followed by the darkening of the sun and moon, return of Jesus and the gathering of his elect to heaven. As I stated there have always been tribulations but this one is to be unprecedented, implicating world wide. Other statements of Jesus as well as his apostles elsewhere and especially in Revelation also bear this out.
6) I'm not sweeping anything under the rug. I'm pointing out that the Olviet Discourse is NOT a good match for the historical events. And then YOU try to sweep that under the rug. That's exactly what your point 5 does. You don't deal with the evidence I've produced, you just call the conclusion "nonsense" because it contradicts your beliefs.
Now you're spinning your sweep and spin job. Your sweep and spin job was about the long occupation of more than one gentile nations which history attests to (many nations have occupied at various times) and that there would come an end to this near the end of the age when Jews would re-occupy and restore. That's what you need to sweep under the rug and spin for any hope of winning this debate and that's exactly what you're trying to do but to no avail. Your argument is KO'd with this important point of the prophecy. It is so vividly proven to be exactly as prophesied as past and recent history of the land show. In one day a few decades ago, the Jews marched in and neither hell nor high water has been able to dislodge them, no matter how overwhelming the surrounding armies have been since the late forties.
So what really seems to be happening is that you reject my arguments for no good reason. And you reject my rebuttals to your arguments for no good reason.
And, of course, you reject none of the historical facts, do you PaulK?? YAH, SURE!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 01-16-2004 3:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 01-17-2004 6:17 AM Buzsaw has not replied

Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 385 (78965)
01-16-2004 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
01-16-2004 2:07 PM


Re: Dealing with 1947
Too much useless yada in this post.
1. That the dispersal and reoccupation could refer way back to Babylon is pure poppycock and makes no sense for your argument at all. It shows how desperately you are scrapping the BOTTOM OF THE BARREL for some argument whether it makes sense or not. I don't have time for that spin and sweep job.
2. Regardless of the date Luke was written, the destruction of the Temple does not fit the prophecy, so Luke has nothing to try to show as a fulfillment or to hide.
3. Your date of 70 AD for Luke is bogus anyhow, for the following reasons:
>There are some (serious, I think) problems with trying to date Luke
>[after 70 CE]. It is agreed that Luke is the author of both Luke and Acts
>and that Luke was written before Acts. Acts, as a historical narrative
>of the early church is notable for failing to mention any events that
>occurred after 60 A.D., and some of those events were very significant.
>
>1. No mention is made of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.,
> significant when one realizes that in the book of Acts, Jerusalem was
> still the center of Christianity.
>2. Paul is one of the most prominent figures in the Acts, yet no mention
> is made of his death in 64 AD under Nero. Instead, Acts ends with
> Paul alive and well in Jerusalem.
>2. Although the death of Stephen and James the son of Zebedee is
> recounted, no mention of the death of James, the brother of Jesus, is
> mentioned (A.D. 62, approx.). This is a remarkable omission given
> that James is the leader of the church in Jerusalem and also a
> prominent figure in the Acts.
>
>It is highly unlikely that a history of the early church would leave out
>the above three historically very significant events, unless it was
>actually written before the above events occurred. This would date the
>writing of Acts to about 62 A.D.
http//http://www.errantyears.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 01-16-2004 2:07 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Percy, posted 01-16-2004 10:23 PM Buzsaw has replied
 Message 152 by PaulK, posted 01-17-2004 6:23 AM Buzsaw has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 149 of 385 (78971)
01-16-2004 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Buzsaw
01-16-2004 9:43 PM


Re: Dealing with 1947
Hi Buzz!
Part of your quote from http://www.errantyears.com:
>It is highly unlikely that a history of the early church would leave out
>the above three historically very significant events, unless it was
>actually written before the above events occurred. This would date the
>writing of Acts to about 62 A.D.
There's no reason for a narrative about a period ending around 62 AD to mention events of a decade later. What's more, the author of Luke and Acts was intent on making the narrative appear to have been written close to the described events, and so carefully avoided giving hints about the fall of Jerusalem, though he wasn't fully successful.
3. Your date of 70 AD for Luke is bogus anyhow, for the following reasons:
A 70 AD date is not Paul's date nor the evolutionist's date. The most widely accepted datings for Luke are all later than 70 AD. For example, this is from Studying the Synoptic Gospels by E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies:
Scholars disagree a bit about when each gospel was written, but most would propose no earlier than CE 65 for the earliest - usually thought to be the Gospel of Mark - and no later than CE 100 for the latest - probably Luke.
Who Wrote the New Testament by Burton Mack, though it doesn't date Luke specifically, says:
Somewhere in the Aegean around the year 120 C.E., a great two-volume work appeared that expanded upon the gospel story of Jesus by adding a sequel called the Acts of the Apostles.
The Britannica is the kindest I can find to your suggested dating:
The Gospel bearing his name and the Acts of the Apostles were probably written during or shortly after the Jewish revolt (AD 66-73), although a somewhat later date is not inconceivable.
I'm not trying to make claims of who is right or wrong, only trying to point out that dates later than 70 AD are the conclusion of most of Biblical scholarship, and are not Paul's dates or evolutionist's dates.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Buzsaw, posted 01-16-2004 9:43 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Buzsaw, posted 01-17-2004 5:42 PM Percy has replied

ConsequentAtheist
Member (Idle past 6239 days)
Posts: 392
Joined: 05-28-2003


Message 150 of 385 (78979)
01-16-2004 11:52 PM


quote:
The time when Luke composed his two volumes may be determined only approximately. Luke used Mark and Q as sources. He looked back on the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21:24) and the death of Paul (Acts 20.25,38; 21.13). Luke writes from the perspective of the third Christian generation, which is already interested in a presentation of the epochs of salvation history. From this data we may date the Gospel of Like in the period around 90 CE.
- see The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings
quote:
Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of this gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, who is mentioned in the New Testament in Col 4:14, Philippians 1:24 and 2 Tim 4:11. The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Luke 1:2). His two- volume work marks him as someone who was highly literate both in the Old Testament traditions according to the Greek versions and in Hellenistic Greek writings.
Among the likely sources for the composition of this gospel (Luke 1:3) were the Gospel of Mark, a written collection of sayings of Jesus known also to the author of the Gospel of Matthew (Q; see Introduction to Matthew), and other special traditions that were used by Luke alone among the gospel writers. Some hold that Luke used Mark only as a complementary source for rounding out the material he took from other traditions. Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke's Gospel (Luke 13:35a; 19:43-44; 21:20; 23:28-31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80-90 as the time of composition.
- see Luke, Introduction, New American Bible

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024