For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 353
#121
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
One more point here. You said that it was "thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future," yet. Daniel 9:24 gives a period of 490 years. 

Does Daniel give a period of 490 years ....or does the passage mention 490 unspecified units?   It is the latter, yes? In translations where interpreters have provided units of time, the seventy sevens refers to weeks. How is it not a very charitable reading which undersrands years here?
Also, allow me to reiterate, given that the book of Daniel is thought to have been written in the 2nd century BC, the alleged prophecy is wrong no matter what unit of time you apply to the seventy sevens passage.

Long story short - the "prophecy' laid out in Daniel doesn't argue for belief being reasonable. 


Topic's author
#122
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
One more point here. You said that it was "thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future," yet. Daniel 9:24 gives a period of 490 years. 

Does Daniel give a period of 490 years ....or does the passage mention 490 unspecified units?   It is the latter, yes? In translations where interpreters have provided units of time, the seventy sevens refers to weeks. How is it not a very charitable reading which undersrands years here?
Not unspecified units, no. 

The understanding is weeks of years or seventy heptads. Whether that is literal or figurative can be debated.


https://mobile.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Daniel%209:24


I have seen Jewish sites also make this distinction, that it means 490 years, sites that are hostile to the Christian understanding:

(24) Seventy septets [of years] have been decreed on your people and the city of your Sanctuary [for you] to 1) make an end of transgression, 2) to atone for sin and 3) to wipe away iniquity, 4) to bring about universal justice, 5) to confirm the visions and the prophets and 6) to anoint the Most Holy Place.


Note that the "seventy septets of years" are like God telling Yisrael "I am giving you 490 years to get your act together..." − pretty much like He gave Mankind 120 years to get their act together in the time of No'aḥ (see B'réshit 6:3). We were supposed
"to make an end of transgression, to atone for sin and to wipe away iniquity, to bring about universal justice, to confirm the visions and the prophets and to anoint the Most Holy Place"
but we failed to do these things and so the King-Messiah did not come − and we were condemned to remain in exile until we succeed in doing them all.

This "Vision" is more of a Midrashic legend than anything else. It is entirely consistent with the "traditional" chronology of the Second Temple period that I mentioned at the start of this article, but bears little relation to historical reality. It is certainly true that Cyrus, the "messiah-ruler" that the prophet
Y'shayahu referred to (Y'shayahu 45:1), took control of the Babylonian Empire (and hence also of the Y'hudi exiles) "seven septets" after the destruction of the First Temple... in round numbers, because it was actually only 47 years, two years short of the "seven septets", from 586BCE to 539BCE; but only in the mythological "traditional" chronology will you find sixty-two "septets" (434 years) from then until the destruction of the Second Temple − it was actually more than 600 years from 539BCE until 68CE.




So whether you take the time period as a literal 490 years, or a figurative period of time (or rounded number), the six conditions listed still have to take place before the prophecy is fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. 







Topic's author
#123
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted

"Anyone can take a verse from a context, isolate it, and give the impression that is the entire argument. Why don't you read the rest of the context (i.e., Post # 114)?"

"I never said that. I said that those who are not regenerated (born again) have a nature that is hostile to God. They will not submit to who He is, to what He says. Instead, they rebel and live their own way. Thus, all the crime, greed, sin in the world.(post 91)"


All men are sinners, all godists are sinners therefore billions of godists committing multi billions of sins everyday defeats the fantasy you are projecting.

Yes, all men (except Jesus) are sinners. Thus they will have to appear before a pure and holy God for their actions. That is the biblical teaching. The difference between NT believers of Jesus and others is that Jesus has lived that perfect life on account of the believer, and Jesus has paid their penalty for wrongful action. The jury is out; either you are justified by Jesus or you will justify your own actions. Do you want to justify your own actions before God?  

No, it does not defeat the teaching. How does it do that?

Do you understand the difference between a religion that men make up and a religious belief that God initiates? It is the difference between the real and the counterfeit, between light and darkness, between day and night, between man-made gods and the true and living God. 



#124
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you understand the difference between a religion that men make up and a religious belief that God initiates? It is the difference between the real and the counterfeit, between light and darkness, between day and night, between man-made gods and the true and living God. 
Stop pretending like you know squat. You're spiritually a dunce if you can't answer simple questions, which by the looks of it, are conceding at this point. 
Topic's author
#125
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
One more point here. You said that it was "thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future," yet. Daniel 9:24 gives a period of 490 years. 

Does Daniel give a period of 490 years ....or does the passage mention 490 unspecified units?   It is the latter, yes? In translations where interpreters have provided units of time, the seventy sevens refers to weeks. How is it not a very charitable reading which undersrands years here?
Also, allow me to reiterate, given that the book of Daniel is thought to have been written in the 2nd century BC, the alleged prophecy is wrong no matter what unit of time you apply to the seventy sevens passage.

Long story short - the "prophecy' laid out in Daniel doesn't argue for belief being reasonable. 

Who thinks the book is written in the 2nd-century?

Even if the book was written in the 2nd-century, which goes against the Jewish teaching and large Christian belief, that does not necessarily discount the prophecy, if the timeframe is a figurative time frame with the six conditions meeting their fulfillment plus the once again destruction of the city and temple. It would still predict the destruction of the city and temple again. That happened in AD 70. When you take the whole of Daniel there are many other references to the latter or last days, the day of resurrection and the day of judgment. Daniel 9:24 is a time of judgment. Daniel 12:1 speaks of that time as being like no other that Daniel's people would ever go through again. It speaks of the completion of the judgment at that time, of all that is written and still unfulfilled to that time (Daniel 12:7).


Also, please break down your links you posted a week or so ago, so that I can address particular claims you want to make from them. 
Topic's author
#126
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Outplayz
Do you understand the difference between a religion that men make up and a religious belief that God initiates? It is the difference between the real and the counterfeit, between light and darkness, between day and night, between man-made gods and the true and living God. 
Stop pretending like you know squat. You're spiritually a dunce if you can't answer simple questions, which by the looks of it, are conceding at this point. 
Nice rebuttal! Why don't you address the charge rather than attack me personally? I know when that happens you have nothing. Your counter-argument is empty. 

#127
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Your source points out the same thing I have: 490 years is wrong (although they come at it from a different way). If prophecy is a logical reason to believe, then failed prophecy is a logical reason not to believe, no?
#128
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
My links were not an argument, but support of Daniel being written much later than accepted by some Jewish and Christian teachings.
#129
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@PGA2.0
That's funny your reply to me, which was pointing out that you haven't refuted any of my past posts/questions, is that isn't a good rebuttal. Lmfao... i'm waiting on you Johnny. You can point out why an innocuous translation wouldn't be the right translation... and, explain to me how paradise as described by the Bible is a Hell to some people including me... and answer why the Bibles prophecies are any more important than other prophecies. You have a lot to answer for... and these are just the start. 
Topic's author
#130
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your source points out the same thing I have: 490 years is wrong (although they come at it from a different way). If prophecy is a logical reason to believe, then failed prophecy is a logical reason not to believe, no?
If  Philip Mauro is right (and he had the references that seem to be hard to get hold of today), as mentioned in The Seventy Weeks
and the Great Tribulation, chapter 2, then the current Ptolmic dating system recording the Persian Empire is wrong. That changes everything. But no matter which way you look at it, the end is tied to when the city and temple are destroyed, and the six specific prophetic occurrences would have to be demonstrated to take place. One thing is reasonable to believe, these six prophecies had to take place in regards to the OT Mosaic covenant. These people are no longer in covenant relationship after AD 70 because they can't meet the requirements of that system.  

This important matter of the defective character of all existing chronologies is fully discussed, and the facts clearly set forth, in Martin Anstey's Bible Chronology, published in 1913, to which we must refer such of our readers as wish to study the matter exhaustively. Mr. Anstey's work commands our confidence and respect because he disregards all heathen sources, and all guesswork, and derives his information solely from the Scriptures.
     Concerning the dates given in Ptolemy's table of Persian Kings, Anstey says: "They rest upon calculations or guesses made by Eratosthenes, and on certain vague floating traditions, in accordance with which the period of the Persian Empire was mapped out as a period of 205 years." And he shows, by a great variety of proofs taken entirely from the Scriptures, that the period which Ptolemy assigns to the Persian Empire is about eighty years too long. It follows that all who adopt Ptolemy's chronology, or any system based upon it (as all modern chronologists prior to Anstey do) would inevitably be led far astray. It is impossible to make the real Bible-events agree, within 80 years, with the mistaken chronology of Ptolemy. This single fact makes many modern books on Daniel utterly worthless, so far as their chronology is concerned; and the chronology is the main thing.


But Don K. Preston and other Preterists make the claim that the dates don't have to be literal but can be either figurative or rounded out, which makes them not the issue. The issue is the six conditions of verse 24 that would be in effect and the destruction of the city and temple. 

Topic's author
#131
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

My links were not an argument, but support of Daniel being written much later than accepted by some Jewish and Christian teachings.
That, IMO, is not a belief of either Judaism or Christianity. It is a view taken by liberal Bible critics and it came into its own in the 17-20th centuries when rationalism and humanism became a relevant worldview of the intellectual elite.

Please list some of the support you would like me to address since I don't want to take on the whole array of articles. 

#132
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Please list some of the support you would like me to address since I don't want to take on the whole array of articles. 

The links provided were not meant for you to address. They were meant to point you to well established modern scholarship which puts the book of Daniel to a much later date than what is typically held uncritically by some conservative scholars. It was my understanding you desired this information when you suggested there was no support for such claims, seemed to doubt anyone said that, or questioned 'my evidence' in post #31.

Did I misunderstand you?

If you intend to argue modern scholarship so that you can then argue prophecy is a logical reason to believe, then might I suggest you've got one more debate than you should! ;-)

#133
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
But Don K. Preston and other Preterists make the claim that the dates don't have to be literal but can be either figurative or rounded out, which makes them not the issue. The issue is the six conditions of verse 24 that would be in effect and the destruction of the city and temple. 
I'm sorry, Peter, but the prophecy is literally called the seventy sevens, yet the seventy sevens units of time are meaningless!?  I have difficulty accepting that explanation. As to the six conditions - they seem pretty vague to me and I see no reason why they could only apply to the temple destruction in 70 AD.

Also, you make a lot of the Jewish people no longer being in a covenant relationship after 70 AD because they can no longer fulfill the requirements, but the temple destroyed in 70 AD was not the first temple to be destroyed. How do you think the Jews maintained their covenant relationship after the destruction of the first temple?

Topic's author
#134
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
But Don K. Preston and other Preterists make the claim that the dates don't have to be literal but can be either figurative or rounded out, which makes them not the issue. The issue is the six conditions of verse 24 that would be in effect and the destruction of the city and temple. 
I'm sorry, Peter, but the prophecy is literally called the seventy sevens, yet the seventy sevens units of time are meaningless!?  I have difficulty accepting that explanation. As to the six conditions - they seem pretty vague to me and I see no reason why they could only apply to the temple destruction in 70 AD.

No, the time frame is not meaningless because the six signs of its completion are still evidence of its fulfillment if it is a figurative period. But Philip Mauro, if his dates are true and Ptolemy did error on the timeframe of the Persian Empire, makes the literal time frame a reality. I'm just pointing out that it does not have to be literal to meet the timeframe because of the six signs and the destruction that would signify the end of the time frame.



Also, you make a lot of the Jewish people no longer being in a covenant relationship after 70 AD because they can no longer fulfill the requirements, but the temple destroyed in 70 AD was not the first temple to be destroyed. How do you think the Jews maintained their covenant relationship after the destruction of the first temple?
By God's grace they were able to establish their relationship and they were able to sustain that relationship for a period of time again, for God told Daniel that the temple (and city) would be rebuilt again, then because of the still further disobedience, it would be destroyed for a final time. A better temple, a heavenly One, a spiritual one would take its place (Jesus said the believer is the temple of God the Holy Spirit).

The destruction of the first temple was not the end of the covenant relationship. The end of the second would finish the transgression, make an end of sin, make atonement for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and prophecy, plus anoint the most holy place.

Those conditions are met in AD 70, so the time reference fits within the timeframe of 490 years if you either take it from Philip Mauro's starting point, or you take the time period as not exact, or not literal. The six signs are still fulfilled within the time frame of the destruction once again of the city and sanctuary.

Topic's author
#135
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Please list some of the support you would like me to address since I don't want to take on the whole array of articles. 

The links provided were not meant for you to address. They were meant to point you to well established modern scholarship which puts the book of Daniel to a much later date than what is typically held uncritically by some conservative scholars. It was my understanding you desired this information when you suggested there was no support for such claims, seemed to doubt anyone said that, or questioned 'my evidence' in post #31.
Did I misunderstand you?


Why would I trust "modern scholarship," 17-20 centuries removed from the times? Why would I accept scholars who have a particular bias towards the events and prophecies because they are humanists and see man as the measure of all things? That is your paradigm, not mine. 

I would remind you that many Jews also see Daniel as an ancient book that fits the time frame/date of Scripture. The internal evidence mentioned by other prophets confirm Daniel as living during the times we believe he did. J.P. Holding and others make a good case for this as true. It comes down to your highest authority on the issue, as do so many things. 

When you say I suggested support for your claims, I was looking for you to list that support so I could refute it, not three links that convey a massive amount of information that kills the discussion right there. It kills the discussion because of the work I would need to do to make my case, and you could continually come back with other links that make your case for you, with no effort at all. If you wanted to get into linkswarz we don't need to have a discussion. All we need to do is provide link after link that supports our claims and let the other person figure out the relevant information after hours and hours of reading. 


If you intend to argue modern scholarship so that you can then argue prophecy is a logical reason to believe, then might I suggest you've got one more debate than you should! ;-)
I intend to show that modern scholarship does not always support the most reasonable and logical evidence. Take, for instance, the dating of the NT. It is done largely on a suspected saying of Irenaeus regarding John being alive at the time of Domitian. It ignores completely the internal evidence contained in the NT manuscripts.

I think I can make a compelling and logical case for Daniel being written in the more ancient time frame also, as per what J.P. Holding and others have offered.

#136
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
"No, the time frame is not meaningless because the six signs of its completion are still evidence of its fulfillment if it is a figurative period" - Peter

Once the 'seventy sevens' becomes figurative it is superfluous to the alleged prophecy and this begs the question of why it is there.


"By God's grace they were able to establish their relationship and they were able to sustain that relationship for a period of time again"- Peter

If the Jews can maintain this special relationship without a temple, then you're kicking the legs out from your argument about that relationship being gone with the destruction of the temple in 70AD. 

The six signs are too vague to only apply to a second destruction of a temple. 

-finish the transgression: what transgression against whom?
-make an end of sin: does sin not exist anymore?
-make atonement for iniquity: I think you would argue the death and resurrection of Jesus did this and not the destruction of a temple...but what do I know!
-bring in everlasting righteousness: righteousness of whom? The sinners that obviously still exist?!
-seal up vision and prophecy: ummm, sin and righteousness?
-plus anoint the most holy place: what holy place? 

As I see it, the seventy sevens has been cast aside because nothing significant happened per a literal understanding of it and the six signs are claimed to be fulfilled in 70AD even though it cannot be demonstrated. 70 AD was chosen as a "fulfillment of prophecy" not because prophecy predicted it, but because it is the most significant event anywhere close to the life of Jesus. 

#137
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Why would I trust "modern scholarship," 17-20 centuries removed from the times? 
Raises two questions in my mind:

1)When did preterism come about?

There is no clear indication in any known extant writing that anyone understood early teachings as modern preterists do. Spanish-Catholic Jesuit Luis Alcazar (1554–1613) was the first known preterist and this is still far removed from the times.

2) Do you reject the historical critical method when applied to other ancient works or should we accept all fantastic anonymous claims at face value?

You are not expected to address my links. They were submitted only for information. I've already said this, Peter. 


I intend to show that modern scholarship does not always support the most reasonable and logical evidence. 

No, you intended to show prophecy is reasonable and logical to believe, but now you've found yourself advocating a conspiracy theory against preterists along with other Christians. A little research reveals the historical-critical method isn't exclusive to non Christians, atheists, or agnostics. I can't entertain your paranoia, Peter.

The world isn't near as black and white as you envision it. It's not always us v. them. Sometimes people disagree for good reasons. Try to understand.


Topic's author
#138
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
"No, the time frame is not meaningless because the six signs of its completion are still evidence of its fulfillment if it is a figurative period" - Peter

Once the 'seventy sevens' becomes figurative it is superfluous to the alleged prophecy, and this begs the question of why it is there. - SKEPTICALONE


Thanks for your response. I appreciate that you are willing to get into this further.

I'm not saying this is the case. I'm defending that it is a reasonable and logical proposal to believe based on much of Scripture which uses figurative or symbolic language. (I still think Philip Mauro gives a valid response to a literal 70 weeks of years)

If the 490 weeks of years are symbolic, then the time frame does not have to be precise. We must know the starting date (and the finishing date, in retrospect). We know the starting point by the decree issued by Cyrus. We see the finishing date by the destruction of the city and the temple (as predicted) and the six signs that would be accomplished, which I will discuss later since you raised the point.

***

"By God's grace they were able to establish their relationship, and they were able to sustain that relationship for a period of time again"- Peter

If the Jews can maintain this special relationship without a temple, then you're kicking the legs out from your argument about that relationship being gone with the destruction of the temple in 70AD. - SKEPTICALONE

The point is that they CANNOT and still be faithful to the covenant they agreed upon, that is on what the OT economy and ritual system are based on; they cannot follow the covenant as stipulated in the OT. (Exodus 24:3)

That covenant required a sacrificial system for the atonement of the sins of the people. That cannot and does not happen after AD 70.

God takes sin seriously. After AD 70 they did not need it because God had put a better covenant into place. God made it known that without the shedding of blood there is no remission or forgiveness of sin. Sin was wrongful action against God and required a penalty. Because God is holy and pure, He gave the Mosaic Covenant people a provision to have a relationship with Him still. It was an animal sacrifice that was representational of themselves. To sin is to die or separate oneself from God's presence.  Thus instead of them, the animal covered over their sin until the appointed time where God would provide a sacrifice that never had to be repeated.

This animal sacrifice can no longer be met after AD 70. There is no longer a temple to bring the sacrifice too, no longer a priesthood, no longer feast days, no longer animal sacrifices as required by the covenant, no longer a recorded genealogy to trace the priestly lineage. What is more, the curses of Deuteronomy 28 have been poured out upon these people. They have come under judgment for their foreign gods and false worship as God warned them constantly through all the prophets would happen.

***

The six signs are too vague to only apply to a second destruction of a temple. - SKEPTICALONE

-finish the transgression: what transgression against whom? - SKEP1

When they sinned, who was the transgression against - God.

The OT is a witness that these people had not finished their transgression against God. 

-make an end of sin: does sin not exist anymore? - SKEP1

The making an end was an end to their sin, by God bringing judgment upon them. The requirement for sin was repentance and animal sacrifice, or they would face punishment. Their relationship with God hinged on them making reparations for sin with animal sacrifices.

-make atonement for iniquity: I think you would argue the death and resurrection of Jesus did this and not the destruction of a temple...but what do I know! - SKEP1

Yes, I would, just like I would argue that He brought in everlasting righteousness FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE. What the destruction of the temple did was put an end to a ritual system of worship and an OT economy they recognized signified their relationship with God.


-bring in everlasting righteousness: righteousness of whom? The sinners that obviously still exist?! - SKEP1

Continue on next post
Topic's author
#139
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

Righteousness for the BELIEVER.  Our representative is no longer an animal sacrifice that has to be offered for the people every year to atone for their sins. We do not represent ourselves but have an Advocate that has met the quality of righteousness fully. Now, everlasting righteousness is provided, and it is better than continuous offerings that can never take away sin, because they only address one sin, the current sin, not future sin. (Hebrews 9)

-seal up vision and prophecy: ummm, sin and righteousness? - SKEP1


The prophecy was sealed until the time of fulfillment.


-plus anoint the most holy place: what holy place?  - SKEP1

The new spiritual temple built upon Jesus Christ as the cornerstone what everything rests upon, and the apostles as the foundation, then the living members as the rest of the building. That spiritual building was finished in AD 70. Now we future believers can come to worship God, not through a priesthood that acts on our behalf, but on our Advocate, the High Priest Jesus Christ. We can go into the inner sanctuary because the curtain that separated everyone but the High Priest once a year has been torn apart. There is no longer that division.

As I see it, the seventy sevens has been cast aside because nothing significant happened per a literal understanding of it and the six signs are claimed to be fulfilled in 70AD even though it cannot be demonstrated. 70 AD was chosen as a "fulfillment of prophecy" not because prophecy predicted it, but because it is the most significant event anywhere close to the life of Jesus. - SKEP1

No, not cast aside but fulfilled! Something most significant happened in AD 70. God judged the Jews of the Mosaic Covenant per the curses of Deuteronomy 28. This judgment can be shown most convincingly by comparing the punishments/judgments using the Olivet Discourse and history.  I am willing to lay out the argument and explain how it is most reasonable and logical to believe it fulfilled with historical data.

When you say, "it cannot be demonstrated," you are wrong. It most definitely can by looking at the Olivet prophecy and comparing it to history (and Deuteronomy). I am willing to do this, but the thread never comes to this point because no one is ever willing to discuss it and follow through as to which is the most reasonable and logical claim from the evidence supplied.


Topic's author
#140
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Why would I trust "modern scholarship," 17-20 centuries removed from the times? - ME
Raises two questions in my mind:

1)When did preterism come about?

There is no clear indication in any known extant writing that anyone understood early teachings as modern preterists do. Spanish-Catholic Jesuit Luis Alcazar (1554–1613) was the first known preterist and this is still far removed from the times.

Sure, there is. Take, for instance, St Ignatius:

(On Judaism)
"8:1 Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace:"

10:3 It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism. For Christ is one, in whom every nation that believes, and every tongue that confesses, is gathered unto God. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter 10)

Ignatius believed Judaism, as practiced in the Mosaic Covenant, had come to an end. Now we have Rabbinical Judaism because they can no longer follow the Scriptures as they agreed to with animal sacrifices and a priesthood. 


(On The Timing of the Coming of Christ)
"6:1 Seeing then that in the aforementioned persons I beheld your whole people in faith and embraced them, I advise you, be ye zealous to do all things in godly concord, the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds and appeared at the end of time." (Magnesians)(On the Parousia/Presence of Christ)

How shall we be able to live apart from Him whose disciples, the prophets themselves, in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, shorter version, Chapter 9) (c. A.D. 100 - 115)

Ignatius sees the times of the apostles as the "end of time" of the Old Covenant. He sees the coming of Christ in their lifetime and their resurrection from the dead in their lifetime. 

Barnabus, in his Epistle, said:

(On Fulfillment of Prophecy)
"Moreover understand this also, my brothers. When ye see that after so many signs and wonders wrought in Israel, even then they were abandoned, let us give heed, lest haply we be found, as the scripture saith, many called but few chosen. . ." (4:14)

"Therefore the Son of God came in the flesh to this end, that He might sum up the complete tale of their sins against those who persecuted and slew His prophets." (5:11)

Thus, he reiterates the signs and wonders have already happened (after) regarding Israel. He verifies that their sins are complete with the judgment and that they slew the prophets. 

(On Daniel's Seventy Weeks)
"This abstract discussion of Judaism is the sign of an epoch when the Judaizing controversies were already a thing of the past in the main body of the Church. In settling the date of the letter reference is often made to verses 3-5 of chapter four, where the writer, it is believed, finds the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 7:7, sqq.) in the succession of the Roman Emperors of his time." (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia)

150: Melito - Homily of the Pascha "Who will contend against me? Let him stand before me. It is I who delivered the condemned. It is I who gave life to the dead. It is I who raised up the buried. Who will argue with me? It is I, says Christ, who destroyed death. It is I who triumphed over the enemy, and having trod down Hades, and bound the Strong Man, and have snatched mankind up to the heights of heaven." "The battle between Christians and Jews over possession of the name "Israel" goes back to the earliest days of Christianity..  the past-tense verbs found in (Melito's) Peri Pascha 99 may indicate that the author is referring to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE."
Tertullian:
 (On the Significance of A.D. 70)
"among us, who have been called out of the nations, -'and they shall join to beat their glaives into ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up glaive against nation, and they shall no more learn to fight.'  Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices, - the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates?" ("Of Circumcision and the Supercession of the Old Law," An Answer to the Jews, Chapter III)

250: Origen - Against Celsus | John | Matthew "I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem."

These early writers understand the Preterist view of the end of the Jewish age with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Some of them understand the resurrection of the dead and the judgment as already taking place. 

Topic's author
#141
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

"The Holy Scriptures foretell that there will be unmistakable signs of the Coming of Christ.

Now there were among the Hebrews three outstanding offices of dignity, which made the nation famous, firstly the kingship, secondly that of prophet, and lastly the high priesthood. The prophecies said that the abolition and complete destruction of all these three together would be the sign of the (b) presence of the Christ. And that the proofs that the times had come, would lie in the ceasing of the Mosaic worship, the desolation of Jerusalem and its Temple, and the subjection of the whole Jewish race to its enemies.  The holy oracles foretold that all these changes, which had (c) not been made in the days of the prophets of old, would take place at the coming of the Christ, which I will presently shew to have been fulfilled as never before in accordance with the predictions."


Many, many more examples could be listed confirming Preterist beliefs from an early age in church history.

Topic's author
#142
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

2) Do you reject the historical critical method when applied to other ancient works or should we accept all fantastic anonymous claims at face value?




No, I do not reject the historical-critical method. I reject some of the presuppositions that the people who use it build into it when they apply it to the biblical writings (and their starting point).

I intend to show that modern scholarship does not always support the most reasonable and logical evidence. - ME

No, you intended to show prophecy is reasonable and logical to believe, but now you've found yourself advocating a conspiracy theory against preterists along with other Christians. A little research reveals the historical-critical method isn't exclusive to non-Christians, atheists, or agnostics. I can't entertain your paranoia, Peter. 

Sure it is available to non-Christians, but they bring a baggage with them. They look at the Scriptures in a totally naturalistic light, thus the miracles of the Bible and its prophecy is not possible - there must be a naturalistic explanation, therefore prophecy is not possible. That is their presuppositional bias. The text MUST be written after the fact. Thus, they seek to deconstruct it, piece by piece to confirm that bias. One of the criticisms I have against many liberal scholars who use the method is their ignorance of the biblical timeframe of the NT from the internal evidence, plus the exclusion of the supernatural.

However, this results in a problem with presuppositions because they will determine what may or may not be possible and probable (Marshall 1985, p. 127).
This is where historical criticism has been abused. Many practitioners take a "purely scientific" view which excludes any possibility of the supernatural and results in a purely naturalistic interpretation of Biblical events and people. Because of these presuppositions, this view is prevented from saying anything at all about God or the miracles and supernatural works of Jesus Christ (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 74). These scholars hold that all supernatural events described in the Bible are inventions of the early church. Therefore they attempt to get behind this mythology and get at the "real" historical Jesus. Schaeffer (1985, v. 1 p. 52) highlights the problem with this approach: "Naturalistic theology has ..... begun by accepting the presupposition of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. Thus they rejected everything miraculous and supernatural including .... the life of Jesus Christ. .... they still hoped to find an historical Jesus in a rational, objective, scholarly way by separating the supernatural aspects of Jesus' life from the 'true history'. But they failed ..... Their search for the historical Jesus was doomed to failure. The supernatural was so intertwined with the rest that if they ripped out all the supernatural, there was no Jesus left!"

Many liberal theologians have used critical methods to show the Bible is not historically accurate. The authors were primarily theologians not historians so the "Jesus of history" is nothing like the Jesus of the Bible. This means that if there is a discrepancy between the Bible and other historical material, it is the Bible that is most probably in error. A Biblical account must be "proved" historically accurate rather than accepted as so (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 82). But this scepticism is unwarranted since the Bible has shown itself time and again to be historically accurate. Historical criticism should pursue without restriction the explanation that best explains the phenomena in question. This includes supernatural explanations (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 89).

The historical-critical method assumes the autonomy of the human scientist from the Bible as the word of God. It assumes that one must start with the secular world as a norm for determining meaning and for deciding what has happened in the past. This method does not accept at face value the Bible as the Word of God. It would be unscientific and unhistorical to do so. Rather its claim to be the word of God and its statements claiming to report history (and finally its statements about theology) must be verified and accepted as one would accept a statement from the documents of any other ancient national people. Such a conception implies that the Bible has come about in the same manner as has any other piece of literature.


John A.T. Robertson wrote a fantastic book on the dating methods and what the internal evidence reveals. Kenneth Gentry and others have also done work in this field. They examine the time frames of the internal data.  


The world isn't near as black and white as you envision it. It's not always us v. them. Sometimes people disagree for good reasons. Try to understand.

I have read a fair bit about higher criticism and I see the bias within the movement. 
#143
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
"These early writers understand the Preterist view of the end of the Jewish age with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Some of them understand the resurrection of the dead and the judgment as already taking place. "

Judaism being changed after the destruction of the temple is not a defining view of preterism...and it's just common sense. Anyone speaking to this fact is not a preterist by default.

Additionally, it is a very charitable reading of the quoted to suggest they believed Jesus returned in 70AD. Not one explicitly says any such thing and all can be understood well in the context of a resurrected messiah belief structure.

As an aside, you accused me of linkwarz earlier in the thread and here you've provided a ton of links. This can hardly be considered informational as every link (related to quotes) is from a single site and no effort to provide an unbiased or neutral view is made. Pot meet kettle. :-p



#144
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
No, I do not reject the historical-critical method. I reject some of the presuppositions that the people who use it build into it when they apply it to the biblical writings (and their starting point).
I've not seen the Bible being treated differently than other ancient text in this regard. Perhaps you can cite examples of disparate treatment?


Sure it is available to non-Christians, but they bring a baggage with them. 
I think you continue to overlook the fact that there are Christians among scholars concluding (some) miracles and (some) prophecies in the Bible are not literal. You claim to find value in the historical critical methodologies while rejecting the conclusions found using it as a conspiracy of non-believers. It's unfair, and plain wrong, to blame nonbelievers for what a methodology (meant to remove bias) finds. 

Plus, in spite of your claimed acceptance of the method, your provided quotes disparage it. You dont get to sit on the fence claiming to respect the historical critical method while rejecting its findings. You have a double standard. You accept the methodology so long as it doesn't challenge your cherished beliefs. IMO, it should be all or none.

Topic's author
#145
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
"These early writers understand the Preterist view of the end of the Jewish age with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Some of them understand the resurrection of the dead and the judgment as already taking place. "

Judaism being changed after the destruction of the temple is not a defining view of preterism...and it's just common sense. Anyone speaking to this fact is not a preterist by default.

I would argue that it (this removal of the OT economy) is a defining view of Preterism because OT prophecy looks forward to this new covenant and ALSO the judgment prophesied by disobedience that would result in the destruction of the OT economy, as promised. The outward evidence is the plagues of Deuteronomy 28 and removal of that worship system and their SPECIAL relationship with God.



Additionally, it is a very charitable reading of the quoted to suggest they believed Jesus returned in 70AD. Not one explicitly says any such thing and all can be understood well in the context of a resurrected messiah belief structure.

Jesus made the claim to the chief priest that he would see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father. That would confirm that He was who He claimed to be and a witness against the chief priest:

But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."

The judgment of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple would confirm that judgment. "Coming on the clouds of heaven" is figurative for judgment. God, who is a Spirit, is said to come in judgment numerous times in the OT in this manner. Sitting at the right hand of power is a reference to Jesus deity. What is applied to God in the OT is applied equally to Jesus in the NT.  The judgment that is God's in the OT is Jesus' in the NT. 

What does Caiaphas do with Jesus' answer? He sees/understands the claim Jesus is making about equality with God and:
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed! 



As an aside, you accused me of linkwarz earlier in the thread and here you've provided a ton of links. This can hardly be considered informational as every link (related to quotes) is from a single site and no effort to provide an unbiased or neutral view is made. Pot meet kettle. :-p

No, linkswarz are providing links without any summary or reference from the article, document, or video. The person has no id, of what you want the person to glean from the link. I had a point I wanted you to see and I quoted that point from the greater article, then provided the link. 

I don't have an objection to using links. What I request is that if you use on you provide the relevant information you want me to glean from the link. That way I can address it, rather than having to address a novel worth of information. 

Topic's author
#146
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
No, I do not reject the historical-critical method. I reject some of the presuppositions that the people who use it build into it when they apply it to the biblical writings (and their starting point).
I've not seen the Bible being treated differently than other ancient text in this regard. Perhaps you can cite examples of disparate treatment?


It is not like other ancient manuscripts in its claims. It claims to be God's revelation to humanity. My point is that these liberal scholars bring their bias and unbelief to the discussion by ruling that prophecy cannot be from God, therefore, it must be explained away by their presuppositional bias. They CANNOT allow the supernatural to be possible.   


Sure it is available to non-Christians, but they bring a baggage with them. 
I think you continue to overlook the fact that there are Christians among scholars concluding (some) miracles and (some) prophecies in the Bible are not literal. You claim to find value in the historical critical methodologies while rejecting the conclusions found using it as a conspiracy of non-believers. It's unfair, and plain wrong, to blame nonbelievers for what a methodology (meant to remove bias) finds. 


I understand that, and I believe they have been greatly influenced and governed by secular thought, not by the internal evidence from the NT in determining its dating. 

Plus, in spite of your claimed acceptance of the method, your provided quotes disparage it. You dont get to sit on the fence claiming to respect the historical critical method while rejecting its findings. You have a double standard. You accept the methodology so long as it doesn't challenge your cherished beliefs. IMO, it should be all or none.

I respect the method when it considers the internal evidence of the very document being disputed that gives credence to the timeframe of writing as being before AD 70. I don't see how you could argue for a late date if you take into account there is no reference to an already destroyed city or temple. It is obvious from the writings that something highly significant is warned that is ABOUT to happen to these people. The AUDIENCE of address is addressing primarily an OT people which are signified by the pronoun used. The ritual system which is focused on throughout the NT means nothing after AD 70 because it no longer exists. I haven't tried it, but I question what would be left and what could be made sense of it you took these references to a still existing temple and ritual system of worship out of the text. 

With most NT epistles I can build on the Olivet Discourse as among the themes of the authors. They (mainly Paul) build on the teaching of Jesus regarding the Discourse. If you want I can give you an example by comparing the theme of the Discourse with an epistle. I would probably use Thessalonians since this epistle is most obvious to the Olivet references.

The whole heaven and earth of these Old Covenant people revolved around their temple worship and ritual system. Not to have mentioned the already destruction is not fathomable if the temple and city were already destroyed.  
#147
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
No, we do not live in a world of "magic" but in case you haven't noticed Keither....we sure do live in a world where "some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" (supernatural) come into play. Our experience transcends the physical boundaries and has for as long as humans have existed. You can label whatever you like, but it's just an experience that reflects reality beyond that which you perceive with your eyeballs. 

I agree that there are many things beyond our scientific knowledge. However, this is in a large part why I don't accept it as given that anything is beyond the laws of nature. Just because we can't see how it fits doesn't mean it doesn't, just that our understanding is incomplete  (and possibly wrong).
#148
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
IMO, it is an unwarranted leap for those who only think within the box called "Nature." They don't want to think of anything that science cannot prove ("If I can't see it, I won't believe it."). Yet, from a naturalistic worldview, they can't warrant a sensible explanation for existence, for life from inanimate matter, plus energy over time. They can't demonstrate via science how from mindless matter comes conscious beings. They can't explain the purpose and MEANING they continually find in a supposedly meaningless universe. They don't have the grounds of morality. They can't explain why the necessary ingredients for science - the uniformity of nature (hence natural laws/constants) can operate by unintentional chance happenstance. They don't have the grounds for certainty. 

Until such a time as you can show that god can be known to exist (something no one I'm aware of has done) rather than simpy believed to, then you have no more grounds for certainty than anyone else. You can either look for answers to the unknown, or pretend it isn't unknown. Once the necessity of the creator can be demonstrated then why assume one?
#149
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
What is more reasonable, Creator or chance? (Hint, there is no reason to chance - so why do you continually find reasons from it?)

What were the variables at work? What were the conditions and physical limitations (if there were any) before this universe? Without that information it's impossible to form an informed opinion on the likelihood of either. 

As for the rest, you seem to be simply stating that order cannot exist without intelligence. I have yet to see any reason to assume this is the case. In an ordered universe with consistent and predictable forces at work it should be expected that we find constants from these we as intelligent beings find reason. The real question is does such a universe necessitate an intelligent creator. Having found no evidence to allow me to conclude either way it remains for me at least an unknown.
#150
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Mdh2000
I agree that there are many things beyond our scientific knowledge. However, this is in a large part why I don't accept it as given that anything is beyond the laws of nature. Just because we can't see how it fits doesn't mean it doesn't, just that our understanding is incomplete  (and possibly wrong).

Scientific knowledge never accounts for all that exists it will always be an incomplete system because it only moves with our own inquiries, 200 years ago science doesn't say what it does now and 100 years from now it will be the same as it grows, that's why this is so important for people to understand this and not hang their hopes on it. Science does not answer questions about God or anything other than what we study in our physical universe, that we are capable of. It has no knowledge in and of itself, it's simply a reflection of what we are happening to examine, it is just a method of study. 
This is why we look at other methods of study that are capable of reaching where science cannot, this would be the arena and vast body of facts and evidences called spirituality/religion, this is the method of study that correlates with the nature of the Divine. Science constantly changes, evolves as we continue to study the natural world and so no one should be putting their life and beliefs in something like this, it's a different study and incapable of currently answering questions about any Creator and doesn't even pretend to actually. Science is a neutral study it has no ideologies or opinions so if you want to consider something beyond the laws of nature (meaning beyond our physical sense perception alone) then look at religion and spirituality as a whole, look at all the NDE's, OBE's, spiritual encounters, spiritual insights, soul travel that all point to the reality that we are leaving this body when it hits the dirt, IMO there is no doubt about it. I've seen and had many spiritual experiences and I study NDE's and spiritual based testimonies and there is no single other subject or topic that is as vast and numerous as the amount of evidence from so many sources as spirituality, it's actually stunning all the information and experiences that are available.  

If you want to experience higher experiences you have to be willing to examine, and apply things and let go. Flexible but not dumb or naïve, allow yourself to be free to examine things outside your current beliefs. 
I don't have any thing against science BTW, I'm only against people using it as a means to answer questions where it certainly has no means of answering. We need science, we need spirituality because we need to understand both the physical world and the higher spiritual worlds. Both are realities and no need to reject one for the other, they are compatible if we don't try to use science to disclaim things it is not capable of and vise versa.