Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 992 of 1677 (844072)
11-24-2018 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 984 by Tangle
11-23-2018 6:42 PM


Matthew 24
Tangle writes:
Absolutely, it's the bloody end of times! The Son of Man is returning
It isn't about the Son of Man returning. It is about the Son of Man coming and it's coming to the Father as talked about in Daniel 7.
quote:
13 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
I’m sorry, but that isn’t how it reads but you have your mind made up and so that’s that.
I’d add this. Christianity is often so focused on Jesus as God. It forgets about Jesus the man. Wholly God and wholly man. I don’t believe that Jesus had supernatural knowledge of the future. He is constantly referring back to the Hebrew Scriptures just as He is in the passages we’re discussing. He prayerfully gained His understanding of His vocation through those scriptures. He predicted the fall of Jerusalem because He understood the militant and revolutionary ways of His people, and He knew what the Romans would do to quash any military revolution.
Frankly, if the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple hadn’t happened within a generation it wouldn’t affect my faith. It would simply be like me looking at the situation and wrongly predicting the outcome of an election. Jesus understood the revolutionary and militant ways of His people. He also understood what the Romans would do in order to quash a rebellion. Jesus was predicting what was going to happen, and believed that it would happen sooner rather than later.
I realize it suits your position on Christianity to be able to look at those passages and say that Jesus with supernatural knowledge Jesus was predicting the end of the world so you can claim victory because it didn’t happen. If you want to set up a straw man and knock down feel free
Tangle writes:
So immediately after the Temple falls comes the return of yer man with his angels and trumpets etc. And ...So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.'
It doesn’t talk about Jesus returning. It talks about Him coming and refers, once again, to his coming to the Father, the Ancient of Days as in Daniel 13.The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple will be a sign of what happens when you try to defeat evil with a sword. This will be the affirmation of Jesus’ message and so they will see, (not visually), that Jesus has gone to the Father, the Ancient of Days and given dominion over the nations. That obviously is metaphoric but IMHO it is a metaphor that represents a fundamental truth. I know you completely reject all of this but I thought I’d outline my understanding of what is going on.
I also would like to add that I contend that some branches of the Christian church make too big an issue of end times beliefs. If God is going to shut things down as they stand, there isn’t much we can do about that happening. However, what we can do is to prepare for, and live lives that build for, the time when all things are recreated, or in other words, when all of creation is resurrected. That is done simply by following my signature.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 984 by Tangle, posted 11-23-2018 6:42 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 996 by Tangle, posted 11-25-2018 3:42 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 993 of 1677 (844073)
11-24-2018 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 985 by ringo
11-23-2018 9:20 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
ringo writes:
What has Matthew 24 got to do with what we're talking about?
The whole discussion is about what Matthew 24 is about.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 985 by ringo, posted 11-23-2018 9:20 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1000 by ringo, posted 11-25-2018 1:16 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1019 of 1677 (844187)
11-26-2018 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 996 by Tangle
11-25-2018 3:42 AM


Re: Matthew 24
Tangle writes:
And yet it actually says that the Son of Man coming to the people Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come
quote:
Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.
But in any case that didn't happen either! It doesn't matter which way you spin it, it didn't happen! [We'd know]
Once again you're reading this with a 21st century understanding. Jesus was addressing 1st century Jews. Essentially He is saying that when you see the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that it will be God's judgement on Israel, and that they will then see and understand the enthronement of Jesus, (again Daniel 7) and the establishment of the Kingdom. It is Jesus coming to the Father, (the Ancient of Days), not coming to Earth. I would add that it being about God's judgement does not mean that God punished by intent, but it is as a result of what naturally happens when we try to defeat evil with more evil. Jesus continually talked about not going down the road of violent revolution but about defeating evil with the weapon of love. It is about turning hearts away from evil.
Tangel writes:
You, like all others believe what you prefer, it has no effect on the words written, all it does is demonstrate why there are 38,000 formal variants of what Christians believe and billions of individual ones. Because just like the original words, you're all making it up.
I've said before. All religion is man made. In the case of Christianity it is based on the belief that there is one creator god that is a god of love and that He resurrected Jesus, who embodied His nature perfectly or to put it another way carried God's spiritual DNA. Then we factor in the Bible and how to understand that and so yes, there probably aren't 2 Christians anywhere, (who have put in any time to actually study the whole thing), that will agree on everything.
Tangle writes:
Heresy! Jesus wasn't a prophet! You're kidding right? Jesus has no supernatural knowledge, 'he just a very naughty boy'. Oh come on. So he was lying when he said all that stuff, making all those future predictions?
I didn't say He wasn't a prophet. I am saying that He foretold the future in the same way that you or I might tell the future. As a prophet you might say that there will be no Brexit deal and that thousands of jobs will be lost in your country. You would be simply assessing the situation from what you know. Jesus was doing that in forecasting the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple.
A prophet is essentially one who puts into words the will and nature of God and then using that wisdom project the likelihood of what that will mean in the future. The future is open and unknowable with certainty, but Jesus could, and we can, forecast future events based on what we do know in the present.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 996 by Tangle, posted 11-25-2018 3:42 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1023 by Tangle, posted 11-26-2018 3:54 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1032 by Percy, posted 11-26-2018 6:21 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1021 of 1677 (844198)
11-26-2018 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 997 by Percy
11-25-2018 11:54 AM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
Percy writes:
I didn't mean that they were all that late. When I said "by the time the gospels were written" maybe I should have said, "by the time all the gospels had been written." The last one would have been written some time between 100 and 150 AD.
That's an open question but it isn't germane anyway as they aren't original material but compilations of earlier material primarily the eye witnesses.
Percy writes:
I think that even in the very early days of Christianity when Paul was establishing the first churches that most of the converts were gentiles. The message of Paul was very different from the message of Jesus as expressed in the gospels. Paul brought a message for all mankind, not just Jews.
Frankly I have no idea of how many of the first Christians were Jewish or gentile but all of the early Christian leaders were Jewish. The Gospels include the beliefs of the disciples who right through to Acts 1 still largely understood that the Messiah would lead them in defeat of the Romans and rebuild the physical Temple. It was later that they understood and embraced the anti-revolutionary message of Jesus. Paul was essentially the first theologian who used the first written and oral accounts to crystallize Jesus' life and message.
Percy writes:
Rather than getting into it we could probably agree that reasonable people could disagree about which gospel writers were Jewish.
Sure, though I think that we can safely agree that Matthew was Jewish, although I'm not trying to make any point with that.
Percy writes:
Are you still talking about Mark 13, because I don't see where Jesus said anything about rebuilding the Temple?
Not specifically there but in His broader message He was saying that He Himself embodied the Temple, the place where one could go to have sins forgiven and to connect with God. God's dwelling place is not in a physical dwelling but in the hearts of those who embrace His message of love, mercy, forgiveness etc.
Percy writes:
Then what you believe is coming from within yourself and has no objective reality.
Yes, but it is my subjective reality. I believe it is that still small voice in all of us. I understand that still small voice to be the voice of the God in the Holy Spirit that speaks to us, but as a Christian I acknowledge that it isn't me but God, hopefully but far from fully, working through me.
Percy writes:
You're repeating the exact same arguments you made before and ignoring the rebuttal. The rebuttal is unchanged and still unaddressed, I'll repeat it. Obviously the message resonated with potential converts, evangelists would have increased their emphasis on what worked, being a leader in a religious movement does have rewards, and you're objecting to things that are true of many new religions. We observe them today all the time, like embracing persecution, encouraging an "us versus them" mentality, giving up worldly things, etc.
Once again, religions are based on human understandings . They are our attempt at understanding the nature of God and how, if at all, that should affect how we live and what we do. If we look at the rise of the very early Jesus followers they weren’t starting a new religion but were looking at reforming Judaism in a society that was hostile to their message and that separated them from friends, neighbours, culture and even threatened their lives.
Let’s look at your points one at a time. Embracing persecution. If someone is going to embrace persecution for their faith it has to be something that they very firmly believe in. For the first Christians it was all about the belief that God had resurrected Jesus. This was an event in their lifetimes and for which many would have been eye witnesses. Even Paul would have dealt with those who were eye witnesses and would have to have read or heard a very convincing argument to cause him to make such a radical change in his life and beliefs. He went from a person with a comfortable life style, prestige and influence and completely embraced one that meant he depended on the largess of others and spent considerable time in prison.
Encouraging an "us versus them" mentality. It wasn’t like that at all. It was a message that was for everyone of every nation and was, (and still is), a message that is intended to bring nations together in peace. Certainly, there have been Christians who have badly abused the basic message for their own purposes but that doesn’t negate Jesus’ message of love your neighbour AND your enemy.
Giving up worldly things. The Christian idea of giving up worldly things isn’t specific to Christianity of course. The point is that we should give up worldly things either for the point that they aren’t good for us or that it is for the benefit of others. It goes back to the point that we should love ourselves, (meaning that we don’t do things that are harmful to the our lives that are a gift from God), and that we do give up our worldly things, such as our time and finances, for the benefit of our neighbours, including our neighbours of all nations.
In reading the Gospels it is obvious that the writers believed them to be essentially truthful. They are compiled as factual and from earlier accounts. The earlier accounts would almost certainly have been given by eye witnesses or by their contemporaries. (I realize that there is no factual evidence that this I true but it is consistent with what is written.) The accounts do not write about the disciples in a positive way but show them to be self focused. There was a belief amongst many Jews that there would be a general resurrection, of presumably Jewish people, at the end of time, but there is no account anywhere of anyone anticipating this happening to anyone in the middle of time.
Percy writes:
But as Tangle keeps reminding you, the evidence isn't in your book. You're just telling yourself that there must have been evidence because otherwise Paul's conversion would make no sense. But look around you at new religions that form today. Where is their evidence? They have none, right? So why do you believe people in the Bible must have had evidence that is nowhere described in the Bible?
Actually, Luke talks about it.
quote:
1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.
Percy writes:
This is just something you believe, not something you have any evidence for. He (Paul) sure didn't go to Peter.
We have accounts of Paul having several disagreements with Peter. Peter argued for circumcision for example as he believed that gentiles should follow Jewish practices whereas Paul was very firmly against it. Obviously Paul did interact with Peter at various times.
Percy writes:
Paul's epistles predate the gospels, and the differences indicate a period of mythmaking.
Possibly, we really don’t know. There is disagreement on the whole issue. It isn’t a big issue for me but I actually think your statement is wrong. If the Gospels were compiled after 70AD or even after the start of the war in 66AD they would have recorded it. They were however compiled in a way that appears to have the Temple still standing and there is no mention of any revolution taking place. As Jesus had forecast the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple it would be only logical that they would make a note of the events thereby confirming that Jesus’ predictions had come to pass. This being the case there is a strong likelihood that the Gospels were compiled prior to some of the epistles, but certainly not prior to the information that existed either in written or oral form that was used to compile the Gospels.
Percy writes:
The gospels are just stories, but you're interpreting them far differently than most of the rest of Christianity who talk of how amazing it was that after Jesus's death the apostles continued to evangelize with renewed energy and confidence.
Well I do think that it is amazing, but I wouldn’t phrase it that they continued to evangelize but that they began to evangelize.
GDR writes:
Well we agree then that it didn't help them materially and can you explain how they would think that it would help them spiritually if they didn't actually believe it to be true. Considering the cost of what they were doing they would have to be pretty convinced that they had it right.
Percy writes:
You're just repeating your original failed argument. The answer hasn't changed. Many new religions make material sacrifices for spiritual gain. We observe it in real time today. How are Christian origins any different?
You didn’t answer the question. If the first Christians including the disciples were not convinced of the truth of the resurrection of Jesus, then why would they believe that there was anything to be gained by carrying on a mission based on Jesus’ resurrection?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 997 by Percy, posted 11-25-2018 11:54 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1037 by Percy, posted 11-26-2018 8:39 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1022 of 1677 (844199)
11-26-2018 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1000 by ringo
11-25-2018 1:16 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
ringo writes:
The only thing I'm discussing is your cherry-picking of the text. One glaring example is your dismissal of the stories about the Old Testament atrocities as "made up by men" while at the same time swallowing hook, line and sinker the New Testament stories about miracles and resurrection - even though they are just as obviously made up by men. You ignore the text when it doesn't fit your made-up ideas about a sunshine-and-lollipops God.
There are 66 books in the library we call the Bible. There are no doubt hundreds of writers actually involved and the books were written centuries apart. Each writer had his own motivation and source of knowledge. The writers who wrote about the atrocities were in all likelihood responsible to their leaders who could hold the power of death over them. Also, they would want to support the actions of their nation. God told us to do it is easy to say but can be used to justify anything, good or evil, you want it to.
The accounts or resurrection and miracles are confirmed by several authors, and numerous other sources in the Bible, and they are not at all consistent with what the Jews believed about what a messiah was supposed to be or do. I have written in several posts in this thread about why the Gospel accounts would not be something that they would fabricate.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1000 by ringo, posted 11-25-2018 1:16 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1040 by Percy, posted 11-27-2018 8:22 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 1042 by ringo, posted 11-27-2018 10:42 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1027 of 1677 (844205)
11-26-2018 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 986 by Percy
11-24-2018 11:57 AM


Jesus' resurrection
Percy writes:
Jesus wasn't a real person.
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.
Percy writes:
Whoever wrote Mark is putting words in his mouth at a time when the destruction of the Temple lay in the past.
Then why wouldn't Mark say that, ‘see’ , Jesus was right, it happened?
Percy writes:
Mark wasn't writing in Jerusalem and wouldn't know how complete the destruction.
C'mon Percy. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and by that time the war had been going on for 4 years. Mark doesn't mention the war, and no matter where he was in the area he would be aware of what had happened to Jerusalem and the Temple in very short order.
Percy writes:
It's pretty obviously a reference to what Jews actually did ("head for the hills") after the destruction of Jerusalem.
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.
Percy writes:
Yours is just one interpretation of a confusion of information gathered from conflicting sources, but more importantly, this is not a counter to, "How handy to have a martyr, especially one who defeated death, rose to heaven to sit by God." Whatever your goals, whether worldly or heavenly, if your leader is dead then claiming he defeated death and was carried bodily up to heaven to sit at the right hand of God is just making the best of a bad situation.
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.
Paercy writes:
But even more importantly, these events never happened. All the different interpreters of these Jesus stories are just arguing over fiction.
That is your unevidenced opinion based on your theological beliefs.
GDR writes:
Nobody after the Maccabees were put to death did anyone suggest that Judas Maccabees was resurrected even though he talked about resurrection. Everyone assumed that it would be resurrection at the end of time. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Gioria was resurrected in 70 AD. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Kokhba was resurrected in 135 AD. All of these guys led revolts that had varying degrees of military success and were put to death by the Romans. They were simply regarded as failed messiahs and then people looked for another messiah to lead them. (The idea pretty much dies out after 135 AD however.)
Percy writes:
Why do you think this helps your case?
I think that it is pretty clear. There were numerous messianic movements within a hundred years or so around the time of Jesus. In each case they were ended by the Romans executing the messianic figures and in most cases whatever followers they could get hold of. Many of these such as the Maccabees, Simon bar Giora and Simon bar Khokhba all had a fair amount of military success. The Maccabees reigned for 100 years. When they were executed by the Romans and nobody suggested that they were still alive in some fashion, let alone that they had been resurrected. When Jesus was crucified, the leaders knew Jesus to be another failed messiah, denied Him and went into hiding not wanting to suffer the same fate. Then, all that changed and it would take something very dramatic. It makes sense to believe that the essential elements of their accounts explains this dramatic turnaround.
Percy writes:
Paul is the founder of Christianity. He had his beliefs, but there's nothing to indicate they formed from evidence, nothing to indicate he observed anything recounted in the gospels, nothing to indicate he was close to any of the apostles, and Acts tells us that Paul and Peter disagreed.
Paul is not the founder of Christianity. Christianity was founded firstly as a Jewish reform movement eventually becoming a separate religion. Luke record this in Acts 11.
quote:
26 and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
This would be after the epistles, and would have been a way fo distinguishing Jews who were followers of Jesus from other Jews.
Also of course, as you have agreed Paul interacted with Peter and so it is obvious that he would have interacted with all of the remaining disciples. Paul is essentially the first theologian of the new movement and was the primary leader responsible for spreading the belief to the gentiles.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 986 by Percy, posted 11-24-2018 11:57 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1028 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2018 4:59 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1045 by Percy, posted 11-27-2018 7:59 PM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1029 of 1677 (844207)
11-26-2018 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1023 by Tangle
11-26-2018 3:54 PM


Re: Matthew
Tangle writes:
Am I supposed to accept that you're reading it with a 1st century understanding?
Actually yes. I have read a great deal of the work of N T Wright who is a first century historian, knowing ancient and Greek Latin and Hebrew, and is considered one of the, if not the, leading New Testament scholar in the world. (That of course is opinion but quoting Newsweek N T Wright is "the world's leading New Testament scholar".)
GDR writes:
It is Jesus coming to the Father, (the Ancient of Days), not coming to Earth.
Tangle writes:
The words say the opposite all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
The destruction will be the vindication and the confirmation of Christ's anti-revolutionary message and so they will then see and understand the Kingdom message spoken of Daniel 7, a message that is for all nations.
GDR writes:
I didn't say He wasn't a prophet. I am saying that He foretold the future in the same way that you or I might tell the future.
Tangle writes:
You mean by guessing? You call that prophecy? I can do that.
Sure, although it is more than guessing, and more about applying knowledge of a given situation and predicting the future.
Tangle writes:
You've demoted you god-man to just any other guy predicting his teams score at the weekend.
No, as I've said I don't believe that God knows the future specifically. What I will have for lunch next Sunday is an unknown even to God. The future is open.
I believe that Jesus was a man who embodied the spiritual DNA of God the Father to whom He prayed. This same God performed miracles through the man Jesus, that God resurrected Jesus and gave Him dominion over the Kingdom of all nations metaphorically as per Daniel 7.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1023 by Tangle, posted 11-26-2018 3:54 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1031 by Tangle, posted 11-26-2018 5:59 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1030 of 1677 (844208)
11-26-2018 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1028 by PaulK
11-26-2018 4:59 PM


Re: Jesus' resurrection
PaulK writes:
Not really. We only have detailed accounts of one year in his life (or was it really three?)
Hyroglyphx already answered that for you in post 995.
PaulK writes:
How does that compare with the writings about Julius Caesar - including his own ?
What quotes do we have of anything that Caesar said?
PaulK writes:
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.
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.
PaulK writes:
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.
I'm sorry but that just doesn't hold water and I've already explained why several times in this thread.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1028 by PaulK, posted 11-26-2018 4:59 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1038 by PaulK, posted 11-27-2018 12:23 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1034 of 1677 (844213)
11-26-2018 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 1031 by Tangle
11-26-2018 5:59 PM


Re: Matthew
Tangle writes:
Fabulous, should I now wheel out my favourite 1st century scholar to contradict him?
OK. Do that. My point is that I am not alone in my interpretations and that there are those who have made this their life's work who would agree with me. BTW, I have read many of those who would disagree in order to come to the conclusions that I have.
Tangle writes:
You told us that
Well yeah, because you keep coming up with the same questions.
Tangle writes:
But instead the actual words say
quote:
all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
They see the Son of Man coming FROM heaven TO earth.
I quote the words, you tell me that they don't mean what they say beacuse you read a book telling you that despite what the words say, they meant exactly the opposite to a 1st century Jew.
So much for god's universal message.
It is a universal message, but it is originally written in the language and understanding of a 1st century Jew. A 1st century Jew would understand it, (as should we in this century) that it is referring to Daniel 7. Once again it is about the coming of Jesus -Jesus coming to the Father, the Ancient of Days. This why He is referring to Himself in this context as the "Son of Man" as opposed to Messiah, Son of God or some other messianic term.
Tangle writes:
I wonder how many other Christians recognize this totally human god of yours. Jesus the pundit. Place your bets here.
Beats me. I am simply working at sorting out what I believe to be true as are all of us who think about this stuff.
I do think that out of the reformation that there was massive support for seeing Jesus as God and as a result the understanding of God also as wholly man was largely put aside.
The church prior to the reformation, where the church essentially was the sole place for the masses to go to understand their faith, was not interested in the historical Jesus as they weren't at all sure what they would find there and might not like the result. I think that we could draw a very close parallel to that church and the the Temple that Jesus rebuked. After the reformation the masses, who finally had access to the Bible in their own language, had no access to historical data. In addition they were primarily interested in establishing Jesus as part of the god-head and weren't really interested in Jesus the man in His historical context anyway.
In the last few decades however, there has been a massive increase in the amount of knowledge of that world, partly through the Dead Sea Scrolls but also through access to the thoughts and ideas of a variety of theologians. This of course has been greatly accelerated by the birth of the internet. It seems to me that were are in a lot of ways we are experiencing a reformation of Christianity that largely takes us back to the Christianity of Paul and the early church.
Tangle writes:
How is what you believe relevant?
I suppose that it's very relevant to this discussion. How are your beliefs relevant?

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1031 by Tangle, posted 11-26-2018 5:59 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1039 by Tangle, posted 11-27-2018 4:02 AM GDR has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1035 of 1677 (844215)
11-26-2018 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1032 by Percy
11-26-2018 6:21 PM


Re: Matthew 24
Percy writes:
So are you, while fooling yourself that what you believe is some 1st century understanding.
I've already explained to Tangle why that isn't the case, which isn't to say that I do it perfectly.
Percy writes:
If Christianity is based upon a real person, there is no evidence it was a 1st century person. Jesus could have been a BC person.
What has that got to do with anything. Zero AD/BC represents somewhat inaccurately the birth of Jesus.
Percy writes:
Unless by "1st century understanding" you mean a gullible understanding, whoever wrote Mark could only know about the destruction of the Temple after it happened, not before.
Well yeah, indicting that the Gospel was written prior to the war.
Percy writes:
So you believe that Jesus warned his followers (who by 70 AD would have been Christians, not Jews) that the Jewish Temple (which by then would have nothing to do with Christians) would be destroyed because someone (Jews? Christians?) were trying to defeat evil with more evil? What a mess of interpretive nonsense.
He was talking to Jews and it was a Jewish message. Jesus was never about starting a new religion but was about reforming the Jewish religion. Ultimately it didn't work out that way.
GDR writes:
Jesus continually talked about not going down the road of violent revolution but about defeating evil with the weapon of love. It is about turning hearts away from evil.
Percy writes:
Finally, something we agree about.
Hooray. This actually gets right to the core of Christianity so it is great that it is something we agree on. In the words of N T Wright, "if you fight evil with evil, evil is bound to win".
Percy writes:
Huh? How is that any different from believing it's all just made up? If you truly believed that we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Christianity is a religion based essentially on the belief of the Biblical narrative that God progressively revealed Himself to the Jews, and then fully revealed His nature, (Word or Logos) in the man Jesus. God then resurrected Him thereby establishing a Jesus Christ led Kingdom and establishing the basis for a renewed creation.
Percy writes:
You said this earlier in your message, and it's still crazy. Why would Jesus feel the need to inform his followers (who by then would be Christians living in small communities scattered about the Middle East and caring not a whit about the Jewish temple in Jerusalem) of his "forecast" that the Romans would eventually crush the Jewish revolt of 66 AD?
This was fundamental to His message. He spoke at great lengths about his anti-revolutionary message. He was warning what would happen in hopes that they would be able either reject the idea of military revolution, and then if unable to do that to escape to the hills. He was a Jew and obviously didn't want to see the death of thousands of His people. Also, He wasn't about destroying the Temple but reforming it.
Percy writes:
So in your view Jesus was just someone with a strong political intuition? Hardly seems like someone worth worshipping or building a religion around. What happened to all the other mumbo jumbo about miracles and resurrection and rising to heaven and sitting at the right hand of God and being part of the trinity and having existed since the beginning of time?
I didn't deny any of that, but in addition He was a prophet who preached a message of the nature of God and how it was and is to affect our lives. I would add that John chap 1 explains the part of Jesus existing from the beginning of time. John tells us that the "Word" or Logos of God existed from before time. He then goes on to say that the "Word" became flesh obviously referring to Jesus. Jesus had a time and place of birth, but then perfectly embodied God's nature, the Word or wisdom of God. Put another way Jesus had The Father's spiritual DNA.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1032 by Percy, posted 11-26-2018 6:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1036 by Phat, posted 11-26-2018 7:47 PM GDR has not replied
 Message 1046 by Percy, posted 11-27-2018 8:54 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1047 of 1677 (844308)
11-27-2018 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1042 by ringo
11-27-2018 10:42 AM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
GDR writes:
There are 66 books in the library we call the Bible. There are no doubt hundreds of writers actually involved and the books were written centuries apart. Each writer had his own motivation and source of knowledge. The writers who wrote about the atrocities were in all likelihood responsible to their leaders who could hold the power of death over them. Also, they would want to support the actions of their nation. God told us to do it is easy to say but can be used to justify anything, good or evil, you want it to.
The accounts or resurrection and miracles are confirmed by several authors, and numerous other sources in the Bible, and they are not at all consistent with what the Jews believed about what a messiah was supposed to be or do. I have written in several posts in this thread about why the Gospel accounts would not be something that they would fabricate.
ringo writes:
You're just confirming what I said: You cherry-pick the parts you like and hand-wave the parts you don't like. It's just ridiculous to pretend that nobody "would" fabricate the stories in the New Testament.
Your POV seems to be that either you have to accept everything literally or reject the whole thing. I disagree. Each book of the Bible is by different authors with a variety of sources and motivations. All the writers of the NT consistently purport Jesus' resurrection. 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. They could be wrong about it but it is clear that the believe that the resurrection was an historical event.
With that in mind it is also reasonable to understand the Bible through Jesus' message of love.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1042 by ringo, posted 11-27-2018 10:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1048 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2018 12:24 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 1049 by Percy, posted 11-28-2018 10:42 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 1053 by ringo, posted 11-28-2018 2:27 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1050 of 1677 (844334)
11-28-2018 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1046 by Percy
11-27-2018 8:54 PM


Re: Matthew 24
Hi Percy
I'll send what a partial reply to you posts which is as far as I got last night and then I'll reply to the post you sent this morning when I get time this afternoon. The post you sent this morning is shorter, I do have a life outside of EvC.
Percy writes:
Is stepping outside the story to offer commentary ever something Mark actually does? Anyway, obviously Mark is writing for a community already very familiar with the destruction of the Temple. Mark was writing near enough in time for it to still be a recent event, and near enough to Jerusalem for it to be relevant.
I’m sorry Percy but it makes far more sense to believe that the war and the destruction of the Temple at the time the Gospel of Mark was compiled.
GDR writes:
C'mon Percy. The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and by that time the war had been going on for 4 years. Mark doesn't mention the war, and no matter where he was in the area he would be aware of what had happened to Jerusalem and the Temple in very short order.
Percy writes:
Of course, but evidently what he heard was that none of the Temple was left standing, which is untrue. Why would that matter to you - you're not an inerrantist.
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.
Percy writes:
I assumed we were talking about where Mark writes about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. I haven't mentioned the end times once in this thread, except just now to deny ever mentioning it.
My point was that Mark wasn’t writing about end times but about the destruction of the Temple, however I might be confusing this discussion with you and the one I’m having with Tangle. All you atheists sound alike to me. 
GDR writes:
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?
Percy writes:
Let me ask you a question first: Why are you shifting the focus from the resurrection to the crucifixion? It sure isn't the crucifixion that Christians think amazing.
The point is that it would be unthinkable to claim that the messiah would be crucified and yet Paul says that he is not ashamed to preach a crucified messiah because although Jesus was crucified God resurrected Him.
Percy writes:
Actually all it requires is a single person telling a story that other people believe.
But it is a lot more than one person.
Percy writes:
That you have no evidence is neither opinion nor theology - it's a fact. Unevidenced assertions require no rebuttal beyond noting the lack of evidence.
But it isn’t unevidenced. The Gospel accounts are evidence. The rest of the NT is evidence. There are obviously written with the obvious intent that they are to be believed. You can reject the evidence and say it is insufficient for you, but it is still evidence.
GDR writes:
Nobody after the Maccabees were put to death did anyone suggest that Judas Maccabees was resurrected even though he talked about resurrection. Everyone assumed that it would be resurrection at the end of time. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Gioria was resurrected in 70 AD. Nobody suggested that Simon bar Kokhba was resurrected in 135 AD. All of these guys led revolts that had varying degrees of military success and were put to death by the Romans. They were simply regarded as failed messiahs and then people looked for another messiah to lead them. (The idea pretty much dies out after 135 AD however.)
Percy writes:
Why do you think this helps your case?
I’ll spell it out again. There were at least 12 messianic movements in that era. In every case the messianic figures were put to death including the ones mentioned. The belief was that a messiah, (the anointed one of God), would lead them against the hated Romans and defeat them. Many of these messianic figures actually achieved varying degrees of revolutionary success, but when they were executed nobody said that they were resurrected and the movements that they led immediately came to a halt. Jesus led no army, achieved no military success, and was crucified. Jesus had been crucified and it would have been clear that He was another failed messiah. However a couple of days later something changed and the Gospels tell us what it was.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1046 by Percy, posted 11-27-2018 8:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1051 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2018 12:33 PM GDR has replied
 Message 1052 by Percy, posted 11-28-2018 2:09 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1054 of 1677 (844357)
11-28-2018 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1052 by Percy
11-28-2018 2:09 PM


Re: Matthew 24
Percy writes:
After Jesus was crucified the apostles considered Jesus a failed messiah? This isn't an important point for me, but now I'm curious. You already know I think the gospels are fiction, but I *have* read them, and that the crucifixion caused them to consider Jesus a failed messiah doesn't sound familiar. If you could save me the trouble of reading the end portion of all the gospels, where do they say this? Thanks.
First off, I’m sure that you’re familiar with the accounts of Peter denying Him 3 times. As for the next part of your question about the disciples hiding out we have this in John 20.
quote:
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, Peace be with you!
Percy writes:
Me too, though it must be obvious to you that the inerrantist position is by far the stronger because it asserts everything and concedes nothing. The view that all religion is man-made, that the Bible is not literally inerrant, and that it's okay to make your own subjective Biblical interpretations opens up a Pandora's box where every view is equal. If you're free to say that some passage has "this meaning," then someone else is free to say it has "that meaning." If you're free to say that "this much" of the Bible is open to interpretation, then someone else is free to say it's "that much."
In a way that is the point. It is about free will and if we had absolute knowledge then we wouldn’t be free to accept God’s command to love. It would turn the understanding the Bible into a Pharisaical style of belief that if we follow this set of instructions God will reward us. So yes we are called to pick and choose. Jesus did just that. He combed through the Jewish Scriptures which led to His self understanding of His messianic vocation.
Yes, we should read the Scriptures critically. I read the Scriptures with the understanding that in order to understand Jesus, a first century Jew steeped in the Hebrew Scriptures, who was forever quoting those Scriptures, then I need to have knowledge of the OT. However, to understand the OT I need to do it through the lens of Jesus. When I read Jesus saying that we are to love our enemies, turn the other cheek, that we are forgiven as we forgive and that those who live by the sword die by the sword it is very clear that God would not have ordered genocide or public stoning.
As I’ve said numerous times, it is even clear in Scripture that it isn’t our theology that God is concerned about, it is our hearts. Are we following God’s command to love; do we feed the hungry; home the homeless etc or are we about looking after number one. The thing about theology though is that it can affect our hearts and minds.
If we are of the belief that the Bible is inerrant then we can justify all sorts of things. In the last few decades for example we have seen cases of when there is evil perceived in places of the world that affects or has affected our own cultures that the knee jerk reaction is to go drop bombs on it. ( I do think that there is such a thing as a just war, but not very often.)
If however, we look to Jesus in a world where His fellow Jews are being brutalized and taxed into poverty by the Romans, His message is that they were to win over the Romans by loving them, with His argument being essentially that it isn’t the Romans who were the enemy but it is evil itself. Ultimately He is saying that the only weapon that will defeat evil is love
Percy writes:
I don't think that's true. I think we all see the resurrection story is a significant part of the appeal of Christianity, though even more compelling is the claim that Jesus died for our sins so that we might have eternal salvation in heaven.
If He had simply died on the cross then how would that affect anything. I have trouble with that on several levels. The Bible message isn’t really about us getting to heaven but ultimately it’s about heaven coming to when all of creation is resurrected. Paul writes this in Ephesians 1.
quote:
9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him
It is about the renewal of all things. It isn’t about the destruction of the world or the universe.
I think that parts of the church have made the focus of the church personal salvation. It then becomes the idea of scaring people into the Kingdom and just as bad it suggests that people come to faith because of what’s in it for themselves. The Bible actually talks about dying to self and giving our hearts to God so that we want the things of God. I realize nobody, least of all me, does this well. Only Jesus did that. The point is that we should truly want to be like that.
Percy writes:
I'm having trouble parsing this sentence. It might be me, but is the word "happened" or "occurred" supposed to appear between "Temple" and "at"? And by "compiled" do you mean Mark writing his gospel from source material he had gathered or had access to? But that would mean that you're saying, "It makes far more sense to believe that the war and the destruction of the Temple occurred at the time the Gospel of Mark was written," and that doesn't sound like something you'd say. I'd expect you to say that the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple occurred after Mark wrote his gospel. So I guess I need to request clarification about what you mean.
No wonder you had trouble. Part of the sentence is missing.  You are correct about what I would say. If the destruction had happened when Mark compiled the Gospel, ( and yes I am suggesting that like Luke he was using source material and possibly personal knowledge), the He would have recorded the destruction as Jesus’ prediction had come true. Also He wouldn’t have said that there wouldn’t be one stone on another.
Percy writes:
I ask again, does Mark ever step outside the story to offer commentary about what occurred later? If not, then why would you expect him to do so in this case? And even if so, why do you think Mark would think his audience needful of reminding of something that had happened within the past few years and not so far away?
As the eye witnesses died off he would feel compelled to record what had happened. Again, Luke even explains that in His Gospel.
Percy writes:
I'm not an atheist. I believe in God, but I also believe that no religion has the correct story.
I don’t think any person or religion has the whole truth. It seems to me that if you believe in God then I would think that you would have to agree that the resurrection is possible. If God is responsible for the processes that brought about life then I don’t think resurrection is much of a trick. The question of course is, did it actually happen. I am convinced that it did. This may sound strange but it actually makes sense to me in all sorts of ways.
Percy writes:
Apparently a crucified messiah wasn't unthinkable, particularly a resurrected one. Paul obviously had no trouble thinking it.
Yes he did, but he had to write several times that he wasn’t ashamed to preach a crucified messiah. Crucifixion was a shameful way to die in that culture. Also this is in Deuteronomy 21.
quote:
If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and you hang him on a tree, you must not leave the body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury it that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is a curse of God.
As I said. A crucified messiah was unthinkable. It would take something momentous to overcome that belief. That momentous event was the resurrection.
Percy writes:
So your position is that scripture written with the intent that it be believed is evidence. That sorta puts the Bible on an equal footing with any other religion's scripture, like the Koran or the Book of Mormon or Scientology. You guys should all get together and work out who's right, then get back to us.
Well all religions can learn from each other. The point was though that the Gospel writers believed what they wrote. We can choose to believe them or believe they got it wrong. IMHO it is very clear that it isn’t a story they concocted for something unfathomable reason. Rightly or wrongly they believed they were writing about an historical event.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1052 by Percy, posted 11-28-2018 2:09 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1061 by Percy, posted 11-29-2018 11:20 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1055 of 1677 (844358)
11-28-2018 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1051 by PaulK
11-28-2018 12:33 PM


Re: Matthew 24
PaulK writes:
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 ?
I can't be sure. I have simply explained why I believe it to be the case.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2018 12:33 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1059 by PaulK, posted 11-28-2018 11:37 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1056 of 1677 (844360)
11-28-2018 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by ringo
11-28-2018 2:27 PM


Re: Giving It All Up and Urging Everyone To Do Likewise
ringo writes:
No. There are lots of possibilities. The talking snake is a literary device; it's unlikely that the authors expected anybody to take it literally. The Flood didn't happen; it could be a metaphor or an exaggeration or the authors believed it and were just flat-out wrong. The Tower of Babel is an inaccurate interpretation of a real event. And so on.
That was kinda my point.
ringo writes:
That's what people keep telling you but you insist that in some cases their motivation could not possibly be anything but factual reporting of real events.
I do. When you look at the stories of OT wars and God commanding them I believe that the war happened but I don't agree that God commanded it. Same with the public stonings.
In the case of the resurrection the circumstances and the manner in which they are written clearly, IMHO , show that they believed that there were recording historical events as accurately as they could. I also believe that there are good reason to believe, for reasons I've at least partly already explained, that the essential aspects are correct.
ringo writes:
I agree: The rise of Christianity was caused (at least partly) by a BELIEF in the resurrection. But belief in the resurrection has nothing to do with whether or not the resurrection happened. Similarly, a belief that the Jews were dangerous caused the Holocaust - but that belief was not founded in fact.
That's all true, but I would argue that without the resurrection Christianity would never have come into being.
ringo writes:
Clearly not. In your own words, "Each book of the Bible is by different authors with a variety of sources and motivations." For some of them the message was the power of God, the wrath of God and the fear of God, not the love of God.
I covered that in my last post to Percy. When we read the Bible it has God commanding genocide and public stonings. When we read it through the lens of Jesus we can say that there is no way that the God of love whose Word or nature was embodied by Jesus would command those things.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by ringo, posted 11-28-2018 2:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by ringo, posted 11-28-2018 6:22 PM GDR 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