Unfulfilled biblical prophesies

[David B]

What are the most unequivocal examples of prophesies that failed to come to pass?

David

[Lisa0315]

Failed, or are still yet to be fulfilled?

[David B]

Failed, or are still yet to be fulfilled?

Failed, but including those that any reasonable reading of the bible would imply that they should have been fulfilled by now.

David

[Ray Moscow]

Well, I think the toughest one is from Jesus:

Matthew 16:27-28: For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Apparently "coming in his kingdom" meant coming down with the angels to judge humankind. It didn't happen.

[Lisa0315]

Well, I think the toughest one is from Jesus:



Apparently "coming in his kingdom" meant coming down with the angels to judge humankind. It didn't happen.

Do you have a death certificate for every person who was there that day? Secondly, we have the cloud of witnesses, and among those are two people in Scripture who did not die: Elijah and Enoch.

Lisa

[Brother Daniel]

You think there may have been people who were in the crowd (when Jesus said that stuff) and who haven't died since then?

Seriously?

Who, then?

[Lisa0315]

You think there may have been people who were in the crowd (when Jesus said that stuff) and who haven't died since then?

Seriously?

Who, then?

I presented a possibility. I have no idea.

Lisa

[Brother Daniel]

By those standards, is it ever possible for anyone's prophecies to be considered unfulfilled?

This reminds me of the sleight-of-hand that the JWs do, whenever they're reminded of their 19th-century prediction that the world would end in the early 20th century. They treat the start of WW1 as the end of the world in some figurative sense.

[Ray Moscow]

Do you have a death certificate for every person who was there that day? Secondly, we have the cloud of witnesses, and among those are two people in Scripture who did not die: Elijah and Enoch.

Lisa

Just what could Jesus (or whoever is speaking on his behalf) have meant except that the "coming" was going to happen within the hearers' lifetimes?

And although the "coming" could be taken to mean various things, in this case it's defined in the previous verse.

[Brother Daniel]

I presented a possibility. I have no idea.
If some of the people who heard Jesus himself had still been alive in the 3rd and 4th centuries, imagine what they could have contributed to the big theological debates of that era!

[Uthgar the Brazen]

They treat the start of WW1 as the end of the world in some figurative sense.

Like the whole "spiritual death" claptrap applied to the temptation narrative in Genesis. Fact is, the serpent told the truth. Or at least more of it than the creator.

[Brother Daniel]

Right. God's warning in Genesis 2:17 was a lie (according to the story!) so people have had to do some serious tap-dancing in order to avoid seeing it that way.

[Barbarian]

You think there may have been people who were in the crowd (when Jesus said that stuff) and who haven't died since then?

Seriously?

Who, then?The Itinerant Jew. There's this legend, documented since the Middle Ages, of someone who was standing on the street in front of his house when Jesus was carrying the cross to Golgotha and he did not allow Jesus to have a short rest in front of his house, so Jesus condemned him to wander in the world until the second coming. Lotsa people met him at different places over the centuries.

I'm just reporting hearsay, mind you.

[Lisa0315]

The Itinerant Jew. There's this legend, documented since the Middle Ages, of someone who was standing on the street in front of his house when Jesus was carrying the cross to Golgotha and he did not allow Jesus to have a short rest in front of his house, so Jesus condemned him to wander in the world until the second coming. Lotsa people met him at different places over the centuries.

I'm just reporting hearsay, mind you.

I think they employed that in a movie with Demi Moore. The Seventh Seal? The Seventh Sign?

Lisa

[Ray Moscow]

He was condemned to wander the earth until Jesus returns. I think he's basically a way of explaining the failed prediction I cited earlier.

Apparently he makes a good living nowadays playing evil characters in SciFi films.

[Brother Daniel]

And in at least one case, a semi-(but not entirely)-good character in a fantasy novel.

[Barbarian]

But, seriously, Lisa, do you really entertain the idea that something like this is possible? That someone who was alive in 33 AD might still be alive?

Although who am I to be taken aback by this, when I fear quantum immortality ? ...

[Lisa0315]

But, seriously, Lisa, do you really entertain the idea that something like this is possible? That someone who was alive in 33 AD might still be alive?

Although who am I to be taken aback by this, when I fear quantum immortality ? ...

I think all things are possible with God. To say that one has not died does not mean that one is on Earth.

Second, do not forget that Scripture also says that ALL men are appointed a time to die. As far as I know this is not a collequillism, so that means that Enoch and Elijah MUST be the two witnesses in Revelations. The two witnesses are killed in Revelations.

So, my best guess is that Jesus was speaking of Elijah and Enoch, and that they were among the cloud of witnesses that day.

Lisa

[Brother Daniel]

If so, did he expect his listeners to understand that?

Deliberately causing a misunderstanding is just as deceptive as an outright lie.

[Lisa0315]

If so, did he expect his listeners to understand that?

Deliberately causing a misunderstanding is just as deceptive as an outright lie.

hmm...God did not judge it as deceptive. *shrug* It seems a small thing to hinge belief or doubt on. I mean, if that is so, then, the story of Creation is especially deceptive. Or, it could be one of those "you will understand when you are older" kind of things.

Lisa

[Pendaric]

The Itinerant Jew. There's this legend, documented since the Middle Ages, of someone who was standing on the street in front of his house when Jesus was carrying the cross to Golgotha and he did not allow Jesus to have a short rest in front of his house, so Jesus condemned him to wander in the world until the second coming. Lotsa people met him at different places over the centuries.

I'm just reporting hearsay, mind you.

He's kind of like Forrest Gump.

[Brother Daniel]

Or, it could be one of those "you will understand when you are older" kind of things.
More like, one of those "no matter how obviously wrong it is, I'm clever enough to find a way to rationalize it and convince myself that it's right after all" kind of things.

I'd like to know whether there are any limits to that.

[Ray Moscow]

More like, one of those "no matter how obviously wrong it is, I'm clever enough to find a way to rationalize it and convince myself that it's right after all" kind of things.

I'd like to know whether there are any limits to that.

No.

The insoluble errors and contradictions of Christianity and Islam have been apparent from the beginning of both, and yet hundreds of millions still "believe" in this stuff.

There are no limits to what people will believe, especially with the right conditioning.

[Joykins]

The Itinerant Jew. There's this legend, documented since the Middle Ages, of someone who was standing on the street in front of his house when Jesus was carrying the cross to Golgotha and he did not allow Jesus to have a short rest in front of his house, so Jesus condemned him to wander in the world until the second coming. Lotsa people met him at different places over the centuries.

I'm just reporting hearsay, mind you.

Maybe he is the brother of this guy:

I was born about ten thousand years ago
There ain't nuthin' in this world that I don't know
I saw Peter Paul and Moses playin' ring-around-the-roses
And I'll whup the guy what says it isn't so

Well, I'm just a lonesome traveler, a great historical bum
Highly educated through history I have come
I built the Rock of Ages, it was in the year oh one
And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done

I saw Adam and Eve driven from the door
I'm the guy that picked the figleaves that they wore
And from behind the bushes peepin' saw the apple they was eatin'
And I swear that I'm the one that et the core

Now I built the garden of Eden, it was in the year oh two
Joined the apple-pickers union and I always paid my dues
I'm the man that signed the contract to raise the risin' sun
And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done

I taught Samson how to use his mighty hand
I showed Columbus to this happy land
And for Pharaoh's little kiddies I built all the pyramiddies
And to the Sahara carried all the sand

Now I was strawboss on the pyramids and the tower of Babel too
I opened up the ocean, let the mighty children through
I fought a million battles and I never lost a one
And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done

I taught Solomon his little ABC's
I'm the first one to eat Limburger cheese
And while floating down the bay with Methuseleh one day
I saw his whiskers floating in the breeze

Now I fought the revolution that set this country free
It was me and a couple of Indians that dumped the Boston tea
I won the battle of Valley Forge and the battle of Bully Run
And that's about the biggest thing that Man has ever done

Now Queen Elizabeth she fell in love with me
We were married in Milwaukee secretly
But I got tired and shook her and ran off with General Hooker
To go shootin' skeeters down in Tennessee

[Garnet]

Anyone even want to touch Daniel's 70 week prophecy?

[Lisa0315]

Anyone even want to touch Daniel's 70 week prophecy?

That is still in the future.

[Garnet]

No it isn't. *wicked evil grin*

[Joykins]

I thought it had to do with the empires that rampaged through the middle east.

[Lisa0315]

I thought it had to do with the empires that rampaged through the middle east.

My fundie-training recalls that it is about the 7 years of the anti-christ. I cannot remember how the 70 weeks are 7 years, etc, but it is something like that.

[Garnet]

Daniel was written in part about events that had already occured and in part about events that the author believed would occur in the near future. The author simply made the wrong predictions.

W. Sibley Towner writes: "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696)

Jay G. Williams writes: "When the author of Daniel himself attempted to predict the future specifically, he, on the whole, proved to be incorrect. Antiochus did not die as he said nor did his kingdom come to a sudden end. The world still awaits the full manifestation of God's righteous rule upon earth. Still, he was right about one thing. Antiochus did not destroy Israel. On the contrary, the Maccabees (the 'little help' mentioned in 11:34) even led the people to a few moments of glory before the Roman armies put an end to their semi-independent nation. Perhaps our author was wrong in attempting to predict so precisely what was to occur, for the course of history is never easily determined in advance, even by a visionary prophet. He knew, however, that what his people needed was not general platitudes but a specific hope to which to cling. This he provided even at the risk of being wrong. Furthermore, his central, motivating thesis is one which faithful men can hardly reject. Essentially the book of Daniel is an affirmation of the faith that the God of Israel has dominion over the world and that in the end he will save his people. Daniel teaches that the faithful man must live expectantly, with the hope that the Kingdom of God is indeed at hand." (Understanding the Old Testament, p. 316)

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/daniel.html

[Lisa0315]

Yes, Garnet, but then, many things in the OT reoccur when the age of grace passes. (That is the age that we currently live in) There will be a SECOND desecration of the temple. Nebuchanazzer was not the anti-christ or I should say THE anti-christ. OT is full of types and foreshadows of things to come. We study the Old to understand the New.

Lisa

[Brother Daniel]

Lisa, that's just another way of saying that it's ok to do violence to the text in order to make it fit your preconceptions.

[Ray Moscow]

Let's give Lisa a free pass until tomorrow.

Lisa, go study! The big test is tonight! Don't be wasting your time with us heretics (until tomorrow, that is).

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, that's just another way of saying that it's ok to do violence to the text in order to make it fit your preconceptions.

Could be. I am not a strong pre-tribber anyway.

[Lisa0315]

Let's give Lisa a free pass until tomorrow.

Lisa, go study! The big test is tonight! Don't be wasting your time with us heretics (until tomorrow, that is).

I am at work right now. I studied a bit on my lunch hour, and I will get a couple hours before the test. It is all I need for this particular subject. I find that I retain a lot if the subject is interesting. Plus, it is multi-choice.

Have any of you heard of WebAssign? My prof designed that. It is now used by many Universities for online courses and testing.

Lisa

[Garnet]

Yes, Garnet, but then, many things in the OT reoccur when the age of grace passes. (That is the age that we currently live in) There will be a SECOND desecration of the temple. Nebuchanazzer was not the anti-christ or I should say THE anti-christ. OT is full of types and foreshadows of things to come. We study the Old to understand the New.

Lisa

So you believe and have been taught. But there isn't a shred of convincing evidence to support it. :evil:

[Joykins]

Yes, Garnet, but then, many things in the OT reoccur when the age of grace passes. (That is the age that we currently live in) There will be a SECOND desecration of the temple. Nebuchanazzer was not the anti-christ or I should say THE anti-christ. OT is full of types and foreshadows of things to come. We study the Old to understand the New.

Lisa


I thought the 2nd desecration of the Temple happened when the Romans destroyed it.

[Joykins]

My fundie-training recalls that it is about the 7 years of the anti-christ. I cannot remember how the 70 weeks are 7 years, etc, but it is something like that.

Oh, OK, I was thinking of the statue one. That one isn't 70 weeks at all.

[Barbarian]

I think all things are possible with God. To say that one has not died does not mean that one is on Earth.

Second, do not forget that Scripture also says that ALL men are appointed a time to die. As far as I know this is not a collequillism, so that means that Enoch and Elijah MUST be the two witnesses in Revelations. The two witnesses are killed in Revelations.

So, my best guess is that Jesus was speaking of Elijah and Enoch, and that they were among the cloud of witnesses that day.

LisaYou made me look that up in Revelations.

I have two problems with your argument. First, what good is having Enoch and Elijah as witnesses? The people of the end times wouldn't be able to verify their claim to having been witnessing the acts of Jesus if they lived the two+ thousand years in hiding, instead of their longevity being a matter of extremely reliable public record. It is superfluous to have two distinguished MIA prophets stand there when two bearded guys would do exactly as well, especially given the side show going on everywhere, so why would an omnipotent god overdo the witnessing stuff like this?

The second problem involves the context of the issue at hand. Questions about unfulfilled prophecies aren't asked in a void; they are asked in response to claims that the Bible prophecies all came true and so the Bible is the real deal, there really is a god etc. Thus, when explaining how a prophecy might be interpreted to have been fulfilled, you are in fact arguing for the truth of the Bible and you cannot assume your conclusion. In this case your argument assumes that the events in Revelations will certainly happen, that all the show described therein is cold fact, but you can only do this by assuming the correctness of the Bible in the first place. That seems circular to me.

[Uthgar the Brazen]

Minor pedantic point: Revelation. No 's.'

[Barbarian]

Minor pedantic point: Revelation. No 's.'Really?

*goes to look it up*

*yes, it's used in singular* :o

*note to self: next time, use an English Bible*

[Uthgar the Brazen]

It's a near-universal gaffe. And I'm a jerk.

[Joykins]

You could just call it John's Apocalypse and not worry about plurality.

[Barbarian]

You could just call it John's Apocalypse and not worry about plurality.There are, in fact, places where it is called "Revelations", e.g. here (http://www.awitness.org/biblehtm/re/), but where I looked it up it was called "The Book of John the Apostle concerning Heavenly Apparitions" ("János apostolnak mennyei jelenésekről való könyve") in the Hungarian Protestant Bible translation of 1590, note the plural in the title, subconscious influences and all that. I'll go strictly KJV from now on.

[lpetrich]

Barbarian, you need not stick to the KJV. Modern-English translations are also careful to use "Revelation".

As to prophecies, The Skeptics' Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/) has a page on them (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html).

Ezekiel has some spectacular ones, like Egypt being uninhabited for 40 years after being conquered by Babylonian leader Nebuchadrezzar, the "Egypt River" drying up, and Nebuchadrezzar's armies destroying Tyre with that city never being rebuilt.

[David B]

From what I recall of the Bible, it is the Tyre one that seems to me the most unequivocally wrong.

And, as someone else mentioned, once one finds something in the Bible that is unequivocally wrong, it becomes somewhat harder to defend unlikely statements in the Bible as being reliable, on the grounds that they are Biblical.

David

[Mung Dynasty]

We should probably stick to those prophecies that have been definitively proven to be failures. This would reduce the amount of evasion that was possible.

[Lisa0315]

We should probably stick to those prophecies that have been definitively proven to be failures. This would reduce the amount of evasion that was possible.

That insult is so wrapped up that you could be a Southerner. I am surprised you didn't say, "Bless your heart". May I ask why you expect evasion?

Lisa

[Mung Dynasty]

Umm, because of the previous contents of the thread. Perhaps "desperate rationalisation" would have been a better way of putting it.

[nygreenguy]

That insult is so wrapped up that you could be a Southerner. I am surprised you didn't say, "Bless your heart". May I ask why you expect evasion?

Lisa

Its either accept the fact prophecies are bunk, or evade. Its clear you wont accept they are bunk sooo.....

[Lisa0315]

Umm, because of the previous contents of the thread. Perhaps "desperate rationalisation" would have been a better way of putting it.

Absolutely no need for either characterization. I can appreciate someone who states that something is not logical, or has no evidence to support it. However, I do not think it is necessary to use phrases that are simply disrespectful to me.

I actually expect to be told I am whining next. I am not. I am merely pointing out that insults do not further the discussion.

It would be far more useful for you to tell me which things you find desperate or evasive rather than reduce every post I have made on the subject to such. Pointing to a specific thing in my posts would make it feel much less personal.

I also want to make you understand that if you truly want to engage people on the topic of religion, this tone and dismissal of ideas is only going to make people refuse to discuss their beliefs.

I am speaking on behalf of myself and anyone else brave enough to enter a secular forum dominated by atheists.

The two posts simply makes me feel that you are uninterested in learning what or why I believe anything, but rather, you are simply creating opportunities to reveal your disdain towards my faith.

I already get the fact that atheists do not "like" religion. I even understand why. However, as I have pointed out, it is simply not going to further the conversation if I have to stop every other post to defend myself.

Whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not, treat me as you would want yourself to be treated if you were in my shoes.

Let me know when you are willing to talk to me as an equal.

Lisa

[Mung Dynasty]

I am talking to you as my equal. If I were behaving the way you have behaved in this thread I would expect people to regard my behaviour as either evasive or as a desperate attempt at rationalisation. I'm not sure why you're singling me out since others have said much the same as I have.

I also notice that you are now not talking about prophecies at all, but instead only talking about how offended you are. Can we get back to prophecies then? Specifically, can we get back to prophecies which have been proven by time to be false?

[Barbarian]

Jesus shall be called Immanuel. Didn't that one fail?

[Lisa0315]

Jesus shall be called Immanuel. Didn't that one fail?

That's a good one! I will have to research that. Give me the weekend.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I am talking to you as my equal. If I were behaving the way you have behaved in this thread I would expect people to regard my behaviour as either evasive or as a desperate attempt at rationalisation. I'm not sure why you're singling me out since others have said much the same as I have.

I also notice that you are now not talking about prophecies at all, but instead only talking about how offended you are. Can we get back to prophecies then? Specifically, can we get back to prophecies which have been proven by time to be false?

Actually, no you are not. If you disagreed with Per, you would not say that he was being evasive or desperate. You would lay out the reasons why you disagreed with him.

So, I will continue this conversation with those who can behave without obvious contempt. In other words, you may go fuck yourself. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Lisa

[Ray Moscow]

Jesus shall be called Immanuel. Didn't that one fail?

We still call him Immanuel in Christmas carols.

Nobody in his day did, though, as far as we know.

GMatthew took some of the most off-the-wall examples as "prophecies".

[Lisa0315]

We still call him Immanuel in Christmas carols.

Nobody in his day did, though, as far as we know.

GMatthew took some of the most off-the-wall examples as "prophecies".

Yeah, but I do not think that the prophecy was talking about Christmas Carols. I am going to have to dig on that one. That one is exceptionally challenging. I honestly cannot recall a single instance when Jesus was called or known as Immanuel.

[Ray Moscow]

Yeah, but I do not think that the prophecy was talking about Christmas Carols. I am going to have to dig on that one. That one is exceptionally challenging. I honestly cannot recall a single instance when Jesus was called or known as Immanuel.

Of course he wasn't, as least as far as the gospels or the rest of the NT are concerned. That's the point.

[Joykins]

Yeah, but I do not think that the prophecy was talking about Christmas Carols. I am going to have to dig on that one. That one is exceptionally challenging. I honestly cannot recall a single instance when Jesus was called or known as Immanuel.

Immanuel means "God with us."

[Lisa0315]

Immanuel means "God with us."

I know, but was Jesus "called that" or "named" that. Does Jesus and Immanuel mean the same thing in different languages?

[Joykins]

I know, but was Jesus "called that" or "named" that. Does Jesus and Immanuel mean the same thing in different languages?

I think it's OK to let the understanding of the prophecy to be metaphorical. I think that's certainly how Matthew intended it to be understood.

Jesus means "God is salvation" and is a Hellenization of the Hebrew name Joshua.

[Anne]

n/m

[David B]

Which implies an acceptance of his divinity by his peers.

Which, when one considers the examples of Wayne Bent, Sai Baba et al, says nothing at all about his actual divinity.

[Brother Daniel]

Actually, no you are not. If you disagreed with Per, you would not say that he was being evasive or desperate. You would lay out the reasons why you disagreed with him.
Ummm... Lisa, this is a bogus comparison. Mung isn't suggesting that you're engaging in desperate rationalization simply because he disagrees with you; he's suggesting that you're engaging in desperate rationalization because he believes that you're engaging in desperate rationalization. See the difference?

Yes, it would help if he spelled out why he thinks that. As far as that goes, you have a point. But with this stuff:
So, I will continue this conversation with those who can behave without obvious contempt. In other words, you may go fuck yourself. Thank you, and have a nice day.
...it really looks like you're going out of your way to take (and give) offence.

BTW, can you see why your post #31 (for example) might look, to others, like desperate rationalization?

[Lisa0315]

Ummm... Lisa, this is a bogus comparison. Mung isn't suggesting that you're engaging in desperate rationalization simply because he disagrees with you; he's suggesting that you're engaging in desperate rationalization because he believes that you're engaging in desperate rationalization. See the difference?

Yes, it would help if he spelled out why he thinks that. As far as that goes, you have a point. But with this stuff:

...it really looks like you're going out of your way to take (and give) offence.

BTW, can you see why your post #31 (for example) might look, to others, like desperate rationalization?

I am not going out of my way, and again, my point is this: There is a goal to make this a place for lively discussion. If I let things go, and I am one of the Christians who are least likely to take offense, then, you are not going to have a lot of folks participating. I am looking ahead to the future. I did the same thing when the thing-a-bob was being written. I insisted that language be changed so that religious people would feel less "called out", and shown respectful disagreement.

As for me cursing him, well, he knows where he stands with me far more effectively than if I had simply said, :bang:. His response to my more gracious post was to throw out another insult.

Now, if had said like you did, take a look at specific post #.... It appears you are being evasive and your rationalization seems desperate, we would not be having this conversation.

I am a reasonable person, and I am experienced in CIVIL apologetics with atheists. I WILL defend myself and I will draw a line at certain tactics. I am not going to bend over and kiss anyone's ass here.

Now, a reasonable request deserves a reasonable answer. I am going back to that post that you mentioned.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Yes, Garnet, but then, many things in the OT reoccur when the age of grace passes. (That is the age that we currently live in) There will be a SECOND desecration of the temple. Nebuchanazzer was not the anti-christ or I should say THE anti-christ. OT is full of types and foreshadows of things to come. We study the Old to understand the New.

Lisa

Okay, above is the post that was called into question, and I do not have a clue as to how that is evasive or desperate rationalization. This is a VERY common and traditional response. If I were going to attack this post, I would attack it as repeating what I have been taught without any personal insight added.

However, I could literally show you on almost every page of OT something that is symbolic or predictive of the NT. Try me on that. Find a theme, or a story in the OT and I will tell you how it illustrates the NT.

I mean this is such a standard for Christianity that we sometimes argue over the application of the symbolism. Catholics for example call Mary the new ark of the covenant, and they study the ark in order to better understand Mary.

So, looking to the OT to explain the New is a standard Christian practice, not desperate, and not evasive in the least. Rather, it shows that an education of our religion needs to be related before people start throwing out accusations and insults.

Lisa

[David B]

Okay, above is the post that was called into question, and I do not have a clue as to how that is evasive or desperate rationalization.

Well it looked like it to me!:p

This is a VERY common and traditional response.

Christianity has, from what I've seen of it, a long and widespread tradition of making evasive and desperate responses

If I were going to attack this post, I would attack it as repeating what I have been taught without any personal insight added.

However, I could literally show you on almost every page of OT something that is symbolic or predictive of the NT.

Try just one!

One that is symbolic or predictive of the NT, that is, with a reasonable argument to back it up, not one that the desperate urge to rationalise has led apologists to claim without sufficient evidence that it is so symbolic or predictive.

Just to claim that it is symbolic or predictive reminds me of those people who assert that almost everything under the sun is related to the dimensions of the pyramids.

Try me on that. Find a theme, or a story in the OT and I will tell you how it illustrates the NT.

Well, how about you picking the best example you can come up with, and I - we - come up with counter hypotheses concerning the symbolism.

I mean this is such a standard for Christianity that we sometimes argue over the application of the symbolism.

And I've known astrologers who sometimes argue about the symbolism intrinsic in the names of the planets vis a vis the application of their alleged symbolism. But the fact that astrologers argue about the one thing, Christians about the other, makes neither right, or even sensible.

Catholics for example call Mary the new ark of the covenant, and they study the ark in order to better understand Mary.

So what? How is it sensible to study accounts of an article in an old book, to understand an alleged person?

So, looking to the OT to explain the New is a standard Christian practice,

OK

not desperate, and not evasive in the least.

If they claim that it [is] symbolic, without demonstrating that it is so, in regards to questioning, then I suggest that it is evasive. And that ark business you mention above sounds a bit desperate to me.

Rather, it shows that an education of our religion needs to be related before people start throwing out accusations and insults.

We know that Christianity has a long history of desperate rationalisation and evasion. The biggest evasion generally being 'It's a mystery'.

Lisa

David:)

[Joykins]

Okay, above is the post that was called into question, and I do not have a clue as to how that is evasive or desperate rationalization. This is a VERY common and traditional response. If I were going to attack this post, I would attack it as repeating what I have been taught without any personal insight added.

However, I could literally show you on almost every page of OT something that is symbolic or predictive of the NT. Try me on that. Find a theme, or a story in the OT and I will tell you how it illustrates the NT.

I mean this is such a standard for Christianity that we sometimes argue over the application of the symbolism. Catholics for example call Mary the new ark of the covenant, and they study the ark in order to better understand Mary.

So, looking to the OT to explain the New is a standard Christian practice, not desperate, and not evasive in the least. Rather, it shows that an education of our religion needs to be related before people start throwing out accusations and insults.

Lisa

I have to back up Lisa here. While I don't agree 100% with her take on the prophecies, it IS and HAS BEEN church teaching that the some prophecies have been fulfilled only in part. In fact, Revel^H^H^H^H^Hthe Apocalypse according to John can substantiate this as a very old tradition because its end chapters are so strongly allusive to the peacable kingdom of Isaiah.

[David B]

I have to back up Lisa here. While I don't agree 100% with her take on the prophecies, it IS and HAS BEEN church teaching that the some prophecies have been fulfilled only in part. In fact, Revel^H^H^H^H^Hthe Apocalypse according to John can substantiate this as a very old tradition because its end chapters are so strongly allusive to the peacable kingdom of Isaiah.

And the fact that that has been church teaching has what to do with its truth?

David

[lpetrich]

Arguments from etymology can be misleading. For instance, the Holy Spirit is literally the Holy Breath.

Also, does one take seriously prophecies of other religions? Like Hellenic/Roman paganism, which has lots of allegedly fulfilled prophecies, like Kronos being overthrown by his son Zeus and Oedipus killing his father and marrying his mother. And not just legendary figures from the distant past, but also some historical ones. And such prophecy fulfillments were recorded by reputable historians that present-day ones use as sources:

Alexander the Great
(His parents Philip and Olympias) The night before the consummation of their marriage, she dreamed that a thunderbolt fell upon her body, which kindled a great fire, whose divided flames dispersed themselves all about, and then were extinguished. And Philip, some time after he was married, dreamt that he sealed up his wife's body with a seal, whose impression, as be fancied, was the figure of a lion. Some of the diviners interpreted this as a warning to Philip to look narrowly to his wife; but Aristander of Telmessus, considering how unusual it was to seal up anything that was empty, assured him the meaning of his dream was that the queen was with child of a boy, who would one day prove as stout and courageous as a lion. Once, moreover, a serpent was found lying by Olympias as she slept, which more than anything else, it is said, abated Philip's passion for her; and whether he feared her as an enchantress, or thought she had commerce with some god, and so looked on himself as excluded, he was ever after less fond of her conversation.

Alexander was born the sixth of Hecatombaeon, which month the Macedonians call Lous, the same day that the temple of Diana at Ephesus was burnt; which Hegesias of Magnesia makes the occasion of a conceit, frigid enough to have stopped the conflagration. The temple, he says, took fire and was burnt while its mistress was absent, assisting at the birth of Alexander. And all the Eastern soothsayers who happened to be then at Ephesus, looking upon the ruin of this temple to be the forerunner of some other calamity, ran about the town, beating their faces, and crying that this day had brought forth something that would prove fatal and destructive to all Asia.

Just after Philip had taken Potidaea, he received these three messages at one time, that Parmenio had overthrown the Illyrians in a great battle, that his race-horse had won the course at the Olympic games, and that his wife had given birth to Alexander; with which being naturally well pleased, as an addition to his satisfaction, he was assured by the diviners that a son, whose birth was accompanied with three such successes, could not fail of being invincible.
Plutarch's biography of him in The Parallel Lives; this translation (http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/alexandr.html) (another translation (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Alexander*/3.html))

Augustus Caesar
Having reached this point, it will not be out of place to add an account of the omens which occurred before he was born, on the very day of his birth, and afterwards, from which it was possible to anticipate and perceive his future greatness and uninterrupted good fortune.

In ancient days, when a part of the wall of Velitrae had been struck by lightning, the prediction was made that a citizen of that town would one day rule the world. Through their confidence in this the people of Velitrae had at once made war on the Roman people and fought with them many times after that almost to their utter destruction; but at last long afterward the event proved that the omen had foretold the rule of Augustus.

According to Julius Marathus, a few months before Augustus was born a portent was generally observed at Rome, which gave warning that nature was pregnant with a king for the Roman people; thereupon the senate in consternation decreed that no male child born that year should be reared; but those whose wives were with child saw to it that the decree was not filed in the treasury, since each one appropriated the prediction to his own family.

I have read the following story in the books of Asclepias of Mendes entitled Theologumena. When Atia had come in the middle of the night to the solemn service of Apollo, she had her litter set down in the temple and fell asleep, while the rest of the matrons also slept. On a sudden a serpent glided up to her and shortly went away. When she awoke, she purified herself, as if after the embraces of her husband, and at once there appeared on her body a mark in colours like a serpent, and she could never get rid of it; so that presently she ceased ever to go to the public baths. In the tenth month after that Augustus was born and was therefore regarded as the son of Apollo. Atia too, before she gave him birth, dreamed that her vitals were borne up to the stars and spread over the whole extent of land and sea, while Octavius dreamed that the sun rose from Atia's womb.
Suetonius's biography of him in The Twelve Caesars; this translation (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Augustus*.html)

[Lisa0315]

And the fact that that has been church teaching has what to do with its truth?

David

It is not about "truth" or "evidence". This is about why a Christian believes what they believe. Whether or not it is "truth" or whether there is "evidence" is beside the point at this stage of the conversation.

The OP is about specific "truth" and "evidence". The side conversation has not been. It has been about the source of belief, and why it was not evasive or desperate.

Lisa

[David B]

It is not about "truth" or "evidence". This is about why a Christian believes what they believe.

I rather thought that this thread was about prophesies that had more or less clearly shown not to be fulfilled. Interesting to see you say that what a Christian believes has nothing to do with truth or evidence, though. You might want to think about that.

Whether or not it is "truth" or whether there is "evidence" is beside the point at this stage of the conversation.

But the conversation was about the truth of biblical prophesy:bang:

The OP is about specific "truth" and "evidence". The side conversation has not been.

I suppose you have a point here.

It has been about the source of belief, and why it was not evasive or desperate.

And why it is, in fact, desperate and evasive.

Lisa

How did the exam go?

David

[Lisa0315]

Well it looked like it to me!:p

Of course! That is fine as long as it is my post that you are speaking of rather than me personally. I do not evade and I am not desperate to convince you or keep myself convinced.




Christianity has, from what I've seen of it, a long and widespread tradition of making evasive and desperate responses


Now, I suspect as much. Most of the online fanatical apologists I have encountered are not who I would want representing the religion. Closed minds, and their feelings towards atheists border on hatred. They ARE threatened and shaken. It is for that reason that LeeDer shut down GA at CF. Too many people were deconverting over there. My thought has always been that if your faith is so weak that it cannot sustain very hard questions, then, you do not have faith to begin with. You have a belief based on nothing except what someone told you to believe.





Try just one!

One that is symbolic or predictive of the NT, that is, with a reasonable argument to back it up, not one that the desperate urge to rationalise has led apologists to claim without sufficient evidence that it is so symbolic or predictive.

Just to claim that it is symbolic or predictive reminds me of those people who assert that almost everything under the sun is related to the dimensions of the pyramids.


Okay, many come to mind. I may have to give you more than one, but that might end up more chaotic than conducive to the discussion. Let me think which is the best one.

Well, the most obvious one is Abraham's near-sacrfice of Isaac. A beloved son to be sacrificed for sins. At the last moment, God intervenes and says that He will provide the sacrifice.



Well, how about you picking the best example you can come up with, and I - we - come up with counter hypotheses concerning the symbolism.


Go ahead.



And I've known astrologers who sometimes argue about the symbolism intrinsic in the names of the planets vis a vis the application of their alleged symbolism. But the fact that astrologers argue about the one thing, Christians about the other, makes neither right, or even sensible.


Odd that, but even odder is the command in OT that Jews were not to study the stars for signs.



So what? How is it sensible to study accounts of an article in an old book, to understand an alleged person?



I personally think the ark and Mary are a stretch myself. Catholics believe that Mary's womb was a Holy vessel in which the new covenant was "kept".





If they claim that it [is] symbolic, without demonstrating that it is so, in regards to questioning, then I suggest that it is evasive. And that ark business you mention above sounds a bit desperate to me.


Well, as I have said before, we do argue among ourselves what is symbolic and what is literal. We argue greatly over the symbol of communion vs the Catholic belief that a bit of bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ. To me, that must have come from some pagan ritual and mixed in with the teachings of the gospels. In fact, I find a lot of Catholic teaching to be that way.



We know that Christianity has a long history of desperate rationalisation and evasion. The biggest evasion generally being 'It's a mystery'.


Are there mysteries in Science right now? I will give you an example. I sat through a lecture about the possibility of life on other planets in the universe. We were give (if I remember this correctly) seven laws and formulas that must be applied. The last one, you had to take the average life of a planet. Err...The Earth is the only planet we know of that has life, and life has not yet ended, so the conclusion of the one hour lecture was that the seventh rule, law, whatever, was "unknowable". Is that not just a fancy way of saying it is a mystery?


Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I rather thought that this thread was about prophesies that had more or less clearly shown not to be fulfilled. Interesting to see you say that what a Christian believes has nothing to do with truth or evidence, though. You might want to think about that.



But the conversation was about the truth of biblical prophesy:bang:



I suppose you have a point here.



And why it is, in fact, desperate and evasive.



How did the exam go?

David

Go back and re-read my post. I said that the OP was about truth and evidence, but the SIDE conversation was not.

The exam went okay. Not my finest moment, but it will be enough to have a B+ in the class. If I guessed better than I think, then, I could end up with a low A.

Lisa

[David B]

Go back and re-read my post. I said that the OP was about truth and evidence, but the SIDE conversation was not.

If you go back and read mine, you will see that I conceded that point. One might suggest that getting into that side conversation, though, was in itself an evasion of the issue in the OP.

The exam went okay. Not my finest moment, but it will be enough to have a B+ in the class. If I guessed better than I think, then, I could end up with a low A.

Good enough then. Jolly good.

Now back to your post above.

David

Lisa[/QUOTE]

[Lisa0315]

If you go back and read mine, you will see that I conceded that point. One might suggest that getting into that side conversation, though, was in itself an evasion of the issue in the OP.



Good enough then. Jolly good.

Now back to your post above.

David

Lisa[/quote]

Bullshit. I defended myself. Had Mung conceded that after my first post about it, we wouldn't still be talking about it.

I could say that Mung had nothing to offer to the discussion so he resorted to insults. You are repeating his insults over and over. I have decided to ignore that as you are at least engaging me on particular points in my posts. Had he done the same rather than just broadbrushed everything as evasive, I would have ignored his little jabs too.

I have a thick skin. I assure you that I have had tougher challenges to my faith in GA with Beastt.

Now, on with the REAL discussion or I am going to decide that *you* are being evasive.

Lisa

[Anne]

At this point, I'm unclear on what the real discussion is...

Lisa, what is the most troubling prophesy for you?

Do you think all the OT stories have parallels in the NT?

What do you think of Jews who don't agree?

[Mung Dynasty]

Lisa, if at any point in any discussion you think I am being consistently evasive you are quite at liberty to say so. I wont respond by telling you to go fuck yourself either. I'd be more likely to ask which of my posts, or parts of my posts, you thought were evasive.

[Lisa0315]

At this point, I'm unclear on what the real discussion is...

Lisa, what is the most troubling prophesy for you?

Do you think all the OT stories have parallels in the NT?

What do you think of Jews who don't agree?

Very good questions, Anne.

The most troubling prophesy for me is the judgment. I don't want to be judged by God, and I don't want others to be judged.

The most bizarre prophecy is when Satan is let loose for a little season after the second coming and the 1000 year reign of Christ.

All? I am not sure. I would literally have to have a list of every story to see if it matches something in the New.

I believe that Jews are still blinded. They were purposefully blinded to their Messiah when Jesus was on Earth. That was foretold, and continues until the abomination and desecration of the temple. Christians (today and in my own personal experience) are taught to love Israel and view Jews as still God's Chosen people.

Lisa

[Mung Dynasty]

This:

From what I recall of the Bible, it is the Tyre one that seems to me the most unequivocally wrong.

And, as someone else mentioned, once one finds something in the Bible that is unequivocally wrong, it becomes somewhat harder to defend unlikely statements in the Bible as being reliable, on the grounds that they are Biblical.

David

What about the Tyre prophecy?

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, if at any point in any discussion you think I am being consistently evasive you are quite at liberty to say so. I wont respond by telling you to go fuck yourself either. I'd be more likely to ask which of my posts, or parts of my posts, you thought were evasive.

Uh, uh. You do not get a pass on this. Your behavior was called out and if you will re-read it, I did say that you should have referred to a post that was evasive or whatever. You responded with a second out of the blue insult. So, my response was correct. I do not waste time or mince words with folks who are not even trying to engage me in REAL discussion.

As I said, behave as an adult, and I will respond to you. Otherwise, yeah, same sentiment as before.

Regardless, you still have the hottest set of legs on a man I have ever seen.

Truce?

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

This:



What about the Tyre prophecy?

Refresh my memory. What is the Tyre prophecy and what has not come to pass?

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Leaving work now, but I will be back online later.

[Anne]

They were purposefully blinded to their Messiah when Jesus was on Earth. That was foretold, and continues until the abomination and desecration of the temple.

uh... free will?

[David B]

Well, this is a much better post, Lisa:)


Of course! That is fine as long as it is my post that you are speaking of rather than me personally. I do not evade and I am not desperate to convince you or keep myself convinced.

Yes, the post. But the post followed the long Christian tradition of avoiding a search for both truth and evidence as a method of knowing what it is a good idea to believe, I think.





Now, I suspect as much. Most of the online fanatical apologists I have encountered are not who I would want representing the religion. Closed minds, and their feelings towards atheists border on hatred. They ARE threatened and shaken. It is for that reason that LeeDer shut down GA at CF. Too many people were deconverting over there. My thought has always been that if your faith is so weak that it cannot sustain very hard questions, then, you do not have faith to begin with. You have a belief based on nothing except what someone told you to believe.

Good!






Okay, many come to mind. I may have to give you more than one, but that might end up more chaotic than conducive to the discussion. Let me think which is the best one.

Well, the most obvious one is the near-sacrifice of Isaac. A beloved son is to be sacrificed for sins. At the last moment, God intervenes and says that He will provide the sacrifice.

Sorry, but wrong. In the story a beloved son is to be sacrificed because a monster of a bible-god wants to test Abraham. One might wonder, in passing, why a god who is either merciful, benevolent or omniscient would want or need to do that. Nothing to do with sin, as far as I can see.

[1] And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
[2] And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
[3] And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him.

Isaac wasn't to be crucified, either!

What on earth would make someone think that the story of Isaac has anything to do with the death of Christ?

Go ahead.

Done, above.


Odd that, but even odder is the command in OT that Jews were not to study the stars for signs.

In stark contrast to the story of the Magi!


I personally think the ark and Mary are a stretch myself. Catholics believe that Mary's womb was a Holy vessel in which the new covenant was "kept".

Bizarre!

Well, as I have said before, we do argue among ourselves what is symbolic and what is literal. We argue greatly over the symbol of communion vs the Catholic belief that a bit of bread and wine are truly the body and blood of Christ. To me, that must have come from some pagan ritual and mixed in with the teachings of the gospels. In fact, I find a lot of Catholic teaching to be that way.

I find a lot of Christian teaching to be that way.


Are there mysteries in Science right now?

Yes of course there are. However there are differences between the mysteries of science, and the mysteries of theology.

Science does not treat mystery as a virtue, and science seeks to look for evidence that throws light on mysteries.

I will give you an example. I sat through a lecture about the possibility of life on other planets in the universe. We were give (if I remember this correctly) seven laws and formulas that must be applied. The last one, you had to take the average life of a planet. Err...The Earth is the only planet we know of that has life, and life has not yet ended, so the conclusion of the one hour lecture was that the seventh rule, law, whatever, was "unknowable". Is that not just a fancy way of saying it is a mystery?

That would be about the Drake equation, I'd imagine. I always thought it tosh, myself, though it was an early attempt to make informed guesses about extraterrestrial life, making what Drake thought reasonable assumptions, and I didn't.

The differences between the sort of mystery concerning extraterrestrial life and and the sort of mystery proclaimed by theologians are a bit telling, though.

In the former, the working assumptions can be refined by looking at evidence, like the recent evidence for other planets. And, further, the scientific mystery is viewed as something to be worked on, and solved.

The theological mystery, OTOH, is viewed as both insoluble and something of a good thing. On the lines of 'Yes there is one god, but there is also a father, a son and a holy spirit, yet the three are one, and that is a mystery, isn't that wonderful.'

To which my response would be that declaring dogma to be that sort of mystery is to evade the point, and to indulge in a desperate, and unsuccessful, rationalisation.

Lisa

David

[Mung Dynasty]

Uh, uh. You do not get a pass on this. Your behavior was called out and if you will re-read it, I did say that you should have referred to a post that was evasive or whatever. You responded with a second out of the blue insult. So, my response was correct. I do not waste time or mince words with folks who are not even trying to engage me in REAL discussion.
Then why are you still discussing with other people who made similar comments? Why single me out?


Truce?Lisa
Yokay.

[David B]

Refresh my memory. What is the Tyre prophecy and what has not come to pass?

Lisa

In Ezekiel it was prophesied that Tyre would be destroyed and never inhabited again.

Fail!

[13] And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.
[14] And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.
[15] Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee?
[16] Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee.
[17] And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it!
[18] Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.
[19] For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;
[20] When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;
[21] I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

My bold.

David

[Mung Dynasty]

Actually the other bit to bold is this:

[19] For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee

Tyre is not and has never been underwater.

[Lisa0315]

uh... free will?

Believe it or not, no. :) This is also a good example of one story helping to illustrate a fulfilled prophecy.

To understand this, you must go back to the Pharoah of Egypt. It is written that God hardened his heart. It is not that God took away the Pharoah's choice, nor did He take away the Jews choice. Instead, he magnified what was already there.

Pharoah was already a very stubborn and arrogant man. The Jews in Jesus' day were already blind to the spirit of the law, and did not truly understand who or what God was. Instead, they preyed on the people, played politics, and extorted money. God did not take away freewill from either. Instead, he took what was already there and turned up the volume so to speak.

Lisa

[Anne]

He could have taken what was good and softened Pharoah's heart as well.

A merciful god would have done that.

As a parent, do you work to make your child's negative qualities stronger, or his positive?

As a fallible weak human, shouldn't you expect more of your god than what you yourself would give?

[Mung Dynasty]

Anne's points are relevant. Extremely relevant.

[Lisa0315]

Then why are you still discussing with other people who made similar comments? Why single me out?



Yokay.

I suppose because it began with you, so I set boundaries, I hope. If I hadn't, it would have gotten worse, and keep in mind, I am one, and you guys in comparison are legion.

Were it the other way around, and you were in a Christian forum, would you wish for Christians to shout "Thou Fool" verses at you? Would you not find it insulting and difficult to combat if you felt very outnumbered? Wouldn't you feel like just leaving?

I have seen it happen. It was my very first experience at CF, and I was a baby Christian. All I knew at that moment was that we were supposed to love people, and I could not comprehend how Christians could be behaving so badly. I could not comprehend how that was "outreach". Time passed, and I found many of my brothers and sisters quite cowardly. The ones who were not, the ones who responded with kindness and intelligence, are the ones that I am still in contact with today.

I am making a point here not just for myself but for the future of this forum. Either it is a secular board strongly influenced by atheists but welcoming to religious discussion, or it is simply an atheist board like IIDB where Christians were unwelcome, and were cast into the darkest corner of the board until eventually that was not acceptable either.

So, we are in the pre-natal stage, and we are all responsible for what this forum becomes. We can curse each other like I did, we can insult each other, we can play lulz, or we can try to achieve something very special.

Educate me, question me, de-convert me if you can. I am not here trying to convert. I am here because I enjoy the back and forth and the challenge of it. I hope you want the same thing because if I get the idea that it is just so that you can high five it with other atheists, then, there is no point for me, is there.

Lisa

[Tod]

Lisa argues that Matt 16:27-28 isn't necessarily a failed prophecy because, what if, she argues, somebody who was standing there listening to Jesus say that hasn't died yet? Well, aside from the fact that this is a silly rationalization, even if we accept it there are still problems. The problem lies in the obvious fact that this prophecy isn't alone in implying Jesus' second coming would be near, and neither of the other two prophecies claims that some standing there will be alive, but uses other vocabulary to indicate a speedy return, meaning Lisa's "explanation" doesn't explain them away even if we do switch our logic centers off to entertain Lisa's answer:


These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them as follows: Do not make your way to gentile territory, and do not enter any Samaritan town; go instead to the lost sheep of the House of Israel…In truth I tell you, you will not have gone the round of the towns in Israel before the Son of man comes. (Matt. 10:5-23)

I’m pretty sure the disciples have had enough time to visit all of “the towns in Israel,” and I’m positive that the whole of Israel has heard Jesus’ message.

Then you have the even more widely known:

Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven…and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and glory…So with you when you see all of these things: know that he is near, right at the gates. In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away, all these things will have taken place. (Matt. 24:29-34, emphasis added)

Defenders will say the word “genea” used here for “generation” can sometimes be used to refer to a race, so Jesus was saying simply that the Jews would still be here when the second coming occurs. First of all, he who asserts must prove. Show me where the word “genea” is used to refer to a race alone with no generational connotation.

Secondly, since the Jews are God’s chosen people, it goes without saying they will still be here when the earth comes to it’s end, duh. Jesus and his listeners would have made this obvious assumption. So why would Jesus state the obvious for no apparent reason? Saying “this generation will not pass away” before these events occur has meaning, because it implies these events will occur relatively soon. Saying “the Jews will not pass away” before these events occur is redundant and therefore pointless.

Another solution claims Jesus meant that the generation that saw the foretold events wouldn’t pass away before the events occurred, but that is even more ridiculously redundant than the last explanation. Of course the generation that sees these events won’t pass away before the events occur!

Between these three separate passages, it is abundantly clear that the author of Matthew saw Jesus' coming as quite imminent. Some hearing him teach would still be alive, the current generation will not have passed, and the word of Jesus will not spread to all of Israel before the Second Coming occurs. Failure occurs on all counts.

One of my personal favorites, switching gears back to the OT, concerns Ezekiel's mindless and ultimately empty rant against Egypt:

Son of man, turn towards Pharaoh king of Egypt and prophesy against him and against the whole of Egypt…So the Lord Yahweh says this: I shall send the sword against you to denude you of human and animal. Egypt will become a desolate waste, and they will know that I am Yahweh….I shall make Egypt a waste and desolation, from Migdol to Syene and and beyond to the frontiers of Ethiopia. No human foot will pass through it, no animal foot will pass through it. For forty years it will remain uninhabited. I shall make Egypt the most desolate of countries; for forty years its cities will be the most desolate of wasted cities. And I shall scatter the Egyptians among the nations where they were dispersed. (Ez. 29:2-12 emphasis added)

The sword will come on Egypt, and anguish on the country…when her riches are carried away and her foundations destroyed… The supports of Egypt will fall; the pride of her strength will crumble; they will fall by the sword from Migdol to Syene-declares the Lord Yahweh. They will be the most desolate of desolate countries, and its cities the most ruined of cities. And they will know that I am Yahweh when I set fire to Egypt and all its supports are shattered…I shall destroy the huge population of Egypt at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon…they will draw the sword against Egypt and fill the country with corpses. I shall dry up the courses of the Nile and sell the country to the wicked. I shall lay the whole country waste and everything in it, at the hand of foreigners. Egypt will be left without a ruler… I shall set fire to Egypt…A cloud will cover Egypt itself, and its daughters will go into captivity. Such will be the punishments I inflict on Egypt… I shall scatter Egypt among the nations and disperse it among the countries. (Ez. 30:4-23, emphasis added)

Needless to say, Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt at all, must less destroyed it. In fact, Nebuchadnezzar’s armies never even entered Egypt’s borders, despite at least two, and possibly three battles, with Egypt.

The first time he defeated an Egyptian-Assyrian alliance, and that action was purely defensive as they attacked him. He did not pursue their retreating armies or invade because his father died suddenly and he had to return to Babylon. (Manchip-White, J.E., Ancient Egypt, p. 199)

The second time he did attempt to invade Egypt, “but was driven back with heavy loss and retired to Babylon.” (Gardiner, A. Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 359)

An anonymous cuneiform fragment in the British Museum claims there was a third campaign, but it says only that “ he went to Mitzraim (Egypt) to make war.” It doesn’t say what the outcome was, and leaves it at that! While discussing this inscription, Egyptologist Alan Gardiner concludes that “it is unlikely that the two powers ever came into conflict with one another either at this time or later…” (Ibid, p. 362)

He certainly didn’t make Egypt “waste and desolate,” never mind “the most desolate of countries” or “the most ruined of cities.” Indeed, not only did Nebuchadnezzar never destroy Egypt, NOBODY has ever destroyed Egypt or any of its major cities.

Additionally, Egypt’s population has never been massacred or sent into exile by a conquering force. Egypt has never been uninhabited for a single day since its beginning, much less for forty years. To think that there was a time when “no human foot” or “animal foot” “pass[ed] through it” is laughable. The same of the Nile running dry. Furthermore, Egypt continued to have a ruler without interruption for centuries to come.

[Lisa0315]

Sorry, but wrong. In the story a beloved son is to be sacrificed because a monster of a bible-god wants to test Abraham. One might wonder, in passing, why a god who is either merciful, benevolent or omniscient would want or need to do that. Nothing to do with sin, as far as I can see.



Isaac wasn't to be crucified, either!

What on earth would make someone think that the story of Isaac has anything to do with the death of Christ?



It is a type and a foreshadowing. It does not have to be exact. It is the story of a father who determines that he has to sacrifice his son for the good of others.



In stark contrast to the story of the Magi!


The Magi were not Jews. They were likely Babylonians, and their knowledge of the coming Messiah came from Daniel. Daniel practically converted the Babylonians you know. Not really, but he certainly made them realize that the God of the Hebrews was a force to be reckoned with.





Yes of course there are. However there are differences between the mysteries of science, and the mysteries of theology.

Science does not treat mystery as a virtue, and science seeks to look for evidence that throws light on mysteries.



That would be about the Drake equation, I'd imagine. I always thought it tosh, myself, though it was an early attempt to make informed guesses about extraterrestrial life, making what Drake thought reasonable assumptions, and I didn't.

The differences between the sort of mystery concerning extraterrestrial life and and the sort of mystery proclaimed by theologians are a bit telling, though.

In the former, the working assumptions can be refined by looking at evidence, like the recent evidence for other planets. And, further, the scientific mystery is viewed as something to be worked on, and solved.

The theological mystery, OTOH, is viewed as both insoluble and something of a good thing. On the lines of 'Yes there is one god, but there is also a father, a son and a holy spirit, yet the three are one, and that is a mystery, isn't that wonderful.'

To which my response would be that declaring dogma to be that sort of mystery is to evade the point, and to indulge in a desperate, and unsuccessful, rationalisation.



David
[/QUOTE]

Yes! The Drake Equation!

I would not have characterized Christian's views of the mystery of God to be quite so dramatic, but you are right at least that it is seen as a positive thing. I think the part that you do not get though is that our belief is that these unknown things WILL be known someday.

The Drake Equation though...simply will not be knowable, and yet, as recently as this year at a major university in North Carolina, it is taught as one of the coolest things since sliced bread. Okay, maybe, I am exaggerating a bit, but we are talking about a PHD who is part of the Hubble Space Telescope team lecturing on this.

It was extremely interesting, but at the same time, a dead end. Why are they teaching dead ends if the mystery and unsolvability is a bad thing? You say that people are trying to solve this? Why? It cannot be solved unless we are able to travel at the speed of light, suspend life so that we can go hundreds of light years away, and even then, if we were to find life, you still have the problem that life must end before it could be averaged for that 7th variable or whatever.

Another way to solve it, life on earth would have to end, and some smart scientists would have to leave the planet before life ended. This is not a mystery as I called it. It is not even science. Plus, is the average of one planet really going to give us an accurate answer? No.

Lisa

[Tod]

Were it the other way around, and you were in a Christian forum, would you wish for Christians to shout "Thou Fool" verses at you?

I suppose that isn't much different from when believers tell me that I must have had a bad experience with religion/religious people or when they tell me that nonbelievers aren't open-minded while paradoxically displaying blind adherence to one, narrow little worldview that can't even pass child-like logical examination.

In fact, I don't see ANY difference, and would actually prefer somebody quote "the fool has said in his heart that there is no god." At least that has a biblical basis, giving it some, if not good, support that can be further debated. It isn't nearly as condescending as the "bad experience" argument or as hypocritical as the "nonbelievers aren't open-minded" argument.

[Lisa0315]

He could have taken what was good and softened Pharoah's heart as well.

A merciful god would have done that.

As a parent, do you work to make your child's negative qualities stronger, or his positive?

As a fallible weak human, shouldn't you expect more of your god than what you yourself would give?

Okay, there is always an alternative to what God did vs what we think God should have done. The problem is that none of us can see all of the consequences of doing it your way instead. It sounds better, but how do we know?

Remember in that other thread about killing Hitler? I offered a possible alternative which would have been worse. If there had been no WWII, no Hitler, Germany would have still been resentful of the WWI treaty, and perhaps, instead of Hitler, we would have had another 20 years of peace, but Einstein may have stayed in Europe, and potentially, the A-bomb going to a country that would have been very, very bad for the rest of the world.

So, while it SOUNDS more merciful to have magnified the good things inside of Pharoah, it MAY have resulted in something much, much worse. There is simply no way to know. So, I submit that unless we can see all the consequences, we shouldn't be judging God on things like this. Why does this good person die, and this bad person live? Unless we can see every IF variable of the difference, we simply cannot know that things would have been better.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Were it the other way around, and you were in a Christian forum, would you wish for Christians to shout "Thou Fool" verses at you?

I suppose that isn't much different from when believers tell me that I must have had a bad experience with religion/religious people or when they tell me that nonbelievers aren't open-minded while paradoxically displaying blind adherence to one, narrow little worldview that can't even pass child-like logical examination.

In fact, I don't see ANY difference, and would actually prefer somebody quote "the fool has said in his heart that there is no god." At least that has a biblical basis, giving it some, if not good, support that can be further debated. It isn't nearly as condescending as the "bad experience" argument or as hypocritical as the "nonbelievers aren't open-minded" argument.

You are right. It is the exact same condescending thing that I am preaching against. I apologize to you for having insulted you and being intellectually dishonest with you.

Lisa

[David B]

Lisa, it's late at night here now, the bottle is going down, and you have other posts for your attention.

You are outnumbered, so I don't further want to add to the pile on at the moment.

Please think of some good apologists to come and talk to us, to share the load, so to speak.

I'm very anxious for Christians to be accepted here, though their beliefs, like any other beliefs will be challenged in this forum. The lounge being another place, where things are more social and sociable.

Anyway. would you mind if I copied your last bit on Drake over to a thread on the Drake equation I could start tomorrow. Or maybe tonight, if you respond quickly.

David

[Tod]

You are right. It is the exact same condescending thing that I am preaching against. I apologize to you for having insulted you and being intellectually dishonest with you.

Lisa

Thank you and sorry about the sarcasm a couple of days ago (I'll try to do better)

David is right: you are awfully overwhelmed. You really need to find some other Christians to join you. I feel like I'm a single teenage boy at a party full of other teenage boys with only one girl in the room. : )

[Anne]

Okay, there is always an alternative to what God did vs what we think God should have done. The problem is that none of us can see all of the consequences of doing it your way instead. It sounds better, but how do we know?

Because we have logic and reasoning.

Otherwise, how can you argue that anyone should not do anything?

God took away Pharoah's free will. Plain and simple. Pharoah was about to give in, and god forced him not to, probably to continue to beat on Egypt.

It sounds terribly like an abusive marriage.

[Mung Dynasty]

Daniel practically converted the Babylonians you know. Not really, but he certainly made them realize that the God of the Hebrews was a force to be reckoned with.

Lisa

Can you provide any evidence of this from Babylonian records, or is it merely an unsupported assertion?

[Lisa0315]

Whoa, Cowboy! That is a lot for one person to answer in a single post, so I am going to break this down and see if I can answer it bit by bit. You remind me of someone I once knew on CF. Vjad...I could never pronounce his whole name. He used to throw lengthy mulit-pointed posts at me too. Believe me, he was one of the best I ever knew on the opposite side, and that is a huge compliment believe it or not. He would be a great addition to this forum, but I do not know how to find him. I think I will get permission and see if I can track him down.

Anyway...let me take this to Word and try to tackle it.

[Anne]

Lisa--- thank you.

[Lisa0315]

Okay, I am going to try to tackle Tod's post, and then, that will have to be it for the night. I have company coming sometime tonight. (Daughter and fiance) I will try to get back to the others later.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Thank you and sorry about the sarcasm a couple of days ago (I'll try to do better)

David is right: you are awfully overwhelmed. You really need to find some other Christians to join you. I feel like I'm a single teenage boy at a party full of other teenage boys with only one girl in the room. : )

That could get fun actually.

I need to ask you what Bible version you are using. I use KJV, and uhm, that last bit about Jesus coming before the disciples have made it to every city simply isn't there. I knew I didn't recognize it, but I just checked. It is NOT there.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Can you provide any evidence of this from Babylonian records, or is it merely an unsupported assertion?

Only from Scripture of course. I do not have access to Babylonian records, no.

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, it's late at night here now, the bottle is going down, and you have other posts for your attention.

You are outnumbered, so I don't further want to add to the pile on at the moment.

Please think of some good apologists to come and talk to us, to share the load, so to speak.

I'm very anxious for Christians to be accepted here, though their beliefs, like any other beliefs will be challenged in this forum. The lounge being another place, where things are more social and sociable.

Anyway. would you mind if I copied your last bit on Drake over to a thread on the Drake equation I could start tomorrow. Or maybe tonight, if you respond quickly.

David

Absolutely.

[Mung Dynasty]

Only from Scripture of course. I do not have access to Babylonian records, no.

So it's an unsupported assertion then, since you cant use the bible to support the validity of biblical claims.

[Lisa0315]

Lisa argues that Matt 16:27-28 isn't necessarily a failed prophecy because, what if, she argues, somebody who was standing there listening to Jesus say that hasn't died yet? Well, aside from the fact that this is a silly rationalization, even if we accept it there are still problems. The problem lies in the obvious fact that this prophecy isn't alone in implying Jesus' second coming would be near, and neither of the other two prophecies claims that some standing there will be alive, but uses other vocabulary to indicate a speedy return, meaning Lisa's "explanation" doesn't explain them away even if we do switch our logic centers off to entertain Lisa's answer:


These twelve Jesus sent out, instructing them as follows: Do not make your way to gentile territory, and do not enter any Samaritan town; go instead to the lost sheep of the House of Israel…In truth I tell you, you will not have gone the round of the towns in Israel before the Son of man comes. (Matt. 10:5-23)

I’m pretty sure the disciples have had enough time to visit all of “the towns in Israel,” and I’m positive that the whole of Israel has heard Jesus’ message.

Unless you have misquoted the chapter and verses, that does not appear in Matthew 10. Here is the KJV:

1.And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out , and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2.Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3.Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4.Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
5.These twelve Jesus sent forth , and commanded them, saying , Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6.But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7.And as ye go , preach , saying , The kingdom of heaven is at hand .
8.Heal the sick , cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received , freely give .
9.Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
10.Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
11.And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter , enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence .
12.And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13.And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14.And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15.Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
16.Behold , I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
17.But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
18.And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
19.But when they deliver you up , take no thought how or what ye shall speak : for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak .
20.For it is not ye that speak , but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
21.And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death .
22.And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved .
23.But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come .
24.The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
25.It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
26.Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered , that shall not be revealed ; and hid, that shall not be known .
27.What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28.And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
29.Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing #fn24? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father .
30.But the very hairs of your head are all numbered .
31.Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
32.Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men , him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33.But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34.Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35.For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36.And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37.He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38.And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39.He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
40.He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
41.He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
42.And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

Then you have the even more widely known:

Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven…and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and glory…So with you when you see all of these things: know that he is near, right at the gates. In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away, all these things will have taken place. (Matt. 24:29-34, emphasis added)

Defenders will say the word “genea” used here for “generation” can sometimes be used to refer to a race, so Jesus was saying simply that the Jews would still be here when the second coming occurs. First of all, he who asserts must prove. Show me where the word “genea” is used to refer to a race alone with no generational connotation.

Secondly, since the Jews are God’s chosen people, it goes without saying they will still be here when the earth comes to it’s end, duh. Jesus and his listeners would have made this obvious assumption. So why would Jesus state the obvious for no apparent reason? Saying “this generation will not pass away” before these events occur has meaning, because it implies these events will occur relatively soon. Saying “the Jews will not pass away” before these events occur is redundant and therefore pointless.

It is a mystery. j/k

I honestly do not know the answer to this, and I am going to do away with speculation here. It is VERY true that early Christians believed that it would happen in their lifetime BECAUSE of this saying. I will say “saying” here because it was likely oral tradition until at LEAST the end of the first century.

Another solution claims Jesus meant that the generation that saw the foretold events wouldn’t pass away before the events occurred, but that is even more ridiculously redundant than the last explanation. Of course the generation that sees these events won’t pass away before the events occur!

Between these three separate passages, it is abundantly clear that the author of Matthew saw Jesus' coming as quite imminent. Some hearing him teach would still be alive, the current generation will not have passed, and the word of Jesus will not spread to all of Israel before the Second Coming occurs. Failure occurs on all counts.

You are right. As I said above, the early Christians believed, and risked MUCH because they believed that Christ was returning in just a few years. I cannot explain this. As you have uncovered, scholars have been trying for 1900 years or so. Let me see if I can find out what some of my favorite scholars had to say about it.

Matthew Henry agrees with your source that it is speaking of the Jews as a people, not that current generation. That means that the interpretation of that verse has traditionally been the same for quite some time.

I am stumped on this one and have no insight at all. His listeners were the 12 disciples, not a large group of people, so it makes a little more sense for Jesus to speak of the nation of Jews in that sense I suppose.
The only other thing I can add to it is that the Jews had experienced great displacement over and over, and at that moment in time were threatened as a race by Hellenization. It could be an assurance that the Jews would not lose their national identity, or even a prophecy that they would be their own nation again at the time of the second coming.

Best I can do on that one…

One of my personal favorites, switching gears back to the OT, concerns Ezekiel's mindless and ultimately empty rant against Egypt:

Son of man, turn towards Pharaoh king of Egypt and prophesy against him and against the whole of Egypt…So the Lord Yahweh says this: I shall send the sword against you to denude you of human and animal. Egypt will become a desolate waste, and they will know that I am Yahweh….I shall make Egypt a waste and desolation, from Migdol to Syene and and beyond to the frontiers of Ethiopia. No human foot will pass through it, no animal foot will pass through it. For forty years it will remain uninhabited. I shall make Egypt the most desolate of countries; for forty years its cities will be the most desolate of wasted cities. And I shall scatter the Egyptians among the nations where they were dispersed. (Ez. 29:2-12 emphasis added)

The sword will come on Egypt, and anguish on the country…when her riches are carried away and her foundations destroyed… The supports of Egypt will fall; the pride of her strength will crumble; they will fall by the sword from Migdol to Syene-declares the Lord Yahweh. They will be the most desolate of desolate countries, and its cities the most ruined of cities. And they will know that I am Yahweh when I set fire to Egypt and all its supports are shattered…I shall destroy the huge population of Egypt at the hand of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon…they will draw the sword against Egypt and fill the country with corpses. I shall dry up the courses of the Nile and sell the country to the wicked. I shall lay the whole country waste and everything in it, at the hand of foreigners. Egypt will be left without a ruler… I shall set fire to Egypt…A cloud will cover Egypt itself, and its daughters will go into captivity. Such will be the punishments I inflict on Egypt… I shall scatter Egypt among the nations and disperse it among the countries. (Ez. 30:4-23, emphasis added)

Needless to say, Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt at all, must less destroyed it. In fact, Nebuchadnezzar’s armies never even entered Egypt’s borders, despite at least two, and possibly three battles, with Egypt.

The first time he defeated an Egyptian-Assyrian alliance, and that action was purely defensive as they attacked him. He did not pursue their retreating armies or invade because his father died suddenly and he had to return to Babylon. (Manchip-White, J.E., Ancient Egypt, p. 199)

The second time he did attempt to invade Egypt, “but was driven back with heavy loss and retired to Babylon.” (Gardiner, A. Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 359)

An anonymous cuneiform fragment in the British Museum claims there was a third campaign, but it says only that “ he went to Mitzraim (Egypt) to make war.” It doesn’t say what the outcome was, and leaves it at that! While discussing this inscription, Egyptologist Alan Gardiner concludes that “it is unlikely that the two powers ever came into conflict with one another either at this time or later…” (Ibid, p. 362)

He certainly didn’t make Egypt “waste and desolate,” never mind “the most desolate of countries” or “the most ruined of cities.” Indeed, not only did Nebuchadnezzar never destroy Egypt, NOBODY has ever destroyed Egypt or any of its major cities.

Additionally, Egypt’s population has never been massacred or sent into exile by a conquering force. Egypt has never been uninhabited for a single day since its beginning, much less for forty years. To think that there was a time when “no human foot” or “animal foot” “pass[ed] through it” is laughable. The same of the Nile running dry. Furthermore, Egypt continued to have a ruler without interruption for centuries to come.

Dayum! That is a hard one right there.

Nebuchadnazzer is symbolic for the nation of Iraq, and this desolation of Egypt is still yet to come.

Weak, I know, but it is all I got.

I would say that I get one point and you get two on this one, if anyone is keeping score.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

So it's an unsupported assertion then, since you cant use the bible to support the validity of biblical claims.

Christians have circular logic or none at all. It is an unfortunate reality. I do not try to "prove" anything or "convince" anyone. I am simply explaining what the beliefs are.

I have a feeling I might get quoted on FSTDT on this one. :evil:

[Mung Dynasty]

I honestly do not know the answer to this, and I am going to do away with speculation here. It is VERY true that early Christians believed that it would happen in their lifetime BECAUSE of this saying. I will say “saying” here because it was likely oral tradition until at LEAST the end of the first century.
It's not a "saying". It's part of the gospel. IOW, it is supposedly as holy and valid as any other part of the NT. How can you imply otherwise?


Dayum! That is a hard one right there.
Nebuchadnazzer is symbolic for the nation of Iraq, and this desolation of Egypt is still yet to come. Weak, I know, but it is all I got.Then you have nothing.


I would say that I get one point and you get two on this one, if anyone is keeping score.I'd say you're still batting zero.

Now, what about Tyre?

[Lisa0315]

It's not a "saying". It's part of the gospel. IOW, it is supposedly as holy and valid as any other part of the NT. How can you imply otherwise?


Then you have nothing.


I'd say you're still batting zero.

Now, what about Tyre?

The gospel of Matthew was not written until the end of the 1st century, Mung, if then. It may have been well into the 2nd century.

I score a point on Scripture used if the Scripture does not actually exist.

Tyre, yeah, I still need to get to that one. Did anyone every fill me in on what the Tyre prophecy is, and why it is considered unfulfilled or unfulfillable?

Lisa

[Joykins]

And the fact that that has been church teaching has what to do with its truth?

David

Well, if you want to argue whether the prophecy has been fulfilled, it helps to understand whether the people who believe the prophecy think it has already been fulfilled. Unless you think the prophecy is some oracular thing that ends up surprising everyone by its ambiguous meaning and ironic fulfillment.

Future-fulfillment renders Lisa's and your positions both unprovable. You do not know that it won't be fulfilled, just that it hasn't yet.

[Lisa0315]

Actually the other bit to bold is this:



Tyre is not and has never been underwater.

Found it. It can be in the future, Mung. Not all of prophecy has been fulfilled yet.

Lisa

[Joykins]

Unless you have misquoted the chapter and verses, that does not appear in Matthew 10. Here is the KJV:

1.And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out , and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2.Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3.Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4.Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
5.These twelve Jesus sent forth , and commanded them, saying , Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6.But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7.And as ye go , preach , saying , The kingdom of heaven is at hand .
8.Heal the sick , cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received , freely give .
9.Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
10.Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
11.And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter , enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence .
12.And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13.And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14.And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15.Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
16.Behold , I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
17.But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
18.And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
19.But when they deliver you up , take no thought how or what ye shall speak : for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak .
20.For it is not ye that speak , but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
21.And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death .
22.And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved .
23.But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come .

I don't think it's a given in that context that this statement refers to the 2nd coming.

[Tod]

Unless you have misquoted the chapter and verses, that does not appear in Matthew 10. Here is the KJV:

Um, did you read carefully, Lisa? KJV, your own translation that you provided, says:

23.But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.


I chose to use the more scholarly NJB, but the meaning is still clearly the same: Jesus will return before they "have gone over the cities of Israel." I'm utterly amazed you thought this wording changed the meaning significantly.


I honestly do not know the answer to this ["this generation will not pass away" verse], and I am going to do away with speculation here.

There's a good reason you can't find an answer to this problem: it is indeed a failed prophecy!

You are right. As I said above, the early Christians believed, and risked MUCH because they believed that Christ was returning in just a few years. I cannot explain this. As you have uncovered, scholars have been trying for 1900 years or so. Let me see if I can find out what some of my favorite scholars had to say about it.

Again, there is a good reason that neither you nor "scholars" have been able to explain this problem: it is a real, genuine failed prophecy!

Matthew Henry agrees with your source that it is speaking of the Jews as a people, not that current generation. That means that the interpretation of that verse has traditionally been the same for quite some time.

As I said before, however, to establish this one making the argument must show even ONE case of the word "genea" being used to refer to a race without a generational connotation. There is no such use of the word, so I'm quite sure that will not happen. There is a damn good reason for that too: the Greek language has a word for race that is quite distinct from the word for generation.

Secondly, it makes Jesus look a bit foolish to be making such redundant statements: OF COURSE the Jews would be there to see the end of the world! The passage is far more meaningful when interpreted at face value. The ONLY reason to interpret it otherwise would be because one has a blind presupposition that the Bible must be right and cannot contain errors or failed prophecies.

The only other thing I can add to it is that the Jews had experienced great displacement over and over, and at that moment in time were threatened as a race by Hellenization. It could be an assurance that the Jews would not lose their national identity, or even a prophecy that they would be their own nation again at the time of the second coming.

Show me how the context of the verse supports that interpretation, and before you do that, show me a demonstration of how the word "genea" can even be used meaningfully to mean "race" only without a clear generational connotation. There is no hint in the context of the entire larger passage that he is addressing Jewish identity or cohesion AT ALL.

Best I can do on that one…

Didn't really clear anything up, but good try. : )

For future reference, however, if I address a potential response before you offer it, please respond to the rebuttal I have already provided. You simply turned around and repeated what I said "defenders" often say. You didn't address the problems I raised with these explanation. If I've already pointed out that you can't argue "genea" means race when every single use of it in the NT clearly contains a generational implication: why would you argue that "genea" can refer to race without addressing my prerebuttal, which leaves me with only the option of repeating what I've already said?

Dayum! That [the failed Egyptian prophecy in Ezekiel] is a hard one right there. Nebuchadnazzer is symbolic for the nation of Iraq, and this desolation of Egypt is still yet to come.

Bald, unsupported assertion. Please demonstrate some rationale for assuming Nebuchadnezzar is symbolic for the nation of Iraq. You can't just make stuff up here!

Weak, I know, but it is all I got.

Do you honestly believe that any answer, even if extremely weak, is better than no answer at all?

I would say that I get one point and you get two on this one, if anyone is keeping score.

And where, exactly, did you get a point?

[Joykins]

An example, by the way, of an unfulfilled prophecy that is fun to discuss is the destruction of Nineveh.

[Lisa0315]

For future reference, however, if I address a potential response before you offer it, please respond to the rebuttal I have already provided. You simply turned around and repeated what I said "defenders" often say. You didn't address the problems I raised with these explanation. If I've already pointed out that you can't argue "genea" means race when every single use of it in the NT clearly contains a generational implication: why would you argue that "genea" can refer to race without addressing my prerebuttal, which leaves me with only the option of repeating what I've already said?


You need to learn my style, I suppose. If I cannot answer your question, I will say so, and I did. I might go on to give a weak attempt just to further the conversation, but I am not the end all beat all apologist here. Never claimed to be. I humbly submit possiblities. That is all. Take them or leave them.


Bald, unsupported assertion. Please demonstrate some rationale for assuming Nebuchadnezzar is symbolic for the nation of Iraq. You can't just make stuff up here!


Babylon is near or in modern day Bagdad. Why do you think Christians nearly cum over Bush's war? Of all the historical figures in the Bible, N is a type of the anti-christ. The link is pretty clear in my mind.


Do you honestly believe that any answer, even if extremely weak, is better than no answer at all?

Sometimes...old debate team tactic, I suppose.

And where, exactly, did you get a point?
[/QUOTE]
Cuz, I really missed the verse, and thought it was not there. Point back to you.

[Mung Dynasty]

The gospel of Matthew was not written until the end of the 1st century, Mung, if then. It may have been well into the 2nd century.That is irrelevant to my central point, which is that it is still part of your gospel. Are you know claiming that the gospel as such is merely "sayings" and of no particular importance?


I score a point on Scripture used if the Scripture does not actually exist.And if someone else can find it?


Tyre, yeah, I still need to get to that one. Did anyone every fill me in on what the Tyre prophecy is, and why it is considered unfulfilled or unfulfillable?

LisaYes.

[Lisa0315]

That is irrelevant to my central point, which is that it is still part of your gospel. Are you know claiming that the gospel as such is merely "sayings" and of no particular importance?


And if someone else can find it?


Yes.

I answered the Tyre question and I also conceded that I missed the verse and gave the point back.

I was not taking away from the gospel or the importance of it. I was merely indicating that it was not yet written down. It was not meant to mean anything more than that.



Lisa

[Mung Dynasty]

Found it. It can be in the future, Mung. Not all of prophecy has been fulfilled yet.

LisaSo by using that dodge you can claim that no biblical prophecies can be proven incorrect. I mean given that the expected remaining lifespan of this planet is around another four billion years then it doesn't take a genius to predict that at some point in the future Tyre, or the general area that contains it, may be underwater. This is not "prophecy" in any useful sense of the word. It will be like me foretelling that the earth would be devoured by a giant ball of fire with the sun goes red giant.

ETA: Come to think of it, the bible should have foretold that if it wanted to be convincing in this day and age. That knowledge was not available in ancient Judaea.

[Lisa0315]

So by using that dodge you can claim that no biblical prophecies can be proven incorrect. I mean given that the expected remaining lifespan of this planet is around another four billion years then it doesn't take a genius to predict that at some point in the future Tyre, or the general area that contains it, may be underwater. This is not "prophecy" in any sensible sense of the word. It would be like me foretelling that the earth would be devoured by a giant ball of fire with the sun goes red giant.

This prophecy does not stand alone. Many other things will occur at the same time. If ALL of those things occur, then, yeah it is prophecy.

If I were to have said ten years ago that a mixed race man would be president, you would say, "Good guess!" If I were to say a mixed race man named Obama would be President, and this will not happen until the US has been attacked on its own shores, goes to war, and Heath Ledger will die before an Acadamy award nomination (did he win?), then, yeah, you would say that I was a prophet.

Lisa

[Mung Dynasty]

I answered the Tyre question and I also conceded that I missed the verse and gave the point back.

I was not taking away from the gospel or the importance of it. I was merely indicating that it was not yet written down. It was not meant to mean anything more than that.



LisaThen your answer wasn't relevant. None of the gospels were written down until they were written down. It was a non-point.

ETA: The context for this was that someone presented you with a difficult example of an unfulfilled prophecy and your comeback was that it was just a "saying". So no, you were not just indicating that it hadn't been written down at that time. You were attempting to downplay its importance, despite the fact that it a part of the New Testament.

Now, at this juncture, can I or can I not state that your behaviour in this instance appears to be evasive?

[Lisa0315]

Then your answer wasn't relevant. None of the gospels were written down until they were written down. It was a non-point.

It wasn't a point. It was just a comment. The point was that I agreed that early Christians certainly believed that the second coming was going to be in their lifetime.

Haven't you ever inserted a bit of random facts into something and not even realize that you are doing it?

You are straining at gnats, dude.

Lisa

[Mung Dynasty]

This prophecy does not stand alone. Many other things will occur at the same time. If ALL of those things occur, then, yeah it is prophecy.

If I were to have said ten years ago that a mixed race man would be president, you would say, "Good guess!" If I were to say a mixed race man named Obama would be President, and this will not happen until the US has been attacked on its own shores, goes to war, and Heath Ledger will die before an Acadamy award nomination (did he win?), then, yeah, you would say that I was a prophet.

Lisa

Here's the relevant text:

Originally Posted by kjv
[13] And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.
[14] And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.
[15] Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee?
[16] Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee.
[17] And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it!
[18] Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.
[19] For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;
[20] When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;
[21] I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

Now, apparently all the other things mentioned have happened except for the part about being underwater. So your prophecy has failed, unless you're going to accept piecemeal occurrences and rely on the forlorn claim that Tyre may possibly be underwater one day.

[Lisa0315]

Here's the relevant text:

Originally Posted by kjv
[13] And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.
[14] And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.
[15] Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee?
[16] Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee.
[17] And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it!
[18] Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.
[19] For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;
[20] When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;
[21] I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

Now, apparently all the other things mentioned have happened except for the part about being underwater. So your prophecy has failed, unless you're going to accept piecemeal occurrences and rely on the forlorn claim that Tyre may possibly be underwater one day.

No, Mung. On top of this, all the other prophecies regarding other nations must also occur around the same time. So, Tyre will be under water, and Egypt will be laid waste, and all the other shit that goes down.

Ignore chapters and verses. They weren't there before some white guys put them in.

Lisa

[Mung Dynasty]

It wasn't a point. It was just a comment. The point was that I agreed that early Christians certainly believed that the second coming was going to be in their lifetime.

Haven't you ever inserted a bit of random facts into something and not even realize that you are doing it?

You are straining at gnats, dude.

Lisa
I added an ETA to my post which you seem to have missed.

Then your answer wasn't relevant. None of the gospels were written down until they were written down. It was a non-point.

ETA: The context for this was that someone presented you with a difficult example of an unfulfilled prophecy and your comeback was that it was just a "saying". So no, you were not just indicating that it hadn't been written down at that time. You were attempting to downplay its importance, despite the fact that it a part of the New Testament.

Now, at this juncture, can I or can I not state that your behaviour in this instance appears to be evasive?

[Mung Dynasty]

No, Mung. On top of this, all the other prophecies regarding other nations must also occur around the same time. So, Tyre will be under water, and Egypt will be laid waste, and all the other shit that goes down.

Ignore chapters and verses. They weren't there before some white guys put them in.

Lisa
So you are claiming that there will be another Babylonian empire ruled by a bloke called Nebuchednezzar? I mean he is the bloke that is supposed to lay waste to Egypt. If the bible was referring to "the nation of Iraq" then it could easily have stated that "and verily, Egypt shall be laid waste by the forces of a nation named Iraq".

If you're going to make shit up then you could just as well claim that "Egypt" doesn't really mean Egypt.

[Lisa0315]

So you are claiming that there will be another Babylonian empire ruled by a bloke called Nebuchednezzar? I mean he is the bloke that is supposed to lay waste to Egypt. If the bible was referring to "the nation of Iraq" then it could easily have stated that "and verily, Egypt shall be laid waste by the forces of a nation named Iraq".

If you're going to make shit up then you could just as well claim that "Egypt" doesn't really mean Egypt.

Mung, try, please, try to stay calm, okay?

Nebuchednazzar is a type of the anti-chirst. He is not THE anti-christ, nor was he the only one since then. Anyone who makes a claim of godhood or is a false teacher, is, in fact an anti-chirst. L. Ron Hubbard, by definition, is AN anti-christ, but he, nor N, are THE anti-christ. THE anti-christ will cause many Jews to worship him as their messiah. THE anti-christ will rebuild the temple, something that Israel is unable to do at the moment for a couple of reasons: 1) They have no high priest to perform blood sacrifices, and 2) the temple mount resides on a Muslim holy site, and it is for this that much of the hatred towards Israel stems.

THE anti-christ will begin by bringing peace in the Middle East. He will make many promises and keep many of them, but the nation of Israel will realize that he is a false christ when he desolates the very temple that he builds.

Again, I emphasize that you cannot take prophecy as a singular, but all of it works together. One could study it their entire life and still miss a great deal. I certainly am not in that scholarly category. I can speak to Revelation better than I can to Daniel or Ezekiel.

The only thing that I can tell you is that like with all of Scripture, things are repeated. Events are repeated over and over. Anti-christs are abundant and will continue to be. Your best bet is to take the words of Christ, and build from there. Wars and rumors of war, catastrophic disasters that we have not seen since the age of the dinosaurs...many of the things you read in Ezekiel and Daniel will occur during the tribulation, otherwise known as the time of Jacob's trouble.

There are things that are at work right now that are building up to this final scene on Earth. Even DNA plays a role. One of the prophecies is that the lost tribes of Israel will be found. After the 70 year captivity, much of the remnant had lost their tribal identity. With DNA, tribal identity will be reestablished. There is already an African DNA database, although right now it is not all that reliable.

The scenes you read of Tyre and other "cities" are likely due to nuclear holocaust, or potentially a large meteor striking earth. All of these things are God's final warning to mankind to repent and turn back to Him.

I guess I digressed as I tend to do. My point is that we are not waiting on a single event, but a series of events occurring during the same period that points to the end.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I added an ETA to my post which you seem to have missed.

I didn't see your ETA, and before you tell me that I am being evasive, let me go look at the posts. I never, ever would have downplayed the gospels. It has to be a misunderstanding.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Then you have the even more widely known:

Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven…and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and glory…So with you when you see all of these things: know that he is near, right at the gates. In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away, all these things will have taken place. (Matt. 24:29-34, emphasis added)

Defenders will say the word “genea” used here for “generation” can sometimes be used to refer to a race, so Jesus was saying simply that the Jews would still be here when the second coming occurs. First of all, he who asserts must prove. Show me where the word “genea” is used to refer to a race alone with no generational connotation.

Secondly, since the Jews are God’s chosen people, it goes without saying they will still be here when the earth comes to it’s end, duh. Jesus and his listeners would have made this obvious assumption. So why would Jesus state the obvious for no apparent reason? Saying “this generation will not pass away” before these events occur has meaning, because it implies these events will occur relatively soon. Saying “the Jews will not pass away” before these events occur is redundant and therefore pointless.

It is a mystery. j/k

I honestly do not know the answer to this, and I am going to do away with speculation here. It is VERY true that early Christians believed that it would happen in their lifetime BECAUSE of this saying. I will say “saying” here because it was likely oral tradition until at LEAST the end of the first century.


It is random Mung. Here is the context. I am referring to this generation as the "saying", not the gospel of Matthew. Then, I randomly add that it was oral tradition. I in no way imply that oral tradition or written are lesser or greater in any way. They are equal. The emphasis of my response is that Tod is right on this point.

Lisa

[Danhalen]

Lisa, they're fuckin' apocalyptic literature. There's no reason to claim they were meant as prophecy. The Jews didn't think these things were going to pass. Why do (some) modern Christians?

[lpetrich]

The Magi were not Jews. They were likely Babylonians, and their knowledge of the coming Messiah came from Daniel. Daniel practically converted the Babylonians you know. Not really, but he certainly made them realize that the God of the Hebrews was a force to be reckoned with.
I've yet to see a speck of evidence outside of the Book of Daniel for that.

In fact, that book illustrates another problem with Biblical prophecies -- its "prophecies" are better than its contemporary details. It describes the Hellenistic political situation reasonably well, but it contains lots of mistakes about the Neo-Babylonian one (Nebuchadrezzar and his contemporaries).

Here's an analogy. Consider a document purportedly written by Benjamin Franklin in which he experiments with psychedelic drugs and discovers himself traveling to the past and future. He learns how to control this ability, and he checks out what he finds.

So one day, he goes about 200 years into the future from the 1750's into the 1950's, and he gets startled by what he finds. Lots more people. Machines that can outrun horses and not get tired. Machines that can fly. Bombs that can destroy whole cities. Electricity being put to work in all sorts of ways -- lighting, powering machines, transmitting sound and pictures... The colonies becoming an independent nation that expands to the Pacific Ocean. Etc.

He writes all this down in a document that found its way into the rare-books collection of a major university library, but ...

While he does a good job on the 1950's, he makes lots of mistakes about the 1750's. Would Ben Franklin really make a lot of mistakes about his time?

Or is this document most likely written during the 1950's or afterwards?

The Book of Daniel is much the same, and is commonly considered to be written in Hellenistic times, with its "prophecies" being of events its author was familiar with.


There's something similar in the Book of Jonah, where Jonah gets the people of Nineveh to repent of their sins and nastiness and whatnot. Except that there is not a shred of such a thing -- surely some scribes would have written about such a momentous event.

And I'd prefer to call what swallowed Jonah a "sea monster", to indicate its obscure nature.

Nebuchadnazzer is symbolic for the nation of Iraq, and this desolation of Egypt is still yet to come.

Weak, I know, but it is all I got.
Doesn't say much of the prophecies of the Bible if they are so impossibly obscure.

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, they're fuckin' apocalyptic literature. There's no reason to claim they were meant as prophecy. The Jews didn't think these things were going to pass. Why do (some) modern Christians?

Which ones? The ones in the OT? I beg your pardon, but the Jews certainly DID believe they were to come to pass. In fact, their lack of understanding of the prophecies and pre-conceived notions were part of what caused them to miss their Messiah.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I've yet to see a speck of evidence outside of the Book of Daniel for that.

In fact, that book illustrates another problem with Biblical prophecies -- its "prophecies" are better than its contemporary details. It describes the Hellenistic political situation reasonably well, but it contains lots of mistakes about the Neo-Babylonian one (Nebuchadrezzar and his contemporaries).

Here's an analogy. Consider a document purportedly written by Benjamin Franklin in which he experiments with psychedelic drugs and discovers himself traveling to the past and future. He learns how to control this ability, and he checks out what he finds.

So one day, he goes about 200 years into the future from the 1750's into the 1950's, and he gets startled by what he finds. Lots more people. Machines that can outrun horses and not get tired. Machines that can fly. Bombs that can destroy whole cities. Electricity being put to work in all sorts of ways -- lighting, powering machines, transmitting sound and pictures... The colonies becoming an independent nation that expands to the Pacific Ocean. Etc.

He writes all this down in a document that found its way into the rare-books collection of a major university library, but ...

While he does a good job on the 1950's, he makes lots of mistakes about the 1750's. Would Ben Franklin really make a lot of mistakes about his time?

Or is this document most likely written during the 1950's or afterwards?

The Book of Daniel is much the same, and is commonly considered to be written in Hellenistic times, with its "prophecies" being of events its author was familiar with.


There's something similar in the Book of Jonah, where Jonah gets the people of Nineveh to repent of their sins and nastiness and whatnot. Except that there is not a shred of such a thing -- surely some scribes would have written about such a momentous event.

And I'd prefer to call what swallowed Jonah a "sea monster", to indicate its obscure nature.


Doesn't say much of the prophecies of the Bible if they are so impossibly obscure.

Nope, not a speck of evidence outside the Bible. Laying out what Christians believe and why, not trying to convert you.

Lisa

[Mung Dynasty]

Mung, try, please, try to stay calm, okay?I'm perfectly calm. I'm just disputing your claims.

<snip>
Absolutely none of which addresses the point about Egypt and Babylon.

[Lisa0315]

I'm perfectly calm. I'm just disputing your claims.


Absolutely none of which addresses the point about Egypt and Babylon.

Uhm, yeah, I did. You asked if there was going to be another Nebuchadnezzar, and I explained about the types of anti-christ etc. I also explained how prophecy does not stand alone. Are you even reading my posts at this point?

Lisa

[Brother Daniel]

The Magi were not Jews. They were likely Babylonians,
I always thought the Magi were Persians.

[Garnet]

Which ones? The ones in the OT? I beg your pardon, but the Jews certainly DID believe they were to come to pass. In fact, their lack of understanding of the prophecies and pre-conceived notions were part of what caused them to miss their Messiah.

Lisa

I've about burned up my backspace key here trying to address this without it sounding like an attack.

And I can't.

Holy shit, Lisa, I really am stunned that you would say something like this.

[Mung Dynasty]

Uhm, yeah, I did. You asked if there was going to be another Nebuchadnezzar, and I explained about the types of anti-christ etc. I also explained how prophecy does not stand alone. Are you even reading my posts at this point?

Lisa
"Types of anti-Christ" has nothing to do with it. The bible states that a king called Nebuchadnezzar, who is the ruler of a city called Babylon, will lay waste to Egypt.

This is a specific claim. It has nothing to do with "types". As I said earlier, if you are going to claim that "Nebuchadnezzar" and "Babylon" do not really mean "Nebuchadnezzar" and "Babylon" then what reason have you for assuming that "Egypt" means "Egypt"?

By extension, if you are going to rely on that sort of argument what reason have you for assuming any words in the bible mean what they say? You might as well be a disciple of Derrida and claim that words have no meaning.

[Lisa0315]

I've about burned up my backspace key here trying to address this without it sounding like an attack.

And I can't.

Holy shit, Lisa, I really am stunned that you would say something like this.

Its okay, Garnet. Why are you stunned? Be honest.

Lisa

[Danhalen]

Which ones? The ones in the OT? I beg your pardon, but the Jews certainly DID believe they were to come to pass. In fact, their lack of understanding of the prophecies and pre-conceived notions were part of what caused them to miss their Messiah.Lisa, if you haven't noticed yet, Jews aren't the only ones who think Jesus is not the Messiah. And Daniel is a work of apocalyptic literature.

[Garnet]

Its okay, Garnet. Why are you stunned? Be honest.

Lisa

Well, I know you pretty well and you aree not arrogant.

That statement, however, is quite possibly one of the most arrogant statements I've seen in a long time. In that one statement, you marginalize an entire people's understanding of their own religion and manage to denigrate them at the same time.

I can only think that was not your intent.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. My eyes are starting to roll back in my head.

[Danhalen]

You might as well be a disciple of Derrida and claim that words have no meaning.Derrida believed words have too many parasitic meanings to accurately determine what is meant by their author (since exact context is impossible to recreate). This does not mean Derrida thought no meaning could be determined--just not the exact meaning of the original iteration.

[Mung Dynasty]

Then you have the even more widely known:

Immediately after the distress of those days the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, the stars will fall from the sky and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven…and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and glory…So with you when you see all of these things: know that he is near, right at the gates. In truth I tell you, before this generation has passed away, all these things will have taken place. (Matt. 24:29-34, emphasis added)

Defenders will say the word “genea” used here for “generation” can sometimes be used to refer to a race, so Jesus was saying simply that the Jews would still be here when the second coming occurs. First of all, he who asserts must prove. Show me where the word “genea” is used to refer to a race alone with no generational connotation.

Secondly, since the Jews are God’s chosen people, it goes without saying they will still be here when the earth comes to it’s end, duh. Jesus and his listeners would have made this obvious assumption. So why would Jesus state the obvious for no apparent reason? Saying “this generation will not pass away” before these events occur has meaning, because it implies these events will occur relatively soon. Saying “the Jews will not pass away” before these events occur is redundant and therefore pointless.

It is a mystery. j/k

I honestly do not know the answer to this, and I am going to do away with speculation here. It is VERY true that early Christians believed that it would happen in their lifetime BECAUSE of this saying. I will say “saying” here because it was likely oral tradition until at LEAST the end of the first century.


It is random Mung. Here is the context. I am referring to this generation as the "saying", not the gospel of Matthew. Then, I randomly add that it was oral tradition. I in no way imply that oral tradition or written are lesser or greater in any way. They are equal. The emphasis of my response is that Tod is right on this point.

Lisa
So if you're saying that Tod is right on that point then you must be agreeing with his claim that this is a failed prophecy, which is what he was saying.

Oh and the "saying" is part of the Gospel of Mathew, not something separate from it, so as I said your distinction is meaningless.

[Mung Dynasty]

Derrida believed words have too many parasitic meanings to accurately determine what is meant by their author (since exact context is impossible to recreate). This does not mean Derrida thought no meaning could be determined--just not the exact meaning of the original iteration.
Yes but I did say "disciple of Derrida", and some of the people who could be called that have pushed things further than he did (in an idiotic fashion).

[Danhalen]

assented

[Lisa0315]

"Types of anti-Christ" has nothing to do with it. The bible states that a king called Nebuchadnezzar, who is the ruler of a city called Babylon, will lay waste to Egypt.

This is a specific claim. It has nothing to do with "types". As I said earlier, if you are going to claim that "Nebuchadnezzar" and "Babylon" do not really mean "Nebuchadnezzar" and "Babylon" then what reason have you for assuming that "Egypt" means "Egypt"?

By extension, if you are going to rely on that sort of argument what reason have you for assuming any words in the bible means what they say? You might as well be a disciple of Derrida and claim that words have no meaning.

Telling you what I know. Sorry it doesn't satisfy. :dunno:

Let me try a different approach, okay?

The number of the anti-christ is the number of a man, 666. This is hugely important, and it has to do with the the Hebrew and Phonecian alphabet which used letters as numbers. With me so far? Parents literally counted the names of their children before giving them a name. When you see Scripture that says, Emmanuel, which means God With Us, it has to do with numerology, and if you count Jesus (Iesous) in the Greek, it adds up to 888. Lettering systems are a bit different, plus vowels were not used. So, it takes a great deal of study to be able to decipher a name.

However, back in the day of the apostles, it was NOT a lost art. It was very common still. The number six hundred and sixty six are literally interpreted: six is the number of sin, sixty is the number of pride, and six hundred is the number of warfare. Sixty-six is idolotry. So, THE anti-christ will be a man of sin who brings war and idolotry to Israel.

Now, if you have gotten this far in my post, how does this relate to Nebuchadnezzar? I do not know N's number, but if you look at his dreams, it is filled with sixes and sixties and sixty-sixes. For this reason, he is a type of the anti-christ, but not THE anti-christ, as his number is not six hundred sixty and six. This is the relationship to Daniel and Revelation.

Again, I realize that this sounds like mumbo jumbo or whatever, but bear with me. In Daniel, with regards to N, you have all these sixes and sixties, and so forth. In Revelation, you have this weird little passage talking about the number of a man being 666. If you doubt the significance of this, consider this...The number six hundred occurs exactly 66 times in Scripture (KJV, I know it is true. I cannot verify that with other versions)

Every single number in Scripture is significant like this. When the KJV was put together, either they had a mathmatician on the level of Einstein, or there is something supernatural going on. I tend to call it the signature of God. It is not a code, but it is a verification that something greater than man was involved in it.

So, poke holes in MY arguments. I have no doubt that it is easy enough to do, but be careful not to dismiss everything out of hand. The symbolism of numbers, colors, and events are extremely important. So, if I say N is Iraq, I am not pulling it out of my ass. The numerology alone is enough to convince me of the relationship between N and THE anti-christ, and that ole Neb was an example, a warning, of what was to come.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Well, I know you pretty well and you aree not arrogant.

That statement, however, is quite possibly one of the most arrogant statements I've seen in a long time. In that one statement, you marginalize an entire people's understanding of their own religion and manage to denigrate them at the same time.

I can only think that was not your intent.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. My eyes are starting to roll back in my head.

Ohhh...It was not my intent to be arrogant and certainly not insulting to the people of God. However, when I say that they did not understand their own prophecy, that IS a fundamental belief of Christianity. I suppose I could blame that one on Paul as he said it first.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

So if you're saying that Tod is right on that point then you must be agreeing with his claim that this is a failed prophecy, which is what he was saying.

Oh and the "saying" is part of the Gospel of Mathew, not something separate from it, so as I said your distinction is meaningless.

I am saying that I know that the early church believed the same as Tod, and what Jesus meant, I do not know.

Lisa

[Danhalen]

Lisa, I thought you were no longer a fundie...

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, I thought you were no longer a fundie...

I'm not. Cannot help the training though. It is as much a part of me as the color of my eyes.

When I define fundie, I speak of gay-bashing, atheist-hating, closed-minded, dogmatic, question-aversion folks.

My beliefs are still pretty fundie. I will not BEHAVE as one though. I never could.

Lisa

[Danhalen]

I've never thought of a fundie as necessarily bad. I've always thought a fundie held an inerrantist point of view concerning scripture. To hold the book of Daniel and Revelation as literal works instead of the apocryphal literature it is seems ridiculous. No respected Christian Biblical scholar holds that belief. Only fundies hold that belief.

[Mung Dynasty]

Telling you what I know. Sorry it doesn't satisfy. :dunno:

Let me try a different approach, okay?

<snip>Numerology is still common and quite well known. It is not an ancient lost art.


Now, if you have gotten this far in my post, how does this relate to Nebuchadnezzar? I do not know N's number, but if you look at his dreams, it is filled with sixes and sixties and sixty-sixes. For this reason, he is a type of the anti-christ, but not THE anti-christ, as his number is not six hundred sixty and six. This is the relationship to Daniel and Revelation. Please show me extra-biblical records of Neb's dreams. If you haven't got any then your argument is circular.


Again, I realize that this sounds like mumbo jumbo or whatever, but bear with me. In Daniel, with regards to N, you have all these sixes and sixties, and so forth. In Revelation, you have this weird little passage talking about the number of a man being 666. If you doubt the significance of this, consider this...The number six hundred occurs exactly 66 times in Scripture (KJV, I know it is true. I cannot verify that with other versions)And according to modern scholarship the KJV is not a particularly accurate translation of the bible. What does that say for the "magic" of it?


Every single number in Scripture is significant like this. When the KJV was put together, either they had a mathmatician on the level of Einstein, or there is something supernatural going on. I tend to call it the signature of God. It is not a code, but it is a verification that something greater than man was involved in it. No, it is not. This is just more of the same silliness that Ivan Panin used to promote.
Here, read this: http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/panin.html
And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Panin


So, poke holes in MY arguments. I have no doubt that it is easy enough to do, but be careful not to dismiss everything out of hand. The symbolism of numbers, colors, and events are extremely important. So, if I say N is Iraq, I am not pulling it out of my ass.Yes you are, unless you can show me a valid link between Neb and Iraq. So far you haven't come close to doing this.

[Garnet]

Ohhh...It was not my intent to be arrogant and certainly not insulting to the people of God. However, when I say that they did not understand their own prophecy, that IS a fundamental belief of Christianity. I suppose I could blame that one on Paul as he said it first.

Lisa

Yeah, Paul was arrogant about many things. I would argue that notion is not fundamental to Christianity but is fundamental to fundies who must find ways to rationalize inerrancy.

I keep forgetting that you have been taught and indoctrinated in that manner. So, I get a wee shock from time to time when you see you spouting things that are right out of the fundy playbook.

[lpetrich]

(Daniel's "history"...)
Nope, not a speck of evidence outside the Bible. Laying out what Christians believe and why, not trying to convert you.
That's beside the point. We are discussing the question of Bible-prophecy fulfillment, not the question of what this or that group of people believes about that.

I mentioned Alexander the Great and Augustus Caesar because their "prophecy fulfillments" were after-the-fact:

Alexander the Great: 356 - 323 BCE
Plutarch: 46 - 120 CE
The Parallel Lives: ?

Augustus Caesar: 63 BCE - 14 CE
Suetonius: 69 - 130 CE
The Twelve Caesars: 121 CE

(Dates from Wikipedia)

Now consider the Gospels and Jesus Christ (dates from Peter Kirby's Early Christian Writings (http://earlychristianwritings.com/):

Mark: 65-80 CE
Matthew: 80-100 CE
Luke: 80-130 CE
John: 90-120 CE

Pontius Pilate's rule of Judea: 26 - 36 CE

Jesus Christ was likely crucified in the early 30's CE, if he existed.

So the Gospels' writers are closer in time to JC than Suetonius was to Augustus, but not by much. This still gives plenty of time for mythmaking to happen.

[nygreenguy]

Lisa, has ANY prophecies in the bible came true?

[Joykins]

So, when are we going to have this same discussion about the oracles of Nostradamus? :rofl:

Prophecies are messages from God; they are not necessarily intended to predict the future (some, like Jonah's prophecies of Nineveh, seem to be threats, frex) and a lot of times they are meant to address contemporaneous problems and are later interpreted into some other meaning (IMO the ones in Matthew are later interpretations). Because religion is what it is, I don't have a problem with that--the idea that a prophecy could only have one meaning is kind of limiting, and I think God speaks in many ways. (I'm not saying that atheists should buy this, of course, but it's the way I approach these things).

Approaching the Bible as a whole, are some of you saying it has continuity errors?

[nygreenguy]

Approaching the Bible as a whole, are some of you saying it has continuity errors?

Thats an understatement.

[Garnet]

So, when are we going to have this same discussion about the oracles of Nostradamus? :rofl:

When the prophecies of Nostradamus are flapped in my face as something that I must believe in order to avoid going to hell. :evil:

Prophecies are messages from God; they are not necessarily intended to predict the future (some, like Jonah's prophecies of Nineveh, seem to be threats, frex) and a lot of times they are meant to address contemporaneous problems and are later interpreted into some other meaning (IMO the ones in Matthew are later interpretations). Because religion is what it is, I don't have a problem with that--the idea that a prophecy could only have one meaning is kind of limiting, and I think God speaks in many ways. (I'm not saying that atheists should buy this, of course, but it's the way I approach these things).

My point has been that prophecies are nothing more than literary devices used by the writers to add emphasis to their messages. Take Daniel, for instance. Most scholars agree that a good portion of Daniel, the fulfulled portions, were written after the events in occured. The failed portions were predictors of the near future that the writer simply got wrong. Much like people predicting that Obama could never be elected president. That is not to say that writer of Daniel was being dishonest. Far from it. When viewed in the context of the culture at the time, the writer was making his points.

The idea that prophecies can mean anything to make them true renders them pretty much meaningless. That's what I see apologists doing when they talk about Daniel being way far into the future. The book wasn't written that way and it is clear from a plain reading of the texts coupled with historical knowledge of what was occuring at the time.

It's rationalization, pure and simple.

Approaching the Bible as a whole, are some of you saying it has continuity errors?

Are you saying that it doesn't? That would be a rather remarkable claim.

[DMB]

Prophecies are messages from God; they are not necessarily intended to predict the future (some, like Jonah's prophecies of Nineveh, seem to be threats, frex) and a lot of times they are meant to address contemporaneous problems and are later interpreted into some other meaning (IMO the ones in Matthew are later interpretations). Because religion is what it is, I don't have a problem with that--the idea that a prophecy could only have one meaning is kind of limiting, and I think God speaks in many ways. (I'm not saying that atheists should buy this, of course, but it's the way I approach these things).


A problem that many of us unbelievers have with both the bible and the koran is that passages in them are very obscure and open to different interpretations. There is a whole industry of theologians and koranic scholars trying to work out meanings. Now that is fine for your average historical document that you would expect to be like that, although some are very clear. But if a god is trying to get a message to humanity, it is a very inefficient way of doing it. So I don't see why the bible or the koran should have any more status than Grimm's Household Tales.

[Joykins]

Are you saying that it doesn't? That would be a rather remarkable claim.

No; I think it does. That's why I don't believe it's inerrant. However, I think it would have taken a stupid group of people to think it didn't have any and then compile it the way it is, and I don't believe the people who compiled the bible were stupid.

So there must be some other reason.

[Joykins]

A problem that many of us unbelievers have with both the bible and the koran is that passages in them are very obscure and open to different interpretations. There is a whole industry of theologians and koranic scholars trying to work out meanings. Now that is fine for your average historical document that you would expect to be like that, although some are very clear. But if a god is trying to get a message to humanity, it is a very inefficient way of doing it. So I don't see why the bible or the koran should have any more status than Grimm's Household Tales.

Maybe God wants to give different messages to different people.

I mean, I never saw the verse or got the message that tells you to tell everyone that isn't a Christian that they are going to hell, but there are a lot of people who obviously get that from reading the Bible or something. :dunno:

[Joykins]

Thats an understatement.

See, if you'd heard my slightly facetious tone of voice and seen my wide blinking eyes you would have got the joke ;) Some things are lost on text.

[Garnet]

No; I think it does. That's why I don't believe it's inerrant. However, I think it would have taken a stupid group of people to think it didn't have any and then compile it the way it is, and I don't believe the people who compiled the bible were stupid.

So there must be some other reason.

Sure there is. I think the reason is simple. It's a collection of books written by a gob of different writers over a very long period of time. The Bible wasn't planned; it evolved.

[DMB]

A problem that many of us unbelievers have with both the bible and the koran is that passages in them are very obscure and open to different interpretations. There is a whole industry of theologians and koranic scholars trying to work out meanings. Now that is fine for your average historical document that you would expect to be like that, although some are very clear. But if a god is trying to get a message to humanity, it is a very inefficient way of doing it. So I don't see why the bible or the koran should have any more status than Grimm's Household Tales.
Maybe God wants to give different messages to different people.I mean, I never saw the verse or got the message that tells you to tell everyone that isn't a Christian that they are going to hell, but there are a lot of people who obviously get that from reading the Bible or something. :dunno:

So should I be trying to find messages from gods in everything I might chance to read?

I just finished reading a very funny satirical whodunnit. Not sure what message I ought to draw, except perhaps to beware of the overly politically correct.

[Tod]

Maybe God wants to give different messages to different people.

I mean, I never saw the verse or got the message that tells you to tell everyone that isn't a Christian that they are going to hell, but there are a lot of people who obviously get that from reading the Bible or something. :dunno:

"Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." (Mark 16:16, NJB).

Granted, objective Bible scholars believe this passage as well as most of the last chapter of Mark are later interpolations, but it certainly is in the Bible that nonbelievers will be "condemned;" any logical person would conclude this meant the opposite of "saved," and "going to hell" best fits that, whatever that actually means.

[Tod]

Babylon is near or in modern day Bagdad. Why do you think Christians nearly cum over Bush's war? Of all the historical figures in the Bible, N is a type of the anti-christ. The link is pretty clear in my mind.

I saw this and I read your response to Mung. However, doesn't interpreting prophecies in this manner make any ole prophecy fulfilled if you just use enough mental gymnastics?

An example I gave the year princess Diana died comes to mind. Earlier in that year, Jean Dixon, so-called psychic, predicted that Diana would "marry a poor man." Clearly, her prophecy was wrong, since Diana not only didn't remarry that year, but died, further precluding the possibility that the prophecy would ever come true.

However, using the exact kinds of mental gymnastics that Christians use, I was able to interpret this "prophecy" as spot on. "Marry," in the generic sense, means simply to join (i.e. neoDarwinism was a marriage between Mendelian and Darwinian ideas). "Poor" not only means having little or no money, but can secondarily simply mean "unfortunate." Since Diana died with another person (a male) in the car, one can say she joined (married) that unfortunate (poor) man in death. I.e. "princess Diana married a poor man."

However, I'm pretty clear that you, like most other Christians, not only don't see Jean Dixon as prophetic, but don't think that she meant what I said it could mean when she said it.

To truly "prove" prophecy fulfillment, you need 8 criteria met. Farrell Till came up with the original four, and I've since added to it:

Eight criteria for claiming prophecy fulfillment:

1. Person claiming prophecy fulfillment is interpreting text correctly.

2. The prophecy was written before the event
predicted.

3. The prophecy was written sufficiently prior to the event to
eliminate an educated guess.

4. The event predicted actually occurred.

5. The prophecy couldn’t be readily self-fulfilled.

6. The prophecy is specific, and not so vague as to be open to wildly
varied interpretation.

7. The prophecy is intended to be a prophecy.

8. The prophecy isn’t of ordinary or common events.

If one of these criteria aren't met, you can't logically claim prophecy fulfillment. I would challenge you to find ONE prophecy in the entire Bible that can meet these fairly simply criteria. After all, a GENUINE prophecy would necessarily fit all of these.

[Tod]

If I were to have said ten years ago that a mixed race man would be president, you would say, "Good guess!" If I were to say a mixed race man named Obama would be President, and this will not happen until the US has been attacked on its own shores, goes to war, and Heath Ledger will die before an Acadamy award nomination (did he win?), then, yeah, you would say that I was a prophet.

Yeah, that would be a good example of a fulfilled prophecy. Care to cite a single biblical prophecy that is that specific and so obviously correct? I've been reading that book for well over twenty years now, as both a believer and a skeptic, and I've never came across a prophecy with that level of specificity in the Bible, unless (such as parts of the book of Daniel) it was clearly written in hindsight after the events occurred.

The following is only relevant if you cite Daniel as an example of prophecy fulfillment. If you don't believe that, ignore it:

In case you wonder why I think Daniel is so "clearly" written in hindsight: Textual analysis leads to the conclusion it was written in the 2nd century B.C., and all secular and liberal bible scholars agree on this.

The Jews don't consider it prophetic either, placing it in the "writings" section of the Tanakh instead of in "the prophets" section (it's their history, who do you think is more correct: them or modern western Christians with no historical ties to that period?)

Of course, the most damning evidence is blindingly obvious: how could somebody be so spot on about future events yet get the events in his own time so horribly wrong (especially if he held a prominent position in the king's court)? The very first verse of Daniel, describing the first Babylonian siege of Judah, is an example. “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched on Jerusalem and besieged it.” But according to the Bible’s own account, this event occurred almost nine years later at the beginning of Johiachin’s reign; Nebuchadnezzar wasn’t even king of Babylon at that time!

In chapter five of Daniel, we are told about “King Belshazzar…” (vs. 1) and “…his father Nebuchadnezzar…” (vs. 2). We are further told that Belshazzar is king when “Darius the Mede” conquers Babylon (6:1). Trouble is, extrabiblical sources tell us Belshazzar was never king. He served as regent in his father’s absence, but regent does not come with the title “king.” Belshazzar’s father, by the way, was king Nabonidus, who was no blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar. Additionally, there were numerous kings between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. Lastly, Cyrus the Great, not Darius the Mede, conquered the Babylonians, and he was Persian, not Median. In fact, history doesn’t know of a Darius the Mede. Darius of Persia, however, was Cyrus’ successor 17 years later.

The preface of the NJB I usually cite says "T]he predictions of the future in the second part of the book contain remarkable detail for the period between the supposed and the actual date of writing, but after that they become more general and allusive." So if we accept the traditional date of Daniel's writing instead of the scholarly date, we have an author who can't get contemporary details right to save his life, is remarkably prophetic about specific events that occur a couple of hundred years later, but becomes vague and "allusive" when prophesizing about events beyond that time. Things that make you go hmmm...

[Lisa0315]

If I were to have said ten years ago that a mixed race man would be president, you would say, "Good guess!" If I were to say a mixed race man named Obama would be President, and this will not happen until the US has been attacked on its own shores, goes to war, and Heath Ledger will die before an Acadamy award nomination (did he win?), then, yeah, you would say that I was a prophet.

Yeah, that would be a good example of a fulfilled prophecy. Care to cite a single biblical prophecy that is that specific and so obviously correct? I've been reading that book for well over twenty years now, as both a believer and a skeptic, and I've never came across a prophecy with that level of specificity in the Bible, unless (such as parts of the book of Daniel) it was clearly written in hindsight after the events occurred.

The following is only relevant if you cite Daniel as an example of prophecy fulfillment. If you don't believe that, ignore it:

In case you wonder why I think Daniel is so "clearly" written in hindsight: Textual analysis leads to the conclusion it was written in the 2nd century B.C., and all secular and liberal bible scholars agree on this.

The Jews don't consider it prophetic either, placing it in the "writings" section of the Tanakh instead of in "the prophets" section (it's their history, who do you think is more correct: them or modern western Christians with no historical ties to that period?)

Of course, the most damning evidence is blindingly obvious: how could somebody be so spot on about future events yet get the events in his own time so horribly wrong (especially if he held a prominent position in the king's court)? The very first verse of Daniel, describing the first Babylonian siege of Judah, is an example. “In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched on Jerusalem and besieged it.” But according to the Bible’s own account, this event occurred almost nine years later at the beginning of Johiachin’s reign; Nebuchadnezzar wasn’t even king of Babylon at that time!

In chapter five of Daniel, we are told about “King Belshazzar…” (vs. 1) and “…his father Nebuchadnezzar…” (vs. 2). We are further told that Belshazzar is king when “Darius the Mede” conquers Babylon (6:1). Trouble is, extrabiblical sources tell us Belshazzar was never king. He served as regent in his father’s absence, but regent does not come with the title “king.” Belshazzar’s father, by the way, was king Nabonidus, who was no blood relation to Nebuchadnezzar. Additionally, there were numerous kings between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. Lastly, Cyrus the Great, not Darius the Mede, conquered the Babylonians, and he was Persian, not Median. In fact, history doesn’t know of a Darius the Mede. Darius of Persia, however, was Cyrus’ successor 17 years later.

The preface of the NJB I usually cite says "T]he predictions of the future in the second part of the book contain remarkable detail for the period between the supposed and the actual date of writing, but after that they become more general and allusive." So if we accept the traditional date of Daniel's writing instead of the scholarly date, we have an author who can't get contemporary details right to save his life, is remarkably prophetic about specific events that occur a couple of hundred years later, but becomes vague and "allusive" when prophesizing about events beyond that time. Things that make you go hmmm...

There were may prophecies regarding the Messiah and Jesus fulfilled them all. I have read a list somewhere. Let me see if I can find it. It may be in my Scofield.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Old Testament Scriptures That Describe The Coming Messiah
The Messianic Prophecy (paraphrased)
Where the prophecy appears in the Old Testament (written between 1450 BC and 430BC)
Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy in the New Testament (written between 45 and 95 AD)
The Messiah will be the offspring (descendant) of the woman (Eve)
Genesis 3:15
Galatians 4:4
The Messiah will be a descendant of Abraham, through whom everyone on earth will be blessed
Genesis 12:3; 18:18
Acts 3:25,26
The Messiah will be a descendant of Judah
Genesis 49:10
Matthew 1:2 and Luke 3:33
The Messiah will be a prophet like Moses
Deuteronomy 18:15-19
Acts 3:22,23
The Messiah will be the Son of God
Psalm 2:7
Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22
The Messiah will be raised from the dead (resurrected)
Psalm 16:10,11
Matthew 28:5-9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:4-7; John 20:11-16; Acts 1:3 and 2:32
The Messiah crucifixion experience
Psalm 22 (contains 11 prophecies—not all listed here)
Matthew 27:34-50 and John 19:17-30
The Messiah will be sneered at and mocked
Psalm 22:7
Luke 23:11,35-39
The Messiah will be pierced through hands and feet
Psalm 22:16
Luke 23:33 and 24:36-39;
John 19:18 and 20:19-20,24-27
The Messiah’s bones will not be broken (a person’s legs were usually broken after being crucified to speed up their death)
Psalm 22:17 and 34:20
John 19:31-33,36
Men Will Gamble for the Messiah’s clothing
Psalm 22:18
Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23,24
The Messiah will accused by false witnesses
Psalm 35:11
Matthew 26:59,60 and Mark 14:56,57
The Messiah will be hated without a cause
Psalm 35:19 and 69:4
John 15:23-25
The Messiah will be betrayed by a friend
Psalm 41:9
John 13:18,21
The Messiah will ascend to heaven (at the right hand of God)
Psalm 68:18
Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9; 2:33-35; 3:20-21; 5:31,32; 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20,21; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22 . . . sorry, we got carried away!
The Messiah will be given vinegar and gall to drink
Psalm 69:21
Matthew 27:34; Mark 15:23; John 19:29,30
Great kings will pay homage and tribute to the Messiah
Psalm 72:10,11
Matthew 2:1-11
The Messiah is a “stone the builders rejected” who will become the “head cornerstone”
Psalm 118:22,23 and Isaiah 28:16
Matthew 21:42,43; Acts 4:11; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8
The Messiah will be a descendant of David
Psalm 132:11 and Jeremiah 23:5,6; 33:15,16
Luke 1:32,33
The Messiah will be a born of a virgin
Isaiah 7:14
Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35
The Messiah’s first spiritual work will be in Galilee
Isaiah 9:1-7
Matthew 4:12-16
The Messiah will make the blind see, the deaf hear, etc.
Isaiah 35:5-6
Many places. Also see Matthew 11:3-6 and John 11:47
The Messiah will be beaten, mocked, and spat upon
Isaiah 50:6
Matthew 26:67 and 27:26-31
The “Gospel according to Isaiah”
Isaiah 52:13-53:12
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
People will hear and not believe the “arm of the LORD” (Messiah)
Isaiah 53:1
John 12:37,38
The Messiah will be rejected
Isaiah 53:3
Matthew 27:20-25; Mark 15:8-14; Luke 23:18-23; John 19:14,15
The Messiah will be killed
Isaiah 53:5-9
Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37-39; Luke 23:46; John 19:30
The Messiah will be silent in front of his accusers
Isaiah 53:7
Matthew 26:62,63 and 27:12-14
The Messiah will be buried with the rich
Isaiah 53:9
Matthew 27:59,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:52,53; John 19:38-42
The Messiah will be crucified with criminals
Isaiah 53:12
Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32,33
The Messiah is part of the new and everlasting covenant
Isaiah 55:3-4 and Jeremiah 31:31-34
Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6-13
The Messiah will be our intercessor (intervene for us and plead on our behalf)
Isaiah 59:16
Hebrews 9:15
The Messiah has two missions
Isaiah 61:1-3 (first mission ends at “. . . year of the LORD’s favor”)
First mission: Luke 4:16-21; Second mission: to be fulfilled at the end of the world
The Messiah will come at a specific time
Daniel 9:25-26
Galatians 4:4 and Ephesians 1:10
The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem
Micah 5:2
Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7
The Messiah will enter Jerusalem riding a donkey
Zechariah 9:9
Matthew 21:1-11
The Messiah will be sold for 30 pieces of silver
Zechariah 11:12,13
Matthew 26:15 with Matthew 27:3-10
The Messiah will forsaken by His disciples
Zechariah 13:7
Matthew 26:31,56
The Messiah will enter the Temple with authority
Malachi 3:1
Matthew 21:12 and Luke 19:45


http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/m_prophecies.shtml

[Lisa0315]

Go to the link as the format is much easier to read. The colums are supposed to be Prophecy and Fulfillment Scriptures.

[Tod]

There were may prophecies regarding the Messiah and Jesus fulfilled them all. I have read a list somewhere. Let me see if I can find it. It may be in my Scofield.

Lisa

Oh, please, those are the easiest to refute! I'm surprised you turn to those, but by all means, throw me a whole list of them, and I'll methodically show you how each and every one of them fails to fulfill the criteria for prophecy fulfillment.

To give you a hint so you can already formulate what you are going to say when I refute them, all alleged OT prophecies of Jesus claimed fulfilled by NT events fail criteria 4 and 6, and most of them fail 1, 5, 7, and often 8.

In fact, I'll give you a sample of some randomly plucked ones right here:

When they had come near Jerusalem and had reached Bethpage, at the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, ‘Go into the village ahead of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, just say this, `The Lord needs them.' And he will send them immediately.’ This took place to fulfill what had been spoken through the prophet, saying, ‘Tell the daughter of Zion, Look, your king is coming to you, humble, mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them; they brought the donkey and the colt, and put their cloaks on them, and he sat on them (Matt. 21:1-7, emphasis added)

What the "prophecy" actually says:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt, the foal of an ass (Zech. 9:9)

The author of Zechariah was simply stressing that the donkey was a young one. The author of Matthew’s misunderstanding leads him to create the amusing scenario of Jesus riding into town on two mounts simultaneously! "Jesus, stunt rider" as Farrell Till once said.

How does this one fail? It fails 4, of course, because we have to assume the gospel accounts are correct, and the event occurred, but more damningly it fails criteria 5 on two levels: if the author wanted to make it look like Jesus fulfilled the prophecy, he can simply write that he did! Alternatively, Jesus himself, knowing about this verse, could come into town riding an ass. So not only could Jesus himself easily self-fulfill this prophecy of such a simple thing, but the author of Matthew certainly could! It also fails criteria 8, since ass, camel, horse, or foot were really the only methods of travel available, and it was common for people to ride in this manner.

How about:

…they gave [Jesus] wine to drink mixed with gall… When they had finished crucifying him they shared out his clothing by casting lots… (Matt. 27:34-35)


A pack of dogs surrounds me, a gang of villains closing in on me as if to hack off my hands and my feet. I can count every one of my bones, while they look on and gloat; they divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing. (Ps. 22:16-18)

“Every one of my oppressors is known to you. Insult has broken my heart past cure. I hoped for sympathy, but in vain, for consolers-not one to be found. To eat they gave me poison, to drink, vinegar when I was thirsty.” (Ps. 69:19-21) This was allegedly fulfilled when the soldier offered Jesus vinegar to drink.

Like the first example, this one fails criteria 4 like all of them do. Additionally, it fails 1, 6, and 7, because these passage are vague, do not name Jesus, or even describe his specific circumstances when read in their entire context and additionally there is no reason to think the author of these passage in Psalms was trying to be prophetic. There is no indication the author is describing future events or even the Messiah at all!

The author of Matthew claims in chapter 2 that Micah predicts the Messiah will be born in the town of Bethlehem, and Jesus fulfills this prophecy. Town or bloodline? Let's look at various translations:

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel." (NKJV Micah 5:2)

“But you (Bethlehem) Ephrathah, the least of the clans of Judah, from you will come for me a future ruler of Israel…”(NJB Micah 5:2)

Now look at Chronicles:

These are the sons of Hur the first-born of Ephrathah: Shobal fathered Kiriath-Jearim; Salma fathered Bethlehem;”(I Chron. 2:50-51, emphasis added) “These were the sons of Hur, first-born of Ephrathah and father of Bethlehem.” (I Chron. 4:4, emphasis added)

So it seems as if Bethlehem and Ephrathah are PEOPLE representing a bloodline, not a town. It says "little among the thousands of Judah." There were definitely nowhere near thousands of towns in Judah, but there were thousands of people.

Neither Bethlehem nor Ephrathah are found in either of Jesus’ genealogies, so Jesus can’t fulfill the prophecy. Nevermind that Jesus was never King of Israel, and is to be king of the whole world when he returns (this OT passage says nothing of the whole world, only the Hebrews). The passage goes on to say that the Messiah will defeat the Assyrians if they invade (v. 4-5). Neither Jesus’ philosophy nor status in life make him a candidate for the military leader necessary for fulfillment of this prophecy.

It certainly can't be argued that the author of Micah referred to a town called Bethlehem instead of a person, as a careful reading of the context demonstrates, meaning it fails criteria 1. It also still fails criteria 4 and 5 soundly.

Matthew’s author also claims that Isaiah predicted the Messiah would be born of a virgin.

“Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” (KJV Is. 7:14)

“It is this: the young woman is with child and will give birth to a son whom she will call Immanuel.” (NJB Is. 7:14).

The Hebrew translation never included the word “virgin.” This error arose during the translation of the Greek Septuagint, when the Hebrew word “almah” was mistranslated as “virgin.” “Almah” means “maiden” or “unmarried woman” with no connotation of sexual purity. The Hebrew word for “virgin” is “bethulah.” The author of Isaiah did not use "bethulah."

Most scholarly translations translate this word as “young woman,” but some less-than-scholarly translations repeat the mistranslation in allegiance to its perceived prophetic significance and to avoid implying Matthew had it wrong.

Additionally, the author of this prophecy was not referring to the birth of the Messiah. The prophecy wasn’t even about the birth of anybody at all; the birth was to be a sign that the prophecy would be fulfilled.

The prophecy was that the Syrian-Ephraim (Israel) alliance against Judah would fail and both would ultimately be destroyed; the birth of the child was a sign to king Ahaz that the prophecy would come to pass. The passage goes on to say “before the child knows how to refuse the bad and choose the good, the lands whose two kings are frightening you will be deserted.” (Is. 7:16)

Furthermore, and most obvious, Jesus was not named Immanuel.

So this fails 1, 4, and 5. It also demonstrates that an entire and significant segment of the Jesus myth, that he was born of a virgin, results from a faulty reading of the Greek translation of the OT! That is fascinating to me.

You got some more??

[Tod]

Old Testament Scriptures That Describe The Coming Messiah
The Messianic Prophecy (paraphrased)
Where the prophecy appears in the Old Testament (written between 1450 BC and 430BC)
Jesus’ fulfillment of the prophecy in the New Testament (written between 45 and 95 AD)
The Messiah will be the offspring (descendant) of the woman (Eve)
Genesis 3:15
Galatians 4:4

These aren't even meant to be prophecies, and they do not mention the Messiah or Jesus in any way, shape, or form.

[I]The Messiah will be a descendant of Abraham, through whom everyone on earth will be blessed
Genesis 12:3; 18:18
Acts 3:25,26

If Jesus was a Jew, then by Jewish definition he was a descendent of Abraham. That, to a Jew, would be an exceptionally ordinary claim, violating criteria 8. It also, like the aforementioned ones, don't use any language that leads one to believe they speak of Jesus.

The Messiah will be a descendant of Judah
Genesis 49:10
Matthew 1:2 and Luke 3:33

Like the others, this verse in Genesis isn't about the Messiah at all.

The Messiah will be a prophet like Moses
Deuteronomy 18:15-19

Yet another nonprophecy: did you read this stuff to check it out before you posted it? This is simply a part of the Torah (the law) dealing with prophets. It isn't a prophecy in of itself, and it doesn't in any way imply it is about the Messiah, let alone Jesus.

Acts 3:22,23
The Messiah will be the Son of God
Psalm 2:7

Like ALL the alleged Jesus' prophecies from Psalm, this one isn't meant to be a prophecy in that it doesn't speak to the future at all. It certainly doesn't say a thing that specifies Jesus.

Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22
The Messiah will be raised from the dead (resurrected)
Psalm 16:10,11
Matthew 28:5-9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:4-7; John 20:11-16; Acts 1:3 and 2:32

"for you will not abandon me to Sheol, you cannot allow your faithful servant to see the abyss. You will teach me the path of life, unbounded joy in your presence, at your right hand delight for ever."

Show me where that says the Messiah will be resurrected from the dead? Show me where this is even speaking of the Messiah?

The Messiah crucifixion experience
Psalm 22 (contains 11 prophecies—not all listed here)
Matthew 27:34-50 and John 19:17-30
The Messiah will be sneered at and mocked
Psalm 22:7
Luke 23:11,35-39
The Messiah will be pierced through hands and feet
Psalm 22:16
Luke 23:33 and 24:36-39;
John 19:18 and 20:19-20,24-27
The Messiah’s bones will not be broken (a person’s legs were usually broken after being crucified to speed up their death)
Psalm 22:17 and 34:20
John 19:31-33,36
Men Will Gamble for the Messiah’s clothing
Psalm 22:18
Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23,24
The Messiah will accused by false witnesses
Psalm 35:11
Matthew 26:59,60 and Mark 14:56,57
The Messiah will be hated without a cause
Psalm 35:19 and 69:4
John 15:23-25
The Messiah will be betrayed by a friend
Psalm 41:9

Fail, fail, fail... For the same reasons. These weren't even meant to be prophecies. Not a single one of them speaks of the Messiah, and of course how hard would it be for an author bent on showing prophecy fulfillment (like the author of Matthew) to simply claim that these things happened to Jesus?

These fail criteria 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, and in some cases even 8!!

John 13:18,21
The Messiah will ascend to heaven (at the right hand of God)
Psalm 68:18

Let's just say from here on out the same criticism I offered for the so far addressed so-called prophecies from the Psalms applies to ALL of them. It's getting tedious pointing out that these Psalms don't mention the Messiah, aren't offered in the context of the Messiah, and in not one case even SEEM to be meant as a prophecy by the author, as well as the fact that the authors of the gospels can simply CLAIM they are prophecies and Jesus fulfilled them.

I'll tackle the other half later. There's only so much nonsense my mind can handle at a time without being overwhelmed!

[Lisa0315]

If you say so, Tod. I can only say that there are many scholars who disagree with you. I suppose I can only ask for your credentials. I have none except for indoctrination which I freely admit.

Keep in mind that it was Jews who first read these things after the ascension of Christ and who first believed. They were few in comparison of the Gentiles who would come later, but they were the first.

Just simply saying Psalms does not apply to the Messiah, well, it does not really stand up. Even Christ commented that David could not have been speaking of himself, but was speaking of the Holy One of Israel.

There is some evidence that some of the Jewish leaders recognized Jesus for who He was. Nicodemus, for one. Even Caiaphas who after Jesus raised Lazuras, "Now, the whole nation will believe." Then, in the same speech, "Better that one man die than the whole nation"

There is some indication there that the Pharissees did know who Jesus was but did not have the faith the Messiah could truly overcome Rome, or a worse motive, that they knew they would lose their position if Jesus were crowned King of Israel.

Lisa

[Joykins]

Sure there is. I think the reason is simple. It's a collection of books written by a gob of different writers over a very long period of time. The Bible wasn't planned; it evolved.

Right, but at some point, I think it was a council, canonized some books and excluded others...presumably for a reason. One assumes they read them. Internal consistency was obviously not a biggie.

[Garnet]

Right, but at some point, I think it was a council, canonized some books and excluded others...presumably for a reason. One assumes they read them. Internal consistency was obviously not a biggie.

The first attempt was the council of Nicea nominally headed by Constantine.

They were primarily concerned with stamping out a heresy.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

I'm not sure what you're trying to make, joykins.

[Joykins]

The first attempt was the council of Nicea nominally headed by Constantine.

They were primarily concerned with stamping out a heresy.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm

I'm not sure what you're trying to make, joykins.

When certain continuity errors are a big deal for those who try to debunk "unfulfilled prophecies" (I'm not calling them unfulfilled prophecies for a reason) and said continuity errors were not an issue for those compiling, canonizing, and authorizing the texts, one wonders if the whole idea of chasing continuity errors is a big exercise in missing the point.

I read an interesting book that works through these issues especially in Matthew--I think it is _When Jesus Came to Harvard_ but am not sure. Matthew cherry-picks the OT for snippets that reinforce his theme. Paul does the same thing. Original context seems to them to be irrelevant.

[Garnet]

When certain continuity errors are a big deal for those who try to debunk "unfulfilled prophecies" (I'm not calling them unfulfilled prophecies for a reason) and said continuity errors were not an issue for those compiling, canonizing, and authorizing the texts, one wonders if the whole idea of chasing continuity errors is a big exercise in missing the point.

Ahhhh. OK, I understand. Well, what I wonder is if trying to impugn something supernatural into a collection of stories is a big exercise in missing the point. :evil:

In order for a prophecy to be fulfilled, wouldn't there necessarily have to be continuity?

I read an interesting book that works through these issues especially in Matthew--I think it is _When Jesus Came to Harvard_ but am not sure. Matthew cherry-picks the OT for snippets that reinforce his theme. Paul does the same thing. Original context seems to them to be irrelevant.

Which in my mind invalidates the claims that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies.

[Joykins]

Ahhhh. OK, I understand. Well, what I wonder is if trying to impugn something supernatural into a collection of stories is a big exercise in missing the point. :evil:

Well, the stories are about the supernatural, in part...


In order for a prophecy to be fulfilled, wouldn't there necessarily have to be continuity?

Yeah, but that doesn't get you a fulfilled prophecy, that just gets you continuity. If Matthew had written his gospel differently, frex, he would have made them all perfectly fulfilled. And in some places the text seems to imply that Jesus did things deliberately to do something "as it was written." Yet we are stuck with these fascinating and yet conflicting texts. As a religious person, I wrestle with them--not why God can't make all texts with no continuity errors, but what God is trying to teach through this.

Which in my mind invalidates the claims that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies.

I'm not even sure what that "messianic prophecies" even means sometimes. Like, what about this? Judiciously edited to remove obvious clues ;) and without googling, where do you think it is from?

Under thy guidance, whatso tracks remain of our old wickedness, once done away, shall free the earth from never-ceasing fear... For thee, O boy, first shall the earth, untilled, pour freely forth her childish gifts... Of themselves, untended, will the she-goats then bring home their udders swollen with milk, while flocks afield shall of the monstrous lion have no fear..... The serpent too shall die...

[Garnet]

Well, the stories are about the supernatural, in part...

Sure they are. Let me rephrase. It seems to me that people taking those stories and believing that the supernatural events actually ocurred guided by supernatural beings are missing the point.


Yeah, but that doesn't get you a fulfilled prophecy, that just gets you continuity. If Matthew had written his gospel differently, frex, he would have made them all perfectly fulfilled. And in some places the text seems to imply that Jesus did things deliberately to do something "as it was written." Yet we are stuck with these fascinating and yet conflicting texts. As a religious person, I wrestle with them--not why God can't make all texts with no continuity errors, but what God is trying to teach through this.

Continuity is a necessary part, not the whole.

As for the rest here, I really can't speak to it. You have a couple of basic assumption that I don't share and I don't agree with. One, that God exists and two, that same God guided the writing of the stories in the Bible. I find it increasinly more difficult these days to try to put myself back into God exists mode, even for the sake of discussion.

I'm not even sure what that "messianic prophecies" even means sometimes. Like, what about this? Judiciously edited to remove obvious clues ;) and without googling, where do you think it is from?

Under thy guidance, whatso tracks remain of our old wickedness, once done away, shall free the earth from never-ceasing fear... For thee, O boy, first shall the earth, untilled, pour freely forth her childish gifts... Of themselves, untended, will the she-goats then bring home their udders swollen with milk, while flocks afield shall of the monstrous lion have no fear..... The serpent too shall die...

I have no idea where that quote comes from or even what it is trying to convey.

As for messianic prophecies, the Jews have been pretty sure about what those are for a very long time. Shouldn't one start with them?

And yeah, I had to look these up. :)

Isaiah 2, 11, 42; 59:20
Jeremiah 23, 30, 33; 48:47; 49:39
Ezekiel 38:16
Hosea 3:4-3:5
Micah 4
Zephaniah 3:9
Zechariah 14:9
Daniel 10:14

[Tod]

If you say so, Tod. I can only say that there are many scholars who disagree with you. I suppose I can only ask for your credentials. I have none except for indoctrination which I freely admit.

Where does one begin? First of all, my credentials are I've studied the Bible and I have a brain. Appeals to authority are fairly meaningless if offered with no other argument; even authorities have to have reasons, and anybody offering an authority's view ought to have reasons.

Take for example my quotation of the intro to Daniel in the NJB I offered you earlier. Here's another: The inaccuracy and vagueness of historical detail in the stories about Daniel, as well as the date of writing, some 400 years later, confirm that they are edifying fiction of the type known from Tb, Est and Jdt. (NJB, Preface to Daniel, emphasis added)

Guess who translated the NJB? Bible scholars!! I not only told you their conclusions, but I explained reasons to support it. When you offered me this list of prophecies, I gave you a set of objective criteria and explained in detail why the so-called prophecies didn't fit those criteria. I invited you to demonstrate what in the wording of the Psalms, for example, indicated the messiah was being spoken of in them, that this messiah was Jesus, or even that these were intended as prophecies to begin with!

Instead of taking up my request to explain yourself with an actual argument, you come back with "what are your credentials?" Please, logic and the wording of the biblical text itself are my "credentials," show me where I'm wrong instead of appealing to nebulous authorities that you don't even cite!

Secondly, I would challenge you to find me a professional Bible scholar who is either secular or liberal Christian who believes that all these so-called prophecies are indeed prophecies. I'd like to see ONE, just one, and until then don't cite authorities that you can't name.


Keep in mind that it was Jews who first read these things after the ascension of Christ and who first believed. They were few in comparison of the Gentiles who would come later, but they were the first.

It was not those who "first believed" that wrote the gospels. As you know, they were not written until at least three decades later, and Paul's (a gentile) writings are the earliest known writings about Jesus. True, the original authors of Mark and Matthew (but certainly not Luke or John) were probably Jewish, but they were clearly not mainstream as their minority Christian beliefs demonstrate. The fact that Matthew was familiar enough with the Psalms to twist them to suit his propaganda tools does not at all indicate that Jews believed these verses were meant to be prophecies of the Messiah or that those contemporary with Jesus believed that Jesus fulfilled them. Indeed, I'd challenge you to cite one Jewish scholar who believes that these Psalms do speak of the Messiah, much less Jesus.

Just simply saying Psalms does not apply to the Messiah, well, it does not really stand up. Even Christ commented that David could not have been speaking of himself, but was speaking of the Holy One of Israel.

You're right, and in this imaginary world were I simply asserted that "the Psalms does not apply to the Messiah" without supporting my claims I was exceptionally remiss.

In reality, however, I pointed out that a reading of the Psalms in question gave no indication by their wording or context that they referred to the Messiah at all, much less Jesus, or that they were supposed to be prophecies in the first place.

You are the one "simply saying" things here; I'm bending over backwards to try to show you the logic of my position. Demonstrate where I'm wrong, don't just make assertions and become the hypocrite by saying (incorrectly at that) I'm simply making assertions. Remember what Jesus thought of hypocrisy.

There is some evidence that some of the Jewish leaders recognized Jesus for who He was. Nicodemus, for one. Even Caiaphas who after Jesus raised Lazuras, "Now, the whole nation will believe." Then, in the same speech, "Better that one man die than the whole nation

What evidence, biblical claims, the very thing in question on this message board? Newsflash: any time you assume biblical accuracy as evidence for your argument you will ALWAYS be called on it and asked to support the veracity of those claims. At the very least cite verses once in a while!

First of all, this account comes from John, and anybody who believes John was a Jewish person hasn't done a lick of scholarly research even on an amateur level. John is written in perfect Greek, indicating Greek as a primary language. In many places where the synoptic gospels say "the pharisees" John says "the Jews," a racist generalization that no Jew, even a Christian one, would make. John, as you might have noticed, is not considered a "synoptic gospel" because it is radically different than the other three. It of the three is written the latest (and a notably large factor), and it of the three makes it quite clear that the author's mission is to clearly and firmly establish Jesus' divinity: something the other three authors either minimized or avoided altogether. To consider it accurate even by biblical standards is a bit of a farce.

Not to mention it is fairly nonsensical to believe that Caiaphas both "recognized Jesus for who He was" (divine Lord of all creation and the long-awaited Messiah in your worldview) and then had him arrested and called for his crucifixion as a blasphemer. That makes an awful lot of sense. Sorry, said I'd lay off the sarcasm. ; )

There is some indication there that the Pharissees did know who Jesus was but did not have the faith the Messiah could truly overcome Rome, or a worse motive, that they knew they would lose their position if Jesus were crowned King of Israel.

What indication is there that the REAL pharisees KNEW Jesus was the Messiah but lacked the faith that "the Messiah" could truly overcome Rome??? According to the OT, the Messiah would led to an Israeli conquest over ALL of the enemies of the world, so why on earth would the pharisees lack faith in the REAL Messiah?? And where is the evidence that this is so, even from the Bible?

I have to say it is annoying to have you accuse me of making bald assertions when you come back with the exact same thing, especially since I'm not making baseless assertions in the first place! Why not address my argument instead of arbitrarily dismissing it as unsupported and asking to see some credentials??

[Joykins]

Garnet, I did not read that whole list but from what I did read of it, I think both Jews and Christians would agree that those particular prophecies are not yet fulfilled. They point to the Messianic age to come.

[Garnet]

And yet Jesus is claimed to be the messiah....

I'm off to bed now. I've enjoyed interacting with you, Joykins. :)

[Joykins]

Sorry, but this post just kind of invited the kind of nit I'm going to pick here:

It was not those who "first believed" that wrote the gospels. As you know, they were not written until at least three decades later, and Paul's (a gentile) writings are the earliest known writings about Jesus.

Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee; in his own words:
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

[Joykins]

And yet Jesus is claimed to be the messiah....

Yeah, well, there is a reason that modern Jews don't believe that, after all.

I'm off to bed now. I've enjoyed interacting with you, Joykins. :)

Likewise :)

[Tod]

Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee; in his own words:
"If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless."

Yeah, according to Paul. It would certainly add a sense of legitimacy to his claim if he had Jewish ancestry if he did not. This is a case of citing the Bible to prove the Bible.

He clearly spoke Greek as his primary language, and so at best he was a Hellenistic Jew (i.e. enculturated into Greek culture). If he was a Jew, he was hardly a representation of an average Jew of the time, or even the average extremist Jew of the time! There is absolutely no supporting evidence for his claims, and that is hardly good evidence in a case like this, especially if one is indicating, as Lisa was, that Jews around Jesus' time believed that he fulfilled alleged prophecies from psalms.

However, since you focus on Paul, I find it very noteworthy that his are the earliest writings of Jesus, and he doesn't speak to the alleged prophecy fulfillment that Matthew, and now Lisa, claim Jesus' life represents. I find it even more interesting that he doesn't discuss any of the details of Jesus' life described in the gospels, implying to a person with no Christian bias that those traditions did not yet exist, and hence, were not passed down from primary sources, and hence are fabrications. He doesn't even refer to a physical resurrection, but indicates only a spiritual one.

[Joykins]

Paul was a Jew and a Pharisee; in his own words:
"If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless."

Yeah, according to Paul. It would certainly add a sense of legitimacy to his claim if he had Jewish ancestry if he did not. This is a case of citing the Bible to prove the Bible.

It's a case of citing PAUL to prove Paul. The authorship of Philippians is well-established. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles#The_undisputed_ epistles)

He clearly spoke Greek as his primary language, and so at best he was a Hellenistic Jew (i.e. enculturated into Greek culture). If he was a Jew, he was hardly a representation of an average Jew of the time, or even the average extremist Jew of the time!

It's hardly evidence that he was a gentile, either. There is no evidence at all that he was one. Claiming he was is just making stuff up, unless you can provide evidence that he was trying to and succeeding at pulling a fast one on his audience?

There were scads of Hellenized Jews, yea, even in Jerusalem...

[Joykins]

However, since you focus on Paul, I find it very noteworthy that his are the earliest writings of Jesus, and he doesn't speak to the alleged prophecy fulfillment that Matthew, and now Lisa, claim Jesus' life represents. I find it even more interesting that he doesn't discuss any of the details of Jesus' life described in the gospels, implying to a person with no Christian bias that those traditions did not yet exist, and hence, were not passed down from primary sources, and hence are fabrications.

Paul wasn't attempting to write a gospel; he seemed more interested in theology and ethics.

He doesn't even refer to a physical resurrection, but indicates only a spiritual one.

That's not entirely clear from the text; the resurrection could be bodily but involving bodily transformation. (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&version=31)

[Ray Moscow]

I have this guy's book on the subject but have only read a few chapters:

The Problem of Paul (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm)

[DMB]

I have this guy's book on the subject but have only read a few chapters:

The Problem of Paul (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm)

I think that's a book I read about 20 years ago. (If it's not the same one, it covers the same ground.) I wish I still had it, but someone half-inched it from me. :mad:

[Lisa0315]

If you say so, Tod. I can only say that there are many scholars who disagree with you. I suppose I can only ask for your credentials. I have none except for indoctrination which I freely admit.

Where does one begin? First of all, my credentials are I've studied the Bible and I have a brain. Appeals to authority are fairly meaningless if offered with no other argument; even authorities have to have reasons, and anybody offering an authority's view ought to have reasons.

Take for example my quotation of the intro to Daniel in the NJB I offered you earlier. Here's another: The inaccuracy and vagueness of historical detail in the stories about Daniel, as well as the date of writing, some 400 years later, confirm that they are edifying fiction of the type known from Tb, Est and Jdt. (NJB, Preface to Daniel, emphasis added)

Guess who translated the NJB? Bible scholars!! I not only told you their conclusions, but I explained reasons to support it. When you offered me this list of prophecies, I gave you a set of objective criteria and explained in detail why the so-called prophecies didn't fit those criteria. I invited you to demonstrate what in the wording of the Psalms, for example, indicated the messiah was being spoken of in them, that this messiah was Jesus, or even that these were intended as prophecies to begin with!

Instead of taking up my request to explain yourself with an actual argument, you come back with "what are your credentials?" Please, logic and the wording of the biblical text itself are my "credentials," show me where I'm wrong instead of appealing to nebulous authorities that you don't even cite!

Secondly, I would challenge you to find me a professional Bible scholar who is either secular or liberal Christian who believes that all these so-called prophecies are indeed prophecies. I'd like to see ONE, just one, and until then don't cite authorities that you can't name.


Keep in mind that it was Jews who first read these things after the ascension of Christ and who first believed. They were few in comparison of the Gentiles who would come later, but they were the first.

It was not those who "first believed" that wrote the gospels. As you know, they were not written until at least three decades later, and Paul's (a gentile) writings are the earliest known writings about Jesus. True, the original authors of Mark and Matthew (but certainly not Luke or John) were probably Jewish, but they were clearly not mainstream as their minority Christian beliefs demonstrate. The fact that Matthew was familiar enough with the Psalms to twist them to suit his propaganda tools does not at all indicate that Jews believed these verses were meant to be prophecies of the Messiah or that those contemporary with Jesus believed that Jesus fulfilled them. Indeed, I'd challenge you to cite one Jewish scholar who believes that these Psalms do speak of the Messiah, much less Jesus.

Just simply saying Psalms does not apply to the Messiah, well, it does not really stand up. Even Christ commented that David could not have been speaking of himself, but was speaking of the Holy One of Israel.

You're right, and in this imaginary world were I simply asserted that "the Psalms does not apply to the Messiah" without supporting my claims I was exceptionally remiss.

In reality, however, I pointed out that a reading of the Psalms in question gave no indication by their wording or context that they referred to the Messiah at all, much less Jesus, or that they were supposed to be prophecies in the first place.

You are the one "simply saying" things here; I'm bending over backwards to try to show you the logic of my position. Demonstrate where I'm wrong, don't just make assertions and become the hypocrite by saying (incorrectly at that) I'm simply making assertions. Remember what Jesus thought of hypocrisy.

There is some evidence that some of the Jewish leaders recognized Jesus for who He was. Nicodemus, for one. Even Caiaphas who after Jesus raised Lazuras, "Now, the whole nation will believe." Then, in the same speech, "Better that one man die than the whole nation

What evidence, biblical claims, the very thing in question on this message board? Newsflash: any time you assume biblical accuracy as evidence for your argument you will ALWAYS be called on it and asked to support the veracity of those claims. At the very least cite verses once in a while!

First of all, this account comes from John, and anybody who believes John was a Jewish person hasn't done a lick of scholarly research even on an amateur level. John is written in perfect Greek, indicating Greek as a primary language. In many places where the synoptic gospels say "the pharisees" John says "the Jews," a racist generalization that no Jew, even a Christian one, would make. John, as you might have noticed, is not considered a "synoptic gospel" because it is radically different than the other three. It of the three is written the latest (and a notably large factor), and it of the three makes it quite clear that the author's mission is to clearly and firmly establish Jesus' divinity: something the other three authors either minimized or avoided altogether. To consider it accurate even by biblical standards is a bit of a farce.

Not to mention it is fairly nonsensical to believe that Caiaphas both "recognized Jesus for who He was" (divine Lord of all creation and the long-awaited Messiah in your worldview) and then had him arrested and called for his crucifixion as a blasphemer. That makes an awful lot of sense. Sorry, said I'd lay off the sarcasm. ; )

There is some indication there that the Pharissees did know who Jesus was but did not have the faith the Messiah could truly overcome Rome, or a worse motive, that they knew they would lose their position if Jesus were crowned King of Israel.

What indication is there that the REAL pharisees KNEW Jesus was the Messiah but lacked the faith that "the Messiah" could truly overcome Rome??? According to the OT, the Messiah would led to an Israeli conquest over ALL of the enemies of the world, so why on earth would the pharisees lack faith in the REAL Messiah?? And where is the evidence that this is so, even from the Bible?

I have to say it is annoying to have you accuse me of making bald assertions when you come back with the exact same thing, especially since I'm not making baseless assertions in the first place! Why not address my argument instead of arbitrarily dismissing it as unsupported and asking to see some credentials??

Yeah, you want a contemporary scholar who believed that Jesus was the Messiah? Someone who has spent their whole life studying it? I give you the Pope.

[beamishboy]

Well, I think the toughest one is from Jesus:



Apparently "coming in his kingdom" meant coming down with the angels to judge humankind. It didn't happen.

Actually, this one is easy. Jesus never said that. The writer of Matthew said Jesus said that or someone who added verses into the gospels claimed Jesus said that.

[Ray Moscow]

Actually, this one is easy. Jesus never said that. The writer of Matthew said Jesus said that or someone who added verses into the gospels claimed Jesus said that.

Of course, the Historical Jesus, if there was one, probably never said or did most of the things in the gospels. But I mean the "Jesus" of the gospels in my statement above: a literary figure, but also the one that millions of people worship and think is real.

[Tod]

The authorship of Philippians is well-established

Who is talking about the authorship of Philippians??? I'm simply saying that Paul claiming to be Jewish in this scenario doesn't mean that he actually was Jewish: it is still quoting the Bible to prove the Bible. It would be different if he wrote in Aramaic or there was something else to bolster his claim, but all we have is a fluent Greek speaker with a poor understanding of the OT who claims to be Jewish.

We also have a guy making a case that would be bolstered if he were a Jew: after all, a Jew thinking Jesus is the Messiah is better evidence that he is than a gentile thinking he is the Messiah! Better still if he can claim to be a pharisee that was persecuting Christians; how much striking the conversion would appear. That claim alone is suspect, however, as there is no evidence whatsoever that the Pharisees persecuted Nazarenes in that manner. Indeed, many secular scholars believe that the gospel picture of the Pharisees is distorted after the fact once it became clear that Jews did not accept Jesus as the Messiah (and the gospels were written well after that was established), as the Pharisees were seen . In fact, a simple gaze at Wikipedia here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharisees#The_Hellenistic_period

Under "Pharisees and Christianity" will outline why this is thought to be true to the point that some think Jesus WAS a Pharisee. Jesus' teachings mirrored the Pharisees in many ways; it is the Sadducees that would have been most at odds with Jesus' teachings, and it is the Sadducees who would be more likely to engage in state-sponsored persecution.

Here is the main portion of the aforementioned wikipedia article:

"Many Christians and non-Christians object that the four Gospels, which were canonized after Christianity had separated from Judaism (and after Pharisaism emerged as the dominant form of Judaism), are likely a very biased source concerning the conduct of the Pharisees. Some have argued that Jesus was himself a Pharisee and that his arguments with Pharisees is a sign of inclusion rather than fundamental conflict (disputation being the dominant narrative mode employed in the Talmud as a search for truth, and not necessarily a sign of opposition).[17]

Jesus' emphasis on loving one's neighbor (see Great Commandment), for example, echoes the teaching of the school of Hillel (Jesus' views of divorce, however, are closer to those of the school of Shammai, another Pharisee). Others have argued that the portrait of the Pharisees in the New Testament is an anachronistic caricature, see also Woes of the Pharisees.

For example, when Jesus declares the sins of a paralytic man forgiven, the New Testament has the Pharisees criticizing Jesus' blasphemy. But Jewish sources from the time commonly associate illness with sin and healing with forgiveness, and there is no actual Rabbinic source that questions or criticizes this practice. Thus, the proposition that Jesus' healing was criticized by Pharisees is sharply at odds with the teachings of the Pharisees independently preserved. There may be no conflict in the Christian account and historical records if the reactions recorded in the New Testament are from a few individual Pharisees, uncharacteristic of mainstream thinking.

Similarly, according to the New Testament, Pharisees wanted to punish Jesus for healing a man's withered hand on the Sabbath, but there is no Rabbinic rule found historically according to which Jesus had violated the Sabbath. Again, the objection may have been the misguided complaint of a few uninformed individuals, not representative of Pharisees in general.

Although the New Testament presents the Pharisees as obsessed with avoiding impurity, Rabbinic texts reveal that the Pharisees were concerned merely with offering means for removing impurities, so that a person could again participate in the community.

According to the New Testament the Pharisees objected to Jesus's mission to outcast groups such as beggars and tax-collectors, but Rabbinic texts actually emphasize the availability of forgiveness to all. Indeed, much of Jesus' teaching, for example the Sermon on the Mount, is consistent with that of the Pharisees.

Some scholars believe that those passages of the New Testament that are most hostile to the Pharisees were written sometime after the destruction of Herod's Temple in 70 [18], at a time when it had become clear that most Jews did not consider Jesus to be the messiah, see also Rejection of Jesus. At this time Christians sought most new converts from among the gentiles, and needed to explain why converts should listen to them rather than the Jews, concerning the Hebrew Bible. They thus would have presented a story of Jesus that was more sympathetic to Romans than to Jews. It was only after 70 that Phariseeism emerged as the dominant form of Judaism." (end of quote)

So we have Greek as a primary language, poor knowledge of the OT, a claim about being a pharisee that flies in the face of what we know of the pharisees, & a motivation to lie.

Sorry, Paul's mere claim cannot stand as evidence alone. He can't support his claim, and there is evidence he's full of bologna.

It's hardly evidence that he was a gentile, either. There is no evidence at all that he was one. Claiming he was is just making stuff up, unless you can provide evidence that he was trying to and succeeding at pulling a fast one on his audience?

There were scads of Hellenized Jews, yea, even in Jerusalem..

Point being, if you read carefully, is that Lisa was indicating that "jews" at the time saw Jesus as fulfilling prophecy. Paul was unquestionably not representative of Jews at the time. Hellenized Jews, as the name indicates, were enculturated by Greek culture. Do you know what "enculturated" means? At the very least, he was a hellenistic Jew who didn't know much about Judaism. Calling him a Jew in the context Lisa was referring to Jews, if he is a Hellenistic Jew, would be like calling an australian an american just because his ancestors moved to australia from america before he was born. It might be technically true from a genetic standpoint, but clearly not a cultural one, and he certainly wouldn't be representative of the average american!

[Joykins]

I have this guy's book on the subject but have only read a few chapters:

The Problem of Paul (http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm)


Hm, I might check that out. The introduction, however, doesn't support Tod's claim that Paul was a gentile.

[Tod]

Paul wasn't attempting to write a gospel; he seemed more interested in theology and ethics.

That's a disingenous and weak excuse. Yeah, he wasn't writing a gospel, but to think he didn't mention Jesus raising the dead, healing the sick, being born of a virgin, his baptism and the Holy Spirit, his betrayal by Judas, the darkness at midday and rising of many dead people upon his crucifixion, etc. if he knew of such things is pretty far-fetched.

These things would certainly be worthy of mention if you were trying to convince people he was a deity or a man to be listened to. He doesn't even speak much of the teachings of Jesus, for goodness sake! Who could write numerous epistles about Jesus' teaching and not mention the sermon on the mount or its elements?? I can see not telling the whole story if that wasn't his purpose, but to leave out ALL of the details? You said yourself he was concerned with writing about ethics, so why did he leave out so much Jesus said about ethics?? That's too incredible to be ignored.

I'm not saying it is proof positive that the gospel traditions didn't exist, but it is certainly telling, and if that doesn't even raise an eyebrow for you, you clearly have your blinders on tight.

[Tod]

Yeah, you want a contemporary scholar who believed that Jesus was the Messiah? Someone who has spent their whole life studying it? I give you the Pope.

Not what I asked and the Pope is hardly a scholar, but I guess it saves me an awful lot of typing and research if you want that to stand as your rebuttal! : )

[Ray Moscow]

IIRC, Maccoby's position is that Paul's writings are very inconsistent with the idea that he was a Pharisee. He might have been a convert to Judaism (Gentile by birth), as the Ebionites claimed.

[Joykins]

Point being, if you read carefully, is that Lisa was indicating that "jews" at the time saw Jesus as fulfilling prophecy. Paul was unquestionably not representative of Jews at the time.

Nor was he particularly interested in prophecies. I think that was Matthew's thing. Matthew's audience is perceived to be Jewish, so Lisa's point is not discredited there.

Hellenized Jews, as the name indicates, were enculturated by Greek culture. Do you know what "enculturated" means?

That's a mighty big word for a gal like me who just stepped out of a cabbage patch and ain't got much book-larnin' about folks in furrin parts.

At the very least, he was a hellenistic Jew who didn't know much about Judaism. Calling him a Jew in the context Lisa was referring to Jews, if he is a Hellenistic Jew, would be like calling an australian an american just because his ancestors moved to australia from america before he was born. It might be technically true from a genetic standpoint, but clearly not a cultural one, and he certainly wouldn't be representative of the average american!

There are genetic Americans? If Paul was from a Jewish mother, he was Jewish. Same reason I'm not. I bet he was circumsized too. He was probably just as Jewish as all the Jewish people I know today, and more religious too.

But go ahead calling him a gentile and try to pass it off as a misspelling of "most likely a Hellenized Jew." Since I'm from the cabbage patch and all, I might buy it. ;)

[beamishboy]

Of course, the Historical Jesus, if there was one, probably never said or did most of the things in the gospels. But I mean the "Jesus" of the gospels in my statement above: a literary figure, but also the one that millions of people worship and think is real.

Most people believe in Jesus and worship Him as our Lord but we don't believe he said those things. We acknowledge the gospels probably got some of the sayings wrong.

[Ray Moscow]

Most people believe in Jesus and worship Him as our Lord but we don't believe he said those things. We acknowledge the gospels probably got some of the sayings wrong.

You might want to check with some of your co-religionists (whoever they are) on that. Most Christians I know believe that the gospels are accurate accounts of what Jesus said and did.

[Tod]

Hm, I might check that out. The introduction, however, doesn't support Tod's claim that Paul was a gentile.

Did you even read the passage he cited? I actually took the time to read a good deal of it, and this clip strikes me as relevant:

"The next thing we are told about Saul in Acts is that he was 'harrying the Church; he entered house after house, seizing men and women, and sending them to prison' (Acts 8:3). We are not told at this point by what authority or on whose orders he was carrying out this persecution. It was clearly not a matter of merely individual action on his part, for sending people to prison can only be done by some kind of official. Saul must have been acting on behalf of some authority, and who this authority was can be gleaned from later incidents in which Saul was acting on behalf of the High Priest. Anyone with knowledge of the religious and political scene at this time in Judaea feels the presence of an important problem here: the High Priest was not a Pharisee, but a Sadducee, and the Sadducees were bitterly opposed to the Pharisees. How is it that Saul, allegedly an enthusiastic Pharisee ('a Pharisee of the Pharisees'), is acting hand in glove with the High Priest? The picture we are given in our New Testament sources of Saul, in the days before his conversion to Jesus, is contradictory and suspect."

My point is: since all extrabiblical evidence suggest Pharisees weren't persecuting Christians and indeed it was instead the Sadducees, then Paul's claim that he persecuted christians as a Pharisee on behalf of a higher authority is extremely suspect and most likely a boldfaced lie. If he lied about that, why accept his claim that he was Jewish at face value, when there is NO supporting evidence of it?

[beamishboy]

You might want to check with some of your co-religionists (whoever they are) on that. Most Christians I know believe that the gospels are accurate accounts of what Jesus said and did.

I have checked many times. Come on, I'm an altar boy in the CoE. Many of my prelates have said time and again that we are CHRISTians and not Bibliolaters.

The Bible including the gospels have OBVIOUS and MANIFEST errors. That doesn't make Jesus any less true. Look, you are dealing with faith here.

[Joykins]

Paul wasn't attempting to write a gospel; he seemed more interested in theology and ethics.

That's a disingenous and weak excuse. Yeah, he wasn't writing a gospel, but to think he didn't mention Jesus raising the dead, healing the sick, being born of a virgin, his baptism and the Holy Spirit, his betrayal by Judas, the darkness at midday and rising of many dead people upon his crucifixion, etc. if he knew of such things is pretty far-fetched.

These things would certainly be worthy of mention if you were trying to convince people he was a deity or a man to be listened to. He doesn't even speak much of the teachings of Jesus, for goodness sake! Who could write numerous epistles about Jesus' teaching and not mention the sermon on the mount or its elements?? I can see not telling the whole story if that wasn't his purpose, but to leave out ALL of the details? You said yourself he was concerned with writing about ethics, so why did he leave out so much Jesus said about ethics?? That's too incredible to be ignored.

We don't actually have the text of how he made converts. One assumes, based on contemporary standards and lack of documentation, it may have been primarily oral, just like the early gospel traditions. I assume you're going to say the texts in Acts don't count, but that's what I have and some of them are mentioned there :dunno: The epistles were writing to already-established congregations. Paul did not have to retell the stories to people who already knew them.

I'm not saying it is proof positive that the gospel traditions didn't exist, but it is certainly telling, and if that doesn't even raise an eyebrow for you, you clearly have your blinders on tight.

Probably they were developing at the same time. However, the resurrection IS in (undebated) Paul, as is the Last Supper. So it's not like there are none.

[Tod]

Nor was he particularly interested in prophecies. I think that was Matthew's thing. Matthew's audience is perceived to be Jewish, so Lisa's point is not discredited there.

Paul was interested in converting people to christianity; had Jesus fulfilled prophecies, that would have helped his case, ergo had he knew of this he would have mentioned it.

There are genetic Americans?

Not as a collective gene pool, but certainly one could say that my genetic mother and father are from America, and that is all I meant. I was simply arguing that even if Paul descended from Jews, he was clearly Hellenistic culturally and and culturally Jewish. Therefore he wouldn't be representative of a Jew anymore than a person whos parents moved from America would be representative of americans if the person wasn't culturally american him/herself.

If Paul was from a Jewish mother, he was Jewish. Same reason I'm not. I bet he was circumsized too. He was probably just as Jewish as all the Jewish people I know today, and more religious too.

Where is the evidence Paul was from a Jewish mother? "If" is a big word.

But go ahead calling him a gentile and try to pass it off as a misspelling of "most likely a Hellenized Jew." Since I'm from the cabbage patch and all, I might buy it. ;)

Where, exactly, is your argument in all of this?

[Joykins]

My point is: since all extrabiblical evidence suggest Pharisees weren't persecuting Christians and indeed it was instead the Sadducees, then Paul's claim that he persecuted christians as a Pharisee on behalf of a higher authority is extremely suspect and most likely a boldfaced lie. If he lied about that, why accept his claim that he was Jewish at face value, when there is NO supporting evidence of it?

So apparently now Sadducee henchman Hellenized Jew means gentile? No, I'm not buying it.

[Ray Moscow]

I have checked many times. Come on, I'm an altar boy in the CoE. Many of my prelates have said time and again that we are CHRISTians and not Bibliolaters.

The Bible including the gospels have OBVIOUS and MANIFEST errors. That doesn't make Jesus any less true. Look, you are dealing with faith here.

Yeah, I'm a former Anglican, too, and most of the ones I've known believe the gospels are accurate. Geez, you have to stand up with when they read the damn things, even.

Just how does the fact that the gospels contain "OBVIOUS and MANIFEST errors" not affect the truthfulness of the Jesus story?

Priest: The Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ
People: That's full of obvious and manifest errors, Amen.

[Tod]

We don't actually have the text of how he made converts. One assumes, based on contemporary standards and lack of documentation, it may have been primarily oral, just like the early gospel traditions.

Oh, so he saved the best stuff for oral means, but only choose to write the weaker stuff down??

I assume you're going to say the texts in Acts don't count, but that's what I have and some of them are mentioned there :dunno: The epistles were writing to already-established congregations. Paul did not have to retell the stories to people who already knew them.

Did Paul write Acts? (rhetorical question) If not, then clearly Acts doesn't count as what Paul wrote.

Again, we aren't talking about "retelling" the story, we are talking about, in all the pages he wrote, passingly mentioning some of the more striking details. He didn't do that.

Secondly, what evidence do we have AT ALL that these congregations already knew the stories of Jesus found in the gospels, or even a lot of them? There is absolutely no reason to believe, or even suspect, that is true.

Probably they were developing at the same time. However, the resurrection IS in (undebated) Paul, as is the Last Supper. So it's not like there are none.

So in all of the information in the four gospels, only TWO small details come to your mind that Paul spoke of? That bolsters my case, that doesn't hurt it!

So the Last Supper is important enough to mention, but his claims to divinity in John, his myriad miracles, his prophecy fulfillments, his arrest and trial, and most importantly THE MAJORITY OF HIS TEACHINGS weren't relevant to mention?? If that works for you, I suppose there is nothing that could ever be said.

[Joykins]

Nor was he particularly interested in prophecies. I think that was Matthew's thing. Matthew's audience is perceived to be Jewish, so Lisa's point is not discredited there.

Paul was interested in converting people to christianity; had Jesus fulfilled prophecies, that would have helped his case, ergo had he knew of this he would have mentioned it.

Isn't that sort of dangerously close to "what I would have done if I were Paul." Only Paul's audience was not primarily Jewish (apostle to the gentiles and all that), so perhaps the prophecies would not have been as meaningful to them as they would be to the Jews. But I've never argued that Paul was an emphasizer of the prophecies; if he was a Sadducee as you claim, one would expect him to concentrate on the law (as he does).


Not as a collective gene pool, but certainly one could say that my genetic mother and father are from America, and that is all I meant.

Oh, OK. My father is American and had a Polish Jewish mother. Just sayin'.

I was simply arguing that even if Paul descended from Jews, he was clearly Hellenistic culturally and and culturally Jewish.

Are you sure you meant that second culturally?

Therefore he wouldn't be representative of a Jew anymore than a person whos parents moved from America would be representative of americans if the person wasn't culturally american him/herself.

1st century Judaism, as you no doubt know, was very diverse. And despite all the backpeddling, saying that he was a Hellenized Jew does not make him gentile.

Where is the evidence Paul was from a Jewish mother? "If" is a big word.

The fact that he claimed to be Jewish and was apparently accepted as Jewish by the apostles and converts provides evidence. You have none that he was a gentile.

Where, exactly, is your argument in all of this?

My argument is that your only claim that you can provide any evidence for at all is that he was not a Pharisee or that he was a Hellenized Jew or perhaps, both. But your initial claim is that he was gentile, which is what I disagreed with, and I don't see any evidence at all to support it besides speculation.

[Tod]

So apparently now Sadducee henchman Hellenized Jew means gentile? No, I'm not buying it.

So rather than actually address the evidence I present that Paul wasn't being truthful about his past, you simply state "I'm not buying it." Why??

Wow, what a challenging debate you've provided me here. I think I'm going to have to spend the next few hours mentally recovering because it was so grueling dealing with your devestating arguments.

[beamishboy]

Yeah, I'm a former Anglican, too, and most of the ones I've known believe the gospels are accurate. Geez, you have to stand up with when they read the damn things, even.

Just how does the fact that the gospels contain "OBVIOUS and MANIFEST errors" not affect the truthfulness of the Jesus story?

Priest: The Holy Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ
People: That's full of obvious and manifest errors, Amen.

First, we stand because of respect for Jesus. That has nothing to do with errors within the gospels. You're just making fun. But notice that our response is "Glory to Christ our Saviour" and "Praise to Christ our Lord". At no point do we affirm the gospels as entirely accurate. The praises in the parishioners' responses are all directed at Jesus and not the gospels or the Bible.

People who think the Bible or the Gospels contain no error are just plain ignorant or they just refuse to see the errors because its so human to assume any story of God must be flawless.

[Ray Moscow]

First, we stand because of respect for Jesus. That has nothing to do with errors within the gospels. You're just making fun. But notice that our response is "Glory to Christ our Saviour" and "Praise to Christ our Lord". At no point do we affirm the gospels as entirely accurate. The praises in the parishioners' responses are all directed at Jesus and not the gospels or the Bible.

People who think the Bible or the Gospels contain no error are just plain ignorant or they just refuse to see the errors because its so human to assume any story of God must be flawless.

Or, it could be because their churches teach that it is "the Word of God" (the affirmation of which generally follows any non-gospel Bible reading in an Anglican or Catholic service), and people naturally assume that "the word of God" must be reliable and reasonably accurate, or even completely without error (except for occasional human copying mistakes and the like).

Teaching them that it's full of "obvious and manifest errors" would be better.

But coming back to the main point: just how do people know anything at all about Jesus if the gospels are full of errors?

[Tod]

Isn't that sort of dangerously close to "what I would have done if I were Paul."

It's sort of dangerously close to "anybody with half a brain would include such incredible information if they were trying to convert people."

Only Paul's audience was not primarily Jewish (apostle to the gentiles and all that), so perhaps the prophecies would not have been as meaningful to them as they would be to the Jews.

ALL people are impressed by prophecy fulfillment. I'd be impressed by true prophecy fulfillment. "Perhaps" isn't worth a hill of beans.

But I've never argued that Paul was an emphasizer of the prophecies; if he was a Sadducee as you claim, one would expect him to concentrate on the law (as he does).

Where on earth did I claim Paul was a Sadducee??? I simply point out that Paul's claim of being a Pharisee who persecuted nazarenes doesn't represent reality since the Sadducees had that role. That isn't saying he's a Sadducee, that's saying he's probably lying!

Are you sure you meant that second culturally?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm still not seeing the argument that supports that Paul's claims of his past are true, and I'm not seeing evidence that my evidence he was misleading his readers is false.

1st century Judaism, as you no doubt know, was very diverse. And despite all the backpeddling, saying that he was a Hellenized Jew does not make him gentile.

Wow, can we say dead horse? The point for the fourth time, is that Paul clearly isn't representative of average Jews because AT BEST he was a hellenistic jew. Even if he is a Hellenistic Jew, he isn't representative of Jews at large. So whether he is gentile or hellenistic jew, he isn't representative of Jews at large to any degree whatsoever, and THAT was the important part of my initial claim.

Furthermore, I'm not saying he was a Hellenistic Jew, I'm saying AT BEST he is a Hellenistic Jews. I personally believe he was most likely a gentile for the reasons I continue to state and you continue to ignore, and not even a Hellenistic Jew. What I am saying is that I'm willing to concede that he was a Hellenistic Jew for the sake of argument, and that still doesn't make him representative of jewish people in general.

The fact that he claimed to be Jewish and was apparently accepted as Jewish by the apostles and converts provides evidence. You have none that he was a gentile.

His claim is suspect for reasons I've pointed out already, and until you refute them in some way, I will just let them stand. I do have evidence he didn't speak aramaic as his primary language. I do have evidence he lied about being a Pharisee, making all of his related claims of his past suspect. I do have a motive for him to lie about it.

So where is the evidence that he was accepted as Jewish by the apostles? Oh yeah, biblical claims, the very thing in question in this forum.

My argument is that your only claim that you can provide any evidence for at all is that he was not a Pharisee or that he was a Hellenized Jew or perhaps, both. But your initial claim is that he was gentile, which is what I disagreed with, and I don't see any evidence at all to support it besides speculation.

You are putting a lot of stock into something I have said I would concede since the first time you pointed it out! Again, for the fifth time, I wil concede he is a Hellenistic jew because it doesn't AT ALL change the general thrust of my argument to Lisa that originally started this because he isn't a traditional Jew and can't represent the average Jew. So if I concede with "what [you] disagreed with," for the sake of argument, why are you still beating this dead horse to death? I concede, I concede, I concede... Can you now stop acting like a broken record?

Furthermore, the evidence I offer DOES act as evidence, if not conclusive, that Paul was actually a gentile and not a Jew. I'm sorry you don't see how exposing half of his claim as a lie doesn't cast doubt on the other half. He claimed to be a Jew and exPharisee. He most likely lied about the latter, so why believe the former, especially since he speaks fluent Greek?

[beamishboy]

Or, it could be because their churches teach that it is "the Word of God" (the affirmation of which generally follows any non-gospel Bible reading in an Anglican or Catholic service), and people naturally assume that "the word of God" must be reliable and reasonably accurate, or even completely without error (except for occasional human copying mistakes and the like).

Teaching them that it's full of "obvious and manifest errors" would be better.

But coming back to the main point: just how do people know anything at all about Jesus if the gospels are full of errors?

The gospels are not "full of errors". There are errors but they are not so many that you can consider the gospels full of errors. We know enough of Jesus' teachings because scholars and paleographers are generally able to tell what the obvious errors are and what are PROBABLY errors. They're all known and even I can tell you which are correct and which not.

[Joykins]

We don't actually have the text of how he made converts. One assumes, based on contemporary standards and lack of documentation, it may have been primarily oral, just like the early gospel traditions.

Oh, so he saved the best stuff for oral means, but only choose to write the weaker stuff down??

Well, yeah. Many pastors do. The writings of Paul we have are letters to already-existing congregations in specific locations. With people in them that he knows. He also says things like "give my regards to Phoebe," and "throw out that idiot who's screwing his stepmother" and "tell those 2 contentious women to shut up during church."

I assume you're going to say the texts in Acts don't count, but that's what I have and some of them are mentioned there :dunno: The epistles were writing to already-established congregations. Paul did not have to retell the stories to people who already knew them.

Did Paul write Acts? (rhetorical question) If not, then clearly Acts doesn't count as what Paul wrote.

Acts counts as evidence of what people thought Paul said and preached. Given the date-range in which Acts is written, it certainly is possible that there were those in the community who still remembered Paul.

Again, we aren't talking about "retelling" the story, we are talking about, in all the pages he wrote, passingly mentioning some of the more striking details. He didn't do that.

So you write off the Last Supper and resurrection, some of the central points of Christianity, as "minor details"?

Secondly, what evidence do we have AT ALL that these congregations already knew the stories of Jesus found in the gospels, or even a lot of them? There is absolutely no reason to believe, or even suspect, that is true.

This is not evidence that they weren't being communicated and developed; just that Paul didn't re-invent Q or the stories in Mark in his letters. The dates usually given for Mark indicate the story was written down (with previous oral transmission) in the decade around the time of Paul's death.

Probably they were developing at the same time. However, the resurrection IS in (undebated) Paul, as is the Last Supper. So it's not like there are none.

So in all of the information in the four gospels, only TWO small details come to your mind that Paul spoke of? That bolsters my case, that doesn't hurt it!

The resurrection and the Last Supper are minor details?? Ok, WTF?

So the Last Supper is important enough to mention, but his claims to divinity in John, his myriad miracles, his prophecy fulfillments, his arrest and trial, and most importantly THE MAJORITY OF HIS TEACHINGS weren't relevant to mention?? If that works for you, I suppose there is nothing that could ever be said.

Why would Paul not writing letters about things other people were already working on provide lack of evidence of--what were we arguing lack of evidence of? I forgot.

[Joykins]

So rather than actually address the evidence I present that Paul wasn't being truthful about his past, you simply state "I'm not buying it." Why??

All Cretans are liars?


Wow, what a challenging debate you've provided me here. I think I'm going to have to spend the next few hours mentally recovering because it was so grueling dealing with your devestating arguments.

You've presented some interesting, speculative theories proposed by scholars but none of them are theories that PAUL WAS GENTILE. That appears to be your own invention.

[Ray Moscow]

The gospels are not "full of errors". There are errors but they are not so many that you can consider the gospels full of errors. We know enough of Jesus' teachings because scholars and paleographers are generally able to tell what the obvious errors are and what are PROBABLY errors. They're all known and even I can tell you which are correct and which not.

Again, how can you know 1) how many errors there are and 2) how to tell what is an error and what is not?

There seems to be little consensus among scholars on these points, much less among laypeople. I think your discernment in this is probably imaginary.

[Joykins]

Isn't that sort of dangerously close to "what I would have done if I were Paul."

It's sort of dangerously close to "anybody with half a brain would include such incredible information if they were trying to convert people."

The epistles were not trying to convert people. They were addressed to actual people who had already been converted.


Where on earth did I claim Paul was a Sadducee??? I simply point out that Paul's claim of being a Pharisee who persecuted nazarenes doesn't represent reality since the Sadducees had that role. That isn't saying he's a Sadducee, that's saying he's probably lying!

Or that he was a former Sadducee on the down-low. I retract that you claimed it; I must have inferred it from skimming that link.


So where is the evidence that he was accepted as Jewish by the apostles? Oh yeah, biblical claims, the very thing in question in this forum.

Are you going to argue that the Biblical claims did not come from apostolic tradition and weren't that far separated from within living memory of Paul?




You are putting a lot of stock into something I have said I would concede since the first time you pointed it out! Again, for the fifth time, I wil concede he is a Hellenistic jew because it doesn't AT ALL change the general thrust of my argument to Lisa that originally started this because he isn't a traditional Jew and can't represent the average Jew. So if I concede with "what [you] disagreed with," for the sake of argument, why are you still beating this dead horse to death? I concede, I concede, I concede... Can you now stop acting like a broken record?

Yes, but I thought this discussion was kind of interesting.

[Tod]

All Cretans are liars?

What the devil are you talking about? I said that the fact that he lied about the second claim (being a Pharisee) cast doubt on the first claim (he was a Jew), especially since there is 1. no supporting evidence 2. Greek was his primary language 3. he has strong motivation to lie to help his cause.

You've presented some interesting, speculative theories proposed by scholars but none of them are theories that PAUL WAS GENTILE. That appears to be your own invention.

A bit beyond "speculative" since there is evidence to support it. Furthermore, I've produced more than just "speculative theories proposed by scholars," I've presented, repeatedly and ad nausem, reasons to doubt Paul's claim that he was who he said he was. To date, you haven't addressed those reasons. I didn't just arbitrarily state I thought he was a Gentile: I explained exactly why.

My own invention? Why is it then, when I put "paul was a gentile" (quotations included) into google 38 webpages come up? These two claim Paul was a gentile:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tx5qrKz6dRMC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=%22paul+was+a+gentile%22&source=bl&ots=Eg-Az9qNv3&sig=qgR1cETF4VqqSbev_Qe7snb4vXg&hl=en&ei=cXC1SfimFJrIM5TM6esE&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA118,M1

http://newgenesis.org/studies/paul/17%20Paul%20the%20Legend.pdf

I'd also turn your attention to Galations 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (emphasis added)

Who is this "we" he speaks of? It seems as if we have contradictory claims from Paul about whether he is a gentile or a Jew. Maybe, since you won't address the other pieces of evidence I've given you, you'll actually address this one, or did I just make up that Bible verse like I made up (according to you) reasons to believe Paul was a gentile?

[Tod]

The epistles were not trying to convert people. They were addressed to actual people who had already been converted.

Let me get this straight before I waste my time blowing that out of the water: your claim is that there is nothing in the epistles that provide reasons to believe at all? It doesn't have to be attempted conversion of the nonbelievers; even believers offer other believers reasons to believe, and THAT is what I'm talking about (and I think you know that).

Be that as it may, converting people aren't the only issue. You yourself said that Paul focused on ethical concerns, and again I ask you: why would somebody concerned with teach ethics Jesus-style not include 99% of the ethical teachings Jesus gave, including the sermon on the mount?

Or that he was a former Sadducee on the down-low. I retract that you claimed it; I must have inferred it from skimming that link.

Huh? What reason would we have to believe he was "a former Sadducee on the down-low"?

Are you going to argue that the Biblical claims did not come from apostolic tradition and weren't that far separated from within living memory of Paul?

I'm arguing that the veracity of ANY of the books of the Bible can't be taken at face value without corroborating evidence. I don't believe that most of the NT comes from apostolic tradition, as there is no evidence of this, and if you are claiming that, you'd better have some evidence or that will be a wildly unsubstantiated claim.

Also, since the apostles didn't write anything down, we have no idea if the NT carries on their traditions. Obviously Paul wasn't concerned with whether or not the Jerusalem Church would read his epistles to even see if he was correctly representing them. For one because the apostles most likely couldn't even read Greek, and two, Paul lying about being a Pharisee shows he wasn't worried about the apostles double-checking his work. If they had, they would have busted him out cold because they would have known that the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, were the persecutors of the Nazarenes.

Not to mention that Paul's numerous clashes with the Jeruselem Church shows he wasn't concerned with consistency with the Jeruselem Church.

[Lisa0315]

All Cretans are liars?

What the devil are you talking about? I said that the fact that he lied about the second claim (being a Pharisee) cast doubt on the first claim (he was a Jew), especially since there is 1. no supporting evidence 2. Greek was his primary language 3. he has strong motivation to lie to help his cause.

You've presented some interesting, speculative theories proposed by scholars but none of them are theories that PAUL WAS GENTILE. That appears to be your own invention.

A bit beyond "speculative" since there is evidence to support it. Furthermore, I've produced more than just "speculative theories proposed by scholars," I've presented, repeatedly and ad nausem, reasons to doubt Paul's claim that he was who he said he was. To date, you haven't addressed those reasons. I didn't just arbitrarily state I thought he was a Gentile: I explained exactly why.

My own invention? Why is it then, when I put "paul was a gentile" (quotations included) into google 38 webpages come up? These two claim Paul was a gentile:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tx5qrKz6dRMC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=%22paul+was+a+gentile%22&source=bl&ots=Eg-Az9qNv3&sig=qgR1cETF4VqqSbev_Qe7snb4vXg&hl=en&ei=cXC1SfimFJrIM5TM6esE&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA118,M1

http://newgenesis.org/studies/paul/17%20Paul%20the%20Legend.pdf

I'd also turn your attention to Galations 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. (emphasis added)

Who is this "we" he speaks of? It seems as if we have contradictory claims from Paul about whether he is a gentile or a Jew. Maybe, since you won't address the other pieces of evidence I've given you, you'll actually address this one, or did I just make up that Bible verse like I made up (according to you) reasons to believe Paul was a gentile?

Are you purposefully being dense about this? If Paul was a Pharissee AND a Roman citizen, he was Jewish first, but could call himself Gentile, and that would also be correct. Further, Paul said that he would become Jew to the Jew, and Gentile to the Gentile.

Most of your arguments are just like this. You find a word and think, "Aha!"

Uhm, no. Try again.

Lisa

[DMB]

The thesis of the Maccoby book that Ray Moscow brought up is that Christianity started out as a Jewish cult led by James, the brother of Jesus. It was then hijacked by Paul to become a completely different cult for gentiles and as a result there was a schism. What we have now is Paulinity rather than Christianity.

[Tod]

Acts counts as evidence of what people thought Paul said and preached. Given the date-range in which Acts is written, it certainly is possible that there were those in the community who still remembered Paul.

So at best, we have what people THOUGHT Paul might have said. The point is what PAUL said, and clearly Acts doesn't act as an example of what Paul said.

So you write off the Last Supper and resurrection, some of the central points of Christianity, as "minor details"?

First of all I said "small details," if you're going to quote me. Secondly, yes, that is but a VERY small fraction of the "central points" of Christianity. I would think the sermon on the mount and the rest of his ethical teachings would be more "central points of Christianity," nevermind that he's GOD and all (you'd think that would be the MOST central thing, and Paul doesn't claim that), but Christians do seem far more fixated on his death than his ethical teachings, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised it was always that way.

The point is, and still stands, that even peripherally we would expect more than these TWO points to be mentioned considering the wealth of information the gospels ULTIMATELY contained about Jesus if all that information was around at the time.

This is not evidence that they weren't being communicated and developed; just that Paul didn't re-invent Q or the stories in Mark in his letters.

There's no evidence they were either, and if you say they were, you are expected to support that with evidence. Again, we aren't talking about "reinvent" anything, we are talking about about how likely it is that he wouldn't passingly mention more about Jesus' life, teachings, and works.

[I] The dates usually given for Mark indicate the story was written down (with previous oral transmission) in the decade around the time of Paul's death.

The dates usually given to the fragments of Mark that have been found date to just before 70 CE; we have no evidence at all that Mark was complete by then (and we have strong evidence that chapter 16 was a later interpolation he didn't even write).

Furthermore, the fact that the story was written around Paul's death doesn't mean the story comes from a tradition Paul would be familiar with! If most of Jesus' life is fictious, then the author of Mark was simply creating a story from thin air, adding what little he did know along the way. How would that be evidence that Paul was aware of the story? That is only evidence, if we grant everthing at face value, that the story in Mark was written around Paul's death. How does that indicate he knew the details of the story.


The resurrection and the Last Supper are minor details?? Ok, WTF?

The Last Supper in particularly is "minor" compared to: He's god, his teachings, or even his virgin birth. Again, that still is but a very small fraction of the information provided about Jesus

Why would Paul not writing letters about things other people were already working on provide lack of evidence of--what were we arguing lack of evidence of? I forgot.

How on earth do you reason that?

Considering that Paul's writings and the beginning of the authorship of Mark are at least 15 to 25 years apart (with Paul writing first), it seems quite unlikely that anybody was working on the story in Mark when Paul was writing. There's no evidence of that, and there's less evidence that Paul would have known somebody was "already working" on the story of Jesus. Evidence for either claim, perhaps??

Furthermore, considering that as Paul wrote there was no story of Jesus in writing, you'd think just the opposite of what you've been claiming would be true: that Paul WOULD be inclined to include at least some of the miracle stories, prophecy fulfillments, and, oh yeah, at least a lot, if not all, of Jesus' ethical teachings. It makes no sense whatsoever that he would leave out all of this when there was none of it around in writing.

[Tod]

Are you purposefully being dense about this? If Paul was a Pharissee AND a Roman citizen, he was Jewish first, but could call himself Gentile, and that would also be correct. Further, Paul said that he would become Jew to the Jew, and Gentile to the Gentile.

I'm being dense?? So basically, you're now arguing that he can be called both a Jew and a gentile; so why are you all up in arms that I called him a gentile if you now argue that it can "also be correct" to call him a gentile?

Secondly, where is your supporting evidence that he could correctly call himself Jew or Gentile by either Roman or Jewish tradition?

Most of your arguments are just like this. You find a word and think, "Aha!"

Uhm, no. Try again.

Me try again? Most of my arguments have been based on "a word"?? I don't think you've been reading my posts.

Furthermore, I've obviously succeeded, considering this is the FIRST piece of evidence for Paul being a gentile I've presented that you've addressed, and the way you addressed it was by arguing (without support) that he can be rightly called a Jew or a Gentile, meaning your original beef was unfounded by your own argument!

[Lisa0315]

Are you purposefully being dense about this? If Paul was a Pharissee AND a Roman citizen, he was Jewish first, but could call himself Gentile, and that would also be correct. Further, Paul said that he would become Jew to the Jew, and Gentile to the Gentile.

I'm being dense?? So basically, you're now arguing that he can be called both a Jew and a gentile; so why are you all up in arms that I called him a gentile if you now argue that it can "also be correct" to call him a gentile?

Secondly, where is your supporting evidence that he could correctly call himself Jew or Gentile by either Roman or Jewish tradition?

Most of your arguments are just like this. You find a word and think, "Aha!"

Uhm, no. Try again.

Me try again? Most of my arguments have been based on "a word"?? I don't think you've been reading my posts.

Furthermore, I've obviously succeeded, considering this is the FIRST piece of evidence for Paul being a gentile I've presented that you've addressed, and the way you addressed it was by arguing (without support) that he can be rightly called a Jew or a Gentile, meaning your original beef was unfounded by your own argument!

Paul was a Jew. He was a Roman Citizan. He could not be a Pharissee unless he was a Jew. He could not demand to try his case in Rome if he were not a Roman. Thus, he was both. It neither takes away or diminishes his Jewish heritage, nor does it lessen his authority. His authority was not from man anyway, but from God.

Lisa

[Joykins]

The Last Supper in particularly is "minor" compared to: He's god, his teachings, or even his virgin birth. Again, that still is but a very small fraction of the information provided about Jesus

The virgin birth is not in Mark, either. Nor are the specific divinity claims unambiguous. Kind of like Paul's ("being in very nature God" from Philippians). But this is why Arius and Athanasius's arguments emerged later.

The Last Supper in particularly is "minor" compared to: He's god, his teachings, or even his virgin birth. Again, that still is but a very small fraction of the information provided about Jesus

Right, not just through Paul but *contemporaneously* with him these stories were being circulated and eventually written down.

One of those links described Paul as being affiliated with the Saducees as some sort of henchman. If this were the case and Paul had Saducee beliefs prior to conversion, then it would make sense that he wouldn't make claim to fulfilled prophecies because Saducees did not believe the Prophets were scripture (only the Law). The Law is and was Paul's obsession; he can't resist the rule-making yet he resists it also. Fun stuff.

As for the Last Supper, if you read some scholars of early Christianity, the eucharist was a prominent and important aspect of worship and many Jesus scholars think it does date back to Jesus himself and the meals he traditionally ate with his followers. It still is an absolutely a central point in Christianity today, or why would people fear excommunication?

I'm not going to address these "it seems unlikely" or "don't you think he would have" statements as they are just conjecture based on what you think Paul ought to have done or whatever.

[Tod]

The virgin birth is not in Mark, either. Nor are the specific divinity claims unambiguous. Kind of like Paul's ("being in very nature God" from Philippians). But this is why Arius and Athanasius's arguments emerged later.

I didn't say it was in Mark. I'm quite aware that the virgin birth and divinity claims aren't in Mark. Where do you get some of this stuff? It is in the gospels, however, and if the story of his virgin birth or the claim that he was divine existed in any form prior to Paul, I'd expect him to note it! What made you think I was limiting gospel material to Mark? You're the one that introduced Mark into the discussion, and I was just pointing out that even Mark wasn't written when Paul wrote.

What does any of this have to do with why Paul didn't mention these very important things?

One of those links described Paul as being affiliated with the Saducees as some sort of henchman. If this were the case and Paul had Saducee beliefs prior to conversion, then it would make sense that he wouldn't make claim to fulfilled prophecies because Saducees did not believe the Prophets were scripture (only the Law). The Law is and was Paul's obsession; he can't resist the rule-making yet he resists it also. Fun stuff.


Nobody is saying Paul was a Saducee. What is being said is that Paul's claim to have been a Pharisee who persecuted Nazarenes cannot be true because it was the Saducees that persecuted the Nazarenes. That doesn't mean that Paul was a Saducee: it means only that he didn't have his facts straight (something we'd expect if he was a Pharisee), and he probably made it up!

As for the Last Supper, if you read some scholars of early Christianity, the eucharist was a prominent and important aspect of worship and many Jesus scholars think it does date back to Jesus himself and the meals he traditionally ate with his followers. It still is an absolutely a central point in Christianity today, or why would people fear excommunication?

I'm not saying it isn't an important component; I'm arguing that it isn't as important as his ethical teachings or his divinity! If the Last Supper and Jesus' resurrection is more important than his ethical teachings, than the whole religion is just a sham for selfish people more concerned with eternal salvation than being ethical! Oh yeah, and Paul forgot to mention HE'S GOD and all! Must have just slipped his mind, right?

I'm not going to address these "it seems unlikely" or "don't you think he would have" statements as they are just conjecture based on what you think Paul ought to have done or whatever.

More like "what Paul would have likely done had the gospel stories existed when he wrote," not what "Paul ought to have done or whatever."

[Tod]

Further, Paul said that he would become Jew to the Jew, and Gentile to the Gentile.

I can't believe I let this one slip by. Do you realize that you are citing a verse that demonstrates that Paul would say anything he thought would better help his cause? He's all but admitting he'll be whatever his audience needs him to be to better get his agenda accomplished.

And you two find it completely out of the question that Paul would have lied about his origins? Once again, fascinating...

[hecaterin]

You might want to check with some of your co-religionists (whoever they are) on that. Most Christians I know believe that the gospels are accurate accounts of what Jesus said and did.And most Christians I know don't. They think the gospels are records of older oral traditions, that have had some historical garbling, but are in general in the right vein. Certainly they are not definitively historically accurate. They even clash with each other, so how could they be?

Likewise, when Lisa said she was explaining what "Christians" think about the apocalyptic prophesies, coming armageddon, the centrality of the middle east, Bush's war etc etc, I say "No!". That isn't what "Christians" think. That is what some of the weirder American sects of Christians think. It's not even mainstream Catholic or Protestant.

There is no central set of things that Christians think. There are thousands of varieties. My set of Christian acquaintance is nice and liberal and love the gays and the women ministers and all that; others here seem to know mostly fundies and literalists. (You have my sympathies.)

BTW, may I point out something obvious? Any prophesies that Lisa says "are yet to be fulfilled" go by definition into the "unfulfilled" basket.

[Garnet]

Well, most Christians I know in real life share Lisa's beliefs.

I think it's a regional thing. Most of the Christians that I know in real life are in either Oklahoma or Alabama.

Here in Michigan, I generally don't have any idea what someone's beliefs are until I get to know them fairly well. Beliefs here are generally not a subject of casual conversation. Where as in Oklahoma or Alabama, I can hardly go an hour in any public venue without being made aware of the Christians in the place.

Eh. Derail. Maybe I should start another thread.

[Lisa0315]

Catholics and Baptists believe what I have written. Catholics differ on when some of the events occur. They are not pre-tribbers, and in fact, if they are nailed down, are mid-tribbers. Caths generally do not take a stance on "when" so much as "what".

My point is that it is not just crazy people in the South who believe thse things.

It is by far the most traditonal interpretation.

Lisa

[hecaterin]

The messianic prophesies, maybe so, I don't know one way or the other. It's in Handel and Bach, but that proves little. But definitely not the stuff about armageddon and the rest of the middle east action in the "latter days". That whole thing sprung up in the late 1800s US, iirc.

[Joykins]

Further, Paul said that he would become Jew to the Jew, and Gentile to the Gentile.

I can't believe I let this one slip by. Do you realize that you are citing a verse that demonstrates that Paul would say anything he thought would better help his cause? He's all but admitting he'll be whatever his audience needs him to be to better get his agenda accomplished.

And you two find it completely out of the question that Paul would have lied about his origins? Once again, fascinating...

Paul says he disregards cultural, ethnic, gender , and even master/slave distinctions to get his point across and because that is how God regards people.

It is not a confession of being a liar.

[Joykins]

And to summarize my point so far and add more:

Possible reasons Paul didn't tell many gospel stories in his epistles:

* he wasn't writing gospels, he was writing letters to already-existing churches populated by people he already knew, laying out his theology as well as specific instructions. Paul's special interest was theology and law, and perhaps not so much spiritual biography.

* there were other people in the early church who (also) transmitted the traditions that were written down in the earliest canonical gospel very shortly after Paul's death. This means that Paul didn't have to do everything.

* Paul may have told more gospel stories in his preaching than he did in his epistles. We don't really know.

* There were other missionaries/teachers in the early church, such as Apollos and various apostles. There were apparently conflicts between Apollos's followers and Paul's, so we know the followers of each were in communication. Because information was flowing between the disciples of these different teachers, one person didn't have to write both epistles and gospels.

* Paul was accepted as an apostle by the other apostles and present at the council in Jerusalem. His rebuke of Peter is chronicled both in Acts and Paul's own letters. This implies that he wasn't teaching something terribly out of line with the other movements in the early church.

* Paul's obsession with theology and lack of emphasis on the gospel stories and teachings are shared by many Christians today. Obviously it's an easy place to fall into.

[Lisa0315]

The messianic prophesies, maybe so, I don't know one way or the other. It's in Handel and Bach, but that proves little. But definitely not the stuff about armageddon and the rest of the middle east action in the "latter days". That whole thing sprung up in the late 1800s US, iirc.

Uhm, no PRE-TRIB sprang up in the 1800's, but the latter days have ALWAYS been a part of church doctrine. As I said, Catholics lean towards mid-trib for the rapture, but they prefer to simply not say one way or the other. There has been no "from the chair" directive on that as far as I know.

Lisa

[Ray Moscow]

And to summarize my point so far and add more:

Possible reasons Paul didn't tell many gospel stories in his epistles:

* he wasn't writing gospels, he was writing letters to already-existing churches populated by people he already knew, laying out his theology as well as specific instructions. Paul's special interest was theology and law, and perhaps not so much spiritual biography.

* there were other people in the early church who (also) transmitted the traditions that were written down in the earliest canonical gospel very shortly after Paul's death. This means that Paul didn't have to do everything.

* Paul may have told more gospel stories in his preaching than he did in his epistles. We don't really know.

* There were other missionaries/teachers in the early church, such as Apollos and various apostles. There were apparently conflicts between Apollos's followers and Paul's, so we know the followers of each were in communication. Because information was flowing between the disciples of these different teachers, one person didn't have to write both epistles and gospels.

* Paul was accepted as an apostle by the other apostles and present at the council in Jerusalem. His rebuke of Peter is chronicled both in Acts and Paul's own letters. This implies that he wasn't teaching something terribly out of line with the other movements in the early church.

* Paul's obsession with theology and lack of emphasis on the gospel stories and teachings are shared by many Christians today. Obviously it's an easy place to fall into.

As Morton Kelsey used to say, Paul never read the gospels, and he never met Jesus -- and sometimes it shows.

[hecaterin]

Uhm, no PRE-TRIB sprang up in the 1800's, but the latter days have ALWAYS been a part of church doctrine. As I said, Catholics lean towards mid-trib for the rapture, but they prefer to simply not say one way or the other. There has been no "from the chair" directive on that as far as I know.Oh, come on, the whole "rapture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture)" thing was invented recently: it only dates from the 19th century; it's rarely seen outside the US.

Yeah, Catholics & mainstream protestants have this idea about a second coming of JC for judgement day, but in no way are they expecting revelations to be literally worked through. (If such a book can be literal.) They are not "mid-trib" or "pre-trib", they are "no-trib". "Rapture" is NOT mainstream christian doctrine.

[Lisa0315]

Oh, come on, the whole "rapture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture)" thing was invented recently: it only dates from the 19th century; it's rarely seen outside the US.

Yeah, Catholics & mainstream protestants have this idea about a second coming of JC for judgement day, but in no way are they expecting revelations to be literally worked through. (If such a book can be literal.) They are not "mid-trib" or "pre-trib", they are "no-trib". "Rapture" is NOT mainstream christian doctrine.

If Catholics, Orthodox, and Baptists believe it, I would call it pretty mainstream and worldwide, as well, as taught from the beginning.

Would you like me to provide sources or will you take my word for it? Prolly not. Hold on.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200177.htm

[Lisa0315]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08552a.htm

[Lisa0315]

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/dan012.htm

[Lisa0315]

Same as Baptist...70 * 70 or 490 years.

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/dan009.htm

[Lisa0315]

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230408.htm

Note that Catholics link this with prophecies from Isaiah and Jeremiah.

[Lisa0315]

So, this is but a trickle of the doctrine out there from MAINSTREAM Christianity. I have not even touched on Eastern Orthodox which is but Catholicism without the Pope.

Lutherans also believe similar to Baptists, Catholics, and Orthodox. Old Methodists do as well. I would guess that Weslyans and others agree. The timing of the rapture, judgment, number of judgments, and the rest have been disputed, but never that they will occur.

If y'all think that tribulation, anti-christ, end of days, Day of the Lord, and the prophets are not mainstream Christianity, you are way misinformed.

Lisa

[Tod]

Paul says he disregards cultural, ethnic, gender , and even master/slave distinctions to get his point across and because that is how God regards people.

It is not a confession of being a liar.

Paul "says" that, or you are interpreting it that way, because clearly Paul "says" no such thing in that passage?

He didn't speak to his thinking, he spoke to his being: to how he presented himself. You show me, with an actual quotation from I corinthians 9, where he is speaking to antidiscrimination, even in the language of the NT.

I have this little thing called "the text" on my side, because it clearly states that "I made myself" or "I became" or some clear reference to being not thinking, depending on what translation you use. There is absolutely NO language that indicates he means to speak to a lack of discrimination. I love how he qualifies after saying that he acts as if he is bound by the Old Law when around Jews by saying "(though I myself am not under the law)." (vs. 20)

So if you act bound by the law but you really don't believe you are, how on earth is that not deceptive on at least SOME level?

I really get a kick out of your rationalizations, Joykins. Here's the full text, for those too lazy to check it out:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law [the old Law, the Torah for those unfamiliar] I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law [gentiles for the unfamiliar] I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I become weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gosple, so that I may share in its blessings. (I Cor. 9:20-23)

[Lisa0315]

Paul "says" that, or you are interpreting it that way, because clearly Paul "says" no such thing in that passage?

He didn't speak to his thinking, he spoke to his being: to how he presented himself. You show me, with an actual quotation from I corinthians 9, where he is speaking to antidiscrimination, even in the language of the NT.

I have this little thing called "the text" on my side, because it clearly states that "I made myself" or "I became" or some clear reference to being not thinking, depending on what translation you use. There is absolutely NO language that indicates he means to speak to a lack of discrimination. I love how he qualifies after saying that he acts as if he is bound by the Old Law when around Jews by saying "(though I myself am not under the law)." (vs. 20)

So if you act bound by the law but you really don't believe you are, how on earth is that not deceptive on at least SOME level?

I really get a kick out of your rationalizations, Joykins. Here's the full text, for those too lazy to check it out:

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law [the old Law, the Torah for those unfamiliar] I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law [gentiles for the unfamiliar] I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I become weak, so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that I might by all means save some. I do it all for the sake of the gosple, so that I may share in its blessings. (I Cor. 9:20-23)

Joykins will surely have a better answer than I can give. Being under the law was formerly a distinction between Jew and Gentile. However, after Christ, those who are born again, are not under the law. That means that they can eat, drink, whatever according to their own conscience. There are no forbidden foods, clothing, etc. What is warned against though is doing something that may offend a brother or sister who is weaker than you. So, if you are in the presence of a young Christian who also happens to be Jewish, it may be a bad idea to eat a bacon sandwich in front of them.

So, Christians whether by heritage were Jew or Gentile were not under the law. Yet, some Jewish Christians kept the law even though it was no longer necessary. Some even taught that the Gentiles needed to convert to Judaism before they could truly be Christians. Paul put this down as heresy.

The law of Christ opposed to the law of Moses opposed to the law of God. The Law of Christ and God are the same. These are Love the Lord Thy God and Love Thy Neighbor. All other laws hinge on these two. The laws of Moses, were for the Jews only, and were to keep the people pure. This included dietary, divorce, clothing, and a bunch of other stuff.

As Jesus says in regards to divorce: It was not so from the beginning.

Things like murder will always be sin. That is the law of God because one cannot love God and love others by doing this. Things like wearing certain kinds of clothes have nothing to do with loving God.

The Mosaic law is what the Jews were freed from because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. No more blood was required. Jesus did it all.

Lisa

[Tod]

Possible reasons Paul didn't tell many gospel stories in his epistles:

* he wasn't writing gospels, he was writing letters to already-existing churches populated by people he already knew, laying out his theology as well as specific instructions. Paul's special interest was theology and law, and perhaps not so much spiritual biography.

Yet he leaves out almost all of Jesus' ethical teachings and doesn't mention he's God. Not much of a concern with "theology and law" if he didn't even refer to Jesus as God or teach his "laws" such as the sermon on the mount.

* there were other people in the early church who (also) transmitted the traditions that were written down in the earliest canonical gospel very shortly after Paul's death. This means that Paul didn't have to do everything.

As already pointed out, even the earliest gospel of Mark wasn't written until at least 15 or 20 years after Paul wrote at the earliest. How would Paul be aware that a gospel was being written that wouldn't exist until about two or more decades later? There was no written gospel at Paul's writings, so why wouldn't Paul mention at least the highlights of Jesus' life?

If you have evidence that the gospel material was being written when Paul wrote, by all means share it, as biblical scholars can't seem to find it.

* Paul may have told more gospel stories in his preaching than he did in his epistles. We don't really know.

"May" have, but you have no reason whatsoever to believe he did.

* There were other missionaries/teachers in the early church, such as Apollos and various apostles. There were apparently conflicts between Apollos's followers and Paul's, so we know the followers of each were in communication. Because information was flowing between the disciples of these different teachers, one person didn't have to write both epistles and gospels.

And as far as you know, nobody was writing gospels when Paul was writing, as pointed out numerous times now.

* Paul was accepted as an apostle by the other apostles and present at the council in Jerusalem. His rebuke of Peter is chronicled both in Acts and Paul's own letters. This implies that he wasn't teaching something terribly out of line with the other movements in the early church.


LOL You're kidding right? Are you unaware of the conflicts Paul had with the Jerusalem church? Why was Paul on the defensive in some of his epistles, e.g. both Corinthians and Galatians, about his authority to preach Jesus' message? Are you unaware that Paul split from the Jerusalem church? Are you aware that the Jerusalem Church accused him of preaching that even Jews no longer had to follow the old Law, and that rather than being honest and admitting it was so, Paul underwent a test to prove his observance to the Torah, even though Paul didn't believe he was bound by the Torah (yet another example of Paul being deceptive)? Then you have James vs Paul's idea on whether faith or works is the key to salvation. To act as if Paul was consistent with the Jerusalem Church, is ridiculous. Paul admits in Galatians 1:11-17 that his "gospel" wasn't taught to him by other humans, but came directly from Jesus himself. How could he be consistently preaching the early Churches message if he wasn't preaching their teachings but his own?

* Paul's obsession with theology and lack of emphasis on the gospel stories and teachings are shared by many Christians today. Obviously it's an easy place to fall into.

So obsessed with theology he didn't even note that Jesus was God.

[Tod]

Joykins will surely have a better answer than I can give.


So far, I'd say you both give arguments of equal substance and logic; don't sell yourself short!

Being under the law was formerly a distinction between Jew and Gentile. However, after Christ, those who are born again, are not under the law. That means that they can eat, drink, whatever according to their own conscience. There are no forbidden foods, clothing, etc.

Did I somehow give the impression that my knowledge of the Bible and Christianity is so poor that I didn't know what being "under the law" means? I'm pretty sure that the context of my last post showed that I know the difference. Please save Christianity 101 for those who haven't spent the last 25 years studying it.

What is warned against though is doing something that may offend a brother or sister who is weaker than you. So, if you are in the presence of a young Christian who also happens to be Jewish, it may be a bad idea to eat a bacon sandwich in front of them.

So you don't see a distinction between respecting somebody's beliefs and acting as if you share them?? Let me explain the difference: one is a nice gesture, the other is deceptive.

So, Christians whether by heritage were Jew or Gentile were not under the law. Yet, some Jewish Christians kept the law even though it was no longer necessary.

LOL, "some" kept the law?? You mean ALL Christians of the Jerusalem Church?? As I pointed out, the Jerusalem Church elders, led by James, called Paul out on teaching that Christian Jews didn't have to abide by the Old Law. Did Paul say "I thought we believed that Christians didn't have to follow the old law" or "you guys said we didn't have to follow the Old Law" or "Jesus said we didn't have to follow the Old Law"?

NO... what did he do instead? He deceptively took a test to demonstrate his loyalty to the Old Law! He didn't call THEM out on it and point out that Jewish Christians don't have to follow the Old Law. They even blatantly gave him an opportunity to address his own opinion that he wasn't bound by the Old Law by going so far as to say:

So this is what we suggest that you should do; we have four men here who are under a vow; take these men along and be purified with them and pay all the expenses connected with the shaving of their heads. This will let everyone know there is no truth in the reports they have heard about you, and that you too observe the Law by your way of life. (Acts 21:23-24, emphasis added)

Notice that the apostles said "this will let EVERYONE know," (emphasis added). So apparently, "everyone" in the Jerusalem Church still observed the Old Law. Notice too that they said "this will let everyone know there is NO TRUTH in the reports they've heard about you." (emphasis added) By going along with them, he gave them impression there was "no truth" to the reports about him, but the reports WERE true! Yet more deceptive acts by Paul.

What did Paul do? Again, did he argue Christian theology and stand by his belief that Christians, Jewish or gentile, aren't bound by the Old Law? No, he did exactly what they asked of him! Apparently, Paul KNEW that standard Christian doctrine wasn't that Christians were no longer bound by the Old Law, so he silently and dishonestly went along with a plan designed to demonstrate his fidelity to the Old Law:

So the next day Paul took the men along and was purified with them, and he visited the Temple to give notice of the time when the period of purification would be over and the offering would have to be presented on behalf of each of them. (v. 26)

[Deleted condescending lesson on Jewish Law]

The Mosaic law is what the Jews were freed from because of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. No more blood was required. Jesus did it all.

Yet the Jerusalem Church, including its leader James, didn't agree that Christ freed the Jews from the Mosaic Law, and chastised Paul for teaching such, ending with a recommendation that he prove his loyalty to the law, which Paul misleadingly did without argument or question.

As an aside, I always get a kick out of Matthew 5:17: Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. In truth I tell you, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, is to disappear from the Law until all its purpose is achieved.

Well, the earth is still here, so by Jesus' own words the Mosaic law is still in effect. Spare examples of Jesus modifying the law: his apostles picking food on the sabbath, marriage, etc., as that only points to contradictory messages. I'm very aware that Jesus modified some laws, and that some epistles of Paul claim there is no longer a need to follow the Law, so please spare me some more simplistic Bible lessons that I don't need. Debate it or don't; I don't need a Bible lesson, as I promise you I've most likely put more into studying the Bible as both a believer and nonbeliever than you.

[Joykins]

Uhm, no PRE-TRIB sprang up in the 1800's, but the latter days have ALWAYS been a part of church doctrine. As I said, Catholics lean towards mid-trib for the rapture, but they prefer to simply not say one way or the other. There has been no "from the chair" directive on that as far as I know.


Catholics believe in the 2nd coming and resurrection but they don't believe in the rapture as such.