|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: fulfilled prophecy - specific examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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: 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: Given that there are NO authenticated writings from Peter you really should't be asserting that as a fact !
quote: Luke is LATER than Paul's wriitngs, not earlier.
quote: 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: LOL ! Are you familiar with Luke 1:3 ? I don't think so !
quote: 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: 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: 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:Then why didn't you ? quote: Even if we assume that Stephen made that speech (likely he didn't) he said no such thing.
quote: 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: 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: Then you shouldn't be apologising to me. You should be apologising to Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Whether I would believe it or not it is a fact that he did not do so and that is the important point.
quote: 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: Many modern Bible scholars would disagree with you. There are good reasons for doubt.
quote: You may question the truth all you like. But it won't make it any less true.
quote: Any honest one - whatever their own views - would have to agree that there are serious doubts about the auhtorship.
quote: 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: More likely after 100 AD (the usual range is 100-150 AD)
quote: But still more likely than your preferred idea.
quote: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: 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'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: 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: 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: Perhaps you could try the obvious meaning. The meal Jews partake in to celebrate the Passover. As the Bible tells them to.
quote: In other words all their "careful checks" missed things.
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: False. To refer to just one - repeated - example your assertion that I was proposing a "conspiracy theory" was a complete fabrication with no basis in fact. The rest of your post just proves my point - again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Already we are seeing some fabrication on your part. I didn't say anything about a liar or a crazy person or making up myths. We have other, easier solutions. A failure of memory (more likely than not over a period of 60 years !). A message that changes as it is passed on from person to person by word of mouth. The author inventing the words, as ancient historians were known to do. Not to mention the author's personal biases affecting his recollections or his choice of sources (as they affect yours).
quote:Another invention on your part. If we could reliably tell what Jesus meant then it would matter. But we can't. I think he meant one thing. YOu think he meant another. But neither can be proven. quote:John - as in the AUTHOR of the Gospel of John - may or may not have been a disciple/ Nobody knows for sure. This is a fact. Whether you like it or not. quote: That's my personal assessment. It's a reasonable possibility as I've shown.
quote: This is the view of mainstream Biblical scholars - see my response to your point 1 to see why it is relevant.
quote: Calling it a conspiracy is an obvious falsehood. Even your misrepresentations don't add up to any sort of conspiracy.
quote: By which you mean that nobody should be allowed to actually BELEIVE those reasonable doubts.
quote: No it's a blatant falsehood. A fabrication concocted because you can't answer my points.
quote: It would require a far greater leap of faith - and a strong Christian bias, even a Johannine bias - to assume that the Gospel of John is entirely right. But you don't have a problem with blind leaps of faith. Again you prove that there is something rotten in your religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Since my "job" is to raise reasonable doubts then that is precisely what I SHOULD be doing.
quote: So basically you don't trust me because I'm doing what you yourself say that I should be doing. That's a lousy reason.
quote: But what I say its the truth. I'm not "hiding" behind it. Those are the facts.
[quote]
This is another vague and non-committal position. And it pretends objective neutrality. It conceals your own bias behind pretended objectivity.[/quotre] Of course there is no pretence. And let us note that your position is far more strongly biased than mine.
quote: But not that strong. Not strogn enough to definitely conclude that. It's just that the contrary evidence is weaker than it is for the synoptics.
quote: OK, so your source agrees with me. If your own preferred source doesn't indicate date close to the actual events, why should I need provide any more ? Maybe you don't you think that 60 years is a long time in terms of a human lifespan, but I can't imagine anyone else agreeing with you.
quote: Of course this is just another of your smears. If I had presented a position as a possibility then it would indeed be a misrepresentaion for you to claim that I had presented it as a fact. But there are no examples of tha in this discussion. Your misrepresentations include taking the direct opposite of one of my statements. Or your repeated references to "conspiracy theory" when even your misrepresentaions include no such thing. You allow yourself the luxury of ignoring or twisting the truth whenever it suits you. Of using baseless smears and innuendo. All you do is demonstrate that your position is morally as well as intellectually bankrupt.
quote: This discussion does not require me to do any such thing.
quote: If I had said "every single point" you would have a case. But the fact is that some points you "answer" solely with your "conspiracy theory" fabrication.
quote: No it doesn't.
quote: Or the author of John invented the quote (as ancient historians were known to do) as something he thought Jesus might say. Or the author of John did not know what Jesus meant, having had no specific explanation from Jesus and relied on his own interpretations.
quote: Of course it is not a special anti-supernatural bias. What you mean is that I do not have a pro-Chrisitan bias which cauyses me to treat Christian claims of supernatural events as more credible than any others. I also recognise the biases of the Gospel authors - something you don't want to do.
quote: Since I have never taken advantage of this "luxury" - and it would be very difficult to do so to any great effect - this is just innuendo.
quote: And ignoring the biases of the Gospel authors, making asusmptions about the accuracy of their sources, even assuming their identities is not - nor does it lead to - trustworthy interpretation. Quite the reverse. Your use of innuendo might be called clever - if dishonest - debating . You attempt to excuse your genuine misrepresentations. You falsely accuse me of cowardice for simply doing what you youeself say I should be doing. What would Jesus do ? Your Jesus would apparently misrepresent his opponents and use smears to try to cover it up. Is that what a great moral teacher would do ? But then maybe that's the message you want to send out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: My point of course is that it is impossible to rely on the details - like what, exactly someone said - after that much time. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Adding in the weaknesses of human memory only makes things worse. Ronald Reagan "remembered" things that hadn't happened - in 1980.
Example
...this story was an almost exact duplicate of a scene in the 1944 film "A Wing and a Prayer." Reagan had apparently retained the facts but forgotten their source
Or Example
Ronald Reagan sometimes told about being among the troops who liberated the Nazi death camps at the end of World War II, when in fact he was in Hollywood watching documentary film footage of their liberation as a member of the First Motion Picture Unit of the U.S. Army.
As for the development of legends let us not forget: Joseph Smith convinced his followers that he had - by divine inspiration translated the Book of Mormon from "Golden Tablets" he had found. He even convinced some of his followers to sign a statement that they had seen the tablets. L Ron Hubbard convinced His followers that he had healed himself from crippling injuries. Investigation of the records show that he had never suffered the injuries in the first place. For legends. we have Elvis being alive, the conspiracy theories around the assassination of JFK, 9/11 and the death of Princess Diana. The Roswell incident. Numerous urban legends (many of which are told as if they are recent events, even if the original story is quite old). On example, that I have seen presented as fact (despite being virtually impossible !) is the story of NASA discovering Joshua's "missing day", thus confirming the Bible. Are modern Christians really that much more gullible than their ancient counterparts ? All these examples have spread and been believed by some in less than two - or even one - generation. The examples of Joseph Smith and L Ron Hubbard are especially relevant given the emphasis on "correct doctrine" that you yourself have documented. Within a small religion it IS possible to rewrite history, and in a short period off time, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Lets raise some points you have managed to miss.
Mark wasn't a disciple and neither was Luke, and it's very unlikely that the author of Matthew was and we don't know about the author of John. Therefore you can't say that Mark or Luke do themselves down in the Gospels, and even your example form John is questionable. The aim is to play Jesus up - that is more important than the disciples. It is possible that the Gospels reflect disputes between Paul's Gentile church and the Jewish Ebionite Church of the other disciples. Doing down the disciples would be of advantage to the gentiles. The criticisms of Jesus may reflect contemporary claims - and can be expected to be rejected by the reader anyway. Remember they are presented as attacks on Jesus - not as something likely to be true. The author of John is the only one to identify Jesus as God. Maybe he is being dishonest - or wrong - when he presents Jesus as making such claims. While we can assume that the "difficult" teachings were genuinely believed by the authors, or at least their communities, we can't from that conclude that they came from Jesus. Let it be noted that Matthew 5:3 is less hard than the equivalent in Mark (10:11). (And most Protestant churches seem to allow marrying divorced women. I guess that most Protestants don't think much of THAT teaching.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: And many more believe otherwise.
quote: Luke doesn't list his sources or mention any interviews and copied a good deal of material from Mark or Matthew. Unless you want to take the minority view that Mark and/or Matthew copied from Luke ! Your assertions are just guesses.
quote: Quoting Isaiah 7 - where it is NOT meant literally. And it isn't Jesus speaking anyway. So that certainly isn't an example of Jesus claiming to be God.
quote:Which doesn't claim that he is God. quote: Except that the bit about being God isn't even implied there. Your other examples are not even greatly similar. The bird referred to is in flight in both cases (and in Deuteronomy it's an eagle not a hen).
quote: Then produce examples. Real examples.
quote: Yet if their community had developed new rules, they might well attribute them to Jesus. And as I keep pointing out ancient historians were far less particular than modern ones about putting speeches in the mouths of their subjects. If they believed that Jesus would approve of their rules they could well attribute them to him, even if they had no direct testimony.
quote: They reinforce my idea that Jesus was not such a great moral teacher as you suggested. It's hard because it isn't a great teaching. That's why it's been set aside.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Then you're going to have to show more than the vague similarity of "protecting bird" imagery. That isn't nearly enough to show that Jesus meant to claim that he was God.
quote: Like a flock of birds flying over. So here you agree with me.
quote: Again this disputes nothing that I said.
quote: That he had the desire - but not that he was able to do it (indeed it tends to imply that he didn't do it). And a chicken crouched over her young is not a flock of flying birds nor a hovering eagle. Now, if the images were exactly the same you would have a weak case. But they aren't even that. So since you are reduced to trying to defend this laughable nonsense I think we can assume that you have no case at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Jay indulges in his habit of fabrication and evasion again. I've never gone purely with the majority. I've always reserved the right to my own opinions. And the evidence that you're avoiding shows that quite a lot of people implicitly accept my view.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: That still doesn't change the fact that Matthew is ONLY giving the meaning of the name and that he was quoting Isaiah. And the name was not meant literally by Isaiah. So on what grounds do you claim that Matthew meant it literally ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: i.e. you don't have a case.
quote: Even if we assume that Jesus spoke those words it does not mean that your interpretation - which is strained far beyond the point of reason - has any merit whatsoever. In fact it quite obviously doesn't. So it isn't a matter of believing Jesus' words. It's a matter of putting YOUR words before the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: An obvious falsehood. You failed to make a case and then decided that you had nothing more to say, In doing so you implicitly admitted that you had no case.
quote: You have yet to produce any significant evidence to support this assertion.
quote: And until you answer the reasons to doubt this all you have is an unsupported opinion. The fact that we have no truly contemporary accounts and no accounts from neutral or hostile sources are in themselves good reason to doubt such a claim.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024