Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

quote:

---

Which verse or verses?

---

Wherever it appears. You’re the one who specified chapter 7.

I was referring to the text I quoted It would be rather easier if you kept track of the context instead of making me repeat myself. Or asking me what YOU meant.

quote:

---

Ask yourself how you know this, and then ask yourself how you're defining the quality of life, materially or spiritually?

---

This thread spun out of a discussion of the story of Ananias and Sapphira. Where people were selling their property and giving the money to the disciples (Acts 4 34-35)Does anyone think that would have happened if the disciples just gave up ?

I think there was a historical Jesus but exaggerating the evidence is not a good defence.

quote:

---

Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian, Josephus (although much of it likely altered by Christians after-the-fact), the Babylonian Talmud, etc are all reputable sources.

---

Pliny doesn’t mention the historical Jesus. Lucian doesn’t either.The references in the Babylonian Talmud are very problematic. At least one is likely a response to Christian claims with no historical validity.

quote:

---

I find it hard to believe that you believe that. We have more written about the life of Jesus than we do any other historical figure from around that time and for even many years later

---

Not really. We only have detailed accounts of one year in his life (or was it really three?). How does that compare with the writings about Julius Caesar - including his own ?

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense, however, even saying you're right then it is obvious that Mark was not writing about end times but about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.

---

You obviously don’t understand Jewish thinking. The End times would be the period where the Jews came under attack, but God intervenes and sets them at the head of a new world order. Obviously the period of war - and the siege - would be dangerous and highly unpleasant and fleeing might be advised.

quote:

---

I'm really sorry to be rude, but that again is ridiculous. Why on earth would any of them want to carry on a movement that is based on the leader being crucified which very clearly says that he is just another failed messianic figure. It would require the collaboration of a huge number of people. There is no benefit either earthly or spiritually for them to do that.

---

Sure there is. If they were truly committed to the idea of Jesus as Messiah then they would - subconsciously at least - look for ways to hold on to that belief even when it failed. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are still active despite the utter failure of their end-times predictions.They had some sort of sightings of Jesus - maybe mistaken identity, dreams, visions even pareidolia. And that was all it took.And from Acts 4-5 it seems that the disciples did pretty well out of it for a time.

quote:

---

Hyroglyphx already answered that for you in post 995.

---

Hyroglyphx gave a list of sources, two of which give brief mentions adding nothing to the Gospels, one of which is late, includes likely fictions, and in others may be speaking of someone else entirely.
The other two don’t say ANYTHING about the historical Jesus.So no, in message 994 Hyroglyphx did not answer my point (a list of sources does not tell you their contents!) and his list had very serious problems. You should have read the actual post 995 - my response.

quote:

---

What quotes do we have of anything that Caesar said?

---

Nice attempt to divert but irrelevant. Words attributed to Jesus by unreliable sources decades after the fact hardly compare with Caesar’s own account of the Gallic Wars. Let alone the rest.

quote:

---

That is my point. The passages were about the end of the age, (the age being the period of Roman occupation), and not the end of the world. It was an anti-revolutionary message.

---

The fact that the Roman occupation continued would be sufficient to disprove it then. However, Your point is wrong in other ways - it doesn’t say that the Jews shouldn’t revolt. It pretty much says that they will, and that although they suffer God will intervene and they will win. God didn’t intervene, they lost.

quote:

---

I'm sorry but that just doesn't hold water and I've already explained why several times in this thread.

---

By using arguments I refuted earlier. Sorry the idea that humans must react in exactly the same way if a situation is even vaguely similar is nonsense. The fact that you continue to rely on it only shows that you have no good arguments, only lame excuses.Until you can cope with your own ridiculous bias you are in no position to present yourself as a seeker of the truth.

quote:

---

All the writers of the NT consistently purport Jesus' resurrection.

---

Just like all Scientology sources sing the benefits of clearing.

quote:

---

You guys don't accept this but there is no other reasonable reason to explain the rise of Christianity other than a firm belief in the resurrection.

---

I don’t accept that ? That’s news to me.

quote:

---

They could be wrong about it but it is clear that the believe that the resurrection was an historical event.

---

The evidence says that they were very likely wrong.

quote:

---

With that in mind it is also reasonable to understand the Bible through Jesus' message of love

---

Your ideas about what is reasonable are so often unreasonable. What the NT writers believed about the Resurrection of Jesus doesn’t even mean that they meant to promote the message you ascribe to Jesus. It certainly doesn’t mean that the writers of the OT books - who had no such belief - did.You would do much better to argue from a theological view which assumes the Divinity of Jesus - and assumes the accuracy of the NT accounts - at least when reporting Jesus’ words. Arguing on a historical and rational basis is utterly ridiculous.

quote:

---

It’s a discussion about when Mark was written and has nothing to do with inerrancy. The point is, is that if it had happened prior to Mark’s Gospel being compiled, Mark would have recorded it, likely wouldn’t include saying not one stone on another and would have shown that what Jesus predicted would happen actually had happened.

---

It’s funny how so many of your arguments are based on what you think people would have done - even when there is no solid case for it.. The author of Luke didn’t do those things either but we can be sure he was writing after 70 AD. How can you be so sure that the author of Mark would have done differently ?

quote:

---

I can't be sure. I have simply explained why I believe it to be the case.

---

It’s one of many things you believe because they are convenient for your argument. Just like you think the NT writer’s belief in the Resurrection is sufficient reason to force the Bible into your favoured interpretation.However, the real evidence that the passage comes earlier than 70AD is that things did not go as predicted. There was no abomination in the Temple. God did not intervene to save the Jews from defeat. No angels came to gather the elect. The version in Luke is changed to acknowledge these things, putting off the End Times to the near future - but it didn’t happen then, either.You don’t use that argument because you refuse to acknowledge those failures. Even though they are so plain that they were recognised by the author of Luke.

quote:

---

Firstly I contend that Mark was written prior to the war for reasons I have already given.

---

And those reasons are obviously bad. That was my point.

quote:

---

I am not saying that because the NT writers believed that the resurrection was an historical event proves that it was true

---

Indeed not, and I did not say that you did. You did however claim that that belief made it reasonable to interpret the Bible in the light of Jesus teachings. By which you mean your interpretation of teachings attributed to Jesus.

quote:

---

I am simply saying that I believe that essentially they got it right even though some of the details differ, and I have many times explained why I think that to be the most reasonable conclusio

---

Except that the differences are far more than details. Please explain to me how it is possible that the author of Matthew thought that the Disciples went to Galilee and met Jesus there if, in fact, Jesus personally told some of them not to go to Galilee, and because of that none of them left the area around Jerusalem until after the Ascension and Pentecost - which get no mention in Matthew at all.

quote:

---

You are just restating what you have previously and I have already answered that. The only thing new is here is "God did not intervene to save the Jews from defeat".

---

I think that producing a better argument for the earlier date is worthwhile. And the fact that you refuse to use it is quite telling.

quote:

---

Jesus was saying that if you carry on with the revolution the Jerusalem and the Temple will be destroyed. He saw a military revolution to be a case of fighting evil with evil and that evil and when you do that evil wins. Here is a quote from Ephesians 6.

---

That is your opinion but it requires adding a lot to the text. A more straightforward reading is that the Romans would push the Jews too far by setting up the Abomination and then the Jews would revolt.

quote:

---

Jesus was saying that God wouldn't intervene to save the Jews from defeat.

---

The references to earlier Jewish apocalyptic writings suggest otherwise, especially in the absence of any explicit statement to the contrary.

quote:

---

Firstly you are wrong that they didn't happen, but secondly as I have already said that Jesus isn't telling the future supernaturally but predicting the future with the knowledge of the political situation.

---

The Abomination certainly didn’t happen, and if you really think loads of angels turned up to gather the chosen of the Son of Man from all over the world I want to see actual evidence.You are also wrong to think that the prediction is purely political - the religious element - the expectation of past prophecy being fulfilled - is very strong.

quote:

---

I agree that they are plain and you have plain got it wrong. I gather that you were raised in the church and you are projecting on to the Christian faith what you beleived about the Christianity prior to rejecting it.

---

Wrong. Utterly wrong. The beliefs I was raised with were more like yours. Except for the distortion of the text you are engaged in here - and the obvious dishonesty and evasion.

You mean because you have been caught being blatantly dishonest.The differences in the Gospels (plus Acts) are not mere details. That is a fact.The Abomination did not occur as Jesus predicted. Do not forget that it is the sign of the Tribulation starting, the sign to flee. That makes sense if it is a Roman provocation - setting up a pagan altar or the like in the Temple - but there was nothing of the sort.There is nothing saying that God will not intervene - indeed the arrival of the Son of Man echoes Daniel 7:11, which occurs after the defeat of the 4th Beast. More, you say that other aspects echo Isaiah 13 - which is all about God bringing destruction in Babylon. Odd indeed, if it is not meant to indicate that God will intervene against Rome.There are plenty more problems for your position. I just wish you could be honest about it and admit to the problems instead of telling obvious falsehoods.

quote:

---

Integrity counts here. How persuasive is the storyteller?

---

Persuasiveness and integrity are not the same thing. And persuasiveness can as easily deceive as enlighten.

quote:

---

GDR seems persuasive. So does PaulK. Consider what each of them is attempting to persuade the peanut gallery to conclude.

---

GDR wishes us to believe that the evidence supports his claims whether it is true or not. He tried to claim that the list of works in Message 994 adds significantly to our knowledge of the historical Jesus. Is that true ? Hyroglyphx never made that claim and GDR has never gone beyond a reference to that single post.Just as GDr never supports his claim Jesus was saying that God would not intervene to help the Jews. That may be his idea of what Jesus was saying but it isn’t in the text - and the OT references in the text suggest otherwise. It’s just what he wants Jesus to have said, and never mind the Bible.It’s not hard to find other examples. Not at all.And that pretty much proves the point I started with.

quote:

---

Critically examining the Bible without accepting any of the offers of communion and character from Jesus or God seems like a fruitless profession.

---

In my experience, there is no communion to accept. And how can we assess the characters of people known only through stories of questionable reliability without critical examination ? Even with it, it may not be possible - but that’s no excuse to refuse to make the effort.

quote:

---

Its like having a job running around ruining kids days by telling them Santa Claus is a myth...what actual good does it do to society?

---

Except for not being a job, not running around and not talking to kids. And I have to say, are all your pastimes dedicated to doing good to society ? Even if getting at the truth of these matters does not, I can think of many things less good that I might be doing.

quote:

---

When this same motive is applied justifying arguments against cherished beliefs, however...it serves no useful function...unless one actually believed that the whole world would be better off atheist

---

This site is supposed to be about debate and getting to the truth. If you reject those because they support atheism and demolish cherished beliefs then you shouldn’t be here and you should be arguing against the very existence of this site.

quote:

---

I would prefer that we arrive at a consensus of a God that we could believe in without looking and sounding foolish.

---

That isn’t going to happen. But why would you want it to happen ? Aren’t you just wanting people to agree on a lie that makes them feel good ? Yuck.

Matthew 24:30 This is a reference to Daniel 7:13Let’s look at the context: The end of the Beast attacking the Jews - ended by God’s judgement, the Son of Man ruling over all. How can this be seen as anything else than God intervening to save the Jews?(As a side note, since the other beasts of the image survive it is likely that they are meant to be the other Diadochi kingdoms)Edited by PaulK, : Fix tag

While GDR is definitely misrepresenting Daniel (Daniel IS End Times prophecy so how can citing it be nothing to do with the End Times?) you’re wrong about the Son of Man.In fact, in Daniel it is one like a Son of Man - an entity that appears human. Most likely it is intended to be the angel Michael (mentioned 3 times in Daniel, notably Daniel 12:1) a time of trouble, such as never was may well be the origin of the Tribulation, too.