Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
If there is no necessary being then life originated from something non-living, something without consciousness. Show me how that is possible.
I don't know how or why life originated but that doesn't mean we accept an unproven and unprovable proposition. That would be an argument from ignorance, that is saying I can't think of another explanation therefore this is true. If the answer is I don't know then you don't have the answer you don't get to just make one up.
If you "don't know" that is exactly what you are doing; you accept an unprovable. Can you prove life originated from the non-living? If not, you are arguing from ignorance.
I asked you which was more REASONABLE and LOGICAL - life from the living or live from the non-living?
Is it more reasonable to believe that conscious being comes from something devoid of consciousness? If so, then show me where you EVER witness something living coming from the non-living or something without consciousness giving rise to something with consciousness. You can't. You presuppose it can. Then, from that presupposition, you look for evidence that confirms that presupposition and you ignore that which does not.
But the point is that it is not reasonable or logical. Reason and logic require being.
****
Why would you expect to find reason, logic, meaning in a meaningless universe?Can you demonstrate that the universe has any meaning besides that which we assign to it? As for logic and reason, these are just methods of thought which have been shown to have results and only because the universe tends to behave in an observable predictable way. That does not necessitate a guiding force. Gravity would still pull mass towards mass whether it is directed by a consciousness or if it is just an emergent quality of mass. That gravity exists, therefore, does not demonstrate a conscious guiding force. This is true of existence of the universe in general. The universe does exist but that in and of itself is not evidence that ideas created rather than simply existing.
How could we assign meaning to the universe unless there was meaning there?
How do you assign meaning to the meaningless?
Why does a random, chance universe "BEHAVE" and why in a predictable way?
Without intent there is no REASON anything would act or "behave" in a particular way. There is no REASON for uniformity of nature in a random, chance, chaotic universe. You ascribe human or personal traits such as behavior to something devoid of personality. To non-personal nature, things just happen for no reason.
Why would gravity work in the manner it does? Why can we derive a formula for how gravity works? A mathematical formula requires intentional being.
2+2=4 is a necessary law of mathematics (addition). It means nothing without mindful beings. There is no meaning without mindful, thinking logical beings. How can you derive meaning from the meaningless? So, was there ever a time when 2+2 did not equal 4? If so, then what did it equal? So that is a necessary law that we discover. We discover it by our minds yet it does not depend on your mind, nor my mind or any other non-necessary mind.
You assume that these mathematical laws, such as gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation), or the laws of thermodynamics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_thermodynamics), or special relativity (E=mc2), that we discover can exist outside of mindful being, and a necessary mind at that. Your mind is not necessary for gravity. Why do we discover these laws in a mindless universe? The question it raises to my mind is, "Who put them here?"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
This is a claim/assertion that I challenge you to prove. Back up your statement. Anyone can make any claim as if it is true when it is the furthest thing from the truth.There is very little if any history in the bible. Just to reiterate the bible is the claim it is not evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
For one thing, He is a necessary Being, and since He is necessary He has provided many infallible proofs both in His written revelation (the Bible) and through what He has created (the universe). From His word (the biblical revelation).we see God predicting the future before it happens. If it reasonable to believe these writings were BEFORE the events they predict in history? I believe that any reasonable and logical person would agree they are. Is it reasonable to believe Jesus Christ was a historical Person? I believe it is reasonable and logical to believe He is. Is it reasonable and logical to believe He rose from the dead? I believe it is reasonable and logical to believe it is so. Is it reasonable to believe the biblical texts are a unity in their teachings? I believe it is most reasonable. Is it reasonable to believe that there is a picture/shadow/type of Jesus on almost every page of the OT? I believe most reasonable, and I can document all these things. Is it reasonable and logical to believe other religious views contradict the biblical revelation and do not supply the level of proof the Bible does? I believe it is most reasonable and logical to believe.Now apply this sentence to the above
In what way?
You are not a necessary being. Since that is the truth why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? Why is what you say true?And you have refuted your own argument if you were honest enough to admit it.
No, again this is fallacious because it is not necessarily true. I have what is necessary for truth if God exists and has revealed Himself to humanity. Your belief does not. It has no omniscient being through which you can derive truth from.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Infanticide cannot be construed by a rational, logical being as punishing evil. You claim to be such a being but your beliefs put the lie to that. Why should I believe a word you say, you are neither rational nor logical nor honest?
The evil was done by the parents.
God judged the parents. What counts is eternal life and little children, we are told by Jesus belong in His kingdom. He rescues them from spiritual death.
FACT: We all die physically, in that our bodies cease to function. The Bible is concerned with our relationship (or lack of) with God.
I do not claim to be such a being as God. I claim I can know because God has revealed, otherwise, I would be in the same boat as you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Go over there are challenge it if you wishThere's nothing to challenge. Prophecies are baloney, they talk about things that happen all the time; wars, earthquakes, etc. Also, most claimed prophecies were written after the events happened, not before. You've been fooled.
You are displaying your biblical illiteracy. Pay attention to the relevant audience of address. The wars, famines, earthquakes apply to 1st-century
Israel; the Jewish people of that time. As for your claim that prophecies were written after the events happened, that is not logically consistent with the information/data/evidence we have available from the period. Show me any early writing that states as much. If you look at the internal evidence from the NT there is not one mention of an already destroyed city or temple? Do you know how significant that would be to a people whose very existence revolved around an OT economy and worship system? Again, find any early writings that say these NT manuscripts (the originals) were written after the fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Actually I think he described it pretty well.God is a personal being.God is strictly in one place and one place only, a thought in a human brain. Rocks do not think about god.
You misrepresent me. I never said God was in one place only. God is omnipresent. Nor did I state God is only a thought in a human brain. I actually see a difference between a mind and a brain. Another total misrepresentation. God exists despite whether your human mind believes in Him.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Yes it is very handy to be able to explain away what ever you like with logic you can just make up from the fantasy world you believe you live in. The problem is you people can not agree on what anything means. Every individual these days has a different interpretation of their religion. This would have been very dangerous during the dark ages as most people alive to day would have likely been burned at the stake for not following the strict interpretation sanctioned by the church.
Who is making up the fantasy world? An atheistic, secular worldview has conscious being arising from non-conscious, inorganic matter.
You equate a disagreement among many as no true explanation or interpretation. This is not necessarily true. You don't even mention the other alternative in order to poison the well. Some actually have a correct interpretation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Paul
Post 6: So Jesus, God and the Holy Ghost are all the same thing?If that is the case why did Jesus say, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" as if he was speaking to a different person?
First, God is not a thing but a personal being. Second, the three are different Persons, all one in unity and essence or nature. The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit. Third, since a man, Adam, sinned against God and caused the Fall a Man was needed to restore the relationship with God by meeting His righteous requirements. Thus, God the Son took on human form (Philippians 2:6-8)
Philippians 2:6-8 (NASB)
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
If you could live a righteous life, one without sin, before God you would have no need of Jesus' sacrifice. You would not need a sacrifice of a righteous life lived before God be done in your place, to satisfied God's righteous standard. Since you have not lived the righteous life then you need to pay the penalty or have someone righteous offer to pay it in your place. That is why the Son, in the form of a man, Jesus, did it for you, if you will believe and trust that sacrifice.
So, to fulfill the requirements God has laid down for human beings the Son became human and had to act in the capacity of a human being in meeting all the requirements of the Law. He could not use His godly attributes otherwise a human would not have fulfilled what God requires/d of human beings.
Acting in His capacity as a Man, He could utter that saying, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?".
***
Post 63: Jesus is God does not divide God into two separate entities which has the advantage of avoiding any implications of polytheism.
The way I understand God is that what makes God who He is are the three distinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Just as I am human and you are human, and Mopac is human, so the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Just like you share with me the quality and essence of humanness, so the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share the quality and essence of divinity. I am not you, yet we are both human beings. We are of one nature, one humanity. God is of one nature, one godliness. Neither is the Father the Son, yet they are both God. You and I are limited in knowledge, we have a beginning in time, are not everywhere present. God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in unity, one in power. Each Person is eternal existing.
So there are not three Gods just like there are not three humanities. The true essences of our humanity are our human attributes. The true essence of God is His godly attributes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
Take Daniel 9:24-27. That is very specific. Only 490 yearsThose are weeks, not years, hence the prophecy is false.
They are heptads, which are weeks of years. 70 X 7 = 490. The six conditions are also met and can be demonstrated as met by AD 70. I detailed this in a post on my prophecy thread. No one challenged it. Go over there are challenge it if you wish.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
A being that is self-existent. He does not depend on another being or anything else for His existence.There you go again, saying things that you believe but can't answer with any kind of logic or reason. How do you know any of that?
By the impossibility of the contrary.
You nor I am the being that every other being originates from. If there is no necessary being then life originated from something non-living, something without consciousness. Show me how that is possible. Show me it is reasonable to believe.
If there is no necessary being then the universe originate by chance. How is that REASONABLE or possible? Show me it is. Show me how something without intention, without purpose, causes things that have both. Show me how something that is none reasoning, illogical, amoral can cause any of these three qualities. Why would you expect to find reason, logic, meaning in a meaningless universe? THERE IS NO REASON.
What is chance? It is nothing but a mathematical possibility. It has NO ABILITY to do anything. Intentional beings have abilities to do things.
Some things can be thought of in theory, yet they are not possible to demonstrate in practice. For instance, roll a six on a dice repeatedly, without fixing it in any way one million times in a row. Theoretically, you can claim it possible but to demonstrate it would take forever.
How can you know certainty without a necessary all-knowing being?
What is the truth? Do you have it in regards to origins?
Some things can be thought of in theory, yet they are not possible to demonstrate in practice. For instance, roll a six on a dice repeatedly, without fixing it in any way one million times in a row. Theoretically, you can claim it possible but to demonstrate it would take forever.
How can you know certainty without a necessary all-knowing being?
What is the truth? Do you have it in regards to origins?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
One burden of proof is prophecyA prophecy must be specific and confined to a narrow time frame in order to be impressive otherwise it is no different than a conman giving a psychic performance (otherwise known as a cold reading) the bible gives very vague prophecy with open ended time frames and some of the prophecies are predicted and fulfilled in the bible which means that both the prophecy and the fulfilment are merely claims and again require a burden of proof.
No, the Bible gives specific prophecy. Take Daniel 9:24-27. That is very specific. Only 490 years after the decree to rebuild Jerusalem is given for Daniel's people. God will judge them for their transgression and sin and bring in everlasting righteousness within that time frame. That happened. History shows that after the Babylonian exile and after the destruction of the city and temple by King Nebuchadnezzar. God told Daniel that He had given Daniel's people 490 years for the six conditions of Daniel 9:24 to be met. The end of the Mosaic Covenant would come with the once again destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. We know this happened in AD 70. History backs up the prophecy.
Take Isaiah 2. That is very specific.
Take Zechariah 12:10. This is a specific prophecy.
As for your "proof" that your god(s) takes unborn babies to a better place they are just the claims included in the bible. The claims are not the proof. Can you demonstrate the veracity of these passages? Do you have any evidence beyond anecdotal?
As opposed to your claims that excludes the Bible. Your claims are not the proof. I have historical writings that date back, in one case to around AD 125. These writings have evidence that is most reasonable to believe. If such a being as Jesus lived, and from both secular and biblical writings we have reasonable evidence that He did, and if He rose from the dead as the writings claim and there is reasonable evidence to believe this, then His words are also reasonable to believe. So I can provide evidence that supports my claims that is most reasonable to believe. Can you do the same for your COUNTER-CLAIMS? When you make a counter-claim then you too have a burden of proof.
Again, the burden of proof becomes impossible for me to establish because by your authority you will never accept what I have to say or what the Bible says.
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
How would you ever believe what God says if you do not believe He exists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
He is a necessary BeingWhat is a necessary being exactly? What makes any god(s) necessary?
A being that is self-existent. He does not depend on another being or anything else for His existence. Gods are human designed. God is not.
How do you come up with right and wrong without God? It just becomes your opinion versus my opinion. What makes that right or good? Nothing.Assuming any god(s) exist what makes some god(s) notion of right and wrong more than just some god(s) opinion? Isn't that just the argument that might makes right? What if the hypothetical god(s) in question specifically endorse behavior that you find morally reprehensible (slavery for example)? If your god(s) endorse slavery does that make slavery morally correct?
What is necessary for right and wrong to be known for certain? Does your opinion make it so? Is it my opinion that makes something right? Does my action to kill another human being make it right? If there is no objective, ultimate, "best" measure, then why is your measure any better than mine. As soon as you start to speak of "better" you imply a best to measure better against. If there is no best, no ultimate measure/fixed standard, then no opinion is any better than any other opinion. How would you, a limited, subjective, relative human being come up with best? Do you just call what you LIKE best? Look at human history. Standards shift depending on whom is in power.
Now if there is an ultimate all-knowing being that has revealed Himself to us, then good can be known with certainty, objectivity can be known because every view, and the right view is within His purview.
You never answered my question. How do you come up with right and wrong without God?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
The Bible throughout claimsClaims obligate the claimant to a burden of proof (At least in a rational debate) is there any evidence beyond anecdotal to support the claims of the bible?
One burden of proof is prophecy. It provides reasonable and logical evidence via history that its claims/predictions were written before the fact/event. If you care to debate this claim, go to my thread on prophecy (I only have one to date). I have stated many historical facts on that thread. The internal evidence (the Bible itself) supports the external evidence (history).
If God ever takes an innocent human life (i.e., the unborn or a little child), He will restore that life to a better place - His presence.This is a claim. Can you meet the burden of proof for this claim or shall we dismiss it?
But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
Mark 10:13-14 (NASB)
Jesus Blesses Little Children13 And they were bringing children to Him so that He might touch
them; but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, “Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.
Jesus said the kingdom belonged to such as these, i.e., little children.
Matthew 18:3-6 (NASB)
3 and said, “Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me;6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
So, God chose to reveal Himself to humanity via human beings who were inspired by His Spirit to write what He wanted us to hear.How do you know God revealed himself to humans? How do we know those humans weren't making it up themselves?
For one thing, He is a necessary Being, and since He is necessary He has provided many infallible proofs both in His written revelation (the Bible) and through what He has created (the universe). From His word (the biblical revelation).we see God predicting the future before it happens. If it reasonable to believe these writings were BEFORE the events they predict in history? I believe that any reasonable and logical person would agree they are. Is it reasonable to believe Jesus Christ was a historical Person? I believe it is reasonable and logical to believe He is. Is it reasonable and logical to believe He rose from the dead? I believe it is reasonable and logical to believe it is so. Is it reasonable to believe the biblical texts are a unity in their teachings? I believe it is most reasonable. Is it reasonable to believe that there is a picture/shadow/type of Jesus on almost every page of the OT? I believe most reasonable, and I can document all these things. Is it reasonable and logical to believe other religious views contradict the biblical revelation and do not supply the level of proof the Bible does? I believe it is most reasonable and logical to believe.
You are not a necessary being. Since that is the truth why SHOULD I believe what you have to say? Why is what you say true?
As limited human beings, we can only appeal to our highest authority. The question is who you take that authority to be? The Bible makes the claim that its authority is an almighty, all-knowing, benevolent Being, thus objective in nature (knowing all things and discerning/revealing all that is good).
You do not make that claim (I hope), thus your views are relative, subject to change. Truth does not change. It is always true or else it would not be the truth.
I can also see God's revelation in what He has made. To think that the universe and the diversity therein is a product of blind, indifferent, unintelligent chance is lunacy. For one thing, how does chance sustain anything? How does it make nature uniform, so that we can make predictions? Chance has no intentionality. There is no purpose to it. There is no meaning to it. Why do we continue to find meaning and purpose in such a universe? Why do we discover mathematical formulas that describe the way things work? Everything should be random chaotic from something without mind, without purpose, without meaning. But it is not. It is more reasonable to believe in God than to believe in a meaningless universe because we are reasonable beings, we are conscious beings. How does consciousness come from something devoid of it? You just SUPPOSE it can, without a shred of evidence.
How do you come up with right and wrong without God? It just becomes your opinion versus my opinion. What makes that right or good? Nothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
God, as God, has the RIGHT to punish evil. That is JUSTICE. If God ever takes an innocent human life (i.e., the unborn or a little child), He will restore that life to a better place - His presence.Infanticide and genocide are hallmarks of your god's morality according to your god
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Goldtop
The Bible throughout claims to be a written revelation regarding Him and His relationship with humanity that was written through human beings who He revealed Himself through. There are over 1,000 times where it says that God spoke. There is a test there - will you believe or not? That same test is present throughout Scripture starting in the Garden when the serpent said to Eve, "Did God really say...?" The problem arises from this point in time when Adam disobeyed God. When Adam decided to know the difference between good and evil relativism was born. We lost the ability to think objectively unless we think God's thoughts after Him in the area of morality.
So, God chose to reveal Himself to humanity via human beings who were inspired by His Spirit to write what He wanted us to hear. You have a volition that chooses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
So a witch can't raise a person from the dead? You haven't actually read your bible have you?
1 Samuel 28:8-15 (NASB)
8 Then Saul disguised himself by putting on other clothes, and went, he and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, “Conjure up for me, please, and bring up for me whom I shall name to you.” 9 But the woman said to him, “Behold, you know what Saul has done, how he has cut off those who are mediums and spiritists from the land. Why are you then laying a snare for my life to bring about my death?” 10 Saul vowed to her by the Lord, saying, “As the Lord lives, no punishment shall come upon you for this thing.” 11 Then the woman said, “Whom shall I bring up for you?” And he said, “Bring up Samuel for me.” 12 When the woman saw Samuel, she cried out with a loud voice; and the woman spoke to Saul, saying, “Why have you deceived me? For you are Saul.” 13 The king said to her, “Do not be afraid; but what do you see?” And the woman said to Saul, “I see a divine being coming up out of the earth.” 14 He said to her, “What is his form?” And she said, “An old man is coming up, and he is wrapped with a robe.” And Saul knew that it was Samuel, and he bowed with his face to the ground and did homage.
15 Then Samuel said to Saul, “Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up?” And Saul answered, “I am greatly distressed; for the Philistines are waging war against me, and God has departed from me and no longer answers me, either through prophets or by dreams; therefore I have called you, that you may make known to me what I should do.”
The question is, what does conjure or "bring up" mean? Is it a vision or an actual resurrection from the dead. We know from the NT that there is a divide between the dead and the living, per the Lazarus example Jesus cites. We know from the OT that God forbids using mediums and the occult. So she was communicating with the dead (necromancy), a practice that is utterly forbidden by God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
The new birth is not a natural birth but a spiritual birth.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
Nevertheless
death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.
There was no relationship with sinful humanity on the whole except for those God separated for a relationship, and during the time of Moses, He chose a people for Himself to have a special relationship with and to make Himself known to the world through this people. But the point I want you to notice is that Adam, the first Adam, is a type of Christ. Both represented humanity. Both were tested by God and both were tempted by the devil. One was with sin and the other without sin. One gives death to humanity, because of a sinful life before God, the other life to humanity, because of a righteous life before God.
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
The difference between Adam and the last Adam, Jesus Christ, is that Christ Jesus is a life-giving spirit. He imparts spiritual life, reconciliation with God.
You
spirit is presently dead to God. You can't hear His word. You can't experience a relationship with Him because you will not submit to Him.
As Jesus said:
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
There is a difference between the flesh or body and the spirit of a person:
Romans 1:2-4 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,
Romans 2:28-29
For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
It is what God does to our hearts, our inner nature, that makes a person a child of God.
John 1:11-13 (NASB)
11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
There is a difference between natural birth and a spiritual birth. You continue to deny this because you are hostile to God's word. You do not, at present, want to believe.
Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.
For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were aroused by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
[ The Conflict of Two Natures ] For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
With Adam, our natures were physical and sold into bondage and sin. We all inherited a sinful nature through Adam. The Law (The Ten Commandments) is spiritual, it reveals the sinful nature that separates us from God and brings us to Jesus Christ and upon His mercy to rescue us.
For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
The Law could not bring us to God for all it does was expose our sin in our natural selves, the self that rejects God to do what it pleases. Jesus condemns that sinful nature and gives us a new spiritual nature to God, one that is no longer hostile by the rebirth.
So, what does all this show? It shows that you cannot understand because you are hostile to God. You do not want to understand. It means you would have to submit to God's word and God's teaching. You, at present, do not want to do so. Thus, you are blind to God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
You don't get to rewrite the stories that are already written, that they are internally inconsistent is the problem you are being faced with and you discussing a completely different story imagined by you is just dishonest. Your story having perhaps more internal consistency is meaningless because your story doesn't exist in the bible, the internally inconsistent story does and you can't both defend it and be honest at the same time.There is no mention of spiritual death anywhere in the A&E story or in fact in the entire OT.Your god said that on that day Adam would die and on that day Adam didn't die. Of course he didn't even know what death was, he was threatened with a non existent punishment, it's no wonder he had no fear of the alleged consequence it was meaningless.Adam didn't die on the day god threatened he would therefore god lied. It's quite simple if you read the story and not listen to someone changing the story to suit themselves.
I'm not rewriting anything. I'm disclosing a spiritual truth.
1 Corinthians 2:12-14 (NASB)
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
You are DEAD to God's spirit. The spiritual escapes your notice even though it is evidentially explained. It still escapes you.
If your sins have not been forgiven in Christ and His atoning death by faith, then you are dead to God, dead in your sins.
Ephesians 2:1-3 (NASB)
Made Alive in Christ2 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
Those who were made alive to God used to be God, as explained in Ephesians 2:1-3. This is the way the believer formally "walked" in, according to the course or ways of the world that do not know Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. They have a spirit of disobedience to God. By their very nature, they are children of God's wrath.
After Adam ate he became a child of God's wrath, and God cursed the ground because of him, plus God separated Adam from His presence and the Garden.
I can give you verse after verse that expresses this spiritual truth, but you are not open.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Do you seriously think those verses are from the OT? There is no mention of a spiritual in the OT. There is nomention of a spiritual death in the Adam story, why are your arguments so full of lies?Adam didn't die on the day.Therefore your God lied.
I never said they were OT verses. I said they support the view that the Fall was a spiritual separation or death. That is the point. If and only if God said Adam would die on that day and he did not, and the death spoken of was a physical death of the BODY, then you have a case. It is REASONABLE and LOGICAL to believe the death was a spiritual death. Adam was no longer open to the leading of God. He had usurped that authority and was now deciding upon himself what was right and wrong/good and evil.
Figure it out this way; if Adam had eaten of the tree of life, even after he sinned, then he would have lived forever. God barred him from the tree and he lived possibly 900 years after he was barred and had many children. He still died physically, because God did not allow him to eat from the tree of life and live forever.
Adam died spiritually to God that day. I have given the reasons. Therefore, God did not lie (heaven forbid).
Can a witch raise the dead? Where do you see mention of everlasting life? Was Lazarus raised to everlasting life? Now answer the question HONESTLY.
A person can sometimes resuscitate a person clinically dead via Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). That would include a witch. A witch cannot do what God is capable of doing, raise a person from the dead to everlasting life. If Lazarus was a believer, and the indication is that he very well could have been, then Jesus would have raised him from the dead to everlasting life after Jesus was raised from the dead. Jesus, as a man, is the firstfruits of those raised from the dead to everlasting life.
For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren;
He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
No, I do not reject the historical-critical method. I reject some of the presuppositions that the people who use it build into it when they apply it to the biblical writings (and their starting point).I've not seen the Bible being treated differently than other ancient text in this regard. Perhaps you can cite examples of disparate treatment?
It is not like other ancient manuscripts in its claims. It claims to be God's revelation to humanity. My point is that these liberal scholars bring their bias and unbelief to the discussion by ruling that prophecy cannot be from God, therefore, it must be explained away by their presuppositional bias. They CANNOT allow the supernatural to be possible.
Sure it is available to non-Christians, but they bring a baggage with them.I think you continue to overlook the fact that there are Christians among scholars concluding (some) miracles and (some) prophecies in the Bible are not literal. You claim to find value in the historical critical methodologies while rejecting the conclusions found using it as a conspiracy of non-believers. It's unfair, and plain wrong, to blame nonbelievers for what a methodology (meant to remove bias) finds.
I understand that, and I believe they have been greatly influenced and governed by secular thought, not by the internal evidence from the NT in determining its dating.
Plus, in spite of your claimed acceptance of the method, your provided quotes disparage it. You dont get to sit on the fence claiming to respect the historical critical method while rejecting its findings. You have a double standard. You accept the methodology so long as it doesn't challenge your cherished beliefs. IMO, it should be all or none.
I respect the method when it considers the internal evidence of the very document being disputed that gives credence to the timeframe of writing as being before AD 70. I don't see how you could argue for a late date if you take into account there is no reference to an already destroyed city or temple. It is obvious from the writings that something highly significant is warned that is ABOUT to happen to these people. The AUDIENCE of address is addressing primarily an OT people which are signified by the pronoun used. The ritual system which is focused on throughout the NT means nothing after AD 70 because it no longer exists. I haven't tried it, but I question what would be left and what could be made sense of it you took these references to a still existing temple and ritual system of worship out of the text.
With most NT epistles I can build on the Olivet Discourse as among the themes of the authors. They (mainly Paul) build on the teaching of Jesus regarding the Discourse. If you want I can give you an example by comparing the theme of the Discourse with an epistle. I would probably use Thessalonians since this epistle is most obvious to the Olivet references.
The whole heaven and earth of these Old Covenant people revolved around their temple worship and ritual system. Not to have mentioned the already destruction is not fathomable if the temple and city were already destroyed.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
"These early writers understand the Preterist view of the end of the Jewish age with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Some of them understand the resurrection of the dead and the judgment as already taking place. "Judaism being changed after the destruction of the temple is not a defining view of preterism...and it's just common sense. Anyone speaking to this fact is not a preterist by default.
I would argue that it (this removal of the OT economy) is a defining view of Preterism because OT prophecy looks forward to this new covenant and ALSO the judgment prophesied by disobedience that would result in the destruction of the OT economy, as promised. The outward evidence is the plagues of Deuteronomy 28 and removal of that worship system and their SPECIAL relationship with God.
Additionally, it is a very charitable reading of the quoted to suggest they believed Jesus returned in 70AD. Not one explicitly says any such thing and all can be understood well in the context of a resurrected messiah belief structure.
Jesus made the claim to the chief priest that he would see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father. That would confirm that He was who He claimed to be and a witness against the chief priest:
But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus *said to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
The judgment of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple would confirm that judgment. "Coming on the clouds of heaven" is figurative for judgment. God, who is a Spirit, is said to come in judgment numerous times in the OT in this manner. Sitting at the right hand of power is a reference to Jesus deity. What is applied to God in the OT is applied equally to Jesus in the NT. The judgment that is God's in the OT is Jesus' in the NT.
What does Caiaphas do with Jesus' answer? He sees/understands the claim Jesus is making about equality with God and:
65 Then the high priest tore his robes and said, “He has blasphemed!
As an aside, you accused me of linkwarz earlier in the thread and here you've provided a ton of links. This can hardly be considered informational as every link (related to quotes) is from a single site and no effort to provide an unbiased or neutral view is made. Pot meet kettle. :-p
No, linkswarz are providing links without any summary or reference from the article, document, or video. The person has no id, of what you want the person to glean from the link. I had a point I wanted you to see and I quoted that point from the greater article, then provided the link.
I don't have an objection to using links. What I request is that if you use on you provide the relevant information you want me to glean from the link. That way I can address it, rather than having to address a novel worth of information.
I don't have an objection to using links. What I request is that if you use on you provide the relevant information you want me to glean from the link. That way I can address it, rather than having to address a novel worth of information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Since you reported me, that is the end of our discussions. I will not engage you again.
Peter
Created:
Posted in:
What is vague about it? These two sold a piece of property, pretending to bring the whole price of sale to Peter for God's glory when in effect they kept partback. Then they lied about the price received that was to used for God's glory.God judged the motive of their heart in lying to Him for the money was to His Purpose. What does this have to do with Lazarus other than they all died a physical death?It Does not address how this couple ended up just falling down dead and being buried. On gods whim. There must have been thousands of cheaters and swindlers walking about at the time, why didn’t god take a few of those at the same time?I will tell you why, BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT MEMBERS OF THE JESUS CLUB WERE THEY?
It does address how they ended up dead. They lied to God.
Whether they were believers or not is debatable and not for me, but for God to decide. They may have just professed faith, but if these actions as believers were judged then it corresponds to Scripture. They were trying to bring glory to themselves rather than God who they claimed it was all about, thus God reacted to the deceit and exposed their lie through Peter.
If they were believers then 1 Corinthians 3 applies:
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
So, if they were believers their rewards may have been burned up, yet they would have been saved from spiritual death by the grace of God, yet He did not allow them further physical life.
And It Has everything to do with Lazarus by the fact that he was raised not from the literal “dead” but from among the “spiritually dead” as you put it. Which According to this MOVEMENT, the Jesus party, anyone outside the circle of was considered “DEAD”.
You continue to dismiss (in your reasoning) that there are two realms, the physical and the non-physical spiritual realm. The Bible explicitly explains that God is Spirit. He exists as a Spirit and to be in His presence is to be in that spiritual or unseen realm, not the physical. If we are privy to His presence then we are spiritually alive to Him for He will not let sinful beings remain everlastingly in His presences because He is pure and holy and evil does not remain in the light of God but is exposed by that light and separated from it with judgment. Our merit in staying in His presence as believers is not from our own doing but from the actions of another on our behalf - Jesus Christ!
What is happening here is the same kind of situation that happens when a Christian engages a Jehovah's Witness. Even though we use the same verses, there is a cognizant dissonance, IMO. One of the problems, as I see a discussion with J.W.'s is that we can be speaking of the same Person - Jesus - but what comes to mind as a definition for one is exclusively a man, while the other Man/God.
This discomfort is triggered by a situation in which a belief of a person clashes with new evidence perceived by that person. When confronted with facts that contradict personal beliefs, ideals, and values, people will find a way to resolve the contradiction in order to reduce their discomfort.
(per Wikipedia)
I see you as not wanting to accept the biblical teaching of two deaths - physical and spiritual. But it answers your query on how can a person live when he is dead as not being a contradiction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Not to everlasting life.Can a witch raise the dead?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I'm Pointing out your personal ad hom attacks against me.So report me if they upset you so, so much. But telling someone they are being“hysterical” and “silly” and saying the scriptures come across at times as “silly” are not personal attacks. Grow up is what you need to do.You are not addressing the content, Your more focused on what I have to say and the effects that YOU believe that what I say may have on others. I Can’t help you there , sorry. This thread is not about soothing your concerns or anyone else’s. So for the last time: ADDRESS THE CONTENT OR STAYOFF THE THREAD OR I WILL REPORT YOU
I believe in freedom of speech. I'm just pointing out a bias of yours. Attacking the man is a way of diverting the argument. It is a way of ridiculing a belief rather than addressing the points of contention. You gave me a number of verses that I addressed. When I counted with other verses that presented my case you sometimes ignored them or my argument as being silly or suggested Christians were.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Did god declare that on the day Adam ate the fruit he would die?YES
Yes!
Did Adam die on the day he ate the fruit?No
Yes, he dies spiritually. The spiritual death is something developed in the NT more thoroughly.
Did god lie?Yes.
No, as the Bible says, "Let God be true and every man a liar."
You claiming a non existent spiritual death is just you trying to defend your god's lie. Nowhere in the entire OT is spiritual death mentioned, I can only conclude therefore that your story is a lie.
No, I do not. the Bible writings declare that.
John 3:5-7 (NASB)
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we reap material things from you?
it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
Mark 12:25-27 (NASB)
25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken.”
25 For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. 26 But regarding the fact that the dead rise again, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the burning bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living; you are greatly mistaken.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I asked you:>And can you enlighten us as to what "let the dead bury the dead" actually means and how one dead person or persons go about burying someone else who is dead?“And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead”.Matthew 8:21-22.KJV
There is physical death, and there is spiritual death. The Bible speaks of both. Physical death is observable to the senses. Life in the body ceases to be. Spiritual death occurs when one rejects the means God has to reconcile a person to Himself. Since the curse of Adam, we as a humanity are all under that curse of being separated from God. Because our nature changed with the Fall, we all inherit a sinful nature that is hostile to God. The new birth requires a change of nature.
Your dire response was to almost admit that I am right in my belief of a symbolic "raising " when you tell us there there are two types of dead people!here:>.The dead are those who are spiritually dead to God. They don't hear His voice speaking to them because they don't want to.So tell me how do you know or how can you tell the difference? AND _ How do you know that Lazarus and Jairus' daughter were not just spiritually dead " to god" ?
You confuse physical death with spiritual death. I did not say that spiritual death was symbolic. It is an actual death, a separation from God for eternity. You die to that relationship with God. It can be described in symbolic terms. We are speaking of two realms, the physical or natural realm, and the spiritual or supernatural realm. God is not a physical being. You are dead to God, and on your present course will spend eternity dead to Him, unless you hear the gospel message, by His grace and mercy.
You confuse symbolism and figurative grammatical language to express spiritual truths about the nature of spiritual death. You become dead to a relationship with God upon the judgment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
It appears to be that,as quick as one can be “raised” from amongst the dead into the Jesus movement, onecan be just as quickly expelled from it. That is to say, one can be “raised from the dead” and then dead again for some rule breaking misdemeanour, as did happen twice to a lovely couple named Ananias and Sapphira his wife, according to Acts 5:1-11.KJV.
It is not a movement, but a knowledge of truth concerning God in which, because of the merit of Jesus the believer is once again allowed into His presence. Faith comes from hearing the message of whom Jesus is, and believing that message and what Christ has done for the believer. Being born again is a resurrection from death, from spiritual death or separation from God. There are two realms in the discussion, the natural, physical realm, and the supernatural spiritual realm. In Eden, Adam, as a representative of humanity, chose to disobey God and was separated from His presence. He no longer "walked" or spoke with God. The choice of remaining alive forever in this relationship was taken away from him by barring him from the tree in the Garden and the presence of God. The two trees did not have magical power over them. The choice Adam made is where good and evil were brought into the equation. With his disobedience, he discovered what evil was and the consequences of doing so, separation from God. And that is exactly what we see. We see him being removed from God's presence. He no longer had that close relationship with God.
Acts 5:1-11 King James Version(KJV)
- 5 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.3 But Peter Said,Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?4 Whiles it remained,was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.6 And the young men arose,wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.8 And Peter answered to her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?Behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door,and shall carry thee out.10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in,and found her dead,and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.Please address this vague anomalous statement and what is turning out to be a very problematic for you to explain away statements suggesting that there are different types of “dead” people.
What is vague about it? These two sold a piece of property, pretending to bring the whole price of sale to Peter for God's glory when in effect they kept part back. Then they lied about the price received that was to used for God's glory. God judged the motive of their heart in lying to Him for the money was to His purpose. What does this have to do with Lazarus other than they all died a physical death?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Your emotional highly charged and suggestive language is an attack against the Christian to ridicule their belief system, used to sway people to the counter-point of view with assertion after assertion:It’s all in your mind and I believe it is the second part of your ridiculous statement above that is making you schoolgirl hysterical. I am quite calm when I post my threads of genuine biblical anomalies, and enigmatic sometimes unexplainable verses.YOU JUST DON’T LIKE ME HIGHLIGHTING THEM FOR OTHERS TO CONSIDER. YOU JUST WANT TO CENCORE ME AND REFUSE OTHERS THE CHANCE TO READ OF THEIR OWN CHOICE AND MAKE THEIR OWN MINDS UP.I am quite calm when I respond your silly accusations such as those above. Although, I will admit my highlighting bold underlined and sometimes capitalised text will sometimes give the impression that I am annoyed or being aggressive. So let me address that. I am not being any of the above. I do this because sometimes you intentionally miss key words that make my point relevant and - dare I say - truthful than you filibustering time wasting responses.
I'm pointing out your personal ad hom attacks against me. They don't have anything to do with the thread but are a distraction from the topic of discourse.
You did it again here.
Who is censoring who?
Do you know the difference between inductive and deductive logic? Can you answer me that?
Stop derailing a thread with your personal irrelevant questions. I will report you the next time you do this. This thread is concerned only with what I believe is only symbolic “raising of dead” rich people into his inner circle of by Jesus
The point is that by using inductive logic what I said is most reasonable in the Lazarus discussion.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
2) Do you reject the historical critical method when applied to other ancient works or should we accept all fantastic anonymous claims at face value?
No, I do not reject the historical-critical method. I reject some of the presuppositions that the people who use it build into it when they apply it to the biblical writings (and their starting point).
I intend to show that modern scholarship does not always support the most reasonable and logical evidence. - MENo, you intended to show prophecy is reasonable and logical to believe, but now you've found yourself advocating a conspiracy theory against preterists along with other Christians. A little research reveals the historical-critical method isn't exclusive to non-Christians, atheists, or agnostics. I can't entertain your paranoia, Peter.
Sure it is available to non-Christians, but they bring a baggage with them. They look at the Scriptures in a totally naturalistic light, thus the miracles of the Bible and its prophecy is not possible - there must be a naturalistic explanation, therefore prophecy is not possible. That is their presuppositional bias. The text MUST be written after the fact. Thus, they seek to deconstruct it, piece by piece to confirm that bias. One of the criticisms I have against many liberal scholars who use the method is their ignorance of the biblical timeframe of the NT from the internal evidence, plus the exclusion of the supernatural.
However, this results in a problem with presuppositions because they will determine what may or may not be possible and probable (Marshall 1985, p. 127).
This is where historical criticism has been abused. Many practitioners take a "purely scientific" view which excludes any possibility of the supernatural and results in a purely naturalistic interpretation of Biblical events and people. Because of these presuppositions, this view is prevented from saying anything at all about God or the miracles and supernatural works of Jesus Christ (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 74). These scholars hold that all supernatural events described in the Bible are inventions of the early church. Therefore they attempt to get behind this mythology and get at the "real" historical Jesus. Schaeffer (1985, v. 1 p. 52) highlights the problem with this approach: "Naturalistic theology has ..... begun by accepting the presupposition of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. Thus they rejected everything miraculous and supernatural including .... the life of Jesus Christ. .... they still hoped to find an historical Jesus in a rational, objective, scholarly way by separating the supernatural aspects of Jesus' life from the 'true history'. But they failed ..... Their search for the historical Jesus was doomed to failure. The supernatural was so intertwined with the rest that if they ripped out all the supernatural, there was no Jesus left!"
Many liberal theologians have used critical methods to show the Bible is not historically accurate. The authors were primarily theologians not historians so the "Jesus of history" is nothing like the Jesus of the Bible. This means that if there is a discrepancy between the Bible and other historical material, it is the Bible that is most probably in error. A Biblical account must be "proved" historically accurate rather than accepted as so (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 82). But this scepticism is unwarranted since the Bible has shown itself time and again to be historically accurate. Historical criticism should pursue without restriction the explanation that best explains the phenomena in question. This includes supernatural explanations (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 89).
This is where historical criticism has been abused. Many practitioners take a "purely scientific" view which excludes any possibility of the supernatural and results in a purely naturalistic interpretation of Biblical events and people. Because of these presuppositions, this view is prevented from saying anything at all about God or the miracles and supernatural works of Jesus Christ (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 74). These scholars hold that all supernatural events described in the Bible are inventions of the early church. Therefore they attempt to get behind this mythology and get at the "real" historical Jesus. Schaeffer (1985, v. 1 p. 52) highlights the problem with this approach: "Naturalistic theology has ..... begun by accepting the presupposition of the uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. Thus they rejected everything miraculous and supernatural including .... the life of Jesus Christ. .... they still hoped to find an historical Jesus in a rational, objective, scholarly way by separating the supernatural aspects of Jesus' life from the 'true history'. But they failed ..... Their search for the historical Jesus was doomed to failure. The supernatural was so intertwined with the rest that if they ripped out all the supernatural, there was no Jesus left!"
Many liberal theologians have used critical methods to show the Bible is not historically accurate. The authors were primarily theologians not historians so the "Jesus of history" is nothing like the Jesus of the Bible. This means that if there is a discrepancy between the Bible and other historical material, it is the Bible that is most probably in error. A Biblical account must be "proved" historically accurate rather than accepted as so (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 82). But this scepticism is unwarranted since the Bible has shown itself time and again to be historically accurate. Historical criticism should pursue without restriction the explanation that best explains the phenomena in question. This includes supernatural explanations (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 89).
The historical-critical method assumes the autonomy of the human scientist from the Bible as the word of God. It assumes that one must start with the secular world as a norm for determining meaning and for deciding what has happened in the past. This method does not accept at face value the Bible as the Word of God. It would be unscientific and unhistorical to do so. Rather its claim to be the word of God and its statements claiming to report history (and finally its statements about theology) must be verified and accepted as one would accept a statement from the documents of any other ancient national people. Such a conception implies that the Bible has come about in the same manner as has any other piece of literature.
John A.T. Robertson wrote a fantastic book on the dating methods and what the internal evidence reveals. Kenneth Gentry and others have also done work in this field. They examine the time frames of the internal data.
The world isn't near as black and white as you envision it. It's not always us v. them. Sometimes people disagree for good reasons. Try to understand.
I have read a fair bit about higher criticism and I see the bias within the movement.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA
(A.D. 312)
(A.D. 312)
"The Holy Scriptures foretell that there will be unmistakable signs of the Coming of Christ.
Now there were among the Hebrews three outstanding offices of dignity, which made the nation famous, firstly the kingship, secondly that of prophet, and lastly the high priesthood. The prophecies said that the abolition and complete destruction of all these three together would be the sign of the (b) presence of the Christ. And that the proofs that the times had come, would lie in the ceasing of the Mosaic worship, the desolation of Jerusalem and its Temple, and the subjection of the whole Jewish race to its enemies. The holy oracles foretold that all these changes, which had (c) not been made in the days of the prophets of old, would take place at the coming of the Christ, which I will presently shew to have been fulfilled as never before in accordance with the predictions."
Many, many more examples could be listed confirming Preterist beliefs from an early age in church history.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Why would I trust "modern scholarship," 17-20 centuries removed from the times? - MERaises two questions in my mind:1)When did preterism come about?There is no clear indication in any known extant writing that anyone understood early teachings as modern preterists do. Spanish-Catholic Jesuit Luis Alcazar (1554–1613) was the first known preterist and this is still far removed from the times.
Sure, there is. Take, for instance, St Ignatius:
(On Judaism)
"8:1 Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace:"
(On The Timing of the Coming of Christ)
"6:1 Seeing then that in the aforementioned persons I beheld your whole people in faith and embraced them, I advise you, be ye zealous to do all things in godly concord, the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds and appeared at the end of time." (Magnesians)(On the Parousia/Presence of Christ)
How shall we be able to live apart from Him whose disciples, the prophets themselves, in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, shorter version, Chapter 9) (c. A.D. 100 - 115)
"8:1 Be not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. For if even unto this day we live after the manner of Judaism, we avow that we have not received grace:"
10:3 It is absurd to speak of Jesus Christ with the tongue, and to cherish in the mind a Judaism which has now come to an end. For where there is Christianity there cannot be Judaism. For Christ is one, in whom every nation that believes, and every tongue that confesses, is gathered unto God. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, Chapter 10)
Ignatius believed Judaism, as practiced in the Mosaic Covenant, had come to an end. Now we have Rabbinical Judaism because they can no longer follow the Scriptures as they agreed to with animal sacrifices and a priesthood.
"6:1 Seeing then that in the aforementioned persons I beheld your whole people in faith and embraced them, I advise you, be ye zealous to do all things in godly concord, the bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the worlds and appeared at the end of time." (Magnesians)(On the Parousia/Presence of Christ)
How shall we be able to live apart from Him whose disciples, the prophets themselves, in the Spirit did wait for Him as their Teacher? And therefore He whom they rightly waited for, being come, raised them from the dead. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, shorter version, Chapter 9) (c. A.D. 100 - 115)
Ignatius sees the times of the apostles as the "end of time" of the Old Covenant. He sees the coming of Christ in their lifetime and their resurrection from the dead in their lifetime.
Barnabus, in his Epistle, said:
"Moreover understand this also, my brothers. When ye see that after so many signs and wonders wrought in Israel, even then they were abandoned, let us give heed, lest haply we be found, as the scripture saith, many called but few chosen. . ." (4:14)
"Therefore the Son of God came in the flesh to this end, that He might sum up the complete tale of their sins against those who persecuted and slew His prophets." (5:11)
Thus, he reiterates the signs and wonders have already happened (after) regarding Israel. He verifies that their sins are complete with the judgment and that they slew the prophets.
(On Daniel's Seventy Weeks)
"This abstract discussion of Judaism is the sign of an epoch when the Judaizing controversies were already a thing of the past in the main body of the Church. In settling the date of the letter reference is often made to verses 3-5 of chapter four, where the writer, it is believed, finds the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 7:7, sqq.) in the succession of the Roman Emperors of his time." (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia)
"This abstract discussion of Judaism is the sign of an epoch when the Judaizing controversies were already a thing of the past in the main body of the Church. In settling the date of the letter reference is often made to verses 3-5 of chapter four, where the writer, it is believed, finds the fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel (Dan. 7:7, sqq.) in the succession of the Roman Emperors of his time." (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia)
150: Melito - Homily of the Pascha "Who will contend against me? Let him stand before me. It is I who delivered the condemned. It is I who gave life to the dead. It is I who raised up the buried. Who will argue with me? It is I, says Christ, who destroyed death. It is I who triumphed over the enemy, and having trod down Hades, and bound the Strong Man, and have snatched mankind up to the heights of heaven." "The battle between Christians and Jews over possession of the name "Israel" goes back to the earliest days of Christianity.. the past-tense verbs found in (Melito's) Peri Pascha 99 may indicate that the author is referring to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE."
Tertullian:
(On the Significance of A.D. 70)
"among us, who have been called out of the nations, -'and they shall join to beat their glaives into ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up glaive against nation, and they shall no more learn to fight.' Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices, - the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates?" ("Of Circumcision and the Supercession of the Old Law," An Answer to the Jews, Chapter III)
"among us, who have been called out of the nations, -'and they shall join to beat their glaives into ploughs, and their lances into sickles; and nations shall not take up glaive against nation, and they shall no more learn to fight.' Who else, therefore, are understood but we, who, fully taught by the new law, observe these practices, - the old law being obliterated, the coming of whose abolition the action itself demonstrates?" ("Of Circumcision and the Supercession of the Old Law," An Answer to the Jews, Chapter III)
250: Origen - Against Celsus | John | Matthew "I challenge anyone to prove my statement untrue if I say that the entire Jewish nation was destroyed less than one whole generation later on account of these sufferings which they inflicted on Jesus. For it was, I believe, forty-two years from the time when they crucified Jesus to the destruction of Jerusalem."
These early writers understand the Preterist view of the end of the Jewish age with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Some of them understand the resurrection of the dead and the judgment as already taking place.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Righteousness for the BELIEVER. Our representative is no longer an animal sacrifice that has to be offered for the people every year to atone for their sins. We do not represent ourselves but have an Advocate that has met the quality of righteousness fully. Now, everlasting righteousness is provided, and it is better than continuous offerings that can never take away sin, because they only address one sin, the current sin, not future sin. (Hebrews 9)
-seal up vision and prophecy: ummm, sin and righteousness? - SKEP1
The prophecy was sealed until the time of fulfillment.
-plus anoint the most holy place: what holy place? - SKEP1
The new spiritual temple built upon Jesus Christ as the cornerstone what everything rests upon, and the apostles as the foundation, then the living members as the rest of the building. That spiritual building was finished in AD 70. Now we future believers can come to worship God, not through a priesthood that acts on our behalf, but on our Advocate, the High Priest Jesus Christ. We can go into the inner sanctuary because the curtain that separated everyone but the High Priest once a year has been torn apart. There is no longer that division.
As I see it, the seventy sevens has been cast aside because nothing significant happened per a literal understanding of it and the six signs are claimed to be fulfilled in 70AD even though it cannot be demonstrated. 70 AD was chosen as a "fulfillment of prophecy" not because prophecy predicted it, but because it is the most significant event anywhere close to the life of Jesus. - SKEP1
No, not cast aside but fulfilled! Something most significant happened in AD 70. God judged the Jews of the Mosaic Covenant per the curses of Deuteronomy 28. This judgment can be shown most convincingly by comparing the punishments/judgments using the Olivet Discourse and history. I am willing to lay out the argument and explain how it is most reasonable and logical to believe it fulfilled with historical data.
When you say, "it cannot be demonstrated," you are wrong. It most definitely can by looking at the Olivet prophecy and comparing it to history (and Deuteronomy). I am willing to do this, but the thread never comes to this point because no one is ever willing to discuss it and follow through as to which is the most reasonable and logical claim from the evidence supplied.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
"No, the time frame is not meaningless because the six signs of its completion are still evidence of its fulfillment if it is a figurative period" - PeterOnce the 'seventy sevens' becomes figurative it is superfluous to the alleged prophecy, and this begs the question of why it is there. - SKEPTICALONE
Thanks for your response. I appreciate that you are willing to get into this further.
I'm not saying this is the case. I'm defending that it is a reasonable and logical proposal to believe based on much of Scripture which uses figurative or symbolic language. (I still think Philip Mauro gives a valid response to a literal 70 weeks of years)
If the 490 weeks of years are symbolic, then the time frame does not have to be precise. We must know the starting date (and the finishing date, in retrospect). We know the starting point by the decree issued by Cyrus. We see the finishing date by the destruction of the city and the temple (as predicted) and the six signs that would be accomplished, which I will discuss later since you raised the point.
***
"By God's grace they were able to establish their relationship, and they were able to sustain that relationship for a period of time again"- PeterIf the Jews can maintain this special relationship without a temple, then you're kicking the legs out from your argument about that relationship being gone with the destruction of the temple in 70AD. - SKEPTICALONE
The point is that they CANNOT and still be faithful to the covenant they agreed upon, that is on what the OT economy and ritual system are based on; they cannot follow the covenant as stipulated in the OT. (Exodus 24:3)
That covenant required a sacrificial system for the atonement of the sins of the people. That cannot and does not happen after AD 70.
God takes sin seriously. After AD 70 they did not need it because God had put a better covenant into place. God made it known that without the shedding of blood there is no remission or forgiveness of sin. Sin was wrongful action against God and required a penalty. Because God is holy and pure, He gave the Mosaic Covenant people a provision to have a relationship with Him still. It was an animal sacrifice that was representational of themselves. To sin is to die or separate oneself from God's presence. Thus instead of them, the animal covered over their sin until the appointed time where God would provide a sacrifice that never had to be repeated.
This animal sacrifice can no longer be met after AD 70. There is no longer a temple to bring the sacrifice too, no longer a priesthood, no longer feast days, no longer animal sacrifices as required by the covenant, no longer a recorded genealogy to trace the priestly lineage. What is more, the curses of Deuteronomy 28 have been poured out upon these people. They have come under judgment for their foreign gods and false worship as God warned them constantly through all the prophets would happen.
***
The six signs are too vague to only apply to a second destruction of a temple. - SKEPTICALONE-finish the transgression: what transgression against whom? - SKEP1
When they sinned, who was the transgression against - God.
The OT is a witness that these people had not finished their transgression against God.
-make an end of sin: does sin not exist anymore? - SKEP1
The making an end was an end to their sin, by God bringing judgment upon them. The requirement for sin was repentance and animal sacrifice, or they would face punishment. Their relationship with God hinged on them making reparations for sin with animal sacrifices.
-make atonement for iniquity: I think you would argue the death and resurrection of Jesus did this and not the destruction of a temple...but what do I know! - SKEP1
Yes, I would, just like I would argue that He brought in everlasting righteousness FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE. What the destruction of the temple did was put an end to a ritual system of worship and an OT economy they recognized signified their relationship with God.
-bring in everlasting righteousness: righteousness of whom? The sinners that obviously still exist?! - SKEP1
Continue on next post
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Please list some of the support you would like me to address since I don't want to take on the whole array of articles.The links provided were not meant for you to address. They were meant to point you to well established modern scholarship which puts the book of Daniel to a much later date than what is typically held uncritically by some conservative scholars. It was my understanding you desired this information when you suggested there was no support for such claims, seemed to doubt anyone said that, or questioned 'my evidence' in post #31.Did I misunderstand you?
Why would I trust "modern scholarship," 17-20 centuries removed from the times? Why would I accept scholars who have a particular bias towards the events and prophecies because they are humanists and see man as the measure of all things? That is your paradigm, not mine.
I would remind you that many Jews also see Daniel as an ancient book that fits the time frame/date of Scripture. The internal evidence mentioned by other prophets confirm Daniel as living during the times we believe he did. J.P. Holding and others make a good case for this as true. It comes down to your highest authority on the issue, as do so many things.
When you say I suggested support for your claims, I was looking for you to list that support so I could refute it, not three links that convey a massive amount of information that kills the discussion right there. It kills the discussion because of the work I would need to do to make my case, and you could continually come back with other links that make your case for you, with no effort at all. If you wanted to get into linkswarz we don't need to have a discussion. All we need to do is provide link after link that supports our claims and let the other person figure out the relevant information after hours and hours of reading.
If you intend to argue modern scholarship so that you can then argue prophecy is a logical reason to believe, then might I suggest you've got one more debate than you should! ;-)
I intend to show that modern scholarship does not always support the most reasonable and logical evidence. Take, for instance, the dating of the NT. It is done largely on a suspected saying of Irenaeus regarding John being alive at the time of Domitian. It ignores completely the internal evidence contained in the NT manuscripts.
I think I can make a compelling and logical case for Daniel being written in the more ancient time frame also, as per what J.P. Holding and others have offered.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
But Don K. Preston and other Preterists make the claim that the dates don't have to be literal but can be either figurative or rounded out, which makes them not the issue. The issue is the six conditions of verse 24 that would be in effect and the destruction of the city and temple.I'm sorry, Peter, but the prophecy is literally called the seventy sevens, yet the seventy sevens units of time are meaningless!? I have difficulty accepting that explanation. As to the six conditions - they seem pretty vague to me and I see no reason why they could only apply to the temple destruction in 70 AD.
No, the time frame is not meaningless because the six signs of its completion are still evidence of its fulfillment if it is a figurative period. But Philip Mauro, if his dates are true and Ptolemy did error on the timeframe of the Persian Empire, makes the literal time frame a reality. I'm just pointing out that it does not have to be literal to meet the timeframe because of the six signs and the destruction that would signify the end of the time frame.
Also, you make a lot of the Jewish people no longer being in a covenant relationship after 70 AD because they can no longer fulfill the requirements, but the temple destroyed in 70 AD was not the first temple to be destroyed. How do you think the Jews maintained their covenant relationship after the destruction of the first temple?
By God's grace they were able to establish their relationship and they were able to sustain that relationship for a period of time again, for God told Daniel that the temple (and city) would be rebuilt again, then because of the still further disobedience, it would be destroyed for a final time. A better temple, a heavenly One, a spiritual one would take its place (Jesus said the believer is the temple of God the Holy Spirit).
The destruction of the first temple was not the end of the covenant relationship. The end of the second would finish the transgression, make an end of sin, make atonement for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and prophecy, plus anoint the most holy place.
Those conditions are met in AD 70, so the time reference fits within the timeframe of 490 years if you either take it from Philip Mauro's starting point, or you take the time period as not exact, or not literal. The six signs are still fulfilled within the time frame of the destruction once again of the city and sanctuary.
The destruction of the first temple was not the end of the covenant relationship. The end of the second would finish the transgression, make an end of sin, make atonement for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and prophecy, plus anoint the most holy place.
Those conditions are met in AD 70, so the time reference fits within the timeframe of 490 years if you either take it from Philip Mauro's starting point, or you take the time period as not exact, or not literal. The six signs are still fulfilled within the time frame of the destruction once again of the city and sanctuary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Continue:
Thus, over and over you get a picture that God takes sin seriously, seriously enough to not let a sinful person in His spiritual presence because He is pure and holy. You see the whole Levitical sacrifice system teaching this truth of an atonement for sin. The object lesson is always pointing to the greater sacrifice, Lord Jesus Christ, the SACRIFICE that can TAKE AWAY sin forever. Many physical events of the OT portray a greater truth, a SPIRITUAL truth. If you believe the testimony and repent and trust this SACRIFICE, God gives you a new spirit, one that is no longer hostile to Him, one that no longer denies Him and His truths. That is why Jesus can say that:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
And,
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies,
Even though he dies (physically), yet will he live (spiritually and in the image and likeness of God as a spiritual being in His presence).
If God could say before the fall of Adam that everything He made was good, and yet we see how marred Adam and humanity was after he ate, and the result of that choice, then something drastic happened when he disobeyed God. The NT constantly tells us what happened was a separation because of sin for the human from God. That is why we need the Second Adam to restore what the first Adam lost. In the last book of the Bible, we see this restoration, when humanity is allowed to take once again what they were BARRED from in the Garden, the Tree of Life. Jesus again is the true tree. He is the resurrection and the LIFE. He tells them and us, that He is the true vine (John 15). Old Covenant Israel was the tree He cursed, the Olive tree that withered because of lack of faith.
God tells the reader of Scripture to be perfect as He is perfect. How can someone who has demonstrated, time and again, that he cannot live up to this perfection stand before God as justified pure and holy? He can only do it by accepting the gift the One who is perfect has offered to him. Jesus willingly took the place of those who would believe in Him as the sacrifice, paying the penalty for our sins. Even more than this, the NT tells the reader that He lived a perfect life before God, without sin, so He represents us before God in so many ways - as our High Priest, as our sacrificial offering, as a Man without sin, as the sealer of a New Covenant, a better covenant than the Mosaic Covenant. That is the good news! What we could not do, God did for us in His Son. The Son took on humanity to do this for us so that God's righteous requirement would be fully met for us.
even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),
When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Quote one passage from the OT that mentions a spiritual death.God said on the day you eat the fruit you will die, it didn't happen ergo god lied.Can a witch raise the dead?
Do you know the difference between inductive and deductive logic? Can you answer me that? I can show you how the concept is logical and reasonable to believe and the NT develops the reason further of what happened to Adam in the Garden.
If God is Spirit (Genesis 1:2 The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.) and the OT tells the reader as much, and also that we are spiritual beings (Deuteronomy 2:30 But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today), then losing that spiritual relationship with God is reasonable to believe.
It explains how Adam could die that very day in the Garden.
Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life.
Since humans can no longer eat of the tree and live forever because we have been barred from the Garden then someone needs to restore that relationship that we can eat from that tree and live forever in God's presence.
Since humans can no longer eat of the tree and live forever because we have been barred from the Garden then someone needs to restore that relationship that we can eat from that tree and live forever in God's presence.
Do you think God is like you, a physical being? Can you answer that, according to what the Bible reveals? We are told repeatedly in the Old and New Testament that He is a Spirit. If He is not physical then what does this next verse mean:
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
If we are not like God physically, because God is not physical in His nature, then we must be like Him in things that are not physical. Does that make sense to you?
OT
God who is Spirit breathes life into our mortal bodies. How do you think something that is lifeless matter acquires non-material properties? Can you answer? Do you think that all you are is matter, plus energy?
Genesis 2:7
Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;
and man became a living being.
“The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life.
NT
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
So when you say, on the day Adam ate from it he did not die, that is true if that means physical death. But what do we see? We see God throwing Adam out of Eden and barring his return we get the picture that Adam died spiritually to God on that day. He no longer had that close relationship he shared in the Garden when God talked with him on a daily basis. We see reference to a Second Adam who comes to restore the relationship lost in the Garden. We see Jesus in another Garden the night before His betrayal. We see a spiritual truth that mirrors the physical events of the OT. (typology/shadow). This time we see a Man without sin, unlike the first Adam, who is able to restore that relationship and pay the penalty for sin. If the first Adam had not sinned then we would not need the second Adam.
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
We are told that sin separates us from a relationship with God. That is why you constantly see a sacrifice of atonement in the OT to COVER those sins. The animal REPRESENTS the sinful person. The one who died should not be an animal but the person themselves.
Blood, which represents life is given for sin.
And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of
blood there is no forgiveness.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
My links were not an argument, but support of Daniel being written much later than accepted by some Jewish and Christian teachings.
That, IMO, is not a belief of either Judaism or Christianity. It is a view taken by liberal Bible critics and it came into its own in the 17-20th centuries when rationalism and humanism became a relevant worldview of the intellectual elite.
Please list some of the support you would like me to address since I don't want to take on the whole array of articles.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your source points out the same thing I have: 490 years is wrong (although they come at it from a different way). If prophecy is a logical reason to believe, then failed prophecy is a logical reason not to believe, no?
If Philip Mauro is right (and he had the references that seem to be hard to get hold of today), as mentioned in The Seventy Weeks
and the Great Tribulation, chapter 2, then the current Ptolmic dating system recording the Persian Empire is wrong. That changes everything. But no matter which way you look at it, the end is tied to when the city and temple are destroyed, and the six specific prophetic occurrences would have to be demonstrated to take place. One thing is reasonable to believe, these six prophecies had to take place in regards to the OT Mosaic covenant. These people are no longer in covenant relationship after AD 70 because they can't meet the requirements of that system.
and the Great Tribulation, chapter 2, then the current Ptolmic dating system recording the Persian Empire is wrong. That changes everything. But no matter which way you look at it, the end is tied to when the city and temple are destroyed, and the six specific prophetic occurrences would have to be demonstrated to take place. One thing is reasonable to believe, these six prophecies had to take place in regards to the OT Mosaic covenant. These people are no longer in covenant relationship after AD 70 because they can't meet the requirements of that system.
This important matter of the defective character of all existing chronologies is fully discussed, and the facts clearly set forth, in Martin Anstey's Bible Chronology, published in 1913, to which we must refer such of our readers as wish to study the matter exhaustively. Mr. Anstey's work commands our confidence and respect because he disregards all heathen sources, and all guesswork, and derives his information solely from the Scriptures.
Concerning the dates given in Ptolemy's table of Persian Kings, Anstey says: "They rest upon calculations or guesses made by Eratosthenes, and on certain vague floating traditions, in accordance with which the period of the Persian Empire was mapped out as a period of 205 years." And he shows, by a great variety of proofs taken entirely from the Scriptures, that the period which Ptolemy assigns to the Persian Empire is about eighty years too long. It follows that all who adopt Ptolemy's chronology, or any system based upon it (as all modern chronologists prior to Anstey do) would inevitably be led far astray. It is impossible to make the real Bible-events agree, within 80 years, with the mistaken chronology of Ptolemy. This single fact makes many modern books on Daniel utterly worthless, so far as their chronology is concerned; and the chronology is the main thing.
But Don K. Preston and other Preterists make the claim that the dates don't have to be literal but can be either figurative or rounded out, which makes them not the issue. The issue is the six conditions of verse 24 that would be in effect and the destruction of the city and temple.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
Do you understand the difference between a religion that men make up and a religious belief that God initiates? It is the difference between the real and the counterfeit, between light and darkness, between day and night, between man-made gods and the true and living God.Stop pretending like you know squat. You're spiritually a dunce if you can't answer simple questions, which by the looks of it, are conceding at this point.
Nice rebuttal! Why don't you address the charge rather than attack me personally? I know when that happens you have nothing. Your counter-argument is empty.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
One more point here. You said that it was "thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future," yet. Daniel 9:24 gives a period of 490 years.Does Daniel give a period of 490 years ....or does the passage mention 490 unspecified units? It is the latter, yes? In translations where interpreters have provided units of time, the seventy sevens refers to weeks. How is it not a very charitable reading which undersrands years here?Also, allow me to reiterate, given that the book of Daniel is thought to have been written in the 2nd century BC, the alleged prophecy is wrong no matter what unit of time you apply to the seventy sevens passage.Long story short - the "prophecy' laid out in Daniel doesn't argue for belief being reasonable.
Who thinks the book is written in the 2nd-century?
Even if the book was written in the 2nd-century, which goes against the Jewish teaching and large Christian belief, that does not necessarily discount the prophecy, if the timeframe is a figurative time frame with the six conditions meeting their fulfillment plus the once again destruction of the city and temple. It would still predict the destruction of the city and temple again. That happened in AD 70. When you take the whole of Daniel there are many other references to the latter or last days, the day of resurrection and the day of judgment. Daniel 9:24 is a time of judgment. Daniel 12:1 speaks of that time as being like no other that Daniel's people would ever go through again. It speaks of the completion of the judgment at that time, of all that is written and still unfulfilled to that time (Daniel 12:7).
Also, please break down your links you posted a week or so ago, so that I can address particular claims you want to make from them.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
"Anyone can take a verse from a context, isolate it, and give the impression that is the entire argument. Why don't you read the rest of the context (i.e., Post # 114)?""I never said that. I said that those who are not regenerated (born again) have a nature that is hostile to God. They will not submit to who He is, to what He says. Instead, they rebel and live their own way. Thus, all the crime, greed, sin in the world.(post 91)"All men are sinners, all godists are sinners therefore billions of godists committing multi billions of sins everyday defeats the fantasy you are projecting.
Yes, all men (except Jesus) are sinners. Thus they will have to appear before a pure and holy God for their actions. That is the biblical teaching. The difference between NT believers of Jesus and others is that Jesus has lived that perfect life on account of the believer, and Jesus has paid their penalty for wrongful action. The jury is out; either you are justified by Jesus or you will justify your own actions. Do you want to justify your own actions before God?
No, it does not defeat the teaching. How does it do that?
Do you understand the difference between a religion that men make up and a religious belief that God initiates? It is the difference between the real and the counterfeit, between light and darkness, between day and night, between man-made gods and the true and living God.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
One more point here. You said that it was "thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future," yet. Daniel 9:24 gives a period of 490 years.Does Daniel give a period of 490 years ....or does the passage mention 490 unspecified units? It is the latter, yes? In translations where interpreters have provided units of time, the seventy sevens refers to weeks. How is it not a very charitable reading which undersrands years here?
Not unspecified units, no.
The understanding is weeks of years or seventy heptads. Whether that is literal or figurative can be debated.
I have seen Jewish sites also make this distinction, that it means 490 years, sites that are hostile to the Christian understanding:
(24) Seventy septets [of years] have been decreed on your people and the city of your Sanctuary [for you] to 1) make an end of transgression, 2) to atone for sin and 3) to wipe away iniquity, 4) to bring about universal justice, 5) to confirm the visions and the prophets and 6) to anoint the Most Holy Place.
Note that the "seventy septets of years" are like God telling Yisrael "I am giving you 490 years to get your act together..." − pretty much like He gave Mankind 120 years to get their act together in the time of No'aḥ (see B'réshit 6:3). We were supposed"to make an end of transgression, to atone for sin and to wipe away iniquity, to bring about universal justice, to confirm the visions and the prophets and to anoint the Most Holy Place"but we failed to do these things and so the King-Messiah did not come − and we were condemned to remain in exile until we succeed in doing them all.This "Vision" is more of a Midrashic legend than anything else. It is entirely consistent with the "traditional" chronology of the Second Temple period that I mentioned at the start of this article, but bears little relation to historical reality. It is certainly true that Cyrus, the "messiah-ruler" that the prophetY'shayahu referred to (Y'shayahu 45:1), took control of the Babylonian Empire (and hence also of the Y'hudi exiles) "seven septets" after the destruction of the First Temple... in round numbers, because it was actually only 47 years, two years short of the "seven septets", from 586BCE to 539BCE; but only in the mythological "traditional" chronology will you find sixty-two "septets" (434 years) from then until the destruction of the Second Temple − it was actually more than 600 years from 539BCE until 68CE.
So whether you take the time period as a literal 490 years, or a figurative period of time (or rounded number), the six conditions listed still have to take place before the prophecy is fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Are you suggesting Adam died physically on the day he ate the fruit? - MEMost certainly not, that is a claim made by christians in a vain attempt at absolving their god of lying - DISGUSTED
No, it is not God lying, and you misrepresent the information available in Scripture that speaks of both God as spirit and our spiritual relationship. It is a continuous message throughout the Bible, this spiritual relationship. On top of that, (by inductive reasoning) God said, "on the DAY" you eat of it (the fruit) you will die and Adam did not die on that day, yet he was barred from the close relationship with God on that very day, therefore, the death must be spiritual. We see the NT FOCUS is on a spiritual regeneration for those who are dead to God spiritually. In John 3:3, 5 Jesus said that a person MUST be born again to either SEE or ENTER the kingdom of God (i.e., have that relationship renewed and have a new nature given them - one no longer hostile to God). If you do not understand that spiritual relationship through the pages of the NT (and OT) you have missed a major teaching and one of the central themes of the Bible.
The biblical text makes it very clear that God said on the day Adam ate the fruit he would die.And as the story goes on to tell us, that was a lie.
No, it does not. It tells us that Adam believed or at least listened to the devil (via Eve) rather than God, and the NT tells us that Satan was a liar from the beginning. The OT and NT always present God as true and the truth. You do not choose to understand that message because you have a bias against God and His word, per Scripture.
Adam was separated from God spiritually and that mans spiritual condition is that he must be born spiritually to either enter the heavenly kingdom or see itThe bible doesn't say that you are making it up, but you have to fabricate lies so that you can convince yourself.Define spiritually.
Saying after saying in the NT speaks of the readers' SPIRITUAL relationship, and how since the fall of Adam that relationship has been damaged (dead) to God.
What relates to the spirit as opposed to the physical.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
Ephesians 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
Our sins made/make us dead to God and that relationship. Thus we need regeneration, to be born again, with a spirit that is no longer hostile to God.
because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
He who hates Me hates My Father also.
There are two kinds of people the Bible identifies here and elsewhere - those who love God and those who hate and ignore God. Jesus said if you hate Him you hate God the Father also.
If you don't think the NT (and the Bible overall) is all about this spiritual relationship then check out the biblical links below:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
You were the one who used emotion by attacking the man (me) rather than the argument.I haven’t made a single personal attack towards you. Stop telling lies simply because you're backed into a corner by your own unbelievable scriptures.What I have done is highlight these unfathomable verses that you have tried to explain away with more unfathomable verses from the same source material. Get it into your head: That Simply isn’t going to work.
Your emotional highly charged and suggestive language is an attack against the Christian to ridicule their belief system, used to sway people to the counter-point of view with assertion after assertion:
Post #1: strangest story, vague, ambiguous and at one time just plain silly, Jesus not being able to make up his mind and not seeming too bothered about this person he “loved,” suicidal followers and confused women, hints that it all could have been a staged affair, But not before saying this enigmatic and outrageous statement.
Post #2: nothing seems to explain at all Jesus’ carelessness and indifference.
Post #5: No these silly stupid illiterate disciples didn't understand the difference between only sleeping and DEAD, Oh stop it.
Post #13: I can see why it is that people like you unfortunately do eventually get mocked.
Post #14: you silly man.
Post # 23: Emotion before substance,
Post #14: you silly man.
Post # 23: Emotion before substance,
Post # 26: I haven’t made a single personal attack towards you. Stop telling lies simply because you're backed into a corner by your own unbelievable scriptures.
You made two personal attacks against me and you continually insulted Christians as stupid and simple. Your whole language towards the Christian faith is emotionally charged and highly suggestive, also towards the Scriptures as beyond belief.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Where is it mentioned? It is a logical deduction. Adam did not die physically that day, - MEYou read it here first folks Adam didn't die on that day and this bogus spiritual death wasn't mentioned it was fabricated. - DISGUSTED
Are you suggesting Adam died physically on the day he ate the fruit?
The biblical text makes it very clear that God said on the day Adam ate the fruit he would die. We learn over and over again that Adam was separated from God spiritually and that mans spiritual condition is that he must be born spiritually to either enter the heavenly kingdom or see it. Since you choose to believe otherwise, end of discussion. Believe what you want. I can only reiterate the same thoughts so many times before it gets futile.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
All religions are man made. Billions of godists committing multi billions of sins every day destroys your pathetic attempt at propaganda. - DISGUSTED"Thus, all the crime, greed, sin in the world." - MEYour words, your tense. - DISGUSTED
Anyone can take a verse from a context, isolate it, and give the impression that is the entire argument. Why don't you read the rest of the context (i.e., Post # 114)?
POST 114:
Again, your comments are groundless. I distinguished between man-made religion and all its evil v. a true belief. I also listed a generality of what happens when humanistic beliefs become the mainstay of societies. The twentieth century has been the bloodiest to date when God is forgotten and humans become the pinnacle of morality. - ME
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Please, would you break down the relevant points you want me to glean for Post # 38? If you lay out the specifics I will take a stab at them.
Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC, and the "prophecy" it records is actually history. It is also thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future but of his own. As to the passage from Deuteronomy, it speaks of "towns" (plural). I fail to see how this can be the temple (singular). It seems to me, this passage tells believers they can not get away from the wrath of god
One more point here. You said that it was "thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future," yet Daniel 9:24 gives a period of 490 years. That is not near but far away. Other prophecies in Daniel also speak of the far distant future. In fact, there are many prophecies that speak of the far distant future from Daniel's time, like Daniel 2:44, or Daniel 12:4
4 But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.”
8 As for me, I heard but could not understand; so I said, “My lord, what will be the outcome of these events?” 9 He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time.
13 But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age.”
I believe most prophecies in Daniel point to a very specific time in the future.
Daniel 10:14 Now I have come to give you an understanding of what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the vision pertains to the days yet future.”
Do you know anything of the last days or latter time statements in Scripture?
Created: