Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

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.

Yeah, bad ones. Your version has it that Jesus was an astute political forecaster who could see 30 years into the future for information irrelevant both to the people he was talking to (the forecasted events were too far in the future) and to the people in the future (who by that time would be Christians and wouldn't care about the Temple). Why do you see the need to say this? Of course Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem in Mark 13. There isn't a scintilla of ambiguity in the passage:

quote:

---

Mark 13 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!

​

²Do you see all these great buildings? replied Jesus. Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.

---

Except many stones *were* "left on another," and "every one" was not "thrown down." This paragraph can't seem to decide which is the key issue. Is it whether the gospel writers believed what they wrote, or is it whether they got it right? Shouldn't you care most about whether they got it right? After all, who cares whether they believed it themselves as long as they got it right. Accounts that differ on some points cannot both be right. Maybe I'm recollecting incorrectly, but didn't you answer by inventing interpretations considerably at odds with what the passages clearly say? I think your familiarity with the Bible gets you in trouble. You frequently connect unrelated Biblical passages as if they supported your claims when they don't. Ephesians 6:12 is from a letter that was once thought Pauline but is now believed otherwise about the struggle being spiritual rather than physical. Mark 13:1-2 is Jesus talking about the destruction of the Temple, a very physical event.And you once said religion should not be reduced to a set of rules that one follows in order to receive some reward, but what is Ephesians if not a lengthy set of rules? Not in Ephesians 6:12 he's not. It's not even Jesus talking, it's just the writings of someone once thought to be Paul. And if you meant Mark 13 then Mark doesn't say anything about God not intervening to prevent a Jewish defeat. He does say this, though:

quote:

---

Mark 13 ³⁰"Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."

---

This is Mark having Jesus say roughly when the Temple will be destroyed, more evidence that Mark wrote after the destruction of the Temple. You mean there *was* an "abomination" in the Temple? God *did* intervene to save the Jews from defeat? Angels *did* come to gather the elect? I don't think so. You're "interpreting" again. I can't see why you're saying this to PaulK. I can't see where he got anything wrong or you got anything right.Your views seem way out there for a Christian. You must get into some interesting discussions with your fellow parishioners.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Spelling.

And if you replied to all my messages instead of just half you'd have to work double shifts! So the OT authors were just schmucks working under threat or a need for approval - no "inspired by God" there. But the NT authors were recounting what they believed to be actual historical events - no "inspired by God" there, either.Interesting that you're passing up on the "inspired by God" claim.You make an overly broad claim about the historicity claims of the gospel writers. Only Luke claimed his account historical. Put in other terms, you denigrate the OT authors because their accounts are not consistent with a loving God, and you elevate the NT authors because theirs are. Or are they? This is Jesus, one of the three persons of God, encouraging violence against slaves:

quote:

---

Luke 12:47 "The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows."

---

Once again you're conceding what everyone has been saying. But in your next message you'll continue on as if you didn't realize you'd already conceded.--Percy

Yes it was before but you’re splitting hairs. It was obvious where this was going and Peter out of fear did not wanted to be associated with Jesus. It isn’t in the Gospels. It is from the fact that when the leaders of the other messianic movements were put to death the movement died and for lack of a better term they would have been considered failed messiahs. As I have quoted elsewhere the disciples out of fear of the Jewish leaders were in a locked room. The disciples even after the resurrection were still thinking that Jesus was somehow going to lead them against the Romans. (Acts 1). There is no reason to consider the movement at that point anything but dead and no reason to carry it on. There was no army or anyone else with influence or power to carry it on. They were in a locked room out of fear of the Jewish leaders. I’d say that they were hiding out. It comes from the Gospel narrative without being implicitly spelled out as well as a very basic understanding of the factions in Jerusalem at that time. Because the Bible is not a single book with a single author. It is written over hundreds of years, under different circumstances and with different motivations. So yes, we should reject some things and accept others. There is no absolute certainty in our understandings. I have explained how I have to my conclusions about how I understand the Bible. I do keep covering the same ground. The idea that we are the result of a myriad number of natural processes from the mindless particles of the BB to the world we live in today requires a way more faith than I can come up with. As far as the command to love is concerned it is pretty obvious that the more we apply that in our cultures that better off everyone is. Once again, as I am convinced that the resurrection is historical I take on faith that God wants us to live our lives based on that command spoken or unspoken. I am certainly outside fundamentalism but I’m by and large fairly consistent with most of Anglicanism. My main influence with my theological beliefs is NT Wright who Newsweek called the world’s leading New Testament scholar. I’m a follower of an inerrant Jesus and not an inerrant Bible. The two aren’t compatible. The Kingdom of Heaven is not about personal salvation. It also isn’t about reading the Scriptures. It is about having hearts that love others as we love ourselves. The Kingdom of Heaven is about those who listen to that still small voice that calls us to love and act on it. It is a Kingdom as talked about in Daniel 7 and is for the here and now and on into eternity. Sure and an inerrantist would say that it must be true and then somehow try to square it up with loving your enemy. It can’t be done. It is one or the other and I’m going with what The Gospels say that Jesus said, rather than accepting the word of some scribe centuries earlier. Maybe, but if Christianity is about getting rewarded with eternal life then it becomes again all about the self. If people become Christian for that reason then I question whether they really understand the faith. I realize I’m being judgmental here but it is how I understand Christianity rightly or wrongly. IMHO I have a god that gave me life, gave me intelligence and an understanding of right and wrong and only asks in return that I reflect the love that He has given me into the world.
As I have said numerous times salvation is not about our doctrines but about the heart. As a Christian I pray that God will give me a heart that loves the way that He desires. (He still has a lot of work to do. ) See psalm 37:4. Also salvation is for all creation and how that plays out in the end is up to God and not me, and frankly I don’t concern myself as to who is in and who is out. As far as I’m concerned if asked about hell I pretty much go along with CS Lewis and the metaphors that he uses. He also says that those who are in hell are those who choose it. Well, I still maintain that if the destruction had already taken place the Gospel would read differently. My understanding does not require anyone to have specific knowledge about the future, but it requires someone with knowledge of the circumstances to use that knowledge and predict what will happen. My comment wasn’t about the Temple but Mark’s motivation for compiling the book at all. Yes, but all the synoptics overlap to varying degrees so I think that it is safe to assume that they used much of the same source material. I know many people say that Matthew and John used Mark as source material but personally I disagree. One of us must be learning something. I think that I’ll go with the idea that it’s you. I don’t think I said that. My point is that the accounts are written in a way that it is clear that the Gospel accounts were written by people who believed them to be true. That is not conclusive evidence as they may have been wrong. Also, it isn’t something that they would have come up with. It is completely outside what Jews at the time believed about a messiah. (Maybe the plot lines came from copying the Gospels.) Another point of agreement. Great we’re up to 3.PS. Can we stick to one post at a time instead of sending another one prior to me replying to one you’ve already sent. As I said this becomes a full time unpaid position.

Integrity counts here. How persuasive is the storyteller?
Not all stories can be corroborated through evidence and in these cases, the persuasiveness of the authors and characters go a long way in carrying forth the belief throughout the culture. Here at EvC, we have touched on many of the issues regarding a need for belief balanced against the duty of skepticism and demand for evidence. Perhaps GDR believes that our role is based on the persuasion of scripture and its authors. Did Jesus really say what it was written that He said? If so, He counts as a persuasive individual in regards to current belief. As does Paul. If, on the other hand, the authors are not known, the persuasion factor drops by quite a bit. The belief then becomes empty. GDR seems persuasive. So does PaulK. Consider what each of them is attempting to persuade the peanut gallery to conclude.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

But those two points are not compatible. If God was a God of love, he could just forgive our sins. He wouldn't need to send His Son/Self to die for our sins at all. The crucifixion is proof that God is a God of blood, much more compatible with the God of the Old Testament than with your version. It is hard because it doesn't make a lick of sense. Jesus' death was totally unnecessary and his resurrection was just a copout. "Jesus faked his death for our sins" is just preposterous. Nonsense. There are plenty of Christians who don't like what happened in the Old Testament but they believe it happened.

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.

I will admit that most believers attempt to make sense of the tales in light of this presupposition. Critically examining the Bible without accepting any of the offers of communion and character from Jesus or God seems like a fruitless profession. 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? In the case of Santa, of course, the goal would be for everyone to grow up and face reality. 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.I would prefer that we arrive at a consensus of a God that we could believe in without looking and sounding foolish.

Many would abuse this privilege. It would be the same as if a credit card company granted everyone forgiveness of their holiday debt. Some would abuse the privilege, going back and racking up new bills again and again...knowing that they would be forgiven.Or handing out spare change every day to the same alcoholic who promptly goes next door, buys a bottle, and passes out. You really aren't doing him any favors.

So what? If you really love somebody, you open yourself up to abuse. If God defends Himself from all possibility of abuse, He is clearly NOT a God of love.

well...you do have a point.

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.

Am I really splitting hairs? Or are you conflating events. Was it the crucifixion that sent the apostles into depression and hiding, or the arrest? Make up your mind. Out of fear of what? Arrest? Peter was present when the guards showed up to make tt the arrest, and they only arrested Jesus, which was what they had been instructed to do. Once the guards were gone what did Peter have to be afraid of? He already knew they had no interest in arresting him, so he couldn't have been afraid of being reported of being an associate of Jesus and being arrested because just minutes before he had been right there beside Jesus when Jesus was arrested and he was not. Though fear makes sense, the gospel stories, which seem nearly identical about this, don't even make clear why Peter denied Jesus. This is a part of the Jesus story you should discard. It probably got included in all three synoptics because it shows Jesus foretelling the future again, and because of the drama that it caused Peter such pain.Peter's denial marks the beginning of the story of Jesus's last day on Earth, about which the synoptic accounts differ. Matthew's and Mark's accounts could possibly fit in a single day if Pilate is just sitting around doing nothing on the day of a big feast and is available and willing to hear complaints about an obscure Jewish preacher who, despite supposedly causing all this ruckus and trouble, Pilate has never heard of. But Luke's account cannot possibly be true because there is too much going on for it to happen in so short a period of time. Jesus could not have gone before the priests and elders and then before Pilate and then before Herod Antipas and then before Pilate again and then before a crowd and then to his crucifixion in a single day. So we're talking about the gospels, and then suddenly you're not. Why am I not surprised? The question in Acts 1:6 is not asking Jesus to lead an army to expel the Romans. It's about whether Jesus will employ his divine and miraculous powers to restore the kingdom of Israel. You say a lot of things the text doesn't support. Ah, I see, we're "interpreting" again. John 20:19 says nothing about hiding out. There are only locked doors.And about considering Jesus a failed messiah, you haven't provided a shred of support. In fact, John 19:32-37 speaks of prophecy being fulfilled, something bound to encourage the apostles. What you call explanations are not really explanations. What you say usually only raises questions or objections, to which you often merely reply, "I've already explained," forcing people to repeat themselves (another thing that makes messages longer). If you truly believe 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, then you've opened 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." I think we're all still wondering why you seem blind to the obvious implications of your approach to making interpretations. Maybe if you just stuck with the evidence. Hey, agreement again, but where is the connection to God? It isn't what you're convinced of that matters, but what you can support with evidence and explanation. Don't just endlessly repeat what you believe - actually argue it. I know nothing of Anglicanism, but given your cavalier attitudes about which parts of the Bible are true or false, or how various parts should be interpreted, I very much doubt you're a traditional Anglican. For example, both Old and New Testament are considered the primary authority of Anglicanism (I'm just Googling around), while you see the Old Testament as suspect because in your view its authors were subject to coercion and desire for approval. I also didn't see anything about Anglicanism considering religion man-made, or picking and choosing among Bible passages. I've never heard of N. T. Wright, but I bet his views align with your own as much as Anglicanism does, that if I studied him that I'd see very little resemblance to the things you've said in this thread. Can you really know that you follow an inerrant Jesus? Your information about Jesus can only come from a single source, the New Testament, and if you don't listen to that then your inerrant Jesus is just someone you made up. I can't see how this is related to my response to your comment, "Yes, we should read the Scriptures critically." You're not Jesus. You're not eternal and one of the three persons of God. As a follower of Jesus it is not for you to pick and choose scripture to construct your own spiritual world. Are you sure you're a Christian rather than just someone who really knows his Bible and likes parts of it a great deal? (if you're not going to answer 'em I'm just gonna repeat 'em) There you go denigrating the OT again. Is that really Anglicanism? Between you and Faith there is some real strange theology going on here. The OT's God is vengeful and deadly, but Faith says that if God does it then it's good and whoever got it had it coming, while you say the OT is suspect. So you put greater credibility on the NT but insist on picking and choosing, like you reject the Ananias/Sapphira story. Certainly they don't understand it the same way you do. But where is this God? He exists only as a character in the Bible (and in the books of other religions, but I'm sticking to Christianity), but you hold much of it in such low esteem that you cull out those portions you find unpalatable. You don't really believe in any God of the Bible. You believe in a God of your own making, which makes perfect sense since as you said, all religion is man-made. You're brewing your own. Take delight in a pretend being? Me either, since there's nowhere to be in or out of. Typical religious hooey. You keep replying with statements of belief instead of evidence and supporting arguments. This is still absurd. No one can make detailed and accurate predictions of events 35 years off. Mark is writing after the destruction of the Temple.Try this exercise. Pick a gospel, any gospel, and scan through it asking yourself how the information came to the author. The impossibility of much of it being available to anyone is obvious. For instance Matthew 1:18. How did Matthew know that Mary was with child of the Holy Spirit? But we were discussing Mark's having Jesus prophesize the destruction of the Temple - why wouldn't you stay on topic and respond about the destruction of the Temple? Can you comment now? Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. John possibly used Mark in very minor ways. Your beliefs are way outside the mainstream. I'm learning a lot, including that many of your views are not widely held. I don't think you did either, sorry about that. You actually said it about the crucifixion, not the resurrection. You argued that any 1st century Jew making up a believable story would not include something as unbelievable and unacceptable as a crucified messiah, therefore the gospels are not made up. I argue that an idea that catches on, wherever it came from and whether it's true or not, will be exploited and promoted. We see this all the time. For instance, a third of the country has enthusiastically taken up the notion that Trump tells the truth, is an honest businessman, is a great president, and is being unfairly attacked in the press. Inconceivable I know, but the idea caught on and took off like wildfire.Concerning the resurrection, "Oh no, he's dead, sadness and weeping" followed by "Wonder of wonders, he's alive, cheering and celebration" is a very old and much used plotline. There's nothing particularly inconceivable about a plot where crucifixion is followed by resurrection. I think tons of people possess the talent to write fiction as if it were true. Memoirs of a Geisha, written like an autobiography, is one example that comes to mind. What makes you keep saying this? Do you never read fiction that has amazing twists? The Jews tried a couple hundred years of messiahs that didn't work out because they kept getting themselves killed, then the Jews finally hit upon the idea of a dead messiah that miraculously returned to life and then immediately disappeared, er, I mean ascended to heaven. But trust us, thousands of witnesses saw him before his departure, cross our hearts. I'll see what I can do. Maybe we can get you an internship that pays a little - can you code? --Percy

How persuasive? You're reducing truth to rhetorical skills? Is that what you base your decisions on? Boy, I'd love to be a glad handing, fast talking salesman when you walk onto my used car lot. Or maybe you want to buy a bridge? In the absence of evidence you've got nothing on which to base a decision. Seeking out other qualities like "persuasiveness" will get you nowhere but cheated. Can I sell you some Dutch tulip futures? If you want to talk about a need for belief than you're on your own. Skepticism and evidence - now you're talking! All belief not underpinned by evidence is empty. The main difference between my and GDR's spiritual beliefs is that I know mine have no evidence. It doesn't matter what they're attempting to persuade people of. It isn't the what that matters, it's how you get to the what. If the how doesn't include evidence then the what is worthless.--Percy

I don’t think he even had to be that astute in regards to the likelihood and the outcome of the revolution. There was a strong revolutionary movement and the Romans would do what they always did and were good and at and merciless. He was predicting the outcome and that Yahweh would not be bailing them out as the revolutionaries hoped. His message again was that if you fight evil with evil, evil always wins. Likely the war happened later than Jesus thought it would, but that is just a guess on my part.
They would still care about the Temple. They were Jews who believed that Jesus was the hoped for messiah even though He wasn’t what they had anticipated. He was about defeating the Romans by changing their hearts and rebuilding the Temple in the hearts of those that followed His message of love. The Temple was still a place of worship and would have been meaningful to them.. I only said that in response to some others on this forum who have been suggesting that they made the whole thing up. Certainly the fact that they believed it is not proof that they got it right. Yes, of course I care most that they got it right and I am convinced that essentially they did even though there are differences in the details. They can’t both be right about the details where they differ but they can both be right on the main event. It is like witnesses to a car accident. They might differ on the details but the accident did happen. I’m not sure what you are referring to but I assume it is the passages about the sky falling etc. That is a political message about what will happen if they go ahead with the revolution. It is just Jewish hyperbole for a great political upheaval. It is roughly the same language used in Isaiah 13 where it is very much an earthly event, even termed as the day of the lord. It was about defeating the Babylonians. It wasn’t about end times at all. The connection is that Jesus is talking about the physical destruction of the Temple as a result of looking for a physical solution in fighting a revolution. Ephesians is saying that the enemy is spiritual in that it is evil itself and you aren’t going to defeat evil with more evil as I said earlier. Ephesians isn’t a set of rules but it talks about what Jesus’ command of loving our neighbours looks like when it is implemented. Again, if Mark was writing this after the war you are basing it on the idea that Mark is doing that to prove Jesus was correct in what He had predicted. I just don’t see that. In the first place we are looking at an event about 38 years after Jesus would have said this. I rather think that that would be seen as being outside the boundaries of this generation. If Mark was trying to fabricate something I doubt that he would have used that to establish a time frame.
IMHO Jesus predicted the destruction but that it didn’t happen as soon as He thought it would. However, the point was that this is what would happen if they went ahead with a revolution. This would vindicate His message of non-violent revolution and they would then understand that Daniel’s prophesy was fulfilled in Him. They would understand that Jesus was the Son of Man referred to in Daniel’s dream. This then along with the fact that Jesus had been resurrected which established Him as the one who had been given dominion over the Kingdom of those who followed His message of sacrificial love.
In light of this I can’t see it having been written after the war for several reasons. Firstly it doesn’t make sense that Mark would say that this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place. It did happen 38 years later making his predicting it happening in this generation something of a stretch. There is nothing saying that he is using this to confirm a prophesy. He just isn’t making an issue of it. It is one line in 2 of the Gospels. Thirdly, as has been pointed out some of the Temple did remain standing to this day. The abomination in the Temple refers back to the desolation of the city and the sanctuary in Daniel 9;27 and Daniel 11:31 which says

quote:

---

31 His armed forces will rise up to desecrate the temple fortress and will abolish the daily sacrifice. Then they will set up the abomination that causes desolation.

---

It is about the destruction of the Temple.
Jesus’ message was that God wouldn’t intervene to save the Jews from defeat. They were going the way of the pagan nations in responding to the Romans with an armed revolution. They would see this as God’s judgment on them. As I said before if you fight evil with evil then evil is bound to win.
The angels would be to point out the establishment of the Kingdom for all nations, He kept insisting that it was about end times and clearly is about Jesus talking about what would happen if they engaged in violent revolution with the Romans. Actually I’m pretty middle of the road Anglican. The more liberal ones consider me conservative and the more conservative ones consider me liberal. I haven’t had much time today but it’s now midnight and I’m trying to get through 2 of your replies. You are using a fundamentalist view of inspiration. I believe that God inspired people to write down their story which does not mean He dictated it. The stories are there with human weakness and bias. Like I said earlier I believe that the accounts of genocide and stoning were accurate but there statement that it was God who commanded it is there out bias, fear, justification or some other human failing. As I said I believe they were inspired to write their accounts to the best of their ability and knowledge, but again, it wasn’t dictated to them by God. I do believe though that God speaks or reached out to us through the Scriptures,
I think it is pretty clear that the other accounts, like Luke, are meant to be taken historically. This is a parable or metaphor that fits in with the world of Jesus’ day. The point was that if we live a life that is the opposite of the golden rule as commanded by Jesus then, as we see in CS Lewis’ book the Great Divorce, we lead ourselves to our own destruction. Jesus is certainly not advocating flogging. No. I am following God as I truly believe Him to be. I agree that if He wasn’t palatable to me I wouldn’t follow Him. As I’ve said before that if I really believed that God commanded genocide and public stoning, or for that matter wanted me to kill infidels, then I might believe in that God but I wouldn’t follow Him.I have done my best to show that God as I follow Him is consistent with the 3 pillars of Anglican Christianity which are Scripture. I’m not saying that I have everything right but I have done my best through prayer and study to answer Pilate’s question of what is truth
Well, there are 2 of your posts answered with one to go. It’s after midnight and I’m going to bed.
Cheers.