Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory, is described by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, as the position that "..the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." It includes the view that the story of Jesus is largely mythological, and has little basis in historical fact.
To understand the consequence of ideas, you have to understand how such ideas started to gain popularity. German Higher Criticism, IMO, particularly the Tiibingen school, had a lot to do with the current outlooks about Jesus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
you make a big assumption that the Bible is a bunch of storiesYou honestly think the bible contains no stories? It's a collection of stories! If you believe they are truth or fiction, does not change if they are or at not stories.
I never said it contains no stories. Parables are stories. The Bible is a collection of accounts, mainly of a particular people and God's covenantal dealings via prophets and leaders such as Moses (the Torah) in the OT and then the NT writers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
you are doing is conflating all myths with Christianity. [underline added for emphasis]Hardly. There are countless myths in the world, [a] I haven't linked any mythology to Christianity other than Christianity itself. Which to avoid cherry-picking, we can use someone else's offered definition of mythology: [b] "mythology is a collection of myths, or stories, belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition used to explain a practice, belief, or natural ..."
[a] That is the point; you are equating Christianity to myth, it Founder to myth, and your syllogism is a categorical syllogism. All S is P.
[b]
noun
- A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
- Stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
- Any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
- An imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
- An unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.
Prove Christianity is a legendary story/myth without a determinable fact base. You assert that it is.
Prove it is an invented story.
Prove Jesus is imaginary or fictitious.
Breaking it apart, does Jesus play a key role in any stories, partially belonging to some religious or cultural tradition? To prove I am wrong, the answer would have to be no; and to deny he appears in such stories, you would have to deny all accounts (aka stories) of him and his miracles.
Christianity is not concerned with stories circulating about Jesus but the biblical accounts as true. The disciples/apostles and the church fought heresies and mythologies about Jesus; the one example I already mentioned --> Gnosticism. What happens apart from the Bible does not affect the biblical account as the blueprint for truth and our faith.
Again, you continue to propagate the narrative and myth that all the Bible is capable of being is a story. You continue to believe because others created stories about Jesus or the Bible, it gives reason to reject the Bible as anything but a story. You are fueling a narrative of what you and others create.
As I said to someone else: The indignation over this, to me is akin to someone loving blue so taking offense if anyone dares demean it by calling it a color.
No, the offence and indignation are over you colour coding something blue when it is green; of reasonable historical accounts, you deem myths.
And I still invite you to engage in the theme of this thread, eschatology!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw
The mythological figure under discussion has no such protection; as an example, he could be accused of being a bad carpenter with no repercussions.The identity of that person is not in doubt. Had you said, "I think the figure under discussion is a myth," or words to that effect, it is stating your point of view. To say it as said declares that it is the general point of view, and, being a myth, as if it is fait accomplis, it's okay to accuse him of being a bad carpenter. No, that is doing the very thing you stated before, making insult. You can have your own beliefs. Allow others to have theirs. Take your stand, but don't assume everyone else agrees with you. That position is what has contributed to the toxicity.
You are right! Ragnar was stating his opinion as fact. That is a bone of contention with me. How does He know Jesus is a mythical person? Yes, Jesus could be accused of being a bad carpenter, but where is the proof Jesus was a bad carpenter - a satirical video posted online? He fueled more myth about Jesus, ignoring the historical information from that time that states otherwise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@fauxlaw
@ Ragnar,That you think saying he appeared in any "stories, belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition used to explain a practice, belief, or natural ..." is the same as proclaiming "...Therefore, butterflies swim" is laughable. You are of course welcome to prove he never appeared in the collection of stories known as the bible; if you do that, I will yield I was wrong to accuse him of appearing in such stories.
Here again, you make a big assumption that the Bible is a bunch of stories and nothing else while ignoring the historical narrative and those who claim to be eyewitnesses of His ministry, life, death, and resurrection or those who claim to give an orderly ACCOUNT of the EVENTS concerning Jesus. It is not about His appearing but them actually witnessing Him in His Person, a historical Person.
That being said, it is not the main thrust of this thread. I mentioned that thrust being prophecy and eschatology (His Second Coming).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
True or false: Jesus is a figure within a religion, which members thereof have a tradition of worshipping as God?
A figure or person? What do you mean by a figure? If a person, true. True, Christians recognize and worship Jesus as the one and only true God.
If true, by definition he's part of a mythology. Remember:Going with the most basic dictionary of Google...
- Mythological: relating to, based on, or appearing in myths or mythology.
- Mythology: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
- Myths: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
Nope, you are equating all religions as mythical. Although myths can be (and are) associated with religions and also sometimes associated with supernatural beings, it does not have to be the case, of which I argue about Christianity as not conforming to your definitions. I argue it is the one true religious teaching.
As for:I asked you to explain what you meant by,"If you can prove Jesus did not appear in the bible, I will fully yield that he's not part of that mythology."Did not appear in the Bible? What are you talking about?You have denied he is a part of Christian mythology, a mythology centered on the Bible. If he's not in the bible as that would require, I will yield that he is not mythological. If he is in the bible, and Christianity is indeed a religion and/or tradition, then he is by definition a mythological figure. That is the non-sequitur you put yourself in with seeking offense and disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.
Here again, you are equating every "traditional story" to myth. You are equating the Bible as a mythical story. My contention is that true Christianity, or the Judeo-Christian canonized writings, do not fit your descriptions. When you say, "If He's not in the Bible as that would require," I say, He most certainly is revealed in the Bible. I also think, once again, your wording is a little vague. "Not in the Bible"? He is only "in the Bible" in the sense that He is REVEALED in its pages. So what? The Bible, as its authority, has the claim it is the Word of God. It has evidence to back the claim. Although God does not need to give His creatures an explanation, He chose to do so. Again, with traditions, you are equating every one of them as mythical. That is not necessarily the case. Some traditions are based on facts, not a myth.
I'm not disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I'm disagreeing because what you are doing is conflating all myths with Christianity. I believe, with good evidence, that what you are saying does not apply to the Bible.
- P1: If someone is key to a mythology, they are a mythological figure.
- P2: Jesus Christ [is] key to Christian mythology.
- C1: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a mythological figure.
While this categorical syllogism is valid for its conclusion follows from the premises, I question its soundness in whether its premises are true or false?
P1. Counter argument - The biblical accounts specifically deny Christianity or Christ is a myth, stating the facts of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
P2. Counter argument - Those stating Jesus Christ as a mythical figure are key to the mythology, not the historical Jesus.
I do not believe your syllogistic major and minor premises are true/factual, thus falsifying the syllogism, undermining your whole deductive case. You are making a non-sequitur assertion about Jesus Christ, that He is a myth. You are trying to create a universal statement (every religion and every religious leader) about Christianity and Jesus that does not necessarily follow.
You are stating that if someone/anyone is S (someone key to mythology), then all are P (a mythological figure). All S are P, or if anything is an S, it is also P.
Jesus Christ is S (someone key to Christian mythology).
Therefore, Jesus Christ is P (a mythological figure).
I question the truth of the major premise; if anyone is key to mythology (s), they are mythical. That does not follow that all key people to mythology are mythical figures since the key, the person identifying, describing and ascribing the supposed mythology, is not the myth.
I question the truth of the minor premise that Jesus Christ is key to mythology (S). Once again, people who identify or categorize Jesus as mythical are key to the mythology. Jesus did not create the myths about Himself.
I would agree that Jesus Christ is said to be a mythical figure/person. That He is, does not necessarily follow. You were the one, in your OP, stating Jesus is a mythical figure. "The mythological figure under discussion." Thus, you are promoting a myth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
mythical or historicalRead above. I have not claimed those two things are mutually exclusive. I have literally said the opposite!Seemingly for the pure sake of disagreement, you are arguing Jesus is not part of any religious or cultural tradition. Which is wholly non-sequitur.
I am saying that the Bible does not claim to be a mythical tale but the historical deals of God with humanity. It does not claim to be a mythical account of Jesus but a historical one. You are the one claiming,
"The mythological figure under discussion has no such protection; as an example, he could be accused of being a bad carpenter with no repercussions." (Post 277)
I'm saying that the Jesus described in the pages of the Bible is not the mythical figure that you make Him out to be. Myths and false gospels came later.
I asked you to explain what you meant by,
"If you can prove Jesus did not appear in the bible, I will fully yield that he's not part of that mythology."
Did not appear in the Bible? What are you talking about?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
You ignore the biblical accounts. Why is that?Oh, I don't ignore them. I just think they're pseudepigraphal. Which is the consensus among historical scholarship.
Okay, you don't ignore them; you think they are not what they claim to be.
Which scholars?
When you speak of historical scholarship, you are probably speaking of Higher Criticism. Is that right? If so, do you know the history of Higher Criticism?
The Gospels are written in highly proficient Greek. It's very unlikely that Jesus's immediate followers, being lower-class Jews from rural Galilee, could read or write well in even their own language, much less be so fluently literate in another.
There is a lot of presumption on your part here, or possibly with "your scholars." When these disciples went into Asia Minor, they could have learned to speak to these people in their own language if they did not already know it, which is more probable. Koine Greek was the commercial language of the entire Middle East, and it is likely the disciples spoke it as well as Hebrew and Aramaic. Jesus chose these twelve as ambassadors who would spread the Gospel message throughout the known world of their time. Even if you are right in your speculation that they could not write Koine Greek, Acts tells us, during the Day of Pentecost,
" 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with different [d]tongues, as the Spirit was giving them the ability to speak out."
6 And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together and they were bewildered, because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own [e]language. 7 They were amazed and astonished, saying, “[f]Why, are not all these who are speaking Galileans? 8 And how is it that we each hear them in our own [g]language [h]to which we were born? 9 Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and [i]Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya around Cyrene, and [j]visitors from Rome, both Jews and [k]proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own [l]tongues of the mighty deeds of God.” 12 And they all continued in amazement and great perplexity, saying to one another, “What does this mean?” 13 But others were jeering and saying, “They are full of [m]sweet wine!”
Not only this, God gave the early church the gift of tongues. The apostles were able to speak in different tongues because the promised Holy Spirit filled them with the ability to speak to others of different languages, as explained above.
And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, and various kinds of tongues.
All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away with; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away with.
These gifts of tongues and interpretation would end and did end in AD 70 with the transition completed between the two covenants. What do we know about history? We know that these Old Covenant people could no longer worship as prescribed by the Law of Moses after AD 70. We know from history that the temple and city are destroyed by the Romans as prophesied. The Levitical Priesthood dispersed and sold into captivity. The animal sacrifices and feast days stopped. Thus just a predicted, forty years later (after Jesus pronounced judgment upon OT Israel), judgment came upon Israel.
It's estimated that fewer than 3% of Jews in Roman Palestine could read and write well enough to compose texts like this, and the ones who could would've all been urban elites, with the wealth and leisure to afford the education. Scholars think the Gospel authors most likely came from urban areas outside Palestine.
And when was this theory first proposed?
And of course, there's the fact that all of the Gospels are written anonymously, and none of them are written in the first person.
The early churches that received the originals would understand who they came from, and tradition would convey who they were down through the early centuries. Early church fathers make mention of who these writers were. I could dig up some of the quotes from these church fathers with some work.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
You're basing your whole argument on the mention of Jesus in the OP, but the OP concerns itself with eschatology. Stephen is claiming Jesus never came in the glory of the Father before some of His followers died.Sounds like talk about Jesus. Then while insisting we're not discussing Jesus, you quote Matthew 16: 27-28, which is also talking a lot about Jesus... Need I go on?
Sure it is about Jesus but not just anything about Jesus, such as the historicity of Jesus or mythical Messiah figures or copy-cat religions. The specific subject is eschatology, a theme about the Second Coming of Jesus. How do I know that? It concerns Jesus' Second Coming.
If you can prove Jesus did not appear in the bible, I will fully yield that he's not part of that mythology.
If I can prove Jesus did not appear in the Bible? What does that mean? Please be clear on your thought. The Bible claims it is a revelation of God. It offers proof of that. What kind of proof will you accept? I can offer you reasonable proof. The thing about proof or evidence is that no matter how good it is, some choose not to believe it.
I am pretty sure our disagreement is rooted in you having some problem with the word mythological, perhaps confusing it for some word that bears insult?
I believe the Bible is God's revelation to humanity. He chose a specific people to make Himself know through. In that respect, I believe Him over you as my highest authority. My thoughts are, you, just like me, are a limited, finite human being who does not know all things and probably not as much as you think you do about anything. The Bible reveals that Jesus is not mythical. The testimony of its writers confirms He is a historical Person. So, it is my word and my belief as opposed to or in conflict with your word and belief about whether Jesus is mythical or historical. I believe the evidence is in my favour, not yours. Now, the NT says,
nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to useless speculation rather than advance the plan of God, which is by faith, so I urge you now.
and they will turn their ears away from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.
It also says,
[ Eyewitnesses ] For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.
And,
Colossians 2:8-10
8 See to it that there is no one who takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition, in accordance with the elementary principles of the world, [i]rather than in accordance with Christ. 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [j]complete, and He is the head [k]over every ruler and authority;
With your worldview, you refuse to acknowledge the Bible is God's revelation. You know better. Therefore it is tough for me to prove to you something you are unwilling to accept.
Hebrews 11:6 puts it this way,
And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for the one who comes to God must believe that He exists, and that He proves to be One who rewards those who seek Him.
So, there lies my difficulty. The evidence is reasonable, but your worldview will deny it regardless. It means bowing the knee to Jesus. You will resist. You will not believe God exists, so how will you come to Him? It requires humbling oneself, and people want to be their own highest authority, the one who decides what is and what should be (relativists).
Going with the most basic dictionary of Google...
- Mythological: relating to, based on, or appearing in myths or mythology.
And how do you propose the Bible does that? Do you believe a supernatural Being cannot do miracles, things that go against the natural order?
- Mythology: a collection of myths, especially one belonging to a particular religious or cultural tradition.
Sure, mythologies often base themselves loosely on eternal truths (copy-cat religions).
- Myths: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
The Bible never professes to be mythology but expressly warns against "myths and endless genealogies" or "philosophy and empty deception in accordance with human tradition."
It warns against the traditions of men rather than the word of God. So, if you want to make your case for the Bible as mythology, I would invite you to start a thread. Please show me your evidence so I can dispute it.
The Bible's focus is not about Jesus' carpentry life but about His years of ministry as the promised Jewish Messiah and what that means to Israel and the world.Since you lack a defense for his talents as a carpenter, why are you offended that jokes about it exist?
I don't lack a defence; I say the object of His incarnation was not about Him being a carpenter, but about Him being God and revealing God, far greater than a mere carpenter. Yet He humbled Himself and became a Man. So, it was also about His taking on the nature of a human being to atone for sin, once for all time. Thus, there is a contrast between the OT and NT, between two covenants. The one (the Old Covenant) was a shadow of a greater covenant and truth that always pointed to Jesus, the Messiah, and His coming. Prophecy is great enough proof for a witness to God, but everything ultimately points towards the glory and majesty of God. That is why I chose to engage on this thread and this topic. I wanted to show how little Stephen and other God deniers know about Scripture, a subject they pretend they know so much about. That OP touched on a verse that has brought Stephen much trouble. He doesn't know how the Father came in glory in the OT or he does know and doesn't want to admit it. He refuses to acknowledge it, even though the words are fairly plain to understand.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
Someone can be the key to some mythology and not be a mythological figure. The gnostics built a myth around Jesus, yet the biblical text warned against this and claimed eyewitness testimony of His historicity. The OT points to such a historical figure who the NT writers identify as Jesus. You, Ragnar, want to brush off these testimonies and fuel the myth. Simon Greenleaf, who wrote a treatise on eyewitness testimony that is well respected and its basis is still in use today, saw these eyewitnesses as credible. The eyewitnesses are reasonable to believe. The gnostics were not eyewitnesses but claimed some hidden knowledge. Their credibility is in great question.There is no eyewitness testimony of Jesus Christ that I am aware of, sadly. I wish there was.
You ignore the biblical accounts. Why is that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Stephen is claiming Jesus never came in the glory of the Father before some of His followers died.`Stephen` is actually claiming that Jesus didn't return when he promised that he would return.
When you claim Jesus did not return, per your OP in which you cited Matthew 16:27-28, you have to understand the nature of that coming. I asked you numerous times to explain what it meant when Jesus said He would come in the glory of the Father. What does that mean, and how would the 1st-century primary audience of address understand the Father's coming? All that is irrelevant to you. You pay little attention to it and thus grossly misinterpret Scripture because of such poor understanding. Not only that, you cherry-pick verses in all your threads, ignoring the context or other Scripture that speaks on the same subject, even collapsing the context.
I could do the same thing.
`Stephen` is claiming that THE BIBLE claims " that every eye will see him" (Jesus) return. Revelation 1:7. There is not a single eyewitness account of Jesus returning.
Every eye will see Him. Who is that referring to? Every eye, under heaven --> the entire earth? Every eye of the land/earth of Israel? And what connotations does the word "see" have in its definition. I already explained that the word could also mean "understand." The eyes of your understanding do not understand this, or as the NT expressed in Ephesians,
I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints,"
I asked you various questions about Revelation 1:7, which you basically ignored. Do you understand that the verse addresses two OT passages? Do you understand the nature of His coming in Daniel 7:13-14, of which Revelation 1:7 points to? It is a heavenly scene, not an earthly one. Did I not tell you that the NT takes the typology and shadows from the OT history and applies them in a spiritual sense? Did I not give you countless examples of this? Do you understand apocalyptic language? Do you know that it finds its explanation in the OT? You continually demonstrate you do not.
And how would the High Priest and Chief priests see Jesus coming on the clouds in Matthew 26?
64 Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
What did Jesus mean from now on? He would be sitting at the right hand of power. Where is that? Coming on the clouds. How did the Father coming in glory in the OT? He came on the clouds of JUDGMENT. They felt His presence in the cloud covering. I demonstrated that to you. Not a word from you in rebuttal. Nothing. Instead, you repaste a worn-out verse.
What did the Father tell the Son?
‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies under Your feet”’?
David himself said in the Holy Spirit, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Until I put Your enemies under Your feet.”’
For David himself says in the book of Psalms, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand,
For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says: ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand,
But to which of the angels has He ever said, “Sit at My right hand, Until I make Your enemies A footstool for Your feet”?
As per the OT:
[ The Lord Gives Dominion to the King. ] [ A Psalm of David. ] The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
`Stephen` is also claiming that THE BIBLE claims that Jesus will return "the same way he went" . Acts 1:11. That will be physically. He hasn't done so yet although billions of Christians believe his return is "imminent".
And I answered your objection. I asked you how Jesus went into heaven, and how many eyes witnessed Him go into heaven then? No answer as usual. I explained to you the significance of clouds, and He was taken up in a cloud, signifying He was in the presence of the Father, just as He was at the Transfiguration where the OT is contrasted with the NT. The God of the OT spoke through Moses in initiating the covenant, and the prophets in warning OT Israel of their apostasy. Jesus, at the transfiguration, represents the NT and Moses and Elijah take an insignificant position in the transfiguration. It is Jesus that the passage mainly concerns itself with.
What you do is you buy into the Dispensational and futuristic view/explanation of Scripture in discussing these verses of Scripture. You ignore the prophecies that all pointed to His coming as being fulfilled.
[a] And `Stephen` is also claiming that PGA2.0 hasn't produced a single scrap of evidence that proves that the corpse of man said to have laid stinking and rotting in his tomb for three days was raised from being dead [b] to being physically alive again, [c] had his physical wounds physically poked and prodded, physically shared a meal with friends, [d] physically ascended into heaven, came back down and appeared at the fall of the city of Jerusalem in AD 66-70 in physical form or in the form of a ghost.
[a] Your statement is not true. I already showed you that your CLAIM of a rotting corpse is not Scriptural.
[b] Again, I showed you several passages that speak of the nature of our resurrected bodies and the kingdom being not of THIS earth.
[c] And what did Jesus tell His disciples? He said He had not yet ascended to the Father. That took place in Act's 1:9-11.
[d] You assume a physical appearance, and I have touched on the evidence that counters that claim. I have a lot more to come. I even gave you excepts from Josephus that speak of the people of Jerusalem witnessing a heaven army (which I believe could be explained as a vision) and one man crying, "The Son cometh" when the talents or stones were catapulted into the city.
And I am also saying until PGA2.0 can come up with something other than unreliable and ambiguous cherry picked verses from the same unreliable and ambiguous source I will not engage with him any further than I have or have to.
Your not engaging is an excuse to sidestep the issues, IMO. You avoid my arguments almost totally, reiterating your cherry-picked verses repeatedly and avoiding any exegesis on my passages. I did that with yours, explaining the errors of your ways.
You seem to think that just by presenting a verse, it explains itself, without considering all of Scripture on the subject under discussion.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
In simple terms, a "satisfactory argument", would be no argument.In real terms, there are no arguments that satisfy the question.
No, a satisfactory argument would give good reasons and logic to explain a counterpoint. It would share the burden of proof for its assertions. One of the questions is how can good be known if everything is relative and changing? If a person, such as Skep, is a proponent of objective morality, he needs to explain what it entails and how he reaches such conclusions. Instead, you guys play shell games and redirect the focus. I have already expounded upon some of the problems, what I believe is necessary for morality, necessary to make sense of morality. Your systems of belief do not satisfy such criteria. I keep insisting you guys cannot justify morality as anything but from might makes right and preference (which makes nothing right unless it conforms to a standard that is right and does not change). You never try to justify but sneak around having such a discussion. Why SHOULD I believe what you're selling? No good reason at all.
There is an argument that satisfies the question of morality. That is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal, immutable Being. Such a Being as described in the Bible meets the criterion, and the Bible gives many proofs or evidence of His existence. Inside and outside the Bible, morality is one area of evidence for God. Inside the Bible, prophecy is another. Making sense of existence is a third. Making sense of the universe is a fourth. The list goes on...
This thread covers the one area --> Morality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
I'm not aware of this mythical figure under discussionJesus was mention in the first post, to which I assume the topic to be Jesus Christ.
- P1: If someone is key to a mythology, they are a mythological figure.
- P2: Jesus Christ key to Christian mythology.
- C1: Therefore, Jesus Christ is a mythological figure.
You're basing your whole argument on the mention of Jesus in the OP, but the OP concerns itself with eschatology. Stephen is claiming Jesus never came in the glory of the Father before some of His followers died.
Jesus said to his followers that some of them would live to witness his return to earth: “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” Matthew16: 27-28.
Here is verse 27, which Stephen never included, just listed:
7 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every person according to his [a]deeds.
The argument is not about whether Jesus is a mythical figure but about His coming in the glory of the Father during the 1st-century. That is another topic.
***
P1 and P2 are in question, thus your whole syllogism. You assume them to be true.
P1. Someone can be the key to some mythology and not be a mythological figure. The gnostics built a myth around Jesus, yet the biblical text warned against this and claimed eyewitness testimony of His historicity. The OT points to such a historical figure who the NT writers identify as Jesus. You, Ragnar, want to brush off these testimonies and fuel the myth. Simon Greenleaf, who wrote a treatise on eyewitness testimony that is well respected and its basis is still in use today, saw these eyewitnesses as credible. The eyewitnesses are reasonable to believe. The gnostics were not eyewitnesses but claimed some hidden knowledge. Their credibility is in great question.
P2. I disagree. People manufacturing these mythical theories in most cases centuries later are key. The early church fathers dealt with some of these heretical wolves trying to disrupt and steal away the message.
nor did I find the video lampooning Jesus humourous but in poor taste,Jesus apparently spent most of his adult life as a carpenter, before going through a career change at about age 30. Being God made flesh and all that, we should expect him to have made massive lasting impacts in that field (at least rebuild an important historical building or something), yet I have not heard of any. So I doubt a little comedy at an area he seemingly did not excel would hurt his feelings, as he's not a safe-space needing troll like a certain prophet.
The Bible's focus is not about Jesus' carpentry life but about His years of ministry as the promised Jewish Messiah and what that means to Israel and the world.
I invite you to jump into the thread, take your side, and discuss the topic under consideration.If the topic is not Jesus, as you've indicated, what is the topic?
The topic is eschatology. Stephen claims Jesus was a "No show." I say Stephen does not understand His coming. I asked Stephen to tell me how the Father came in His glory in the OT because Jesus said He would come in His Father's glory. So what does that mean? Stephen fails to identify this and, therefore, grossly misinterprets the nature of His coming in Scripture. He ignores all the prophecies Jesus said would be fulfilled before His coming, which is made known in the Olivet Discourse and can be shown to have happened to a reasonable degree, more reasonable than the alternative.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
If continuing to post here, please try to do so in a civilized manner. Disagree with topical ideas under discussion, rather than making insults toward the people with whom you are engaging in discussion. The mythological figure under discussion has no such protection; as an example, he could be accused of being a bad carpenter with no repercussions.-Ragnar, DM
Thank you, Ragnar, for reopening the post. However, I'm not aware of this mythical figure under discussion, nor did I find the video lampooning Jesus humourous but in poor taste, in the dark about the Person they ridicule. Again, I invite you to jump into the thread, take your side, and discuss the topic under consideration.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Great examples of mischaracterization and recycled arguments.
BS. These are arguments you failed to give a satisfactory answer to, so I continue to rehash them, hoping someone will tackle them. Amoranemix is the only one to give a decent rebuttal, and I see all kinds of flaws with his thinking, but I haven't read all his posts yet.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I've answered all relevant questions. I can't help if you don't like the answers.As for Amoranemix, he has much more patience than I do. He is a better person than me in that way. :-)
I do not believe you made sense of morality, and I have expressed as much with my arguments. If you want to get specific in your claims, please do so.
Evolution is not something that determines morals. It doesn't comprehend anything. It is a term used by particular worldviews to describe the upward chain of events resulting in morality. There is no intent, purpose, or design behind it. Whatever happens, happens. Why you think that makes something right is beyond me. You cannot demonstrate anything but relativism, although you claim otherwise. You claim objective morality can exist outside of God. How you get objective morality from relative human beings is beyond me. All you get is preference based on like and dislike. There is nothing good about that unless there is an unchanging, eternal standard of right and wrong. That standard is not you or me. Thus, I fail to see how you can make sense of morality. The bottom line, you can't, and you have not demonstrated you can.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Post 953:
After all this time, you still are combining words. You must have a glitch in your copying and pasting. I have to separate the contexts of others in your posts. Alternatively, I leave them and show others the lack of care taken in preserving the contexts of others as to the clarity.
@PGA2.0I'll assume that when you talk about having what is necassary, you mean necessary for the existence of morality.
Of course.
If morality is relative, how can you say something is right? All you can do is enforce a preference or say I like this therefore, it is good in my estimation, whatever good means to you.
In the mean time I noticed you keep systematically omitting to mention the reference moral standard to avoid clarity (the skeptic's friend).
I have made it clear many times in the past that the ONLY moral standard I believe is justifiable is God, and by God, I mean the Judeo-Christian God.
That there was consensus in German society about the Shoah is debatable. [a] In addition, the little consensus there was, was based largely on misinformation. [b] Morever, there is no true consensus, because we are disagreeing with it.[c] Choose an example of moral principles in a society there was consensus around and that we approve of, so that there is true consensus. Then tell whether these can be considered true.
[a] There was enough of a consensus to permit the extermination of 11-12 million undesirables through means of propaganda and group-think. It shows you what can happen when people (those in control) do not recognize a moral absolute system of values then gain control; anything goes. The elite controls the masses and determines what will and will not be permissible. How is that just unless there is a fixed standard of appeal? Can you answer that?
[b] Even if you disagree, what makes it any more right than their thoughts on morality? If there is no absolute fixed reference point/standard, what makes what you think any "better" than what I think? What makes Hitler's Germany any "better" than F.D R's or Truman's USA. It would just be a matter of opinion and the might to enforce that opinion. That is why I question why you can say Hitler's Germany is any better than F.D.R's America. It's just a matter of opinion. Opinion makes nothing right unless that opinion conforms to what is right. If there is no such thing as right, just preference, how can you say something is right? All you can do is say, "I like it!" Preference does not equate to right.
[c] I could choose consensus for most - murder, but what makes consensus right? The consensus during WWII of most Germans was that Jews were subhuman, less human than the rest. That does not make their consensus right.
[a] In Kim Jong Un's North Korea justice demands that those who criticize The Great Leader be sent to reeducation camps. [b] A good judge there will not dismiss a transgression like that as insignificant or unimportant. [c] How would that be good? [d] A person suffered injustice, was chided, and there would be no penalty?!
[a] The same could be argued for China.
[b] A transgression like what? Those who transgress their leader, their ultimate source of authority? Good in whose relative standard and why should it be believed? Might makes the right does not make anything right; it just makes it mandatory to do. A judge who went against Kim Jong-Un would likely be terminated.
[c] Only if there was a fixed standard that transcends his or Kim Jong-uns thoughts about the "good" or "right" they were following. Anything can be called good/right, but is it?
[d] The structure of your thought is unclear as to what you really mean here in the construction of your paragraph. I can take it two ways. Re-education camps are more than chiding, nor is it good. It is mind-control and a definite penalty, but if everything is relative, why is my opinion any better than yours? It's not unless what I believe meets a universal, unchanging standard of righteousness.
PGA2.0 478 to SkepticalOne[ . . . ] Also,all human life is created in the image and likeness of God, thereforeit is God's right to give and take life (human beings are only givena short time on this earth to come to or reject God), not ours. Thereare also numerous verses I could employ to show that God values theunborn human being.Assuming that human life were created in the image of God, how would it follow that God has the right to give and take it ?
If you create something, do you have the right to do with it what you want? The difference between you and God is that God will not take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place. Human life is limited because of the Fall.
[ . . . ], she should be allowed to kill another human being because she no longer wants to take responsibility?
Don't misrepresent my argument, please. You make it seem as if I am advocating for the woman taking the life f the unborn. I have never supported that position
3RU7AL 376It's a lot like people who are deported back into hostile territory after fleeing for their lives.PGA2.0 490I believe you are not being serious about what the unborn is. Let me ask you again - Is it okay to kill innocent human beings? Can you answer that simple question? Stop skirting the issue.What eludes you, presumably because that is impossible in your fictional worldview, is that it is possible to be both guilty and innocent (an apparent contradiction), namely innocent of one thing and guilty of another. Hence, whether it is OK to kill an innocent human, would depend on the circumstances.
It does not elude me. How can an unborn human being, who has done no wrong be both guilty and innocent? What have they done that is wrong, then?
So, you are advocating that it is okay to take the life of an innocent human being without the capability of restoring it. Okay, you first. Now how do you like your choice? You see, you can't live with such a choice yet you want to be able to foster it on others. How nice of you!
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
And you think my posts are long. Take a look at Amoranemix. It takes a lot of effort to respond to each one of his posts, but at least he gives more substance than you do. He is willing to answer some of my questions too.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Wow! More assertations with little substance. Not a question tackled. Typical.18 words compared to 125 of yours.Short and sweet - love it!We've already been through your script earlier in the thread. No need to travel those paths again.
More assertions, no proof. And you never adequately explain why what you believe is justifiable or reasonable. Short enough for you, Skep?
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I won't respond if you do - just to be clearPlease get this through your head - the only thing that atheists have in common is that they don't believe in gods. That's literally it. It would be like trying to characterize all people who don't own a dog as anything aside from people who don't own dogs.
More allegations and no substance.
There is a difference between "been told by people that your description of their position is inaccurate" and proving it. What that kind of charged rhetoric does is shift the burden of proof and accountability away from atheism and back to Christianity. Each system should be able to take care of its own burden. Once a charge is laid against Christianity, and I respond by demonstrating the objectivity of Christianity and the relativism of the other system, then discuss, ask, plead with atheists to explain what is necessary, with no reply from them, that is not a fair exchange.
What you have in common with all atheists is you look for another way to explain everything other than a God or gods. You deny this God in your explanations without justification since you can't make sense of things. That includes your stance on morality. You have to explain why your way of looking at morality is sound and valid. You dismally fail to do that. Instead, you and others use all kinds of deceptive tricks to avoid accountability to what you believe. On the other hand, I give reasons why I believe objective, absolute, unchanging moral values are necessary for morality and where those values would have to come from, and why Christianity fits the bill.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Wow! 682 words in response to a few words of mine!Listen - once you've been told by people that your description of their position is innacurate, it becomes dishonest to continue using that description. You've got a script where atheists are always the bad guys. You ignore refutation and recycle beaten arguments. Its all about the performance rather than the substance.At this point, its pure dishonesty. Of course, I'm sure lying for god isn't really "lying" through some sketchy justification you use to rationalize it... (but it is!).The fact that this thread is still alive 1200 posts later is because you cannot admit error - it would undermine your pretense at absolute (and unreasonable) certainty and hurt your outsized pride.I wish better for you, my friend.
Wow! More assertations with little substance. Not a question tackled. Typical.
18 words compared to 125 of yours.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
1200 posts and still mischaracterizing atheists and atheism? Tsk, tsk...
I am not mischaracterizing atheists or atheism. You are playing a shell game here. Just because you can characterize me as mischaracterizing atheism does not make it so. You believe the assertion proves your point. Meanwhile, I have been asking you and others to demonstrate that morality, from an atheist perspective, shows you have a reasonable foundation to hang values upon. You don't have one, neither can you show you have one. All you can do is to express a preference, what you or a/the group like. Why is your preference better than others that oppose yours? What makes it right? I can show nations (like Nazi Germany, North Korea, China, Russia) that were/are controlled by a small number of people who manipulate the rest into what they like. These countries continually demonstrate what we call injustices (in the West or by the American standard) by how they treat people. Would you like to live there? What is your objective, absolute, unchanging reference point from which you derive right and wrong? Why can you say theirs is worse if it is not fixed? Because of your own preferences or your groups? Again, what makes that better? You don't have one because there is no best. You make it up depending on what you like or are railroaded by those who decide what you will like. I could point to most societies and cultures, groups and subgroups, and individuals who exhibit a changing system of morality. For instance, what is the right view of abortion, the one presently held or held fifty or so years ago in the USA before Roe V Wade? If it is changing, and it is, how can you arrive at a better? Better than what? In reference to what?
As I explained, with quantitative values, there is a fixed reference point. We can measure a length by a standard that does not change. We can be precise in building something because we have such a system of reference. How so with morality, a qualitative value system. What is your final reference point for values? IT IS SHIFTING. You can't demonstrate you have any fixed reference point. You don't have what is necessary to have such a standard. That is because of where you begin, without God. That is because of how you tackle the problem. You can't make sense of it or offer a reasonable solution.
Again, the law of identity states that A=A. Good = good. Good cannot be bad.
You know, there is a commandment in your holy book against bearing false witness. So much for the superiority of that 'absolute, fixed reference point'! :-)
Demonstrate to me that I am bearing false witness. You don't like that I am telling you like it is, so you attack me instead of my points. How many times have I asked atheists to show me what they believe makes sense without having my questions answered. Your system of thought or worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of existence, the Universe, or morality - the big or ultimate questions of life. You ride on the coattails of Christianity in that you borrow from it when you want to make sense of things. You say rape is wrong, so is murder, yet evolution does not care one iota about right or wrong. Those who survive and adapt are strong (survival of the fittest). If that means killing all those who oppose you (Kim Jong-un, Hitler, Mao, Tito, Stalin, Khomeini, Kim Il-Sung, Castro, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein), so be it. If that means getting everyone to follow your preferences, then so be it.
Rather than pitting one group against another, I think a thread on the nature of morality would be much more productive. I think you'll find atheists (if you allow yourself to be informed by something outside your own head) are not a moral monolith, and I'm certain that is true of theists.
A moral monolith! Wow! Truth? Two opposing worldviews on a particular subject logically both cannot be right. Either you, me, or neither, are right on the subject of morality. We state opposites. I say, let's open the can of worms and see what holds each position together to see which one makes more sense or any sense. That is the object of this thread. I want to see which worldview makes sense of morality, and I keep demonstrating yours can't. It does not have what is necessary. It has a faulty foundation that crumbles when light is shone on it.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
Well, after much perseverance and the desire to continue to unmask your yards of relativism and insensibility concerning morality, I think I have arrived at where I left off. Back to the topic soon. I will be starting afresh on Post 953.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Yup... ever read Revalations without choking on the irony?
It's singular --> Revelation.
What irony are you speaking of, and where do you get this concept of the rapture from? Please don't wriggle out of an explanation by side-tracking my questions.
And you never addressed Post 14. (So, what is the nature of His coming?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Ya know? The rapture and all? We've had a single, very straightforward conversation. IF you forgot what that conversation is, literally just go back and read 'em..
What rapture? Do you think the Bible teaches a rapture?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
No.... see - I know what I'm referring to because I said the thing - you can pretend you know what I mean when I say things but unless you can demonstrate that all you have is assertions. Jesus quite literally means that he'll come back and raise up the Christians - you can switch it up all you like, but I haven't stalled once. You've been disingenuous, there is a difference bud.
What do you want me to make of this? What is the context? It makes no sense to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I showed you that Flavius Josephus makes no mention that a stinking and rotting corpse came back to life physically , and physically shared a meal with friends, had his physical wounds poked and prodded physically and then physically went up into heaven only to come down again on a cloud, physically.you seem to think Josephus had a stake in confirming the biblical narrative, although he does in many ways.Nope. Stop being so ridiculous. I am saying the complete opposite. Flavius Josephus had NOTHING to say on the matter at all, did he. AND you are simply ignoring the PHYSICAL.Every eye will see him and he will return the way he went.
But he did have all kinds of things to say regarding biblical prophecy. He did not support Jesus as Messiah, but he certainly wrote about Him, and he wrote about what was prophesied in the NT in startlingly confirming terms, seemingly unbeknownst to him.
"Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see him,even those who pierced him"; and all peoples on earth "will mournbecause of him." So shall it be! Amen. <<<<< If this was meant only spiritually what were the supposed to be "looking " at.
"Look" does not have to mean physical sight. Look, I'm making a point.
Definition of look (Entry 2 of 2) the act of looking
b: GLANCE
2a: the expression of the countenance
b: physical appearance especially : attractive physical appearance —usually used in plural
c: a combination of design features giving a unified appearance a new look in women's fashions
3: the state or form in which something appears
I speak of definitions 2c and 3.
Not only this, many translations use the word "Behold," not "look," to make the point that it is not physical sighting being spoken of.
NASB - Behold.
KJV - Behold.
ESV - Behold.
As for every eye, does that mean every single eye, or does it mean in regards to a specific group, or is it used in a figurative sense to include the whole of OT Israel? The tribes of the land speak of the twelve tribes of Israel. Did every person pierce Him? No, yet God attributes that piercing to OT Israel. They were the ones who handed Him over to the Romans when Pilate gave them the option. Was every OT Israelite there when Jesus was pierced? Nope. So, "those who pierced Him" places the blame on Israel as a nation even though not everyone handed Him over to be pierced.
So, you want to take this dogmatically literally. That is not possible. You have to understand that "those who pierced Him" were first of all the Romans, and second, attributed to the nation of Israel, who God repeatedly warned of coming judgment once they filled up the full measure of their sins by causing the crucifixion of His Son.
Many people have understood His coming in Revelation 1:7 as His judgment on Israel. The whole of Revelation speaks of this judgment to ISRAEL. Jesus is coming to avenge the blood of all the saints (and His own blood) shed on the land since the forefathers' time.
If you want to go on those who looked at Him when He was pierced, that was not everyone but a small representation --> OT Israel.
John 19:36-37 (NASB)
36 For these things took place so that the Scripture would be fulfilled: “Not a bone of Him shall be [a]broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look at Him whom they pierced.”
36 For these things took place so that the Scripture would be fulfilled: “Not a bone of Him shall be [a]broken.” 37 And again another Scripture says, “They will look at Him whom they pierced.”
Those looking on Him were mainly 1st-century Jews. They were responsible for His piercing.
And what were these Jews to see Him doing? They were to see Him coming in judgment of Israel. That is what they were going to see or witness - the judgment taking place.
"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky?This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven,will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."Yes good question isn't it, why were they "looking" skyward?
The Ascension
9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took Him up, out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, then behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them, 11 and they said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”
9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were watching, and a cloud took Him up, out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, then behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them, 11 and they said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”
Men of Galilee - who were they? That was a specific group of people. Were there women and children there? How did they see Him go into heaven? They saw Him lifted into the cloud presence of God. The clouds surrounded Him. (So, the presence of God was with Him and that is how He would return, in the presence and glory of the Father). Are these every eye of Revelation 1:7? Are they with His angels where He repaired every person for their deeds? Did the trumpet sound? Did a voice of the archangel speak? What is common to all these accounts of His return? It is the cloud cover or presence of God. That is how they would see/understand His return.
Matthew 16:27 - "come in the glory of His Father with His angels." How was that? How did the Fathter come in glory in the OT?
Matthew 24:30 - "see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory." Coming in power and great glory - the glory of the Father.
Matthew 26:64 - "at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Clouds speak of judgment.
Mark 13:26 - "they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory."
Mark 14:62 - "see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Acts 1:9 - "a cloud took Him up, out of their sight.
1 Thessalonians 4:17 - "we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air," They would be in God's presence.
Revelation 1:7 - "He is coming with the clouds."
Until you can tell me how God was manifest in glory in the OT your argument is mute and moot (having no practical relevence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
First of all, it obviously isn't a quote - if it were a quote then it'd be in quotation marks, second of all - um... again - do you have any several thousand year old guys - because practically speaking it doens't matter if "some" of them would taste death, that means some of them wouldn't, therefore meaning that some of them would live, its quite apparent there.
Where do you get the several thousand years from? Jesus said some standing there would not die UNTIL they saw the Son coming into His kingdom. How do you get a two-thousand-year-old guy from that text, and once again, what did Jesus mean when He said He would come in the glory of the Father. In the OT, how did the Father come in glory in the OT Scriptures? Where did Jesus say some of them would not taste death? You read into Scripture something it does not disclose.
Matthew 16:28 (NASB)
28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Tell me, what did Jesus mean when He said He would come in the Father's glory. Both you and Stephen are stalling in answering.
And no - I am not talking about Mathews, I'm talking about revelations - Revalations 1:7 - "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen."So... yeah, its pretty hard to misinterpret that bud.
Nice switch! You never identified what you were speaking of and when you speak of "not tasting death," you refer to a specific verse. The verse of Scripture that talks about some "not tasting death" is Matthew 16:28.
As for Revelation 1:7, it speaks to an Old Covenant people who do not exist in a covenant after AD 70. Are you aware that the people who pierced Jesus God attributes to the Jews? Thus, the prophecy would have to be fulfilled before AD 70. I believe neither you nor Stephen know enough about Scripture to make a correct interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
@Theweakeredge
@Theweakeredge wrote:-->@PGA2.0Nah, Jesus said he's be back and the rapture would happen. I mean... you can insert your fanfiction in, but that doesn't change the original textNice.Which is what the devout Christians continually attempt to do when they rewrite and put words into the mouths of the authors and biblical characters that make up these scriptures. Indeed, one Bible ignorant fool believes that if we don't understand the scriptures in their "original Greek" then we will never understand what the scriptures are talking about at all.And I say fool because just in that one retarded comment he had obviously didn't realise that he just rendered every single bible ever written in the English language pointless and obsolete.
First, I find what you do is very sly. You make a derogatory comment about someone without including their name in the Receivers box. That means that I might never have noticed this post and been given a chance to respond to it.
Second, I have shown those who are interested in the subject that you are Scripturally illiterate. You don't understand the culture of the time, thus the audience that Jesus was addressing and what such as statement as "coming in the glory of the Father" meant to them. You never countered my argument by showing you knew what Jesus was speaking about. Instead, you took your 21st-century understanding and applied it back then. You demonstrate you have little understanding of the background that Jesus refers to. Jesus and the NT writers continually referenced the OT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Nah, Jesus said he's be back and the rapture would happen. I mean... you can insert your fanfiction in, but that doesn't change the original text
Where did He speak of a "rapture?"
Again, for the second time to you, what did Jesus mean when He said He would come in the glory of the Father? What does that statement mean? Please explain what that meant. You reference a verse of Scripture, Matthew 16:28, then you back away from explaining what it means. Here is your comment again:
YOU: "He said he'd be back before the end of his apostle's lives.... and well, unless you know, like, some 2000 year old dudes?"
And that quote of yours is not what He said. He said that "some" of them would not taste death, not all of them.
So, what is the nature of His coming?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I showed you that Flavius Josephus makes no mention that a stinking and rotting corpse came back to life physically , and physically shared a meal with friends, had his physical wounds poked and prodded physically and then physically went up into heaven only to come down again on a cloud, physically.
I refuted your claim that Jesus' body saw decay (numerous times), and you seem to think Josephus had a stake in confirming the biblical narrative, although he does in many ways.
You see THE BIBLE CLEARLY states: Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven." Acts 1:11. That will be physically.AND DON'T FORGET THAT >>>>> "Look, he is coming with the clouds," and "every eye will see him, even those who pierced him"; and all peoples on earth "will mourn because of him." So shall it be! Amen."
Concerning Acts and Revelation 1:7, does "the same manner or way" apply to all, to every eye, or just those in Galilee?
I have already gone through several times the imagery and symbolism of Jesus being taken up in a cloud (representing God's glory and presence).
Yet not a single "eye witness" stopped to think to record this miraculous and momentous event; not even the one that "pierced him"?
The "one" who pierced Him was the nation of Israel. That is disclosed by Scripture. They were the ones who said, "Let His blood be on our hands," and cried out for Him to be crucified. They witnessed the judgment both Jesus, John the Baptist, and the apostles warned against. They witnessed the coming of the Son's judgment on them.
Strange do you not think that these writers wrote many things down about the Christ when he was walking around telling people to take up their beds, curing only a few lepers, and making wine for his friends to get down their necks, but we have not a single eyewitness account of this miracle of miracles and Jesus and his army of angels coming on or out of the clouds, not one.
How many times must I explain this? God is warning Israel up to the judgment. The Bible does not deal with events after the judgment. History leaves us with those details in some cases. We hear from Josephus and other historians what took place. Peter and Paul were put to death before Jerusalem fell, so was James. The Romans scattered the nation to the "four corners of the earth."
Secondly, how do you witness something spiritual in nature? God is not a person that you can physically see Him. Jesus came in the glory of the Father. You know that, yet you refuse to consider what that meant to these 1st-century people.
You must do better PGA 2.0. Even your new found friend doesn't agree with you (he just doesn't want to agree with me, that's Christian bias for you) and neither do the other half of your outfit in Preterism.
I'm doing just fine, Stephen. What other half of "my outfit in Preterism are you referring to, partial-Preterists? I already said I do not believe that position is biblically justified. And I don't blame him for not agreeing with you. Your argument is to state the same thing over and over without any exegesis done on your part. You refuse to engage in the countless questions I have asked you that require you to justify what you believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Are you denying Josephus witnessed the destruction of the city and temple by the Romans?Nope and you know I am not, so stop being so ridiculous. . You have said before "Josephus describes it in much detail".#26 <<< this is of course simply bare faced lie. So lets not go over that again or I will block you.
Incidentally, the description of the talents speaks of the judgment of the Son of Man as mentioned in Post 33:
"The SON Is Coming!"(24)
(v:vi:3)
3. …The engines, that all the legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion: those that threw darts and those that threw stones were more forcible and larger than the rest, by which they not only repelled the excursions of the Jews, but drove those away that were upon the walls also. Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent,(25) and were carried two furlongs(26) and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness; accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, "THE SON COMETH:"(27) so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means, and by their thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm. But the Romans contrived how to prevent that by blacking the stone, who then could aim at them with success, when the stone was not discerned beforehand, as it had been till then; and so they destroyed many of them at one blow…
Remember, the Levitical Law prescribed stoning for adultery. Jerusalem was likened to a harlot and whore of Babylon in Revelation and also in the OT. The seventh of the Ten Commandments says, “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:14).
Remember the prescribed penalty?
Stoning.
Remember God likened those in Jerusalem to an adulterer and like Sodom in the OT?
Also among the prophets of Jerusalem I have seen a horrible thing: The committing of adultery and walking in deceit; And they strengthen the hands of evildoers, So that no one has turned back from his wickedness. All of them have become to Me like Sodom, And her inhabitants like Gomorrah.
And their dead bodies will lie on the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified.
The Lord was crucified in Jerusalem. The price for adultery was stoning. Israel had made a marriage covenant with the biblical God and was continually unfaithful throughout the OT. Thus, the stoning of the "City of God" and the flaming stones to purify it. Fire speaks of wrath as well as cleansing. God, in judgment, was stoning Judah for her marital unfaithfulness.
because they acted foolishly in Israel, and committed adultery with their neighbors’ wives, and falsely spoke words in My name which I did not command them. I am He who knows, and a witness,” declares the Lord.’”
So I will judge you as women who commit adultery or shed blood are judged; and I will bring on you the blood of wrath and jealousy.
For they have committed adultery, and blood is on their hands. So they have committed adultery with their idols, and even made their sons, whom they bore to Me, pass through the fire to them as food.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'd have to disagree there. He said he'd be back before the end of his apostle's lives.... and well, unless you know, like, some 2000 year old dudes?
It can be shown that every prophetic event listed in the Olivet Discourse happened by AD 70. That confirms His coming and you, twenty centuries removed, misinterpret the nature of the coming because you don't understand the OT background that Jesus was referencing when He said He would come in His Father's glory. To properly understand this text you have to understand how the Father manifested Himself in glory in the OT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Are you denying Josephus witnessed the destruction of the city and temple by the Romans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kadin
I have many that deal with different subjects, but a few in dealing with unbelievers because they deal with the nature of unbelief, a faulty worldview structure.
Matthew 7:24-29 (NASB)
The Two Foundations
24 “Therefore, everyone who hears these words of Mine, and [a]acts on them, will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell and the [b]floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not [c]act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell and the [d]floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and its collapse was great.”
28 [e]When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; 29 for He was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (NASB)
3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage battle according to the flesh, 4 for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but [a]divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. 5 We are destroying arguments and all arrogance raised against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,
Colossians 2:2b-4
resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. 4 I say this so that no one will deceive you with persuasive arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Revelations 22:20 - "He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."Cause I think it demonstrates how bullshit the bible is all in one place. Very convenient. In all seriousness, it does seem to me that the fact that Jesus said he'd be back before the end of his apostle's lives and this verse both show that no, Jesus isn't coming back.
Rubbish. You are wrong. You don't understand the nature of the Second Comin as discussed on the linked thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
You do realize that biblically - this leads to parents getting away with abuse? With never being questioned? Dogma and indoctrination? No - it should NEVER be any sort of legal recommendation to honour your father and your mother - also - let's interpret this charitably, what about gay couples? What about single couples? What about polyamory couples (and don't even try to argue that the bible is against polyamory, it isn't.)
Nope, a godly OT parent would not abuse their children, neither would the godly NT parent. Jesus' warning about the penalty of those who harm little children is severe. God has put our parents as guardians over us until we grow up. There is an obligation there to practice godly virtues. That does not mean harming one's children but disciplining them so that they don't stray from God by training them in the way they should go.
We are all accountable to God for our actions upon this earth. Jesus has paid for our sins and the Holy Spirit, through the Word, leads us in the way we should go.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You still cannot produce one single eyewitness to any of the catastrophes that were supposed to accompany the ghostly second coming in AD 66.
Josephus is one, and a pretty good one at that.
Well come back when you can."But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare".2Peter 3:8-10
Apocalyptic language. Do you understand the metaphoric nature of such language? Their whole system of worship, everything they knew, and their economy revolved around the temple and Old Covenant Law, would be shaken. The elements of the old covenant would be destroyed by judgment, denoted by fire, if you understand the OT references to fire. Fire means judgment and cleansing
The whole epistle to the Hebrews, from start to finish, is a contrast in covenants. The two are compared, and the New Covenant is better in every way.
Hebrews 12
Contrast of Sinai and Zion
18 For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, 19 and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words, which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. 20 For they could not [g]cope with the command, “If even an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, “I am terrified and trembling.” 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of [h]angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
The Unshaken Kingdom
25 See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, [i]much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns us from heaven. 26 And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven.” 27 This expression, “Yet once more,” denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let’s [j]show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
18 For you have not come to a mountain that can be touched and to a blazing fire, and to darkness and gloom and whirlwind, 19 and to the blast of a trumpet and the sound of words, which sound was such that those who heard begged that no further word be spoken to them. 20 For they could not [g]cope with the command, “If even an animal touches the mountain, it shall be stoned.” 21 And so terrible was the sight, that Moses said, “I am terrified and trembling.” 22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of [h]angels, 23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, 24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel.
The Unshaken Kingdom
25 See to it that you do not refuse Him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, [i]much less will we escape who turn away from Him who warns us from heaven. 26 And His voice shook the earth then, but now He has promised, saying, “Yet once more I will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven.” 27 This expression, “Yet once more,” denotes the removing of those things which can be shaken, as of created things, so that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Therefore, since we receive a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let’s [j]show gratitude, by which we may offer to God an acceptable service with reverence and awe; 29 for our God is a consuming fire.
Mount Sinai was where the Old Covenant was initiated and represented the Old Covenant God made with Israel. Mount Zion represents the New Covenant God, in Yeshua/Jesus (God with us), made with the New Israel of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
We should import the entire population of Mexico and Somalia into America
Good idea. How about two more States? And working Americans can pay for the whole enchilada of education, medical and social welfare!!!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Better than communism.
Or the crazed social Marxism going on in the States now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Post 157 - "The bible says he didn't show when he promised to show. The Jews complained about this no show, they didn't complain because he did show, now did they, you silly little man."Yes it does.
You are answering your own words from Post 157, and your underlined is confusing. What are you trying to say?
Can you show me evidence that he did show before those hearing the promise from his own mouth had passed away? That will be a no.
I can show you other Scripture that infers as much.
You are trying to suggest that there are written records from that time that have survived the corridor of time, attesting to some of his disciples surviving the fall of Jerusalem. Ireneaus, one church father, mentions that John was alive, as I think others do too since they borrow from his writings. His writings are unclear on whether Ireneaus was speaking of Nero's persecution or the time of Domitian. That last point has been driven home by people like Kenneth Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell. Now, have you read the church fathers or Gentry on this subject?
The John of Revelation places himself at the beginning time of the tribulation. Jesus said of His disciple John,
Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!”
We know from Matthew 16:28 that some of the disciples were included in "some of those" who would still be alive. We know from the same account by Luke and Mark that "some" also included some of the crowd that heard Jesus say these words. For instance, Mark 8:34 says,
"And He summoned the crowd together with His disciples,"
While Matthew 16:24 says,
"Then Jesus said to His disciples..."
And Luke 9:18 says,
"And it happened that while He was praying alone, the disciples were with Him,..."
John suggests/infers that he would be alive when the Lord returned. What is it to them if Jesus wants John to remain alive until He comes?
Therefore this account went out among the brothers, that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”
Can you show me one single eye witness report from the time testifying that that seen Jesus returned from heaven on a cloud. That will be no.
From that time, I have given you Josephus's account. He recorded the one man saying "The Son is coming" over and over. Josephus, who witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem said this:
"[O]n the twenty-first day of the month of Artemisius [Jyar], a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sunsetting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armor were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities."1
1. Josephus The Wars of the Jews 6.5.3.
"Tacitus also mentions this event: “In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour.”2
2. Tacitus The Histories 5.13.
"Pseudo-Hegesippus also describes the coming of Christ on the clouds with His mighty angels at that time when he writes, “A certain figure appeared of tremendous size, which many saw, just as the books of the Jews have disclosed, and before the setting of the sun there were suddenly seen in the clouds chariots in the clouds and armed battle arrays by which the cities of all Iudaea and its territories were invaded.”3
3. Pseudo-Hegesippus 44.
But concerning the coming, I do not believe it was a physical coming, but they would see or understand His coming. You mention without stop, "every eye will see Him" in your posts. Does "every eye" mean every single eye or every eye concerning those in Israel at that time? And does it mean the eyes of understanding or literal eyes? IOW's are we speaking of a literal coming or a spiritual coming? Revelation 1:7 combines two verses of OT Scripture, and it also uses metaphorical terms. Combining two verses is a way the Hebrews used parallelism (i.e., every eye will see the Son of Man - Daniel 7:13, paralleled or coupled with those who pierced Him - Zechariah 12:10). Matthew 24:30 can also be seen as a spiritual coming as in Daniel 7:13-14, a passage the Jews of the day would have been aware of, especially since Jesus referred to Daniel in the Olivet Discource, also contains a heavenly scene in which Jesus is seen in the glory of the Father. That is the mental picture the Jews would be aware of in those 1st-century days.
Matthew 24:30-31 (NASB)
30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then [1] all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and [2] they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 And He will send forth His angels with a [3] great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His [a]elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.
[1] All the tribes of the earth (land). All the tribes of the land are disbanded after AD 70. Josephus describes the great captivity that took place. As well as Zechariah, Jesus said it would be the nation of Israel (i.e., the twelve tribes) who would mourn.
[2] The Son of Man comes in glory before the throne of God in heaven and is given the glory He shared with God before the incarnation.
[ The Son of Man Presented ] “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a son of man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him.
In other words, the Son came into the presence of the Father in heaven, for clouds represent the presence of God. It also represents judgment. Jesus said He would come in His Father's glory. How did the Father come in judgment of a nation?
[ Message to Egypt ] The pronouncement concerning Egypt: Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; The idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, And the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.
“Behold, he goes up like clouds, And his chariots like the whirlwind; His horses are swifter than eagles. Woe to us, for we are ruined!”
[3] What did trumpets mean to OT Israel? The great last trumpet blast symbolizes the resurrection of the dead rising in Christ. The last feast in the OT is the feast of trumpets symbolizing the end of the OT feasts, for they have now (AD 70) all found their fulfillment in Christ.
I keep telling you. You have nothing .
Nope, it is you who has nothing.
Created:
-->
@Amoranemix
You are still going strong, I see. I will be back to this thread when I feel motivated to reply. There is so much stuff to catch up and it will take lots of time to do so. That is something that escapes me at present. Each one of your posts is very detailed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
NOPE!!! I have said Peter is saying what " THEY" will say. Not what they HAVE SAID!<< past tense. FFS don't you know your own shite? LOOOOOOOOOOOOK >>> "They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation."2 Peter 3:4 <<<< SEE THAT!? It says what what they will say, and NOT what they have said.
Yes, Peter is confirming that mockers will question His coming - Where is His coming? That does not mean Jesus will not come because mockers question His coming. That does not mean Peter is teaching His did not come or will not come. Peter makes it plain to faithful believers that the "day" is just around the corner, that God is not slow in keeping His promises but is patient, not wanting any of the elect to perish.
You are just as devious as your new found devious buddy that tries to put words into MY mouth because he too LIKE YOU cannot differentiate between what it is that I say and what I say the scripture themselves ACTUALLY say.("Where is His coming) while you ignore what the rest of the chapter and epistle teaches.I haven't ignored anything. I posted Peters reply directly from scripture and I called it a bullshite excuse for Jesus NOT returning at the time he had promised to do so.And you still have shown how I have " twisted scripture into pretzels"
It is hard for you to recognize this. Others see it. D.A. Carson, in his book, Exegetical Fallacies, lists one called "World-view confusion." Others call a similar process by a different name (Historical-cultural background), but essentially it is when one thinks their "own experiences and interpretation of reality are the proper framework for interpreting the biblical text, whereas there may be some deeper differences once we probe beyond the superficial level," such as what a phrase or context meant to them. Case in point, coming in the Father's glory.
The mockers are questioning the coming,SEE!!!? you are misreading what Peter is ACTUALLY saying. IT IS PETER THAT SAID there will be " mockers" that would question the no show. AND PETER also said what "THE MOCKERS" would say. He is speaking in advance. But you haven't even recognised that BIBLICAL FACT! 2 Peter 3:3" in the last days scoffers will come" <<< SEE "will" not "there are or have been" , all future tense.
No, you are twisting and projecting your wishful thinking on me. I acknowledge that the mockers are yet future and in many posts.
ME: "Peter, in fact, tells that false teachers and mockers would come, just as His Lord had warned of such things."
Here is the greater context:
"That is called collapsing the context (point two). The mockers are questioning the coming, and Peter is setting the record straight, telling the faithful to be patient and that these false teachers will get their just reward - i.e., punishment. Peter, in fact, tells that false teachers and mockers would come, just as His Lord had warned of such things. Now Peter is identifying such people."
Those people will be mockers. They will be false prophets and false teachers. But the DAY of the Lord would come as a thief in the night and catch such people unaware.
and Peter is setting the record straight,My arse. What Peter is doing is realising that there will be questions in the future if Jesus doesn't show and he is preparing his lame excuses for the dumb, superstitious, gullible illiterate of the time to swallow.
No, he tells these Jews in foreign lands not to be disturbed when mockers claim, "Where is His coming." He is telling them not to question such reports because that DAY will come.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You insist that Peter is questioning the comingNope! Peter doesn't question the coming. And you won't find anywhere on this thread that shows that I have "asserted" or wrote that he did or has.
From your own mouth:
Post 157 - "The bible says he didn't show when he promised to show. The Jews complained about this no show, they didn't complain because he did show, now did they, you silly little man."
That would be questioning His coming.
And quit the ad hominems. I don't use them with you. You continually accuse me of lying (i.e., "No you haven't. Stop lying!") and belittle me and state that I'm stupid. I question your ignorance of the subject as warranted by explaining from Scripture your errors. You show you do not understand the message. You think by stating something long enough that it makes it true. I have given evidence of you doing just that.
Now, to the point: You are the one stating that the Bible says He did not show when He promised. That is not what the Bible says. Peter is warning the flock not to be deceived by false teachers and false prophets who will question His coming, just like Paul warned the church in Thessalonica that some were preaching that His coming, the day of the Lord, and the resurrection had already happened.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-4
2 Now we ask you, brothers and sisters, regarding the [a]coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your [b]composure or be disturbed either by a spirit, or a [c]message, or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 No one is to deceive you in any way! For it will not come unless the [d]apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above [e]every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.
Both Paul and Peter were fighting heresies and false teachings. They warned the believers to be on guard when such false teachers appear among them and questioned His coming or said it had already happened.
Post 166 - "The scriptures themselves tell us very clearly that Jesus failed to return when he promised he would."
No, they do not. They teach that false teachers and false prophets taught that, but Peter taught that the Lord's coming was near and faithful believers need not be deceived. That is what Peter taught.
Post 166 - "HERE see for yourself>> "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day."2 Peter 3:8
Odd it is that when the promise was made that Jesus forgot to mention this himself. So how can they forget if they weren't told in the first fkn place?
And if is the case then 1000 years after the crucifixion would not put us in AD 66-70, would it? So you can explain that shite for him too if you like."
This is how you conflate and collapse Scripture to make it suit your purpose. You impose your take on the thousand years when in effect, what Peter is saying is not that one day equals a thousand years but one day is like a thousand years in the sense that time is insignificant to an eternal God. He is not slow in keeping His promises but does not want any of the elect to perish but all to come to salvation. That has not happened yet, but Peter makes it plain in his previous letter that the time is near.
1 Peter 4:7 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
7 The end of all things [a]is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of [b]prayer.
7 The end of all things [a]is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of [b]prayer.
So Peter is telling these strange in a foreign land to watch and not be dismayed by false reports of false teachings that question Jesus' coming. The DAY will come like a thief in the night when these mockers and scoffers least expect it to come, but these believers should not be caught unaware.
And the following is a ridiculous argument:
Post 166 - "Not a single written eyewitness account of a return or these disasters that were to accompany the promised return of the Christ "coming on a cloud".
The NT is concerned about the events leading up to the destruction of the city and temple. It is warning the Old Covenant people of the COMING destruction and to repent before it is too late before the judgment comes. God did not consider it necessary to write about what would happen after the judgment. He said that everything necessary for salvation was already contained in these writings.
What is the title of your thread - No show.
Post 4 - "So it seems then that not a single person alive in 1st century AD (or after) witnessed the Christs promised return in their life time as Christ himself says he would.
It was always going to be the case of apologists such as Peter making excuses to the gullible, ignorant and superstitious of time that would swallow his feeble excuses - hook line and sinker. Peter was a fisherman after all."
***
First, the underlined is the fallacy of special pleading. He is not making excuses. He is warning them not to believe mockers and false teachers. You, Stephen, have not spoken to every person alive in the 1st-century yet speaks for every one of them.
Second, how is this not an example of Peter questioning the Second Coming and saying "no-show?" If what you say is true, in 1 Peter 4:7, he tells the strange in a foreign land (the Jews) that the time of His coming is near, then you say Peter is teaching another thousand years. Which is it?
Post 30 - "Peter was challenged wasn't he? But he had no explanation for the no show did he,? So instead just like you he swerved the problem with bullshit : lets see what they said and Peter's weasley reply."
They asked;
“Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”2Peter 3:4
No explanation for the no-show that had not happened while the city and temple still stood. Like every NT author, Peter is speaking of a soon, near, quick coming judgment, not one thousand years away. You should try reading commentaries on 2 Peter 3 to the significance of what the thousand years symbolized.
Peter never taught a no-show, as you claim. Quite the opposite, he denied what the false prophets and mocker would be saying was true by proving that the Lord was not slow in keeping His promises. He was still coming. And I reminded you of what His coming would mean to these people - how they would understand it as He would return soon.
Post 74 - "I have claimed that Peter, the lying turncoat, actually tried to explain away Jesus' no show with the bullshit excuse that to "the Lord" a generation was a thousands years."
Nope, He did not. I have repeatedly told you that Peter did not say a day IS one thousand years as you claim.
Post 34 - The thousand years explained.
Post 103 - "You have to admit that even Peter, not to mention those that took him to task admitted that the Christ hadn't return and this is the reason he was forced to move the goal posts from " a generation " to a thousand years!<<<<< this is the "oldest propaganda trick" that has been peddled for TWO THOUSAND YEARS!!!!"
Peter taught no such thing. Peter understood what a generation meant. You continue to conflate 'is' with 'like' when you cite that verse and now state that a generation is one thousand years to Peter, who moved the biblical definition of what it meant. That is rubbish. He did no such thing. You continue to read into Scripture things it does not teach.
Post 105 - "And so does the bible HERE>>>. “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”2Peter 3:4
that^^^^^^^ sounds like a no show to me sunshine."
Here again, this is not what Peter taught or believed - a no-show.
Post 105 - "Peter, not to mention those that took him to task admitted that the Christ hadn't return and this is the reason he was forced to move the goal posts from " a generation " to a thousand years!<<<<< this is the "oldest propaganda trick" that has been peddled for TWO THOUSAND YEARS!!!!"
Peter admitted that Christ's return was near, as shown by 1 Peter 4:7 and a host of other Scriptures in his epistles. He never once moved the goalposts.
Post 108 - "Peter, not to mention those that took him to task admitted that the Christ hadn't return and this is the reason he was forced to move the goal posts from " a generation " to a thousand years!<<<<< this is the "oldest propaganda trick" that has been peddled for TWO THOUSAND YEARS!!!!"
Peter confirmed that Christ's coming was near. He also confirmed that his life was short, thus indicating he would not be physically alive on earth when Jesus returned.
2 Peter 1:13 (NASB)
13 I consider it right, as long as I am in this earthly [a]dwelling, to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 knowing that the laying aside of my earthly dwelling is imminent, as also our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me.
What does that mean, moved the goalposts? It means Peter would have questioned what he wrote earlier about the soon, near coming of the Saviour in judgment. You can't have it both ways.
Post 114 - "And so does the bible. HERE>>>. “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”2Peter 3:4
The bible at 2Peter 3:4 justified my question and my claim."
No, it does not. Peter taught no such thing as a no-show. He said mockers would question His coming, but Peter never denied His near coming.
Post 117 - "NO! they asked because it HADN'T HAPPENED WHEN JESUS PROMISED IT WOULD HAPPEN?
HERE>>>. “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”2Peter 3:4
The bible at 2Peter 3:4 justified my question and my claim. You are on the ropes sunshine and have proven nothing."
Nope, it does not justify the question or your claims. You are trying to associate what the scoffers and mockers would say with what Peter believed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You,1) take verses out of context,How? Give us an example.Okay, 2 Peter will suffice for the four points.But this doesn't show or prove how >>>I<<<< have "twisted biblical verse into pretzels", does it! ?What you have simply done here is, again, is interpreted and presented your opinion and beliefs as fact. <<<<< That is what I would call asserting.You haven't shown OR proven that I have taken " biblical verses and twisted them into pretzels" have you? You are just leveling accusations at me out of frustration simply because I won' accept YOUR version of what certain biblical verses mean according to you and YOUR beliefs. And you have your new found buddy doing the same because he has run out of steam.
I have given evidence of you doing just that. You are a wooden literalist when it suits you. You insist that Peter is questioning the coming ("Where is His coming) while you ignore what the rest of the chapter and epistle teaches. That is called collapsing the context (point two). The mockers are questioning the coming, and Peter is setting the record straight, telling the faithful to be patient and that these false teachers will get their just reward - i.e., punishment. Peter, in fact, tells that false teachers and mockers would come, just as His Lord had warned of such things. Now Peter is identifying such people. Ethang5 was quite right to highlight the verse that shows your extreme bias on this matter. Others understand it, but you do not seem to. You can't see what the Scriptures are teaching because you don't want to. I say it is a matter of pride and stubbornness on your part. Your worldview confirmation bias gets in the way. Furthermore, you don't understand what the coming of the Lord would mean to the 1st-century Jewish audience who were steeped in OT Scripture. They were the primary audience. They would understand how the Father came in glory and thus how Jesus was to come in glory.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Continued,
Peter warns about the same thing when he ridicules these mockers.
The Coming Day of the Lord
3 Know this first of all, that [1] in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, [2] following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers [a]fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For [b]when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, [3] 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly people.
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.
A New Heaven and Earth
[4] 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and [c]its works will be [d]discovered.
11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 [5] looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which [6] the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
[7] 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found spotless and blameless by Him, at peace, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 [8] as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of [e]unscrupulous people and lose your own [f]firm commitment, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
3 Know this first of all, that [1] in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, [2] following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers [a]fell asleep, all things continue just as they were from the beginning of creation.” 5 For [b]when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, [3] 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly people.
8 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not willing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance.
A New Heaven and Earth
[4] 10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and [c]its works will be [d]discovered.
11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 [5] looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which [6] the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat! 13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells.
[7] 14 Therefore, beloved, since you look for these things, be diligent to be found spotless and blameless by Him, at peace, 15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, 16 [8] as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which there are some things that are hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, be on your guard so that you are not carried away by the error of [e]unscrupulous people and lose your own [f]firm commitment, 18 but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory, both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.
[1] The last days of what? You never answer that question, Stephen. Let me tell you, the last days of the Old Covenant.
[2] These mockers follow after their own lusts. How can they be trusted?
[3] Peter speaks of the world at the time of NOAH. Why would he include that story? How was that world? There were scoffers and mockers there too. These scoffers watched for however long it took to build the arc but would not repent before God. The same is happening during Peter's generation with the mockers.
6 through which the world at that time was destroyed by being flooded with water. 7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly people.
What is the world Peter is speaking of? This "present" (at that time) judgment is on the world of the Jews. Their heavens and earth are reserved for fire. There is symbolism here if you understand it from the OT. Fire represents judgment and purifying.
Remember what Jesus said of that generation:
Luke 21:22 (NASB)
22 because these are days of punishment, so that all things which have been written will be fulfilled.
These are the days of their punishment. During that time, all things written will be fulfilled.
1 Peter 4:7 (NASB)
7 The end of all things [a]is near;
7 The end of all things [a]is near;
The end of what things? At the end of that age, the age Daniel was told about for HIS people.
Daniel 12:13 (NASB)
The world of the physical temple, physical animal sacrifice for sins, Levitical priesthood, and OT economy was coming to an end. Remember, Daniel was told to seal up prophecy until the time of the end. The NT writers keep telling the reader that their time is at that end.
These false prophets and false teachers who mock will bring upon themselves swift destruction. It was near. It was time for judgment to begin.
[4] The thief comes when no one expects him, so Peter tells these Jews to keep watch. That is the same warning the Lord Jesus gave the people in the form of a parable.
[5] The day (of judgment) is almost there. The believers were told to "looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God."
[6] Fire speaks of judgment. Their whole world, their heavens and earth, will soon disappear, and new heavens and earth will be upon them. The old heavens and earth speak of the Old Covenant. The new heavens and earth speak of the New Covenant. The new heavens and earth are a heavenly country where righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13), as made clear in Revelation 21.
[ The New Heaven and Earth ] Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among the people, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them,
[7] So, even though there are mockers who question the Lords coming, Peter reminds these followers of Jesus to,
1) Look for these things,
2) Be spotless, blameless and at peace, and,
3) Regard the patience of God as a blessing.
[8] Peter reminds these followers about Paul's letters that speak of the same coming and once again how mockers and the ungodly twist to their own destruction.
So, the above demonstrates how you take a portion of one verse and twist it to make it seem like Peter is teaching that the Lord is not coming. In contrast, he teaches the true believers to be patient a little longer because God's timing is near to the fulfillment of that coming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You,1) take verses out of context,2) Collapse context,3) Ignore what this means to the 1st-century audience of address, the primary audience,4) You do not exegete passages of Scripture. You present them. You think just by quoting a verse; then it is plain to all. Remember that you are 20 centuries removed from that original audience. What did it mean to them? How would they understand Jesus coming in the Father's glory?Lets see some examples of me doing what you are accusing me of. You can't can you?Meanwhile lets look at this shite that you posted above.You,1) take verses out of context,How? Give us an example.
Okay, 2 Peter will suffice for the four points.
1) The context of 2 Peter 3 is carried on from his first letter "To those who reside as strangers, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen" - and incidentally who are Jews (1 Peter 1:1). 2 Peter 3 concerns the coming day of the Lord in which mockers ask where is this coming? You believe the verse teaches that PETER taught that Christ would not come because of the report of these mockers. Thus you take the verse out of the greater context and make it a pretext.
In 2 Peter 1, the opening of the letter, we are told that these eyewitnesses, Peter included, did not follow cleverly invented stories when these told the Jews in strange lands about the transfiguration in which they were enveloped by the glory cloud of God's presence and beheld Jesus. Just like that coming, so would Jesus come again. Peter says, "we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. Likewise,
Matthew 17:5 (NASB)
5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice from the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him!”
5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice from the cloud said, “This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him!”
Compare Matthew 17:5 with 2 Peter 1:17-21:
17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such a [j]declaration as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory: “This is [k]My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased”— 18 and we ourselves heard this [l]declaration made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.
19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture [m]becomes a matter of [n]someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture [m]becomes a matter of [n]someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
As for Matthew 17, notice also who appeared with Jesus on the mount besides the disciples - Moses and Elijah. What is the significance of this? Moses represents the OT Law and Elijah represents the rest of the OT Scriptures, especially prophecy. Together they represent the OT and Jesus represents the NT. God is giving these three disciples a glimpse of what is coming, the end of the old covenant age and the start of the eternal age, world without end in which Jesus is glorified with the same glory He shared with the Father before He took on human flesh and blood.
Peter says, "we have the prophetic word made more sure." (verse 19).
Prophetic word about what? About the coming of the Lord. These scoffers and false prophets are not to be listened to. The coming of the Lord will come like a thief in the night.
2 Peter 2
2 But false prophets also appeared among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their indecent behavior, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
So there will be false prophets and false teachers who bring in destructive heresies as Jesus warned about, saying where is His coming? Jesus warned of these times:
[ A Tree and Its Fruit ] “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
[ A Hard Road Ahead of Them ] “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be as wary as serpents, and as innocent as doves.
Go; behold, I am sending you out like lambs in the midst of wolves.
I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock;
Once again, prophecy is true and fulfilled.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
YOUR COMING TO MY SERIAL KILLER JESUS' ENLIGHTENMENT QUOTE, PRAISE!: " I have to admit that for the first time in my entire life, i have been embarrassed to be non-theist."DUH! Just look in what my pagan Bronze and Iron Age Christianity's thinking has to offer you in the 21st century of science and reason! A few propositions of many that you will have to accept in being a TRUE Christian like myself are that the Earth is flat (Daniel 4:11) with four corners (Revelation 7:1) and where the earth is the center of our solar system with the sun rotating around it, and if so desired, Jesus as God can stop the sun to stand still in the sky if need be Joshua 10:12-13 and where the moon can stand still as well, and most importantly, the stars can sing (Job 38:7). Furthermore, the Earth's foundation are pillars in holding it firm (1 Samuel 2:8). Most importantly you will have to learn to despise the Sisters of Eve, aka, women, because they are 2nd class citizens, and that man is the head over the woman as Jesus' inspired words promote throughout the JUDEO-Christian Bible (Proverbs 21:9, 1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ).I have yet to see this happen, but you will accept that donkeys can talk (Numbers 22:28). Another thing that you will have to accept is that Jesus, whom you will supplicate too and worship nonetheless, is in fact a blatant serial killer as shown when Jesus becomes the Hebrew Yahweh God incarnate within the scriptures. As one proof of this biblical axiom, is that Jesus murdered His entire creation in the Great Flood as He watched innocent babies drown as their mothers watched in horror (Hebrews 4:13). In any event, these are but a few entities that you will learn to accept because they are all inspired by Jesus' words within the scriptures (1 Thessalonians 2:13), and who wants to call Jesus a LIAR, other than the Bible ignorant fool FAUXLAW does ad infinitum! Additionally, you will have to become a sect of the Jewish faith because Jesus ONLY came for the Jews (Matthew 15:25) and that Jesus was the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37).Wow! BrotherDThomas, that is so true. You are opening my eyes more and more. Thankyou! Thankyou! Thankyou. My current embarrassment at being a non-theist is growing so much. I still find it difficult to reject such things like science and common sense. But your words are so powerful. I am overcome with emotion. I am not sure how long I can hold onto my non-theistic views. Thank you for refuting the errors of strawmen atheists. You are so wise. Wow!YOUR CONTINUED QUOTE OF LEAVING YOUR PREVIOUS ERRORS OF NOT BEING A TRUE CHRISTIAN: "Your words make me want to worship Jesus and to call him God Almighty. Everything you say makes perfect sense and suddenly i am confused about what to do."In your confusion now, the first and foremost thing for you to do is to take your sorry ass into your biography AND FILL IT OUT! Understood? This alone gives you a foundation in what you are and represent, and when it is left with nothing like it is now, your credence within this esteemed forum is embarrassing and goes wanting! Get it?Thank you for correcting me. My confusion is still so hazy. Yet your words do make sense. Thankyou for reminding me to fill out my biography. But I don't really have much to say. And now I am so embarrassed at who I am and what I should be doing that I am going to simply concede that I am nothing. In fact I am worse than nothing. Prince felt this way and stopped using his name. You have so wonderfully put me to shame that like him, I am unable to attribute anything to my persona.I fully accept that I am embarrassing. I fully understand that without a foundation in what I am and what I represent that I am nothing. Yet, there you have it. I have read your wonderful and powerful words and I have now reached the point where everything I was before reading your words, is as though it did not exist. I do not think I am worthy to add to its pages. Thankyou for opening my eyes to this truth.
I cannot say hallelujah, but yet another pleased and happy convert of BrotherD, at least sarcastically so! (^8
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
CultsAny club, based upon whimsical assumption.Preterism....That was a new one on me....And yep. A club based upon whimsical assumption.
They are not whimsical. The biblical and historical evidence is most significant. If Preterism is a new one on you, perhaps you should look into it further before making such comments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Look up Top 10 Reasons Jesus Christ Never ExistedAdding your comments to this thread /#14 https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5961-earliest-mention-of-jesus-chri
I think your second link is bogus. I can't find it there.
Created: