|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: 'Some still living' disproves literal truth of the bible | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Nope.. not entirely.
There is this little factor of 'collaborating evidence'. The one thing about encyclopedias is they provide their sources. .. and it is the original source that matters, not the summation by the encylopedia. It is a matter of primary vs secondary vs Tertiary sources. An encylopedia would be far down the food chain, while primary and secondary sources would be given higher
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
It seems to me that to interpret one set of lines to mean what you want, you have to keep on jumping all over the place to find phrases to justify it. IMO, that is trying to find a decoder ring to figure out a puzzle, rather than just doing a straight reading of the text. If you read Matthew as a whole, you do not get it to be a prediction for 2000, 3000, or 4000 years in the future.
For you to justify your interpretation, you have to bring in a whole bunch of non contextual quotes from all over the place. If things have to be complicated to justify the interpretation, that interpretation is probably wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
And??.. If you look at the writings of Peter, in context of what is the writer of the Gospel of Peter is talking about and in Paul's letter in context of the letter of Paul , it does not make your case. The Gospel of John is so corrupted by so many people having their finger in the pie it would be difficult to figure out what the original author had verses what has modified later.
If you read Matthew, in context with Mathew, it specifically falsifies you claim. The requirement to turn the book of Mathew into a giant puzzle with little out of context quotes from other authors insures you are not understanding what the author of the Gospel of Matthew was saying. For what the author fo the Gospel of Matthew is says, you can't look at the any other gospel or letter. You have to look at the Gospel of Matthew. What is that author saying? You have to look at when it is written, where it was written, and who the audience was. The need to skip to every other place in the bible, and ignore those issues is to insure your reading your prejudices INTO the text, rather than reading from the text. Theology by sound bits is not sound theology. Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Are you of the same generation as Lincoln? The answer is obviously 'No' since there is no one alive when Lincoln was alive when you were born. Generally speaking, if someone is born 20 years or more from another person, they are considered in 'a different generation'
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: That is totally not relevant to what a 'generation' is. As a matter of fact, that is one big red herring.
quote:And for the sake of the argument, every one of the people who were contemporary with Jesus is now dead. Jesus himself 'Tasted death', if you accept the bible. Therefore, the entire passage is a failed prediction. The only way you are attempting to 'prove the literal truth' of that is so distorting language as to bend it out of shape and massacre it. And the fact the western world was under the domination of the Catholic Church so long that it adopted their dating system is relevant to the meaning of 'this generation'. That is a massive red herring. If you have to do 'Theology by jigsaw puzzle' to justify your beliefs there is something seriously wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: In other words, 'This generation' does not mean 'this generation' because of vague symbolism you wish to interpret in a way that has nothing to do with the passages talking about 'This generation'. Obviously, you want to read into the parable, rather than take from the parable. It has nothing to do with 'this generation' or not. You are stretching one word.. 'tarried' in the KJV, and boost up it's importance so much you are missing the meaning of the entire parable. That is jig saw puzzle theology, and you miss the picture for trying to figure out a cryptograph that isn't there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
What translation are you using??
Now, you are using single WORDS in a disconnected sentence, all translated from the original, and you are not making your case at all. It is one giant red herring. Every case you mention , does not say that 'This generation' is more than the people present, and it is not making your case at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: Except of course, the topic at hand was 'the meaning of this generation', and has nothing to do with the parable about the virgins. Focus!!!!
quote: That still does not address the meaning of ' THIS GENERATION You are clutching at straws here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I am trying to see what anything you wrote has anything to do with the subject at hand. I see a whole bunch of discombobulated phrases that do not address the central theme of what 'This generation' could possibly mean.
You are jumping all over the place, but not addressing this issue. It seems to me that the one point that I am finding is the fact that so many very religious Christians spend so much time explaining why the words in the bible do not mean what the words in the bible says.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
quote: It is your claim that 'this generation' is define by moral and spiritual condition. You are trying to rationalize your belief system, but you are unable to use the context of matthew 24 to make that point. Using out of context phrases from all over the place that have nothing to do with the context of Matt 24:34 does not make for a coherent or logical argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, that is hardly 'proof' at all. ... I dont' see who it addresses the concept of 'moral generation' at all.
As for Jesus being the 'Jewish Messiah', the Jewish faith did not recognize him because he did not do that things that were required. It is only after those things are accomplished will someone be acknowledged as the Jewish Messiah. There is the little thing as making a new King over Israel, from the 'seed of david' (unbroken male line from David.. no women or adopted children need apply), the torah being the center of all religious worship in the world, a 1000 years of no wars anyplace, and things like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
A 'prophecy' that is extended indefinitely to the future is a failed prophecy...
What do you think is a reasonable time period.??
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024