|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: fulfilled prophecy - specific examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2959 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
So you were suspended for not supporting evidence in another forum. Here is your chance. Tell me when "W.W.11 Pope" said what you quoted or admit you made it up.
You might be able to help me here, I have for the life of me been trying to remember that Rollins Band song title, that one from the album Weight, track six, I cannot remember the name. Any suggestions? "I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Yes. Certainly less so than you. Then again you may not have had an experience consistent with what Jesus taught. You see the resurrection is far from just an objective fact of history. We believers were regenerated through the resurrection. He promised to manifest Himselfto His discples after His resurrection in this manner: "He who has My commandments and keeps them, he is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will manifest Myself to him. Judas, not Iscariot, said to Him, Lord, and what has happened that You are to manifest Yourself to us and not to the world? Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make an abode with him. (John 14:22,23) I admit that this miraculous manifesting of Himself to His believers yet not to the world gives me a justified bias. It is God's good pleasure to manifest the risen Son within those who obey the gospel.
The people accusing him, of course. Really, how can you not see that ? Why invent this silly idea that I mean all the Jews, every single last one ? So you mean the gospels are biased against the enemies of Jesus but not against all the Jews. Okay. Would a sign of unbiased recording be that the enemies of Jesus believed in Him and did not oppose His words and deeds? What would unbiased treatment of the enemies of Jesus look like?
No, I don't. We can't expect exact quotes from any source - the more so since in addition to the limits of human memory all those we have will be translations (from Aramaic into Greek). The quotes agree in substance, and that's enough. Certain dramatic occurences in life are remembered with accuracy. I can remember where I was and what I was doing when President Kennedy was shot. I can remember where I was and what I was doing when 9/11 happened. The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus was not some humdrum affair that faded in the memories of otherwise preoocupied people. Those on whom it had cataclysmic impact remembered the specifics surrounding this event. Aside from this, I give place to Christ's prediction that the Holy Spirit would bring to mind to the disciples the things which He had said:
"But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and remind you of all the things which I have said to you." (John 14:26) You see this whole matter is well thought out by God. It was all accoding to the outworking of His eternal purposes. We don't count these events as a lot of miscellaneous and unrelated and perculiar tricks done by an otherwise bored God for the amusement of people. The life, death, resurrection of Christ plus the record of it, the record of His teaching, and the spreading of the gospel are cared for by a God of purpose. One of the differences in your way of reasoning and mine is that I include in my reasoning process the power and personality of God. I make room for that. I think you make your initial assumptions - without taking God into account. You develop your reasons - without taking God into account. And finally you come to your conclusions - without taking God into account. I include God in my reasonings about how these things came about.
The synoptic Gospels DO have Jesus saying that the Temple will be destroyed - and a link with Daniel's "predictions" referring to the desecration and reconsecration of the Temple (the Olivet Discourse, which Buz has already referred to). And then we have the attack on the money changers indicating that Jesus was at odds with the Temple authorities. You can't ignore those. According to the Gospels Jesus was at odds with the Temple, did predict its destruction and at least implied that it would be rebuilt (it can't be reconsecrated otherwise !). To predict the destruction of the temple is one matter. To say that in three days He would raise it up is another. By refering to what Jesus may have taught about the Jerusalem temple's destruction only gets you half there. Though there is the strong implication of a rebuilt temple in the end times there is nothing about it being rebuilt in three days. The specific mention of three days not only in John but in the synoptics as well I think always refers to Christ rising from the dead. I think you have to work hard at misunderstanding that.
The only evidence so far is that John said so. Well it's obviously theologically convenient to John, the more so since the Temple had been destroyed and NOT rebuilt at the likely time of writing. How many evangelists have to say so before it becomes likely to you that He said it? Do you insist TWO have to mention it? Do you insist THREE have to mention it? Or is it FOUR? Do you have a rule that things mentioned in only one of the gospels are more unlikely to not have been true? Maybe I don't follow you here. The mentioning of Him rising in three days in not only in John. I really don't know what your beef is anymore. Maybe your saying: "Yes Jesus mentioned in the synoptics that He would rise in three days. But John hijacked the three day reference and wrongly (deceptively or otherwise) applied it to the rebuilding of a destroyed temple." I don't call that unbiased. I call that laboring extra hard to find an excuse to charge the gospel writers with deception.
So you don't REALLY believe that Jesus said it. Because if he did then you disagree with Mark. It is possible that not being able to refer back and forth to these posts is making it hard for me to follow your thought. I don't think there is anything significantly in favor of any anti-resurrection argument of yours because I believe that what Jesus said was recorded in John's gospel. What the false witnesses twisted and charged Him with is found in Mark's. How that makes your case any stonger is lost to me.
You mean how often am I going to catch YOUR attempts at innuendo ? You tried to suggest that I thought that John's Gospel was written specifically to deceive me. Of course it wasn't. Maybe it wasn't even written with an intent to deceive. Some people are so controlled by bias that they cannot see the way they twist and spin everything. Well, here's where I think we are: Jesus alluded to His death and resurrection in His teaching that if they destroyed the temple (referring to His body) He would raise it again in three days. Now you can say. "I don't believe He rose." But I think I don't see you saying that. I think I see you saying that He never made those statements and He never prophesied that way. Is that the position you're taking? Or are you really not taking a position? Of course no position is the easiest to defend. I think you are saying that Jesus never said what John records in the second chapter of John: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." Is John then trying to deceive us or what?
Sure. The resurrection itself is really, really unlikely. Almost any alternative scenario comes out better. Reasoning without taking into account the power of God, the personality of God, the plan of God, the purpose of God - yes, agree, the resurrection is unlikely. My reasoning includes the factor of God and what He can do and what He may desire to do. Then it not only fits. It is very consistent in style to other things which the Bible says God did. If He wanted to demonstrate that He is of a indistructible righteous life, what better way that to rise from the dead after a brutal attempt to destroy Him?
We don't have any writings that can be reliably attributed to those men. And relying on one side of any story is not a reliable way to do history. We have more reason to believe that the writing were attributed to those men then we have for Homer having written the his Illiad, Thucydides having written his histories, Tacitus having written his annuls, Caesar having written what he wrote. There are 643 ancient copies of the writings of Homer. His actual writing took place in the 9th Century B.C. Compare that with 5,000 ancient copies of the New Testament, the writing of which occured from around 50 -100 A.D. So we have much greater reason to believe that the New Testament is an accurate representation of what the apostles wrote than the next most widely revered and memorized ancient writings of Homer. There is no other ancient book which comes in at a close second on either the number or early dating of copies. The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books. The New Testament has a fragment copy within one generation of the original writing. It has whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autographs. Most of the New Testament can be found in MSS less than 200 years of the original writings. And the entire NT can be found in a copy within 250 years of the autographs. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: If the examples you are setting here illustrates your "regeneration" it is hardly something I can see as positive. And let us remember that what we are dealing with is your assertion that you have good examples of fuliflled prophecy which unbelieivers need to seek excuses not to believe. An assertion you only prove more and more wrong with every post.
quote:Absolutely not. quote: Since we are not dealing with such a dramatic case - and since none of the disciples was even present at Jesus' trial this hardly helps you.
quote: In other words you want me to just assume that you are right. WHere I want to fairly evaluate the evidence you want to marshal it towards a predetermined conclusion. Which comes back to my point - you have to work for belief in this prophecy. The evidence doesn't stand on it's own - you have to beg the question.
quote: On the contrary, since the Gospels say that Jesus quite definitely talked about the destruction of the Temple elsewhere your case collapses. There is no way to be sure that if he prophesied that he would destory the Temple and raise it in three days he did not mean the literal Temple. And according to the Gospels that is what the people who heard him say it thought that he meant.
quote: Since taking the plain literal meaning of it is the easiest reading - and according to John the view those that heard it understood Jesuis to be saying - then you support my point. Jesus must have meant that actual Temple.
quote: It would help a lot if all four said it since John is at least partially independant of the synoptics. However the fact that Mark denies that Jesus even said it is a clear problem.
quote: I'm sure that you did work extra hard to come up with that, but it's not anything I said. You CAN look back at previous posts, you know. Now we both know that Mark and John BOTH make reference to such a saying. Mark denies that Jesus said it. John insists that he said it but REALLY meant his owen body. But what's wrong with the idea that Jesus said it and meant it - just as it sounds ? That's SIMPLER than either Gospel. I don't have to work hard.
quote: There's nothing stopping you from doing just that.
quote: This isn't an anti-resurrection argumnet. The question here is whether Jesus actually made the "prediction". John says he did , Mark says he didn't. One is wrong.
quote: According to John. Mark says he didn't say it, and we have only John's word that he "really" meant his body. Anfd no good reason to beleive John.
quote: Actually I don't - and I did raise the issue. It's just that you haven't really got around to addressing it.
quote: i.e. without begging the question your argument is in trouble - again.
quote: Setting Homer aside, that's untrue. We have NO good idea about who wrote Matthew. Mark is barely more certain, Luke is also uncertain (but even the "traditional" author is NOT a disciple anyway) and so is John - the only one that even plausibly comes (mostly) from someone who was there, but also the most influenced by theology.
quote: If I were asserting that the Gospels had been corrupted that is certainly a point I would have to deal with. On the other hand, since I have not even suggested such a thing this is a huge irrelevance. Why can't you just be honest ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
If I were asserting that the Gospels had been corrupted that is certainly a point I would have to deal with. On the other hand, since I have not even suggested such a thing this is a huge irrelevance. I didn't have time yet to go over all your comments Paul. However let's talk about some of the many copyists' errors which are admitted by textural critics to have occured in the transmission of the New Testament. There are thousands of them. Scholars acknowledge that. I acknowledge that. Now could you point out to me which cases of copyists' corruptions renders doubtful one the following tenets of our Christian faith. 1.) The Jesus was the Son of God2.) That He lived a righteous life and performed miracles. 3.) That He died a redemptive death for the sins of mankind. 4.) That He was resurrected on third day. 5.) That He became the indwelling life giving Spirit imparting the Holy Spirit into His believers. 6.) That He will come again physically. 7.) That He has an eternal kingdom Give me examples of copyist's errors which seriously effect one of these teachings. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Any chance you might actually address the topic instead of bringing up more irrelevant nonsense?
In case you missed it the topic is "fulfilled prophecy - specific examples." Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Since we are not dealing with such a dramatic case - and since none of the disciples was even present at Jesus' trial this hardly helps you. I think that the disciple John was said to have been known to the high priest and was there. See John 18:15. Secondly, the gospel writers could have gotten information from persons who WERE there and latter became disciples. Many of the Pharisees latter believed and became disciples as the book of Acts says. They could have filled in for the evangelist and historian Luke what happened at the trial. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
On the contrary, since the Gospels say that Jesus quite definitely talked about the destruction of the Temple elsewhere your case collapses. There is no way to be sure that if he prophesied that he would destory the Temple and raise it in three days he did not mean the literal Temple. And according to the Gospels that is what the people who heard him say it thought that he meant. I think this is only attributable to a Jesus of your own making. If for three and one half years He had taught about the temple then maybe you'd have a case. He spoke of His Father and Himself. He pointed to Himself. And He said that something "greater than the temple" was here. That something greater was Himself as the Son of God. Yours is the case which collapses. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1969 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
The question here is whether Jesus actually made the "prediction". John says he did , Mark says he didn't. One is wrong. Okay, you don't trust the temple prophesy. I gave you about four other instances where He said He must suffer and be raised on third day. So like a mouse on a spinning wheel, you've made zero actual movement forward. You still have Jesus prophesying that He would die and be raised on the third day. Of course I expect equally weak conspiracy theories about each of the other passages that I quoted to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Why exactly should we do that ? It isn't relevant to the discussion It isn't really a part of the topic. Sorry, but I'm not going to be dragged off inoto a different discussion just because you want to evade the real issues.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And none of them are good examples either. Remember you've still got to prove that Jesus really said it and that the resurrection really happened for any of them to count. Personally I believe that the lot of them were made up after the fact, just like the resurrection.
quote: I haven't offered any "weak conspiracy theories". That's just something you invented to try cover up the fact that you haven't got a case. Really, what's the point ? Every time you do it you just prove you've got nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
I belive you accused me of making up a quote about a Pope statements towards not supporting the return of the Jews to Israel?
This is not copy and pasteable [PDF], but it has found its way on the net [link below]. You referred to Pope Pious, while I never mentioned any names, only his statement and views, which you will see in this link, while I did refer it to a W.W.11 Pope, it was closer a W.W.1. And so much for participants remaining silent for suspensions over a quote in a post which link was not readily at hand! No points for those who wax profusely about Popes - but know not the underlieing facts relating to them. This is straight from Herzl's diary, more historically credible than anything in the vatican archives, and it follows his meeting with the Pope, who totally rejects Jews' right to return because - you got it - their crime of not following Jesus. But a few centuries later - Christianity got its grand op to show us how it did not reject Mohammed: should european christianity also be given the same treatment, exile and no return because they rejected Mohammed? Or is this honor reserved only for one particular peoples? No apologies asked for, it is a difficult link, and definitely hidden and obscured. But for forum admn - aah, that I lay on the participants:
http://books.google.com/books...popes+and+israel Edited by Admin, : Shorten link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I doubt what 'prophesy' means is well understood by most people. A prophet or messenger NEVER makes a prophesy only about impending destruction without an exit: else he has no need to come. The prophesy attributed in the NT is not prophesy: it gave no way out to the Jews, other than self anihilation and the over-turning of 2000 years of belief; it said the law cannot be changed, then changed the law, and gave not a single new law in its stead. It made declarations not a brick of the temple will remain standing - and this is false: there are 1000s of bricks standing [The Wall] as a remnant [prophesized by the OT as such!]. The NT then went on to inculcate that Israel was no more - it was wrong. Embarrasingly, the NT was later confronted by Islam, which said the same things, only positing another messenger - and Christians did what it accused the Jews of: it rejected Islam - even when its own belief was only a few centures old, unlike the 2000 year unbroken Jewish thread of belief. These can be seen as signs and omens [spiritual/heavenly responsa] to both Christianity and islam, with a clear, unmistakable message: both Jesus and Mohammed have rejected these false doctrines and prophesy attempts, and those who adhere to them, and instead both JC & Mohammed have harkened to the God of the OT: Israel was returned despite every attempt to overturn this occurence; read, prophesy vindicated in OPEN form. This has never occured before anyplace else [OPEN, as opposed shrowded form vindication], nor has the world at large ever been more discomforted by a miniscule nation and a soccer-sized land with no oil, been so large in its shadow upon humanity. Which calls for the vindication of another prophesy: 'AND I SHALL MAKE JERUSALEM AS A BURDEN UNTO THE NATIONS' [OT] Q.E.D. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Lithodid-Man Member (Idle past 2959 days) Posts: 504 From: Juneau, Alaska, USA Joined: |
Hey IaJ,
I think this was intended for me, not Paul. Still, again, not supporting your quote. You posted a link to portions of a 200+ page book to back up your assertions? Again the views of the RCC are not in question, just the EXACT quote you came up with (as in apparently made up). Are you aware that every time you do this you just dig yourself deeper? That you just make your position worse? That you just make more and more of a caricature of fundamentalist Christians to the hundreds of people that will read this? Are you that clueless? Come on, at this point I will have more respect for you if you just admit you lied and we can go on. "I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: The exact quote which I gave was 'WE WILL NEVER SUPPORT THE RETURN OF THE JEWS TO THEIR HOMELAND BECAUSE THEY REJECTED JESUS'. This is an exact paraphrase [nothing wrong in that] of what I include here from that post. Also, the link I provided you should open at this exact para, it does for me. I am texting exactly, by reading it, as it is not copy friendly:
quote: It does not, and can not, get more exacting and conforming to my statement.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3696 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
The important aspect of that quote by the Pope, impacts directly on events today, why the EU supports the Islamic league [together accounting for 25 and 57 votes at the UN], and how the latter exploits the former.
This is the reason we see the world's most notorious dis-history peddled throughout Islam, not opposed by Europe, and absolutely biased UN Resolutions against the Jewish state
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024