|
Author
|
Topic: Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
|
Message 266 of 327 (508189)
05-11-2009 8:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 256 by Peg
05-11-2009 1:53 AM
|
|
Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
quote:
the very calendar used in most parts of the world is based on the year he is thought to have been born!
Dates before that year are listed as BC, or before Christ. Dates after that year are listed as AD, or anno Domini (in the year of our Lord)
Did you even think of your explanation before you typed it? Do I really need to explain history to you and when and how this dating system started? They did not call the year 70 AD, 70 AD in 70 AD. And amazingly enough this is wrong too.
quote:
Not even the opponents of Jesus ever denied his existence.
The Jews didn't use BC and AD, neither did the moslems or hindus or even the chinese. Edited by Admin, : Fix quote. Theodoric, suggest you click on "Preview" before posting.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 256 by Peg, posted 05-11-2009 1:53 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
|
|
Message 267 of 327 (508192)
05-11-2009 8:59 AM
|
Reply to: Message 262 by Peg
05-11-2009 5:39 AM
|
|
Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
Its a freaking calendar. It isn't historical fact.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 262 by Peg, posted 05-11-2009 5:39 AM | | Peg has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
There is a lot of scholarship dating Mark to after the fall of Jerusalem. Here is a sampling from Wikipedia Dating of Mark near 70 AD is based on apparent references to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, combined with the assumption that the first readers would not have understood these references if the gospel had been written prior to the events described. Mark 13:14-23, known as the "Little Apocalypse", is a key passage for dating the text. Using the method of Higher Criticism to analyze the Biblical text and to discover the historical framework in which it was written, correspondences have been seen by scholars between this passage and the calamities of the First Jewish Revolt of 66—70.[31] The passage predicts that Herod's Temple would be torn down completely, and this was done by the forces of the Roman general Titus in the year 70.[32] Scholars have also pointed out that the last verse of the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen Mark 12:9 alludes to the slaughter and exile of the Jews from Jerusalem by the Romans after 70[33] (according to historians, the Jews were excluded from Jerusalem only after the Bar Kokhba revolt[34]). Others see the reference in Mark 14:58-59 to the false accusation that Jesus threatened to destroy the Temple and rebuild it in three days as another reference to the destruction of the Temple in 70.[35] A small group of scholars, including the German radical critical scholar Hermann Detering,[36] see a 2nd century date for Mark. These scholars make the case that the "Little Apocalypse" Mark 13:14-23 refers to the events of the Bar Kokhba Revolt of 132-135, and which they see as a much better fit to events described in this text than the First Jewish Revolt of 70.[37] See also Ten Martyrs[38]. Earl Doherty in the Jesus Puzzle puts the dating to 85-90. His argument is that Marks strong apocalyptic flavor is inconsistent with a period just prior to or just post destruction of Jerusalem. He also does a good analysis with the Q document to show a later date. I highly suggest checking out the book. I think the key point is we can not give a firm, solid, clear date to Mark, or any of the other NT writings. Therefore, they can not be used a validation of any prophecy. Without a complete provenance, these books can never be used to verify the prophecies. There needs to an external verification if the people that claim the prophecies are fulfilled want to be taken seriously. Edited by Theodoric, : More thoughts
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 264 by purpledawn, posted 05-11-2009 8:13 AM | | purpledawn has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 289 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 6:34 PM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
|
|
Message 274 of 327 (508213)
05-11-2009 12:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 273 by jaywill
05-11-2009 12:18 PM
|
|
Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
quote:
Where are the protests of the mythic invention of a Jesus of Nazareth in the first and second century or third century?
Everywhere. Christianity wasn't an accepted religion in the Roman Empire until the 4th century. It did not became the dominant religion because it had some innate appeal to the masses. It became the dominant religion because it became the state religion in 380 C.E. At that time the people followed the religion of their ruler. Heck, people followed the religion of their ruler in some countries until the last century. Doesn't make any of those religions any more correct than any other. Do you need sources for the above or can you research it yourself? There is little to know mention of Jesus Christ outside of the bible in the first couple centuries. H did not enter into the minds of most of the chroniclers of the period. Why would they discount something that hardly intruded into their lives? Can you find documents attesting to the mythic character of King Arthur from the period he was set? No. Because he was a mythic character that was invented later? The absence you mention does not equate to affirmation. There is little to nothing about Jesus Christ at all in that time perios. Little attesting to his existence or non-existence.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 273 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 12:18 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 277 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 1:11 PM | | Theodoric has replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
|
|
Message 276 of 327 (508215)
05-11-2009 1:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 265 by jaywill
05-11-2009 8:30 AM
|
|
Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
quote:
So I count Josephus reference to Him as extra-biblical confirmation of His ministry.
A lot of scholarship is showing this is a very questionable source. Here is a very extensive look at the Josephus and the Testimonium Flavianum quote:
Because the resurrection of Jesus is an article of faith, does not in and of itself, that it is not a historical fact.
In other words you have decided to fall back to the old tired christianist mantra. Faith trumps facts As for [I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist, Giesler and Turek, Crossway Books, pg.299,300] we atheist have had fun tearing it apart. This one examines it as a question and answer session between the book and the author of the piece. Literally tears the book apart. This is popular christianist book, it is not a serious work of scholarship. Its publisher is a christian publishing house that could hardly be called subjective.
Crossway and Good News Publishers Good News Publishers is a not-for-profit Christian ministry and exists solely for the purpose of proclaiming the gospel through publishing and all other means in order, by God's grace; 1. to bring men, women and children to Christ as their Lord and Savior; 2. to help individual Christians and the church grow in knowledge and understanding of the Christian life; 3. to bear witness to God's Truth, Beauty and Holiness, and to the Lordship of Christ in every area of life; and 4. to glorify our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in every way. I am surprised you would use such a biased source to try to back your claim. Habermas doesn't help you very much either. He is an evangelical christian and Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. Liberty University is hardly an unbiased source also. They teach creationism so hard to accept any scholarshipo from there. Do you think he even looked for anything that did not support his beliefs?
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 265 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 8:30 AM | | jaywill has replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
|
|
Message 281 of 327 (508222)
05-11-2009 1:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 277 by jaywill
05-11-2009 1:11 PM
|
|
Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
quote:
Previous emporer's hated the Christian faith because of fear of sedition. They were not able to wipe it out. So it really became a case of "If you Can't Beat em, Join em."
Evidence please. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Do you see how I have references for my points? You might want to try that.
quote:
The version of Christianity that Constantine made the official religion of the Roman Empire was a degraded matter. Any time you have to threaten people to become Christians or lead them to the baptismal at the point of a sword, or promise material rewards for becoming Christians, that is a terrible perversion of what Jesus taught. It would have been unrecognizable to the 12 apostles.
Christianist propaganda. Please show that there was another more "pure" form of jesus worship at that time.
quote:
However, none of this argues for Rome previously believing that Jesus of Nazareth was a fiction.
But you have nothing showing he was real. What the Roman empire thought of his reality is not the issue. You have nothing contemporary to him that shows he is.
quote:
Records outside the Bible prove that they knew Christians could not easily be made to renounce Jesus as their Lord. They tortured and killed Christians in order to exact such denials.
Please show that they were tortured for this.
quote:
There is more mention of Jesus than there is of Tiberius Ceasar. Do you doubt the existence of Tiberius Ceasar for that fact? Probably not.
Do you really want to go there? Do you? This is nothing but a christianist PRATT(points refuted a thousand times) and you know it. I think there have been other threads that already dealt with this, but I will gladly pick up this gauntlet.
quote:
But eventually they noticed that the people who did believe in Him seemed to rather suffer and die than renounce Him.
But that does not prove his existence. That people are willing to die for something dopes not affirm or deny the thing they are willing to die for. This is a logical fallacy.
quote:
It may not prove His existence. But it does show the hypocrisy of those who more readily accept the existence of say, Socrates or Tiberius Caesar with less historical confirmation than there is for Jesus Christ.
I am stunned by this comment. But it shows me who I am debating with. I am going to bow out. It is futile to debate someone that will not acknowledge facts. There is many magnitudes more evidence for a historical Caesar and Socrates then there is a Jesus Christ. That you say this shows me how far down the fundamentalist road you are. I can show you historical sources all day and you will just spout your propaganda with no real sources. Again I want to reiterate. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Try doing some research and come up with real sources. Edited by Theodoric, : As per Admin request to keep conversation civil Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 277 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 1:11 PM | | jaywill has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
|
|
Message 282 of 327 (508223)
05-11-2009 1:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 280 by jaywill
05-11-2009 1:25 PM
|
|
Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
quote:
If you don't think Norm Giesler is a serious scholar on the subject, I don't think I have a polite way of telling you what I think of you. So I'll refrain.
I didn't say he wasn't a serious scholar. I said the book was not a work of serious scholarship. Please do not attribute things to me that I do not say. If you think this book is serious scholarship, you might have an issue. Why do you have a need to be impolite? Can't we debate without you getting personal. I am not going to believe your mumbo-jumbo. Do you want to swear at everyone that questions you and your beliefs? Pomposity does not make your arguments any more legitimate. Edited by Theodoric, : Add last line
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 280 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 1:25 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 285 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 2:13 PM | | Theodoric has replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
|
|
Message 286 of 327 (508231)
05-11-2009 3:24 PM
|
Reply to: Message 285 by jaywill
05-11-2009 2:13 PM
|
|
Final reply to Jaywill
I have to make one more reply to you then I am finished trying to have any sort of meaningful discourse with you.
quote:
The things you actually say are bad enough.
What do you mean by the above? Have I impugned him by saying the book was not a serious book of scholarship? Have I been blasphemous?
quote:
You might read it. But I won't hold my breath waiting.
Well you don't have to hold your breath. I have attempted to read it. But it is the same old same old, geared toward reinforcing the belief in those that are swaying away from religion or reinforcing beliefs for the christian god(they are very insulting to other religions) and against atheists. I found a great comment about the book on Amazon. I agree wholeheartedly.
It should be made clear in the beginning whom this book is for: it is not for the philosophical or scientific atheist, nor is it for someone who is familiar with classic Christian apology. The arguments this book contains have all appeared before, and many have been discussed, refuted, or otherwise addressed elsewhere, and in much greater depth. Many of the subjects in the book are broached with little care and less thoroughness, such that if you've encountered books on these subjects separately, their treatment here will seem minimal at best. You might want to search reviews on this book. There are a number of christians who feel it is a very flawed book. Their logic is flawed. They try to build a syllogistic argument, but build it on a lot of false logic and false facts. It seems to be a book written by people proficient in debate, where rhetoric is much more important than reason. Edited by Theodoric, : comment about other religions
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 285 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 2:13 PM | | jaywill has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 317 by jaywill, posted 05-13-2009 9:41 AM | | Theodoric has not replied |
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
Glenn Miller is very questionable as a source. He is obviously a committed christianist.
Glenn M. Miller, committed evangelical disciple of Jesus Christ for the last 35 years of my life, research/writer/speaker, IT business executive, father of three gifted, delightful, over-stimulated, people--all seeking, questioning, open-minded, authentic people [one lives in Philly, one lives in heaven, and one lives in San Jose]. Philosopher, theologian, divorced (still a little ashamed, but forgiven), mild MaiTai-er, extreme empathetic, serious but passionate about the deep issues of life/existence. His website is A Christian Thinktank , so I am sure he is very objectice. NOT.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
™ Version 4.2