Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 211 of 262 (445645)
01-03-2008 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by IamJoseph
01-03-2008 1:26 AM


Re: IaJ and the realm of misrepresentation.
Almost nothing in your post is true. I have posted links to a thread on how the various state were formed.
Now do you have anything on topic?

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by IamJoseph, posted 01-03-2008 1:26 AM IamJoseph has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 212 of 262 (445667)
01-03-2008 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by PaulK
01-03-2008 8:18 AM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
PaulK:
Of course I'm not proposing any sort of conspiracy theory (do you even know what that means Jay ?). Indeed inRe: You can always doubt if you really want to. (Message 135) you found this sort of reinterpretation to be an "obvious FACT".
PaulK quoting jaywill:
It is an obvious FACT that many of the things Jesus taught did not have thier total IMPACT on the disciples UNTIL after He had been tortured, killed, and raised from the dead. Then they REMEMBERED that He had said this or that, and they ALL agreed "NOW we know what He meant."
Look at that paragraph again:
The word "reinterpretation" appears nowhere in my paragraph.
The word "reinterpretation" was used by PaulK, not me.
What I called an "obvious fact" was as I said - "many of the things Jesus taught did not have thier total IMPACT on the disciples UNTIL after He had been tortured, killed, and raised from the dead."
I then said the disciples then said in essence "Now we know what He meant"
Paulk's theory is that Jesus must have meant for the physical temple in Jerusalem to be destroyed. In other words - according to him there was NO METAPHOR.
He thinks that some time afterwards the disciples reinterpreted His teaching to mean it applied to His body.
No, that is not what I said or believe. He meant His body all along! When He rose from the dead the impact of His saying impressed them. If they didn't understand His body before, they did at that time.
Either that, or they did understand His body was meant, but it went through one ear and out the other because they just didn't anticipate that Jesus would be killed.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2008 8:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2008 11:39 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 213 of 262 (445674)
01-03-2008 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by PaulK
01-03-2008 8:18 AM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
Of course I'm not putting words in your mouth, am I Jay ?
Yes you are.
You tried to put a word in the paragraph that I wrote which was not there.
That is trying to put words into my mouth (so to speak).
You are trying to give the impression that I am agreeing with you when I am not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2008 8:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2008 11:43 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 214 of 262 (445676)
01-03-2008 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by jaywill
01-03-2008 11:18 AM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
quote:
Look at that paragraph again:
The word "reinterpretation" appears nowhere in my paragraph.
The word "reinterpretation" was used by PaulK, not me.
That's the wonderful thing about the English language . There are many ways of saying the same thing.
quote:
What I called an "obvious fact" was as I said - "many of the things Jesus taught did not have thier total IMPACT on the disciples UNTIL after He had been tortured, killed, and raised from the dead."
I then said the disciples then said in essence "Now we know what He meant"
Exactly. Thanks for admitting that I was right, and that I did NOT put words in your mouth.
quote:
Paulk's theory is that Jesus must have meant for the physical temple in Jerusalem to be destroyed. In other words - according to him there was NO METAPHOR.
That is my opinion - but then it's also my opinion that John misrepresented Jesus' words, too. When I call it a reinterpretation I'm not making either assertion. What I am arguing is that there is nothing in the description of the actual event to indicate that it was meant to be metaphorical - or, and this is the important bit, that anyone hearing it understood it to be metaphorical.
In other words the author came to the idea that the comment was meant to be metaphoorical only because of later events - exactly as you describe it.
And that's what you call a "conspiracy theory".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by jaywill, posted 01-03-2008 11:18 AM jaywill has not replied

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


Message 215 of 262 (445678)
01-03-2008 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by jaywill
01-03-2008 11:32 AM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
quote:
You tried to put a word in the paragraph that I wrote which was not there.
No Jay, I didn't. You're trying to put words in MY mouth now.
And if you read my posts at all carefully you know that.
quote:
You are trying to give the impression that I am agreeing with you when I am not.
Only to the extent that you are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by jaywill, posted 01-03-2008 11:32 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 216 of 262 (445680)
01-03-2008 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by PaulK
01-03-2008 8:18 AM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
The bottom line is that John 2:18-22 is a lousy example of fulfilled prophecy. For a good example we would have to be able to show that the prophey was made before the event and that the alleged fulfillment actually happened.
If you in dispair with crocodile tears say " Pitty, pitty, we'll NEVER know what Jesus said. Alas ... the loss! " then that will be impossible to demonstrate.
Whatever we propose as prophecy stated by Jesus before the fulfillemt - WELL! - just say " He never said it." Now you think you have a method so that no one will EVER be able to say Jesus fulfilled a prophecy He gave.
(There are other things we'd want to show but those two are the most basic). John 2:18-22 fails badly on both. That's it.
You're wild imaginative conspiracy theory that John either dishonestly or in a drunken state of self deception went back and fabricated a meaning to the words of Jesus - suggests to me that the example is a good one, judging from all the tricks you had to use to discount it.
In essence PaulK's explanation is:
"He never said it.... If He did say it, He meant something else. John hoodwinked us into believing he meant this other thing. See? No fulfilled prophecy."
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2008 8:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2008 2:26 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 217 of 262 (445717)
01-03-2008 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by jaywill
01-03-2008 11:46 AM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
quote:
If you in dispair with crocodile tears say " Pitty, pitty, we'll NEVER know what Jesus said. Alas ... the loss! " then that will be impossible to demonstrate.
That happens to be true - at least on the word-for-word level. But of course if you understood the issues you would know that isn't the all-purpose answer that you pretend that it is. As I said earlier you need to show that the alleged prediction preceded the alleged fulfillment. So if you were really looking for a good example from the Gospels you'd look for a prediction fulfilled AFTER the Gospels were written. Not one that was supposedly fulfilled decades before !
quote:
You're wild imaginative conspiracy theory that John either dishonestly or in a drunken state of self deception went back and fabricated a meaning to the words of Jesus - suggests to me that the example is a good one, judging from all the tricks you had to use to discount it.
The fact that you need to rely on such fantasies to "answer" my points only proves that you can't do it. I'm not even proposing that John was as bad as you ! Are you going to tell me that it is impossible that you exist now ?
quote:
"He never said it.... If He did say it, He meant something else. John hoodwinked us into believing he meant this other thing. See? No fulfilled prophecy."
We've got no reason to suppose that it was reported accurately. After all John was likely written 60 years after events. You can't even manage to accurately follow the thread of this conversation. And you've already admitted that the disciples would reassess what Jesus had said after the crucifixion - you called that an "obvious FACT".
And just how difficult is it to "hoodwink" somebody who uncritically believes everything you write ?
So really I am not proposing anything complicated or unlikely or any sort of conspiracy. You don't need a vast conspiracy to produce YOUR posts, do you ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by jaywill, posted 01-03-2008 11:46 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2008 6:30 AM PaulK has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 218 of 262 (445853)
01-04-2008 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by PaulK
01-03-2008 2:26 PM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
That happens to be true - at least on the word-for-word level.
This belongs to the Accuracy and Inerrancy Portion of this Forum.
However, in the development of the New Testament canon there is sufficent evidence that quite a deliberate effort was exerted to authenticate the genuine writings about Christ (Luke 1:1-4))
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to draw up a nnarrative concerning the matters which have been fully accomplished among us.
Even as those who from the beginning became eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us,
It seemed good to me also, having carefully investigated all things from the first, to write [them] out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus,
So that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed. (Luke 1:1-4)
Luke was deliberately on guard that his audience was getting accurate information on the life of Jesus.
Paul and his company of co-workers also deliberately sought that the churches received only authentic epistles of the apostles:
Now we ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering to Him, that you be not quickly shaken in mind nor alarmed, neither by a spirit nor by a letter as if by us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way ..." (2 Thess. 2:1-3a)
The apostles deligently acted as watch dogs over false teachings that might be circulating. Peter deligently assured his audience on the grounds of him being an eyewitness and that they were getting authentic testimony and teaching about Jesus:
Moreover I will also be ddeligent that you may be able, after my exodus, to bring these things to mind at all times.
For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we became eyewitnesses of that One's majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory, a voice such as this being borne to Him by the magnificent glory:
This is My Son, My Beloved, in whom I delight.
And this voice we heard being borne out of heaven while we were with Him in the holy mountain. (2 Peter 1:15-18)
The Apostle John pointed to his and his fellow apostles personal eyewitness testimony to assure his audience was getting authentic apostolic teaching:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we beheld and our hands handled, concerning the word of life. (And the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and report to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us);
That which we have seen and heard we report also to you that you also may have fellowship with us, and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ." (1 John 1:1-3)
The Apostle John was deligent that his audience did not gullibly believe every teaching from false prophets:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but prove the spirits whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)
The Apostle John also warned that those who rejected their message were not to be trusted but rejected themselves:
We are of God; he who knows God hears us, he who is not of God does not hear us. From this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of deception. (1 John 4:6)
Those books which were authorized by the apostles were recommended for reading in the churches. Therefore the believers in the churches knew the authentic teachings from public readings in thier meetings:
And when this letter is read among you, cause that it be read in the church of the Laodiceans also, and that you also read the one from Laodicea. (Col. 4:16)
Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy and keep the things written in it, for the time is near. (Rev. 1:3)
The writings of New Testament apostles were collected along witht the Old Testament Scriptures. The eyewitness Peter recommended that such attention should be given to the letters of the Apostle Paul:
And count the long suffering of our Lord ro be salvation, even as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, wrote to you,
As also in all his letters, speaking in them concerning these things, in which the unlearned and unstable twist, as also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own distruction
Therefore Peter not only put Paul's letters on the level of the Old Testament Scriptures but he also trained his audience to recognize people who twisted apostolic teaching.
We see evidence that latter NT books quoted earlier NT books as Scripture. Paul quoted Luke as Scripture:
For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle an ox that is treading out the grain," and, "The workman is worthy of his pay." (See 2 Timthy 5:18 compare Deut. 25:4; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7)
In Luke 10:7 Jesus is recorded to have said "And in that house remain, eating and drinking the things from them, FOR THE WORKER IS WORTHY OF HIS WAGES. Do not move from house to house."
Jude quoted the Apostle Peter (Compare Jude 17 and 2 Peter 3:2). And it is evident also how careful Jude was to teach the same things as were taught by Peter.
Luke assumed that Theophilus possessed his first book as a former account:
The former account I have made, O Theophilus, concerning all the things that Jesus bagan both to do and to teach ... (Acts 1:1)
In addition to be very deligent to preserve authentic New Testament teaching, the teachings were also often intended for a wide group of churches. James is addressed to "twelve tribes in the despersion" (James 1:1). And Peter's First Epistle was written "to the exiles of the dispersion". The book of Revelation was written to "the seven churches" of Asia Minor.
Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead the disciples into all truth. We believe that the passing down to us of 27 such authentic apostolic books is part of fulfillment of that promised of Christ.
Even if other apostolic books then circulating which we do not have today existed, we believe that they contained no new truth. Paul referred to another epistle in 1 Corinthians 5:9. We do not have it. We also do not have the letter written to the Laodiceans which Paul refered to in Colossians 4:16. We know that it was recommended to be read to the two churches. So it must have been consistent with apostolic teaching.
But Christian scholars assume that these letters contained no new truth in addition to that taught in the 27 extant books. I believe that God is not incompatent to be able to preserve for His church that which He deemed important for disciple's edification.
There are many other evidences that the apostles were deligent to preserve the authentic teachings of Christ. Paul's warnings are numerous. His instructions to His junior co-workers Timothy and Titus were filled with vigilance that the ministry would not be corrupted by mistakes in behavior or in instruction. He know what was "healthy teaching" and what was not. He cautioned the church from being "carried away" by winds of different teachings. He charged co-workers not to teach differently. He went from house to house and sat personally with families and withheld nothing that was profitable for their spiritual development, declaring to them the whole counsel of God. He also charged Timothy to teach everything he taught without given prejiducial preference to one aspect over another.
We're confident in our New Testament. And the last surviving of the orignial twelve apostles closed off the canon of the New Testament with an anathema that no one better add or subtract from the completed revelation (Revelation 22:18,19). The last living apostle signs off on the canon of the New Testament. No apostolic book after he died was possible because Christ promised to lead the apostles into "all truth". Christ fulfilled all. His apostles told all and the last apostle completed the canon of the New Testament.
We've got no reason to suppose that it was reported accurately.
The above explanation gives us rise that John did report accurately. The alledged sloppiness over which you WISH the early church allowed the authentic teachings of Jesus to be corrupted is just that, your wishful thinking.
You wish to pass on to us some kind of foolishness that the resurrecdtion of Jesus was just some mistaken idea that somehow got retrofitted into His teachings. You're pretty much silent up to now as to HOW this happend or WHY it would be deliberately done. I have given evidence that it was not at all easy under the watchful eye of the apostles, to tamper with the record of what Jesus did and said.
You:
After all John was likely written 60 years after events. You can't even manage to accurately follow the thread of this conversation. And you've already admitted that the disciples would reassess what Jesus had said after the crucifixion - you called that an "obvious FACT".
The discples had the wonderful experience of walking with Jesus for three and one half years. The evidence is that they did not expect His minsitry to end with a crucifixion. The did not expect that He would be killed. Humanly speaking everything about Jesus being killed would seem as a defeat of Jesus. Therefore some of the things He said probably did not register with them in full impact.
After three days of dejection and disappointment Jesus crashed through the gates of death and was resurrected from the grave. He not only reminded them that He told them this would happen. He also went over the Scriptures of the Old Testament again and explained how the things in the Law and Psalms and Prophets predicted suffering, death, and resurrection of the Messiah.
In writing his Gospel of John John recalls that Jesus spoke of the destroying of the temple and its being raised by Him in three days. Now it has more impact upon him that Jesus was speaking of the temple of His body. I cannot insist that Jesus TOLD them that at that time. That I cannot prove. It is not unusual that He may have reminded them and explained, as we see Him doing after His resurrection in Luke 24.
However, the "three days" plus all the other reaching about resurrection in John STRONGLY indicate that Jesus was using a metaphor. He latter said "I AM THE RESURRECTION AND THE LIFE" (John 11:25)
He said that He received the charge from His Father to lay down His life and take it up again in John 10. He also said that He had the authority to lay His life down and the authority to take it up again.
No one should deny that Jesus spoke some mysterious things. And no one can argue that many of the things He spoke are open to varied interpretations. But in the instance of the challenge to destroy the temple that He might raise it in three days, it stretches the imagination that He was not metaphorically speaking of Himself.
Whether the Apostle John recalled that Jesus Himself explained what He meant or whether John put two and two together and told us what Jesus meant, I trust John's word over your explanation. Your explanation comes out of a strenuous attempt to a supposedly "demothologized" reading of John. And in doing so, your explanation of John's comment is far less believable than the explanation that John perceived the real meaning behind Jesus' words.
Lastly, in this post, I would offer further evidence that John had it right. That is the speech of Stephen before he was stoned to death.
Acts chapter 7 records the speech that Stephen the first Christian martyr gave before the priests stoned him. In that long speech Stephen recounts the history of Israel through the Old Testament. Stephen goes through many many matters important to the Jew's history as told in the Scriptures. It is very significant at which point he sums up his comments and concludes his scathing remarks:
"This [tabernacle] our fathers, having in their turn received, also brought in with Joshua when they took possession of the nations, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers until the days of David,
Who found favor before God and asked to find a habitation for the God of Jacob, But Solomon built Him a house.
Yet the Most High does not dwell in that which is made by hands, even as the prophet says, Heaven is My throne, and the earth is a footstool for My feet. What kind of house will you build for Me, says the Lord, or what is the place of My rest? Has not my hand made all these things?
You stiff-necked and uncircumscised in heawerts and ears, you always oppose the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did you also do." (See Acts 7:44-51)
Stephen's speech indicates a major theme of the Hebrew Bible and the teaching of Jesus. That is that God could not really be contained in a physical building no matter how splendidly constructed of precious materials. The preference of God was to be seen in the lives of Godly, holy, sanctified, and consecrated humanity.
The prophetic passage that Stephen quoted continues to have God saying that for His rest and His habitation He would look to a certain kind of man. That is a man of contrite spirit and who trembled reverently at the word of God. Not to a physical temple would look for His habitation and rest in reality - BUT TO A KIND OF MAN.
This was perhaps Stephen's final historical point with which he summed up the eternal purpose of God. God wanted to live in a MAN.
This shows not only Stephen's grasp of God's heart in the Hebrew Bible but also his understanding of the mission of Jesus. Jesus was the MAN in WHOM the Most High God was pleased to live as His habitation. In this Son of God the Old Testament God had His habitation and rest.
Therefore for Jesus to say "Destroy THIS TEMPLE and in three days I will raise it up" underlined that He, Jesus of Nazareth, was the human habitation of God. God lived in Him. And as such He was indestructible and eternal. Though He might be subject to death as any man, He would nonetheless vindicate that the indestructible God Who cannot be destroyed LIVED in Him, was one with Him, was mingled with Him, was blended with Him, acted in Him, moved, worked, and spoke in Him. He was the reality of the human temple and house of the Most High God.
Stephen understood. John understood. The other apostles understood. I understand because they passed it on to us. I hope that you someday can understand as well.
And just how difficult is it to "hoodwink" somebody who uncritically believes everything you write ?
I haven't believed everything YOU have written about how one of the most intimate apostles assists us to understand what Jesus meant when He used a famous metaphor.
So really I am not proposing anything complicated or unlikely or any sort of conspiracy. You don't need a vast conspiracy to produce YOUR posts, do you ?
I think it is unlikely that the apostle John mistook what Jesus meant since he gave his whole life to the propogation of His Master's teaching.
I think it is unlikely that John decided to push his own original ideas and fabricated a meaning which he then dishonestly attributed to his Master.
Lastly, I think that it is BELIEVABLE that a Person like Jesus Christ would perform deeds which matched the moral power of His teachings. Had any other typical human being said to have come back from death on his or her own, I would be more skeptical of course.
That a Person like Jesus come back to life after He was destroyed on a cross of torture, is believable. The deed matches the unusual power of His teaching.
Now, we have had a stong contention between us. Anything I said which crossed over into a personal attack I apologize for. But I very much have to stand by my example.
Jesus prophesied that if He was destroyed that He would be resurrected in three days. I think He fulfilled that prediction.
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.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 01-03-2008 2:26 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2008 2:10 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 219 of 262 (445936)
01-04-2008 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by jaywill
01-04-2008 6:30 AM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
quote:
However, in the development of the New Testament canon there is sufficent evidence that quite a deliberate effort was exerted to authenticate the genuine writings about Christ
The author of Luke says that he made such an effort. Just like you say that you read my posts quite carefully. Not exactly sufficient evidence. And he didn't - for instance - identify his sources. Not that they could have provided him with word-for-word accuracy anyway.
quote:
The apostles deligently acted as watch dogs over false teachings that might be circulating. Peter deligently assured his audience on the grounds of him being an eyewitness and that they were getting authentic testimony and teaching about Jesus:
Or rather whoever wrote 1 Peter was thoroughly opposed to those who didn't follow the party line - which need not be the truth. And since it's very unlikely that the author was Peter it's also very unlikely that the author was an eyewitness.
It's also questionable whether the apostle John wrote anything. There's evidence that he was martyred before the Gospel of John was written. And again this John simply insists that others should agree with the doctrine he believed - which need not be the truth.
quote:
The writings of New Testament apostles were collected along witht the Old Testament Scriptures. The eyewitness Peter recommended that such attention should be given to the letters of the Apostle Paul:
Given that there are NO authenticated writings from Peter you really should't be asserting that as a fact !
quote:
We see evidence that latter NT books quoted earlier NT books as Scripture. Paul quoted Luke as Scripture:
Luke is LATER than Paul's wriitngs, not earlier.
quote:
Jude quoted the Apostle Peter (Compare Jude 17 and 2 Peter 3:2). And it is evident also how careful Jude was to teach the same things as were taught by Peter.
It's far more likely that the author of 2 Peter - who was not the apostle - quoted Jude. Jude also used Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as sources.
quote:
Luke assumed that Theophilus possessed his first book as a former account:
LOL ! Are you familiar with Luke 1:3 ? I don't think so !
quote:
There are many other evidences that the apostles were deligent to preserve the authentic teachings of Christ. Paul's warnings are numerous. His instructions to His junior co-workers Timothy and Titus were filled with vigilance that the ministry would not be corrupted by mistakes in behavior or in instruction.
Are all of them as worthless as the ones you chose to use ? TImothy and Titus are two more books widely accpeted as pseudonymous, likely written decades after Paul died.
quote:
The above explanation gives us rise that John did report accurately. The alledged sloppiness over which you WISH the early church allowed the authentic teachings of Jesus to be corrupted is just that, your wishful thinking.
Unfortunately the wishful thinking is on your side. Like the idea that the apostle Peter wrote 1 Peter ! No, you've got nothing solid.
quote:
In writing his Gospel of John John recalls that Jesus spoke of the destroying of the temple and its being raised by Him in three days. Now it has more impact upon him that Jesus was speaking of the temple of His body. I cannot insist that Jesus TOLD them that at that time. That I cannot prove.
So it likely WAS a reinterpretation, just as I said. And you admit that you can't make a case against it. So it wasn't some crazy fantasy of a conspiracy theory after all. Hah!
quote:
Lastly, in this post, I would offer further evidence that John had it right. That is the speech of Stephen before he was stoned to death.
Then why didn't you ?
quote:
This shows not only Stephen's grasp of God's heart in the Hebrew Bible but also his understanding of the mission of Jesus. Jesus was the MAN in WHOM the Most High God was pleased to live as His habitation. In this Son of God the Old Testament God had His habitation and rest.
Even if we assume that Stephen made that speech (likely he didn't) he said no such thing.
quote:
I think it is unlikely that John decided to push his own original ideas and fabricated a meaning which he then dishonestly attributed to his Master.
Of course we don't know that the apostle John wrote anything. And if he did then it seems unlikely that his ideas would not have developed in the 60 years or more. ANd let us note, for instance, that the Gosepl of John disagrees with the Synoptics - for instance denying that the Last Supper was a Passover meal. You would think that THAT is something that would be remembered accurately ! Or need we point out the disagreement between the Gospels over Jesus last words. Wouldn't that be something to be remembered ?
quote:
Lastly, I think that it is BELIEVABLE that a Person like Jesus Christ would perform deeds which matched the moral power of His teachings. Had any other typical human being said to have come back from death on his or her own, I would be more skeptical of course.
Jesus' moral teachings aren't that great. And I don't remember Gandhi coming back from he dead after HE was assassinated. Have you got even one proven case of a moral teacher being killed and resurrected ? I doubt it. I am all but certain that you are just making an excuse to believe - in the same way you make excuses to disbelieve
quote:
Now, we have had a stong contention between us. Anything I said which crossed over into a personal attack I apologize for. But I very much have to stand by my example.
Then you shouldn't be apologising to me. You should be apologising to Jesus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2008 6:30 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2008 4:31 PM PaulK has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 220 of 262 (446003)
01-04-2008 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by PaulK
01-04-2008 2:10 PM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
The author of Luke says that he made such an effort. Just like you say that you read my posts quite carefully. Not exactly sufficient evidence. And he didn't - for instance - identify his sources. Not that they could have provided him with word-for-word accuracy
Had he done so it is questionable that you would have accepted it as truthful.
Or rather whoever wrote 1 Peter was thoroughly opposed to those who didn't follow the party line - which need not be the truth. And since it's very unlikely that the author was Peter it's also very unlikely that the author was an eyewitness.
Sometimes even "the party line" can be true.
It is questionable that "party line" always has to be not truthful on general principle.
I have no doubts abut Peter writing the epistle under his name. The brothers in those days did things together. He may have had assistance from someone who wrote very well in Greek.
It's also questionable whether the apostle John wrote anything. There's evidence that he was martyred before the Gospel of John was written. And again this John simply insists that others should agree with the doctrine he believed - which need not be the truth.
Its questionable that your sources know what their talking about.
Its questionable that you are even capable of thinking outside the box of your own party line.
Given that there are NO authenticated writings from Peter you really should't be asserting that as a fact !
Its questionable that all New Testament scholars agree with that statement.
Luke is LATER than Paul's wriitngs, not earlier.
It is questionable that you know that.
The gospel of Luke was written around A.D. 60 before the book of Acts was written (Acts 1:1)
The First Timothy was written approximately A.D. 65, after Paul's first imprisonment. That makes First Timothy written after the gospel of Luke.
It's far more likely that the author of 2 Peter - who was not the apostle - quoted Jude. Jude also used Enoch and the Assumption of Moses as sources.
That's questionable too.
Junior servants of the Lord are trained to follow closely senior servants of the Lord. Maybe you have no experience of this.
Paul quoted pagan poets too. The quotation of an Apachryphal book doesn't prove that Peter didn't write it.
LOL ! Are you familiar with Luke 1:3 ? I don't think so !
I know Luke 1:3.
Are all of them as worthless as the ones you chose to use ? TImothy and Titus are two more books widely accpeted as pseudonymous, likely written decades after Paul died.
It is questionable that your sources have accurate information on that.
Unfortunately the wishful thinking is on your side. Like the idea that the apostle Peter wrote 1 Peter ! No, you've got nothing solid.
Here are some of the ancient scholars who we know accepted it as an authentic letter of Peter:
Irenaeus c. 130 - 202
Clement of Alexandria c. 150 - 215
Origen c. 185 - 254
Eusibius c. 325 - 340
Jerome c. 340 - 420
Augustine c. 400
It was cited or alluded to by:
Polycarp c. 110 - 150
Hermas c. 115 - 140
Justin Martyr c. 150
Tertullian c. 150 - 220
It was named as authentic in:
Council of Nicea c. 325 - 340
Council of Hippo 393
Council of Carthage 397
Council of Carthage 419
I see no one naming it as disputed up until 419 A.D. in the list of church "fathers" I am examining.
Please tell me who during the first four centries AD named First Peter as not an authentic letter from the Apostle Peter.
So it likely WAS a reinterpretation, just as I said. And you admit that you can't make a case against it. So it wasn't some crazy fantasy of a conspiracy theory after all. Hah!
Whatever it is you are saying or boasting that I am agreeing with what you are saying - the likelihood is that Jesus meant the temple of His body - if killed He would raise in three days.
Any other interpretation of his word there is highly questionable.
Even if we assume that Stephen made that speech (likely he didn't) he said no such thing.
It is questionable that your sources have any good reasons to assume that Stephen didn't give the speech.
Of course we don't know that the apostle John wrote anything. And if he did then it seems unlikely that his ideas would not have developed in the 60 years or more.
No what seems likely is that had someone told you the gospel in the first century it would take 60 years to even consider that it was true.
So I think you're projecting your style onto the Apostle John.
"As face answers to face in water, so the mind of a man reflects the man."
ANd let us note, for instance, that the Gosepl of John disagrees with the Synoptics - for instance denying that the Last Supper was a Passover meal.
I am not sure what you intend by saying "a Passover meal".
You would think that THAT is something that would be remembered accurately ! Or need we point out the disagreement between the Gospels over Jesus last words. Wouldn't that be something to be remembered ?
Not really. Someone standing afar of may have heard the "last words" because they were spoken loudly. Someone standing quite a bit closer to the dying man might have recorded "last words" spoken in a softer manner which the person at a distance didn't pick up.
Then again I would have also double check that any of the four evangelists INSISTS that these were the last words. I think in some cases they chose to record certain words as the final ones or a cry.
It is questionable that you can draw any strong conclusion of the non-authenticity of the Gospels based on divergent testimony concerning what Jesus said while on the cross for six hours.
Jesus' moral teachings aren't that great.
There's one of your big problems, right there.
And I don't remember Gandhi coming back from he dead after HE was assassinated.
Go check what Gandhi may have had to say about Jesus. I don't recall that Gandhi claimed to be the resurrection and the life or that he was Son of God, or that to see him was to see the Father God.
Gandhi was a great man. He is not in the same class as Jesus of Nazareth.
Gandhi was a humble man. He insisted on traveling by train non-first class but as the average poor traveler. His aids remarked that Gandhi had no idea how much it cost them his aids to arrange for Gandhi to travel like a poor man.
Have you got even one proven case of a moral teacher being killed and resurrected ?
So Jesus was a moral teacher ?
How do you know if you think His words are lost forever from being recovered?
I doubt it. I am all but certain that you are just making an excuse to believe - in the same way you make excuses to disbelieve
Well, if you wish to get personal I will humor you a bit.
The night I received Jesus into my heart no one was there to tutor me on Roman politics, Greek language, Hebrew religion, Church History, The development of the NT canon, the councils, textural criticism of the New Testament, the historicity of Luke, Mark, Matthew, John, the authenticity of First Timothy, the history of the Roman Empire, the history of the construction projects of the Temple in Jerusalem, etc. etc.
That night in the privacy of my home it was just Jesus, and me. It was just the Holy Spirit of God and me. He received me without demanding that I master all these subjects listed above.
He received me "Just As I Am" as the hymn says.
And He received me and I knew that God became real to me the night I called on the name of Lord Jesus. You weren't there. Neither was F.F. Bruce, or Doctor Warfield, or Norm Giesler, or the Jesus Seminar. I met God.
I am real stubburn because of how I know Jesus has come into my life.
Now if your planning to respond by scolding me on how bad a Christian I am and other ad hominems, these accusations don't persuade me that Jesus is not the resurrected Son of God.
Then you shouldn't be apologising to me. You should be apologising to Jesus.
LOL! Okay Paul. Apologies to my fellow man are usually if not always preceeded first by confessions to my Lord Jesus.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2008 2:10 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2008 6:04 PM jaywill has replied

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


Message 221 of 262 (446040)
01-04-2008 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by jaywill
01-04-2008 4:31 PM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
quote:
Had he done so it is questionable that you would have accepted it as truthful.
Whether I would believe it or not it is a fact that he did not do so and that is the important point.
quote:
Sometimes even "the party line" can be true.
And sometimes it can be an outright lie. The point remains that enforcement of a party line is not the same thing as a care for the truth (something notably absent from your posts).
quote:
I have no doubts abut Peter writing the epistle under his name. The brothers in those days did things together. He may have had assistance from someone who wrote very well in Greek.
Many modern Bible scholars would disagree with you. There are good reasons for doubt.
quote:
Its questionable that your sources know what their talking about.
Its questionable that you are even capable of thinking outside the box of your own party line.
You may question the truth all you like. But it won't make it any less true.
quote:
Its questionable that all New Testament scholars agree with that statement.
Any honest one - whatever their own views - would have to agree that there are serious doubts about the auhtorship.
quote:
It is questionable that you know that.
The gospel of Luke was written around A.D. 60 before the book of Acts was written (Acts 1:1)
That is a VERY early date for Luke - a more usual date would be around 80 AD. And I've already pointed to evidence that supports a date after 70 AD in this thread ! The genuine Pauline Epistles are dated in the range 50-60 AD, so even your 60 AD date isn't early enough to support your point.
quote:
The First Timothy was written approximately A.D. 65, after Paul's first imprisonment. That makes First Timothy written after the gospel of Luke.
More likely after 100 AD (the usual range is 100-150 AD)
quote:
That's questionable too.
But still more likely than your preferred idea.
quote:
Paul quoted pagan poets too. The quotation of an Apachryphal book doesn't prove that Peter didn't write it.
So now you're saying that Peter wrote Jude. However the point is that Jude used books that you do not accept as reliable. So where is this care that you were talking about ?
quote:
I know Luke 1:3.
Really ? Then why did you say the Luke ASSUMED that Theophilus had a copy of his Gospel. Luke 1:3 tells us that Luke had no need to ASSUME any such thing !
it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus;
quote:
It is questionable that your sources have accurate information on that.
It's the mainstream view of Bible scholars. SO either you can admit that you are wrong or retreat to the position that we don't have accurate information on the authorship. Which hurts your position more than mine.
quote:
Here are some of the ancient scholars who we know accepted it as an authentic letter of Peter:
Modern scholars have more developed methods. And the earliest scholar you mention was not born at the time it was written. Even the mainstream view puts it at no later than 110 AD.
quote:
Please tell me who during the first four centries AD named First Peter as not an authentic letter from the Apostle Peter.
Just as other pseudonymous Epistles were accepted into the Bible ? Hardly a good argument.
[quote] No what seems likely is that had someone told you the gospel in the first century it would take 60 years to even consider that it was true. [quote] No Bible scholar would agree with your idea that John does not display a distinctive theology !
quote:
I am not sure what you intend by saying "a Passover meal".
Perhaps you could try the obvious meaning. The meal Jews partake in to celebrate the Passover. As the Bible tells them to.
quote:
Not really. Someone standing afar of may have heard the "last words" because they were spoken loudly. Someone standing quite a bit closer to the dying man might have recorded "last words" spoken in a softer manner which the person at a distance didn't pick up.
In other words all their "careful checks" missed things.
quote:
It is questionable that you can draw any strong conclusion of the non-authenticity of the Gospels based on divergent testimony concerning what Jesus said while on the cross for six hours.
Just how many times did Jesus die in those six hours ? Look, the words Jesus spoke just before he did must have been said JUST BEFORE HE DIED.
quote:
So Jesus was a moral teacher ?
How do you know if you think His words are lost forever from being recovered?
Again you miss the point. You assert that great moral teachers are - for some reason you won't say - likely to be resurrected. So do you havce any proven examples of this happening ? Or is it just some crazy idea you've come uip with because you don't have anything better ?
quote:
That night in the privacy of my home it was just Jesus, and me. It was just the Holy Spirit of God and me. He received me without demanding that I master all these subjects listed above.
He received me "Just As I Am" as the hymn says.
Of course I have no more reason to consider your religious expereince as any more meaningful than the religious experiences of others who take quite different views.
Better to judge your religion by its fruit. And in you I see something quite rotten.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2008 4:31 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by jaywill, posted 01-06-2008 10:48 PM PaulK has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 222 of 262 (446206)
01-05-2008 7:01 AM


Two Prophecies of the Same Event
The Prophecy of Christ's Resurrection in Plain Words
and the Disciples' Reaction:
And taking the twelve aside, He said to them, Behold we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things which have been written through the prophets regarding the Son of Man will be accomplished,
For He will be delivered up to the Gentiles and will be mocked and outrageously treated and spat upon;
And when they have scourged [Him], they will kill Him; and on the third day He will rise. And they understood none of these things, and this saying was hidden from them, and they did not know what was being said.
(Luke 18:31 - 34)
The Prophecy of Christ's Resurrection in Metaphorical Words
and the Disciples' Recollection:
The Jews then answered and said to Him, What sign do you show us, seeing that you do these things? Jesus answered and said to them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
Then the Jews said, This temple was built in forty-six years, and You will raise it up in three days? But He spoke of the temple of His body. When therefore He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
(John 2:18-22)
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : save space
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 223 of 262 (446684)
01-06-2008 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by PaulK
01-04-2008 6:04 PM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
Better to judge your religion by its fruit. And in you I see something quite rotten.
One more dying liar like yourself, with an anti-supernatural bias won't make much difference to the triumph of the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 01-04-2008 6:04 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2008 1:49 AM jaywill has replied

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


Message 224 of 262 (446748)
01-07-2008 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by jaywill
01-06-2008 10:48 PM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
quote:
One more dying liar like yourself, with an anti-supernatural bias won't make much difference to the triumph of the truth.
In this discussion you've been caught time and again in obvious misrepresentations and fabrications. This last piece of unwarranted and baseless nastiness just confirms what I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by jaywill, posted 01-06-2008 10:48 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by jaywill, posted 01-07-2008 6:29 AM PaulK has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 225 of 262 (446768)
01-07-2008 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by PaulK
01-07-2008 1:49 AM


Re: My bottom line on John 2:18-22
Erased.
Not worth it.
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.
Edited by jaywill, : Reason for edit ?
Good Question - a waste of time with this poster.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : Not worth it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2008 1:49 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by PaulK, posted 01-07-2008 7:31 AM jaywill has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024