Continuing the Endless Discussion between GDR and traditional Protestantism

GDR, the scriptures weren't generally available until the printing press and that did come soon after the Reformation I think (?). Otherwise only priests like Luther had the Bible. And Erasmus who also had the Greek manuscripts to work from in doing his translation, and I think Luther had Erasmus' translation and wasn't just confined to the Vulgate. Also Bibles in other languages than Latin and Greek. Bibles all had to be copied by hand until the printing press.

You don't say WHAT "light" was supposedly shed on the scriptures by the new documents. Possibly new insights into the culture of the time of the apostles and earlier but nothing that changed the meaning of the scripture. Good preachers usually include the cultural context of the passage they are preaching on, it brings it to life. But as for affecting the meaning why should it change? All the books of the Bible were passed down through the centuries, why would that change? There's a whole discipline of textual criticisim that compares all the copies and fragments of copies we have to correct small errors that accumulated in some lines of copying but they are able to do that. If you think some kind of substantive changes occured please be specific.

I don't see anything anywhere that justifies your idea that Jesus was in any way concerned with the revolutionary activities around him. He seems to me to be utterly uninvolved with any of that. Doesn't He put down one zealot? Sorry I'm not remembering, I would have to do more research to answer you here and I don't have the patience so I'm afraid I'm more or less tossing this off. Jesus was concerned with the religious leaders, the Pharisees in particular, who had mangled the scriptures to pile on all kinds of traditiona that made life more difficult for people and deprived them of salvation. That's the theme I see running through the New Testament, nothing to do with any militant movements.

1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!” 2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.

11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter,

24 “But in those days, following that distress, “ ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’ 26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

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

26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory.

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.

The verse about John the Baptist being compared to a reed hardly seems to lend itself to an image of Tiberius Caesar and the idea just leaves me speechless.

24 After John’s messengers left, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed swayed by the wind? 25 If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear expensive clothes and indulge in luxury are in palaces. 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. 27 This is the one about whom it is written: “ ‘I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’

Yes, that's Jesus' famous prophcy of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, The cause of it seems unimportant. The Roman army coming in to quell the Jewish uprising? From God's perspective the destruction of the temple is judgment since Jesus' death is the final sacrifice which the Jews do not recognize, the sacrifice that ended all the sacrifices in the temple. The worldly cause of it seems truly irrelevant. We can say it's God's judgment though.

You lose me completely with your emphasis on the earthly causes of the sufferings to come, even reducing the Olivet discourse to a mere teaching against revolution. It's always understood to point to signs by which we can recognize when He is to come back to earth in His Second Coming. But all that is eliminated in your thinking.

You show that Jesus refers back to the Old Testament, such as Daniel for the description of the Son of Man coming in the clouds but you reduce that to a mind-numbingly mundane statement that all it means is that He is the Messiah instead of pointing to His return on the clouds. They still have to experience His crucifixion which is going to panic them, but then they'll see Him alive in His glorified body, and then watch Him be carried up into a cloud. Which you want to turn into something other than an actual cloud.

Of course He's describing events coming as the Roman army destroys the temple and the city, but it's mind-deadening to reduce Jesus' teaching to that level. And why would He need to use such symbolic language for such a mjndane message? They'd asked Him when He was going to put down the Romans because they had no clue to His true heavenly mission to save the entire world. The disciples really didn't understand a lot of what Jesus said at the time. It took His death and resurrection to make it clear to them. IT was never about the Romans or any earthly events at all except as carriers of the heavenly truth.

Like your mind-numbing idea about a kind of love that supposedly we can learn to have rather than the expression of the Holy Spirit given only to believers.

You show that Jesus refers back to the Old Testament, such as Daniel for the description of the Son of Man coming in the clouds but you reduce that to a mind-numbingly mundane statement that all it means is that He is the Messiah instead of pointing to His return on the clouds. They still have to experience His crucifixion which is going to panic them, but then they'll watch Him be carried up into a cloud. Which you want to turn into something other than an actual cloud.

51 While he was blessing them, he withdrew from them and was carried up into heaven.

9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.

Sorry, there's some confusion here. I'm not saying this part of the discourse is about the end times, it's just about the Roman destruction of 70AD and my only point about that is that I don't see anything in Jesus' message about the reason for the attack, just a warning about the attack itself and that they need to leave the city to be safe. That's all, nothing about the rebellion that is the cause of the attack that you are saying is Jesus' main message, how such rebellion is a bad idea, nothing at all along those lines. They would no doubt be aware that the Romans are coming to quell the rebellion anyway but Jesus is saying absolutely nothing about that.

You are suggesting that since Luke doesn't mention the cloud in both references that there wasn't a cloud? We know Jesus was received into heaven but that doesn't mean there wasn't an actual cloud that they saw with their two eyes and that when jesus returns there will also be a visible cloud. This is a meaningless distinction you are making.

But again what is meaningless is this silly distinction you insist on making. Nobody doubts that Jesus went into heaven, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a literal visible cloud that He disappeared into.

So what do you think the disciples actually saw when Jesus ascended to the Father? Did they look up at all? Was He standing there talking to them and just suddenly went "poof" and disappeared? You deny that "up" means "up" and you deny that they saw a real cloud, though that is what the words of the passage clearly say they saw. So what on earth do you think they saw?
If He just suddenly disappeared why wouldn't that be said? He DID just disappear suddenly after talking to the men He met on the Road to Emmaus. Just suddenly went poof and disappeared. Same thing when Philip was suddenly transported to talk to the Ethiopian eunuch. So if that happened it would have been described. But instead the scripture says they saw Jesus rise UP and disappear into a CLOUD. You say that's metaphorical. Well we know He went into heaven, another dimension, but that doesn't make "up" or the cloud metaphorical. What on EARTH are you talking about?

OK all you mean is that heaven isn't necessarily up but somehow you make the real "up" and the real "cloud" intp something they aren't just to make that simple point. I don't have much more hair to tear out so I think I'll just chew on my fingers or something.