Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

Not at all. Again, it is like saying that it is raining cats and dogs. It is something that our culture understands. With that language Jesus is obviously referring back to Isaiah 13. In Isaiah however it is talking about the defeat of the Babylonians. Jesus is saying that what the Jews are planning on doing is like what the Babylonians were doing to the Jews. He is denouncing the revolutionaries and telling them what is going to happen if they go ahead with a military revolution which all climaxed just less than 40 years later.

The problem is that if we look at what the words say in a 21st century context then we often miss the point. The point is what a 1st century Jew would understand by what is being said.Basically Christianity revolves around 2 things. Firstly that there is a theistic God who is a God of love, justice and humility and wants us to reflect that nature into the world. Secondly that God resurrected Jesus, which among other things confirms Jesus' life and message.

What can't I explain? Sure the Bible says that God commanded the Israelites to commit genocide. I explain that by agreeing that the Bible was written by men often with personal agendas.I am not looking for a nice God, I am looking for truth even though I agree it isn't something that I "know" to be true.

I don't agree that the Gospels were that late however you may well be right that there were more gentile Christians than Jewish Christians at that point. You're right that we don't know. Matthew was obviously written by a Jew for Jews. It is generally believed that John and Mark were written by Jews and there is a difference on opinion as to whether Luke, who accompanied Paul was a Hellenized Jew. Jesus was very Jewish. Yes, he corrected, modified many Jewish laws and beliefs. As to what it meant to rebuild the Temple He completely revamped it, but it was all rooted in His Judaic beliefs and culture as far as I can see. I don't know I'm right. I believe it. To put it simply I use the cliche of "what would Jesus do(or say). All religions are based on humans trying to understand the nature of a deity and what that should means for their lives. Usually it is about how do we get a certain deity on our side so that we as individuals or cultures benefit from it. Sometimes it is about a caste system that sets up a hierarchy within the culture. Christianity essentially says that we are all equal under God and that it is about serving His creation. Certainly in many cases has been distorted, and often badly distorted, but that is the essence of Christianity as I understand it.There is no earthly motivation for the first Christians to make this stuff up. They may have been leaders in their very small group of followers but they were ostracized from culture and often from families. There was no financial benefit and in fact was the opposite. They had seen Jesus crucified and knew that they could suffer the same fate. Crucifixion was a humiliating way to die and yet they preached a crucified messiah. The Gospels are in fact rather critical the disciples which wouldn't enhance their standing in the Christian community. There is zero motivation to fabricate such an unlikely story. Paul din't believe it until after the event. That is the point. As a Jew, let alone a Pharisee, it would take a huge amount of evidence for him to believe that the resurrection was an historical event. The Gospels and more particularly Acts show that it didn't originate with Paul. Paul had to go to existing believers to formulate his beliefs. It just happens that we have retained more of what Paul wrote than we have of others aside from the Gospels. In reading the accounts he compilers don't see Jesus as a martyr although you certainly could define it that way. After the crucifixion His followers went into hiding and even denied Him in order to save their own necks. He was seen at that point, not as a martyr but as another failed messiah. 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.

Well we can keep go around on this if you like. Here is what it says 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.

---

He is referring to this and the Isaiiah 13 where it says this:

quote:

---

10 The stars of heaven and their constellations will not show their light. The rising sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light.

---

It is all language that refers to great human tragedy and political upheaval. ..as does everyone. You have concluded that there isn't enough evidence for a deity so you come to your conclusion that such an entity doesn't exist. Neither of us know that we are right. They were compiled from earlier material and I believe that it is more likely that they used the same material rather than copying each other. Also you seem to agree that they are compilations from earlier material whether it be written or oral. It is hardly going to give them a sense of being delivered from their troubles if they didn't believe what they were saying was true. Yes, there were other messianic movements that ended when the leaders were put to death. Your points make absolutely zero sense. Interestingly enough the Quaran speaks about the virgin birth of Jesus, reveres Him as a prophet and says that He performed many miracles. It does not see as "Son of God" nor do they believe in His resurrection. The Jews do see him as a prophet. The Jews essentially see Jesus as a false prophet which in some ways is interesting as Jesus didn't see Himself as starting a new religion but as a reformer of Judaism.Obviously not everyone had contact with the resurrected Jesus and as it wasn't anything that they would have expected of a messianic movement. Also it would be accepted at a personal cost, it isn't at all surprising that the majority didn't accept it.

Sure, but that wasn't the point. The point was that a 1st century Jew would have understood the language of stars fallong etc.

quote:

---

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.
27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

---

You can't take a 21st century style of writing and automatically apply it to a very different time and culture. Once again, that language reads very much like Isaiah 13:10 where it is being applied to great earthly upheaval as a result of war. Again, looks how that passage starts.

quote:

---

15 So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’spoken of through the prophet Daniellet the reader understand 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until nowand never to be equaled again.

---

Look at what He is advising them to do. He's telling them to go to the mountains, leave possessions behind, don't even take your coat. He is saying get out of Dodge just as quick as you can and hope you don't have to deal with winter weather. If it is meant as an end times prophesy they obviously wouldn't be any better off hiding out in the hills than they would be at home. He is obviously talking about a military invasion with the same sort of language used by Isaiah (13:10) to describe destruction from war.Also in the passage I just quoted He refers to these passages in Daniel 9.

quote:

---

25 Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one ‘seven.’ In the middle of the ‘seven’ he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.

---

Jesus very obviously is talking about the destruction of Jerusalem.I have already shown you in Daniel 7 where it talks about one like a son of man being presented to the Father and given dominion over the Kingdom. When this destruction happens they will understand what Jesus was talking about and know that He is the Son of Man spoken of in Daniel 7, explaining the last 2 verses of your original quote.You cannot take a passage like this and understand it using a 21st century POV. Again, it is a very different world and culture with it's own styles and idioms.

It very clearly isn't. How do you explain the whole issue about heading to the hills etc. Why would you do that if it is about end times. How do you explain the similar language in Isaiah where it is about the Babylonians. You just keep saying that it has to be about end times without showing why you think I'm wrong and don't respond to why it isn't about that at all. You sound like Faith saying that the Bible has to be read as we understand the language now. You want it both ways. If you are arguing with Faith it's nonsense to read it as inerrant and you argue with me as if that's the only way to understand it. Well there's no evidence one way or the other. It could be they had Mark but it is also possible that they were compiled from the same sources. As I have pointed out, there is no motive for him to do that. Mohammed actually had achieved political and military and his followers were looking for more of the same. Not everyone were witnesses and there was still the opposition to Jesus from virtually every group with power in the country. It was in 70 AD. Also, as I mentioned earlier I don't see the prophesy as something Jesus knew supernaturally anyway, It was from understanding His world at the time.

He is explaining the connection between the two. I'm just looking for truth as are you.

I did explain it. The Israelite leaders wanted more land and more power and so they invoked Yahweh's name to justify it. It isn't that hard.

That would be wrong. That is how they used language. As I said several times you can go back to Isaiah 13 where similar language is used regarding the Babylonians.

What does that have to do with the subject ?

Your argument is like something out of Alice in Wonderland. "Words mean what I say they mean". You mean language like "sky darkened", stars falling from the sky" and "the moon will not give off it's light" is supposed to be taken literally. Look at verse 20 then.

quote:

---

But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on the Sabbath

---

You're saying that they have to take flight from the end of the world. You have just decided what it means and don't want to be confused with facts.

The majority of Jews didn't accept Jesus as the messiah then, and they still don't. What has that got to do with what is meant in Matthew 24?

Thanks Straggler. I've learned a lot from you over the years and it's good to see you back.
My apologies, but God bless