|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,818 Year: 4,075/9,624 Month: 946/974 Week: 273/286 Day: 34/46 Hour: 6/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Wherever it appears. You’re the one who specified chapter 7.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I was referring to the text I quoted
Aside from that it is wrong in terms of what was meant by the phrase as taken from Daniel 7.
It would be rather easier if you kept track of the context instead of making me repeat myself. Or asking me what YOU meant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I think there was a historical Jesus but exaggerating the evidence is not a good defence.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: Just like all Scientology sources sing the benefits of clearing.
quote: I don’t accept that ? That’s news to me.
quote: The evidence says that they were very likely wrong.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: And those reasons are obviously bad. That was my point.
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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: The references to earlier Jewish apocalyptic writings suggest otherwise, especially in the absence of any explicit statement to the contrary.
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Persuasiveness and integrity are not the same thing. And persuasiveness can as easily deceive as enlighten.
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: 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: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Matthew 24:30
...they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
This is a reference to Daniel 7:13 Let’s look at the context:
9 I watched till thrones were put in place, And the Ancient of Days was seated; His garment was white as snow, And the hair of His head was like pure wool. His throne was a fiery flame, Its wheels a burning fire; 10 A fiery stream issuedAnd came forth from before Him. A thousand thousands ministered to Him; Ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him. The court was seated, And the books were opened. 11 I watched then because of the sound of the pompous words which the horn was speaking; I watched till the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given to the burning flame. 12 As for the rest of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away, yet their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. 13 I was watching in the night visions,And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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)
At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book. a time of trouble, such as never was may well be the origin of the Tribulation, too.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024