Total posts: 3,179
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
"People like me?" What kind of person is that?Emotion before substance.
You were the one who used emotion by attacking the man (me) rather than the argument. That is a cop-out. I can document it many times in your posts. The irony of that is it is you who are being emotional.
Explain why we have people just "dropping down dead" for not paying their fees to the movement?
No idea what you mean here?
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
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. There was a more important truth here. Jesus gives spiritual life to those who trust in Him. This man's father was already dead and those burying him were spiritually dead. Following Jesus would give the opportunity to find true life and the invitation was to find that life.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
Isn't it funny? They substitute their own interpretation and then call it stupid.
I learned a long time ago that you can't convince someone against their will. They will find every justification not to hear or understand what is being said. Unless the Spirit is working in their life to convict them, reasoning is futile, except to prick their conscience (i.e., plant a seed). Denying God is a defense mechanism. The same is true with Scripture. People read in all kinds of beliefs that are not justified by the Authors meaning. That includes everyone, but the justification is Scripture itself - God's word. There is a true interpretation to be had from it and the task is to find it. Once it is found Scripture comes alive. That is why the new birth is so important. The natural man/woman is in rebellion to God. They don't want to give up their supposed autonomous thought and actions.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Billions of godists committing multi billions of sins, greed and crimes daily and you blame the few non believers for committing all of those things, reality is not somewhere you have ever visited is it?Astonishing what godists can be convinced to believe, usually utter tripe as we can see. - DISGUSTED
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.
You see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear, governed by your worldview bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”So, there are two deaths, not one. There is a physical death and there is a spiritual death. There is a spiritual reality taught in the Bible, just like there is a natural or physical reality.Where is this spiritual death mentioned here?When did it happen?How do you know?You just fabricated it?Is that adding to the bible as you are admonished not too?
Where is it mentioned? It is a logical deduction. Adam did not die physically that day, yet he was barred from the Garden and no longer walked with God (i.e., relationship). In fact, they were barred from the Garden and from taking of the Tree of Life and living forever on that day.
We are told over and over in the Bible that God is Spirit and that we all have had our spiritual relationship with God altered by that first sin. Humanity did not know the difference between good and evil (Adam only knew good) until Adam disobeyed God's good instruction. Adam was the first relativist.
***
The spiritual separation happened on the day Adam disobeyed God and then he and Eve hid from God because they, at that point, knew they had done evil and set in course a life of being able to choose evil as well as good, but never being able to choose ONLY good.
***
I know because the focus of so many biblical verses is this separation between Adam/humanity and God that happened in the Garden.
But like Adam they have transgressed the covenant; There they have dealt treacherously against Me.
For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.
We know that we are made alive SPIRITUALLY to God with the new birth.
Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
It is a spiritual birth spoken of.
for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God.
We know from many verses that we enter into a spiritual birth when we truly believe in Jesus and repent of our sins against God.
So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
***
No, I didn't fabricate it. I relied on the words of Scripture in understanding it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
"Again, this reinforces Thomas' understanding of dying that He would be raised again." _ METhat isn't dying and where does Jesus say he will raise Lazarus.The disease will not result in death then Jesus didn't raise him from death, it was a con job for the gullible. - DISGUSTED
The whole purpose of raising Lazarus was to show He had the power of life and death in Him, and it confirms His teaching of John 5:25-26 with a demonstration of that power.
"Jesus did not get it wrong. Lazarus's death was for the glory of God. Lazarus death was not permanent." - ME
How many instances of non-permanent death do you know of? Mentioning deaths declared by doctors don't count, I require deaths declared by your god and corroborated by witnesses. - DISGUSTED
Personally, I have never seen one but I believe that Jesus has power over life and death because He is our Creator. I know of the biblical accounts plus I have heard of people having near-death experiences, where they were considered clinically dead and revived either by defibulators or resuscitation. What was amazing about Lazarus was that he was in a tomb for a number of days.
"everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die." -
Well he got that wrong, as evidenced by everyone he spoke to or did none of them believe? - STEPHEN
Here again, you do not understand that the Bible speaks of two types of death - spiritual and physical death.
There is evidence from the Scripture that Jesus saved the twelve apostles, which would include Paul since Judas was never considered one who would be saved.
Revelation 21:14
And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
John 17:7 Now they have come to know that everything You have given Me is from You; 8 for the words which You gave Me I have given to them; and they received them and truly understood that I came forth from You, and they believed that You sent Me. 9 I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom You have given Me; for they are Yours; 10 and all things that are Mine are Yours, and Yours are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. 11 I am no longer in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to You. Holy Father, keep them in Your name, the name which You have given Me, that they may be one even as We are. 12 While I was with them, I was keeping them in Your name which You have given Me; and I guarded them and not one of them perished but the on of perdition, so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.
So His death was for the purpose of saving them and all who believe and place their trust in Him. They would not see death, for believing in Jesus results in regeneration to new life. Paul writes of this:
2 Corinthians 5:17
Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
How could Paul say that he had died with Christ when he was still alive?
Galatians 2:20
I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
He meant that the life he lived he lived to the glory of Christ. It was Christ working in him to bring glory to God.
He meant that the life he lived he lived to the glory of Christ. It was Christ working in him to bring glory to God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The rule of Scripture is that Scripture is its own interpreter: - MEI think I have had my question answered. I believe these dire warnings are directed to, and concern the last "book" Revelations only. I Believe they come directly from the author himself as; SkepticalOne has pointed out: - STEPHENSkepticalOne Interpolation and redaction were known to exist to the author of Revelation (which I recognize one of the verses above is from)and this was his attempt to keep his writing unchanged. - STEPHEN
You have had your confirmational bias tickled. You hear what you want to hear.
And there has been much “Interpolation and redaction” and outright fakery “added to and other parts “taketh away” from the scriptures. - STEPHEN
Show me what you are referencing.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
This is what you said."Thus, all the crime, greed, sin in the world."Over 90% of the worlds population is godist therefore al the crime greed and sin is committed by godists, your reference to spurious historical accounts not with standing.Billions of godists performing billions of crimes and sins every year for thousands of years prove you wrong. - DISGUSTED
No, you misunderstand my view of religion, or as you call them - godists. As I said before, most religion is human-made. True religion, as per James 1:27, is to look after the orphan and widow in their distress, to keep your thoughts pure from those of the world, and to worship God as He really is. If you don't worship God as He is (John 4:23-24) then you are guilty of idolatry. "Good deeds" is an effort by humanity to do what they believe is necessary (their "good works") to atone for their own sins. They figure that if their "good deeds/actions" outweighs their "bad deeds" then they have saved themselves from the wrongs they have done.
The Bible makes it clear that that is not the case, that God is perfect, pure, righteous, just, and will not turn a blind eye to sin. The soul that sins will die/be separated from the presence of God. If they have ever lied, committed adultery (and see Jesus definition of it in the NT), dishonored their parents, murdered (again regard Jesus' definition of it), stolen, or coveted something that was not theirs, or taken His name in vain, is guilty before God of sin. In fact, both testaments tell the reader there are no righteous human beings, meaning none without some kind of sinful action. Ask yourself the same question. Have you ever stolen something, lied, coveted something that was not your own, or dishonored God by not giving Him the praise and majesty He deserves? If so, then you are guilty before Him.
The Bible makes it clear that that is not the case, that God is perfect, pure, righteous, just, and will not turn a blind eye to sin. The soul that sins will die/be separated from the presence of God. If they have ever lied, committed adultery (and see Jesus definition of it in the NT), dishonored their parents, murdered (again regard Jesus' definition of it), stolen, or coveted something that was not theirs, or taken His name in vain, is guilty before God of sin. In fact, both testaments tell the reader there are no righteous human beings, meaning none without some kind of sinful action. Ask yourself the same question. Have you ever stolen something, lied, coveted something that was not your own, or dishonored God by not giving Him the praise and majesty He deserves? If so, then you are guilty before Him.
As I said, much of the death, greed, crime, sin against humanity in the 20th-century is a result of secular, socialist regimes. I mentioned the genocide by some such regimes in resulting in an estimated 100,000,000 deaths in that century. If you want to look at injustice then look to socialist/communist states and dictators or oligarchies that suppress the freedoms of the population to exploit them (a power game where they become million and billionaires at the expense of their peoples). It is an example of what happens when God is abandoned. More bloodshed and injustice than ever before. Abortion since Roe v. Wade has resulted in the biggest genocide of human beings in the history of the world to date - 1.5 billion deaths. It is a crime against humanity.
Then there are the man-made religions that compete against each other and each believes they are the right religion.
Then there are the man-made religions that compete against each other and each believes they are the right religion.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
My mistake, why WERE you hostile to god? - DISGUSTED
I was hostile to God because I lived as though He did not exist. I lived disobediently, and contrary to His word, doing what was wrong without repentance or consequence for my actions.
To this day, I am not perfect in myself but I have One who stands before me in my place (my Advocate) who is perfect and who has lived perfectly righteous before God. Not only this, by trusting in Him and in His sacrificial life my sin (past, present, and future) has been atoned for. The teaching of the OT is that every time the nation or an individual sinned a sacrifice was necessary to restore a relationship with God. That sin sacrifice was taken care of forever with the one time sacrifice of Jesus that the believer may have an everlasting relationship with God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Here is the central message of the chapter:“I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” - MEAnd when was the last day? It seems it was the last day just happened to be the very same day Lazarus was “raised” then doesn’t, it, you silly man? Or was there another “last day”?But it couldn’t have been could it. Because It appears life went on in that part of the world even after Jesus was “DEAD”. - STEPHEN
The "last days" is a term used frequently in both testaments, and in the OT it can refer to other nations or the nation of Israel specifically. In the NT, to my knowledge, it speaks to the nation of Israel and the prophecies that primarily concern Israel. The "last day" is a reference to THE day in which God would judge the living and the dead and the righteous will be granted everlasting life and the unrighteous would be separated from His presence forevermore. This judgment is a judgment when the Lord Jesus Christ would return. That coming as seen through Preterist's eyes (can be justified), was a coming in judgment, not a physical coming, and happened in AD 70 with the abrogation of the OT ritual and worship system (OT economy).
Other terms that are used in conjunction with "the last days" are the last day, the day of wrath, the day of judgment, that day, the day, the end of the age, the time of judgment, THIS GENERATION, and others.
God’s Final Word in His Son
1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.
The letter/epistle to the Hebrews was concerned with those who had professed Jesus as Lord then turning back to a dead religion and a soon to be dead covenant (Hebrews 8:13). These Jewish professors of Christ were being convinced by the Judaizers to turn back to OT worship. The author shows these Jews the superiority of Jesus against the ritualized system of worship that we call the OT economy. Notice in the passage quoted that God spoke through the prophets. Who did God send prophets to? He sent them to the Mosaic Covenant people who were being disobedient to Him by chasing after foreign gods and the worship of idols. God continually warned them through the prophets and teachers He sent to them to turn back to them, finally sending His Son, whom they crucified. I believe the last days is a forty-year period in which God gives Israel to repent and turn to Him through the ONE means He has given them - His Son. John the Baptist was the last of these OT prophets,and first of the NT prophets, sent as the Elijah to come.
Hebrews 3:7 Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says,
“Today if you hear His voice,
8 Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me,
As in the day of trial in the wilderness,
9 Where your fathers tried Me by testing Me,
And saw My works for forty years.
10 “Therefore I was angry with this generation,
And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart,
And they did not know My ways’;
11 As I swore in My wrath,
‘They shall not enter My rest.’”
The Peril of Unbelief
12 Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. 13 But encourage one another day after day, as long as it is still called “Today,” so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
The last day would be the last day of that generation, the day when the "Book of Life" was opened.
34 Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
(i.e., judgments previously mentioned along with all the signs)
Matthew 5:17-18 (NASB)
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.Everything spoken of yet unfulfilled in the OT and NT had to be accomplished before the Law of Moses was met completely and taken out of the way for believers. To show this was done, God made it evident by destroying the very temple worship and atonement system these people relied on to make atonement for their sins (i.e., animal sacrifices).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Jesus did not get it wrong. Lazarus's death was for the glory of God. Lazarus death was not permanent.I can see why it is that people like you unfortunately do eventually get mocked. You say Lazarus’ death was for the Glory of God. What does that actually mean? And why Lazarus? Why not the widowed Mrs.Pie Maker down the lane struggling to make a living for her family but still had served her god all her life?Was it because she wasn’t rich enough and didn't have a single influential friend in the Palace or the Sanhedrin Council or in the conclave of the Priesthood. Because this is exactly the pool of influential people from which Jesus gathered his disciples.- STEPHEN
"People like me?" What kind of person is that? You are making a sweeping generalization because I am a Christians, and your view is that all Christians are mocked.
I stated that Lazarus' death was for the glory of God because the text reads just that.
4 But when Jesus heard this, He said, “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it.”
The sickness did not end in death, for Lazarus was raised to life. That was not his final fate until the resurrection of the dead. Jesus showed, to the glory of God, that He had the power of life and death. What is more, His message was/is that those who die, even though they die, they live. Martha knew there was a resurrection of the dead, so she knew Lazarus would be one day be raised to life again. She did not think it would happen that day.
24 Martha *said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”
I will explain the last day reference further down in this post, but the points I want you to notice FROM THE TEXT is that she believed in a day when the dead would be resurrected, and that resurrection was to everlasting life, not this temporary physical life we experience here on earth.
The next point I want you to notice FROM THE TEXT is that Jesus says that those who believe in Him "will live even if he dies." Not only this but those who believe in Him, even though they die (physically) they will never die (spiritually to God). The death that Adam experienced in the Garden was not a physical death. That came later when God barred humanity from the tree of life in the Garden. If they had eaten from that tree, Scripture tells the reader they would have lived forever. Scripture also tells the reader that on the very day that Adam ate the fruit he would die. THIS IS A SPIRITUAL DEATH. We are told that very day that he was barred from the Garden and that close relationship he and Eve shared with God until this point in time.
Genesis 2:15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
So, there are two deaths, not one. There is a physical death and there is a spiritual death. There is a spiritual reality taught in the Bible, just like there is a natural or physical reality.
1 Corinthians 15:46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual.
1 Corinthians 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
1 Corinthians 2:14 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.
1 Corinthians 2:13 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.
If you have not been regenerated by God then how are you going to understand the spiritual reality conveyed in the Bible? Can you see the types and symbols on the pages of the OT points to Jesus Christ? I believe, for the most part, you are blind to these spiritual truths.
It shows that Jesus Has the power over death, and those who die, even though they die, will live again (resurrection). - METhat is simply a robotic, indoctrinated response based PURELY on faith. - STEPHEN
Yes, it is on faith - faith in the text and its message. It is reiterating from the biblical text. It is taking the topic of the resurrection presented in this chapter and also using the lessons learned from other references, other chapters, other gospels, other epistles, and combining the teaching for a better understanding.
Continue with next post
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
...Thus,Thomas could say, "Let us also go, so that we may die with Him.” If Lazarus was dead and Jesus was going to raise him, then Thomas would reason that if he died Jesus could do the same, per Jesus'previous statements: - MEOh stop it. Why in the world would this man want to die and encourage others to die along with him? And you have missed the point that Jesus had showed no intention or inclination before hand or mentioned anything about resurrecting Lazarus from the dead. He Didn't say: "Lazarus is only sick but if he does die I will bring him back to life, so let us not be concerned or worry ourselves and extend our little break another two days- DID HE?And There is no mention whatsoever that they did DIE along with Lazarus either is there? - STEPHEN
You stop it. He was willing to die because he believed death would not be his final end if he lived for Christ. Jesus had told His disciples that He had the words of life and death. They believed this. They did not desert Him because of His teachings (John 6:60-69).
John 5:23-25 (NASB)
23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24 “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.
Two Resurrections
25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
24 “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.
Two Resurrections
25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
John 6:68 Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.
Matthew 16:24 [ Discipleship Is Costly ] Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
I believe Thomas is expressing his desire to follow Jesus and is not afraid to follow him through persecution to death, which is what the Jewish chief priests threaten him later in the chapter.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes and for all his tarrying he got it wrong. Lazarus was dead. Even one of the women commented that if he had come sooner he may have saved Lazarus; indeed he actually says he wouldn’t have died:21 Then said Martha unto Jesus, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.... 'So' in verse 6 refers back to the reason of verse 4.And Lazarus DID die and Jesus was wrong. - STEPHEN
Jesus did not get it wrong. Lazarus's death was for the glory of God. Lazarus death was not permanent. The purpose was so that He would demonstrate the power of God and resurrect Lazarus. Thus He could say, Lazarus is not dead or the sickness is not to death. The purpose of the whole narrative is focused on this truth of the resurrection and living in Christ, not dying.
....14 So Jesus then said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead,He did, didn’the? And very clearly and plainly. So plain in fact there is no room for mistranslation or misinterpretation even into day’s modern English language,DEAD means DEAD! Which contradicts his earlier statement that Lazarus’“sickness” was not until death, doesn’t it?...15 and I am glad for your sakes that I Was not there, so that you may believe; but let us go to him.”Believe what? - STEPHEN
It shows that Jesus has the power over death, and those who die, even though they die, will live again (resurrection).
Here is the central message of the chapter:
John 11:24-26 (NASB)
24 Martha *said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”
24 Martha *said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?”
Here it is again: "he who believes in Me will live even if he dies."
As many have said, death was not Lazarus' final outcome and Jesus was looking to this outcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Post 6:
...Jesus not being able to make up His mind is not what the narrative tells us. - MEWrong that is what it clearly suggests. I say it appears that he couldn’t make up his mind because : 1st, he said Lazarus would not die. Then he said Lazarus was “sleeping”. “Sleeping” is put down to the disciples not understanding that when Jesus said “sleeping” what he actually meant was Dead! No these silly stupid illiterate disciples didn't understand the difference between only sleeping and DEAD!. I see.This is after he had told his disciples categorically, that Lazarus’ sickness was not life threatening. - STEPHEN
No, you are wrong on both accounts. Verse four explains the reason He did not go at once to Lazarus. If He went immediately He would not demonstrate His power to resurrect. The purpose was for His glory and the glory of God that He tarried. Lazarus' death was not his final outcome, for Jesus was going to resurrect him to the glory of God.
John Calvin states:
4.Now Jesus, having heard this, said, This sickness is not to death. He intended by this reply to free his disciples from anxiety, that they might not take it amiss, when they saw him giving himself so little concern about the danger of his friend. That they might not be alarmed, therefore, about the life of Lazarus, he declares that the disease is not deadly, and even promises that it will be an additional occasion of promoting his own glory. Though Lazarus died, yet as Christ soon afterwards restored him to life, he now declares, looking to this result, that the disease is not to death
Adam Clarke's commentary:
https://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/commentaries/acc/john-11.php#.W67fKGhKhPY
The Expositors Greek Testament:
Adam Clarke's commentary:
Verse 4
This sickness is not unto death - Not to final privation of life at this time; but a temporary death shall be now permitted, that the glory of God may appear in the miracle of his resurrection. https://www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/commentaries/acc/john-11.php#.W67fKGhKhPY
The Expositors Greek Testament:
“This illness is not to death, death is not the end towards which it is making. But that Jesus knew that death had already taken place (John 11:6 and John 11:17) or was imminent is evident from the following clause, but He knew what He would do (John 6:6) and that death was not to be the final result of this illness. The illness and death were for the sake of glorifying God (cf. John 9:3)...This is further explained in the clause “that the Son of God may be glorified by means of it,” i.e., by means of this illness; cf. John 13:31. “In two ways; because the miracle (1) would lead many to believe that He was the Messiah;
Many others express the same sentiment. They understand the context.
John Gill's Commentary:
this sickness is not unto death;
it was to issue in death, but not in death which was to continue, or under which Lazarus was to continue till the general resurrection; for though he should die, yet he should be so quickly restored again to life, that it scarcely deserved the name of death. The Jews distinguish between sickness and sickness; there are some that are sick, the greater part of whom are,
"for life"; and there are others that are "sick", the greater part of whom are, "for death" , or are sick unto death, whose sickness issues in death; but this of Lazarus's was not to be unto death, at least not finally:
but for the glory of God;
of his power and goodness in raising him again:
of his power and goodness in raising him again:
that the Son of God might be glorified thereby;
that is, that his glory, as the Son of God, might be made manifest in the resurrection of him from the dead; see ( John 2:11).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Who Can Explain This Verse To Me? - "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"
The rule of Scripture is that Scripture is its own interpreter:
Revelation 22:18 (KJV)
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:18 (NIV)
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Revelation 22:18 (NIV)
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll.
Revelation 22:18 (NASB)
18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
18 I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book;
Revelation is likely the reference to the book, the prophecy is "these things." Another reference could be the book of life. I believe both are reasonable.
At the time of writing the warning is to things that must SHORTLY come to pass (Revelation 1:1, 3). The time is near.
***
And this one?if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19. KJV.
The author of Revelation, John, was writing to a 1st-century Jewish audience of coming judgment. Hence the many references to OT Scripture (more than any other NT epistle or gospel - some have identified almost 300 OT references). Revelation is also a revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ. What applies to God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT and also in Revelation. He is given the same worship as God.
It can be reasonably shown that Revelation is John's version of the Olivet Discourse. It can also be shown that the prophecies concern the destruction of the city and temple in AD 70. There are various internal references that date the book, plus various symbols that identify the city called Babylon as Jerusalem that make Babylon impossible to be any other city. The Revelation can be shown to be God's Deuteronomy judgments or curses on an OT people (thus seven-fold). The judgment is because His covenant people (Mosaic Covenant) have heaped up their sins to the limit. The abolishment of that covenantal agreement and the relationship that came with it is terminated in AD 70. Thus, after this point in time, there is no more temple, no more priesthood, no more animal sacrifice to atone for the sins of the nation (Hebrews 8:13).
The book of life is referenced in Daniel 12 and speaks of this judgment where those who believe are rewarded and those who disbelieve are punished:
Daniel 12 “Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued. 2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever. 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.”
Daniel speaks of sealing up the book/scrolls until the time of the end (i.e., end of the OT age).
Revelation speaks of opening the book of life and the unsealed of the scrolls that Daniel was told to seal up. It speaks of this time of judgment for Daniel's people (i.e., Old Mosaic Covenant).
Revelation 22 speaks of this time of judgment, which is soon coming to the 1st-century people. Daniel also mentions this time is FAR away, in these words:
Daniel 12:7 I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed. 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.
The entire Book of Revelation is concerned with this soon coming judgment and the return in judgment and revelation of Jesus (who He is).
Daniel 12:13 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.”
The end of the OT age is when the books of judgment are again opened. It is the time of AD 70 when the OT ritualized temple worship and OT economy is put to an end. Jesus speaks of it in Matthew 24:3, 34. Their heaven and earth, everything they knew as a way of life, came to an end in AD 70. Revelation is a detailed account of the end to, the "last days," the day of wrath," and the end of the age.
Matthew 5:17-18 (NASB)
17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Hebrews 8:13 (NASB)
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
Both Daniel and Revelation speak of the time of resurrection of Daniel's people.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
It is usually copied and pasted from atheistic sites that carry their own bias. - MENo i haven't. It is how it reads to me the first time i read everything about Jesus. This translation was never suggested to me but obvious when i heard Jesus' story. It protects and universally applies to everyone with love in their hearts... instead of the human translation that damn's people for simply not submitting. That is clearly man-made ego and territorial bull. That is how i know i am right and you can't show me anything that doesn't follow my translation. Just bc a bunch of people translate it different doesn't make it right and is a fallacy to say it does... it just proves humans are fallible.Again... you have challenged nothing and now you have a new challenge that you are lacking in again. Every response from you is proving to me i am correct about the Bible due to zero meaningful refutations from you to prove otherwise.I have given you a list of concerns now and all you have done is say that you're right and i'm wrong. And... people like you are the ones that translate the Bible, wow. And you expect atheists and other beliefs to not see through this bull? - OUTPLAYZ
Obviously, you consider your OPINION more valid than my views, which I offer biblical and historical evidence for what I state, but if all you use is your personal feelings as the test, why is that any better than any other subjective, relative human opinion? And I don't buy the ego thing because I see your ego at play as much as anyone else.
I have challenged, and no one, other than SkepticalOne, has responded to my arguments. All they, and you, have done is hijack the thread onto other topics, avoiding an engagement.
Here is the topic of contention: Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe.
I don't translate the Bible, I interpret it according to rules such as who is being addressed (the relevant audience), what is the time frame, what does it mean to the culture of the times and us, as a secondary audience of address, what does the author mean, not what I want to read into the text.
Those who have translated the Bible have done so from the ORIGINAL languages into the different languages. The NT is translated from Greek to English, or Greek to Spanish, or Greek to French, or Greek to Chinese. It is not translated from Greek to English, then from English to Spanish, then from Spanish to French.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
How do you know i am not interpreting it correctly? That all Jesus meant was to believe in his story? That is what "through me" sounds like to me. To live life with his story as an example. So... how am i wrong about that? It also makes more sense since it isn't a tribal or narcissistic interpretation to believe that way.Um... you didn't answer any of my concerns that make me of the belief the Bible as a whole and/or religion is wrong. This is called conceding and gives me no reason to believe anything you say. I told you i have evidence to the contrary... you have done nothing to challenge that. i am not interpreting it correctly? That all Jesus meant was to believe in his story? That is what "through me" sounds like to me. To live life with his story as an example. So... how am i wrong about that? It also makes more sense since it isn't a tribal or narcissistic interpretation to believe that way.- OUTPLAYZ
I know your interpretation is suspect because you read into the text things it does not say nor communicate. There are logical rules for interpretation (heurmenutics). What you do is called eisegesis.
We can only derive meaning from what is stated. All else is speculation.
Supply your evidence. It is usually copied and pasted from atheistic sites that carry their own bias.
You add a personal experience, not a factual account. Anyone can do that and come up with a zillion different personal feelings.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Thus, all the crime, greed, sin in the world. - MEIs committed by godists - DISGUSTED
Not all, and debatably even most.
The worst crimes of genocide in the twentieth century are from secularistic and atheistic governments (estimated over 100 million killed/murdered by such regimes in the 20th-century alone). But if you want to include 'godists' in the list I will accept it with a caveat. Religion, for the most part, is a man-made creation, with the exception of one religious belief since they all say different things and can't all be true. It defies logic. Also, what is done in the "name of" Christianity does not always match its teachings. Most of the time it does not, IMO.
The worst crimes of genocide in the twentieth century are from secularistic and atheistic governments (estimated over 100 million killed/murdered by such regimes in the 20th-century alone). But if you want to include 'godists' in the list I will accept it with a caveat. Religion, for the most part, is a man-made creation, with the exception of one religious belief since they all say different things and can't all be true. It defies logic. Also, what is done in the "name of" Christianity does not always match its teachings. Most of the time it does not, IMO.
Nevertheless, the cause of crime, greed, sexual misconduct, sin is, as the Bible says, man's rebellion towards God.
Without evoking God you still have to explain all these wrongs and I have world stats on genocides that back my claims that are stated above.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Cite where you said that. - DISGUSTED
Please provide more of the context next time, otherwise, I have to go fishing.
Here is the context:
POST 91 - 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. - ME
My "that" responds to your statement in POST #89:
POST 89 - Why are you hostile to god? - DISGUSTED
That does not correspond to my current position.
My objection to that comment is that I am NO LONGER hostile. I trust the Bible as being His word. I trust that I cannot save myself because the "righteous standard" in my life does not meet God's righteous requirements (for instance, the Ten Commandments and/or the Beatitudes). I trust Jesus Christ has saved me, according to His word and my repentance to God for my sin and rebellion.
I said that those who trust in Christ Jesus and trust His sacrifice are no longer hostile. Then you said, "why are you [am I] hostile to God?"
I am no longer hostile if my faith is sincere. Those who have not trust Jesus Christ are hostile. They will not let God be God. They want to usurp His authority and call Him a liar (i.e., the words that are attributed to God in the Bible are not true).
Why does one have to die first to "live" forever? - STEPHENBecause your nature towards God needs to change. You need to die to the old sinful nature and be transformed by God's Spirit.God regenerates (i.e., the new birth, the spiritual birth) the spirit of those who put their faith/trust in Jesus Christ as Lord. We are no longer hostile to God but love Him for who He is and what He has done.
That was POST # 87.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Continue:
Also, as you say Man-made religions are just that. They are all work based (what you do to be right with God). Christianity is different. It is what God does for you that you don't deserve, yet because of His mercy and grace, He supplies a means for a relationship with Him through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.No Christianity is not different in terms of our actions and what we do as we reap what we sow, there are countless verses which apply to our conduct and the consequences of our actions so don't give me that baloney. Only in terms of whether a soul desires to be saved and exist within that collective society. Not all spiritual paths have a "savior" or redemption...some have the same underlying principles that achieve the same things for the soul.....which is for the soul to progress spiritually.- ETRNLVW
It is not "our actions" that restore our relationship with God, per the biblical/NT teaching. That makes it different from other world religions. Restoring our relationships depends on the perfect/sinless actions of another done on our behalf. That is why faith in Him is crucial to the biblical teaching. By trusting Him, He changes our nature of hostility to God to one of love for Him. Those who do not accept His testimony, per that account, are separated from His presence, for they are unwilling to let God be God. They want to usurp that authority by their own WILL. I see that as exactly what you are trying to do here.
I think Romans 1:18-25 expresses it well:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
So, you have a volition to believe what you want to believe, but you had better be sure it is true to what is, rather than some spiritual FEELING or preference that you think is right because it FEELS good or right to your finite mind.
Which brings me to the question of why would I believe what you are espousing here since I don't see any confirmation but your personal feelings?
It brings into question what are the checks and balances for what you believe, other than your personal likes? I believe I can justify my belief against JUST personal feelings.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Not true. Truth is exclusive. 2+2=4 is exclusive. It does not equal 5, 7, 89, 203.When Jesus said:John 14:6“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'That is exclusive and it is either true or it is false. It can't logically both be true at the same time and in the same manner false.That's called a creed, every religion and every spiritual path has creeds, that's what makes them special and that is what helps keep the soul focused and true to its teachings but all spiritual sources serve the same purpose for the soul and all have creeds to follow. The passage above is also true because that collective society does in fact exist beyond this physical world so it's true for those who desire to follow it and wish to exist within that spiritual collective society. The same principle is true concerning the creeds and practices of other religious paths and their creed to follow within their collective society. That is where they wish to sojourn when they leave the physical body.You would be surprised what actually exists in the eternal God-worlds, and it's not just two places or nothing lol, not even close so you should stretch your horizons a bit and understand the creative nature of the soul and the Divine. It's not a limited one-dimensional reality.- ETRNLVW
You can call it a creed but it is a saying of Jesus. The purpose is to convey an eternal truth that there is ONLY ONE WAY to God. Thus, it is EXCLUSIVE. The reason for one way is because we as human beings are imperfect. We have sinned against our holy and pure Maker. Thus, there is a penalty for our wrongful actions. That penalty is separation from a close and intimate relationship with Him, for how can our pure and holy God accept willfully rebelious persons into His presence and remain just? Jesus provides a way to reestablish that relationship and be in right standing before God AND IT IS NOT BY WHAT WE DO, but what He has done. Thus, there is no bragging or boasting about our righteousness in saving ourselves from God's wrath and judgment. The whole credit goes to Jesus
Chist and His work done on our behalf.
Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”That is true, in terms of being "saved". If it's your desire as a soul to be saved from whatever it is you want to be saved from.- ETRNLVW
The Bible teaches that if you are not saved, and changed, your actions will separate you from the fellowship and relationship with God. That is the "whatever."
Again, this is an exclusive statement. If it is true then your claims are false.That's not true, only if that is the only thing that exists and it is obvious that it is not. The teachings of Jesus are principle oriented and spiritual laws and principles are universal among all of God's creations, but they are many and they are various and that is something fundamentalists will have to get used to. If the soul (which comes out of the heart of God) wishes for other things and other experiences within the created realms God doesn't condemn them to some dirty torture pit unless their actions dictate that. - ETRNLVW
It is true to the words of the Bible and your reaction is exactly what those who oppose this revelation do, per that same revelation. They say, "Did God really say?" "Can you really trust the words?" "Are not our words equally valuable, even though they say the exact opposite?"
Created:
-->
@disgusted
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.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
First, when you say, "How is it not obvious to you there is more than one truth?" and "All religion is intertwined," it is counter-intuitive - MEI meant to say there is more than one way to the truth. That was my bad. Every religion is intertwined in that they are seeking enlightenment and a good way to live to get to it. The only differences are they have different explanations and methods. That is bc it's man-made and an attempt to define a spiritual reality. So yeah, they will have similarities and differences, but they all have a common thread of "live good."
Not true. Truth is exclusive. 2+2=4 is exclusive. It does not equal 5, 7, 89, 203.
When Jesus said:
John 14:6
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.'
That is exclusive and it is either true or it is false. It can't logically both be true at the same time and in the same manner false.
Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.”
Again, this is an exclusive statement. If it is true then your claims are false.
Also, as you say Man-made religions are just that. They are all work based (what you do to be right with God). Christianity is different. It is what God does for you that you don't deserve, yet because of His mercy and grace, He supplies a means for a relationship with Him through His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
But not before saying this enigmatic and outrageous statement:““Let us also go,that we may die with him.”!!!!!? 11:16- STEPHEN
Yes, you read that correctly. These apparent suicidal disciples or at leastone, wanted to “die”with Lazarus!Why? They were one minute having a nice relaxing tarry and a chat down by the river where there was no sense of urgency about his “sick” friend who he “loved”, next minute, this disciple suggests he and all those that were there should go die too.And it simply has to be recognised; that there are absolutely no mentions or indications at this point that Jesus is even contemplating raising Lazarus from the dead! Or even spoke of raising the dead Lazarus or anyone else.- STEPHEN
No, you read into it an "apparent suicidal disciple." Before this event Jesus had spoken on being the resurrection and life and that those who believed in Him would never die and that those who are dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and live (John 5:25). The disciples risked persecution and death by being followers of Jesus.
John 5:25-26
25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;
That hour was NOW here. Lazarus, a dead man, would hear His voice and live.
So, on your two charges, they are both reasonably dispelled by that one passage. There is a mention that Jesus will raise others from the dead, plus it is reasonable to believe through inference and induction, that Thomas remembered and understood this (John 5:25) and was willing to trust Jesus with his life. Another reasonable explanation would be since Jesus saw Jesus' miracles and remembered His resurrection narrative he reasoned Jesus could raise him from the dead also.
Suicide is different from self-sacrifice. Suicide is taking your own life. With self-sacrifice, it can be giving your life for a cause in the sense of using it to fulfill that cause by making that cause your life's work.
***
On arrival back at Bethany the centre of Jesus’ operations, ne of the women do seem too happy about the situation, so it appears on the face of it, they this woman didn’t expect any miracles that day either when she says:“Lord,” Martha said to Jesus, “if you had been here, my brother would not have died. 11:21.What even causes her to believe that just by Jesus being there he could have saved her brother from a “sickness that wasn’t unto death”?Maybe she didn't know the script? - STEPHEN
His miracles, for one. Who He claimed to be, for another.
***
Yes, just like that, Jesus Raised him from the dead and off he went, not a please or thank you or how the hell did you do that? - STEPHEN
This is a jump to conclusions because it is not mentioned in the text. There were obviously lots of things omitted from the narrative but the message Jesus wanted the reader to get is there.
***
So nothing seems to explain at all Jesus’ carelessness and indifference. It appears that Lazarus was closer to Jesus than even his disciples.The Scriptures never mention if Lazarus was ever a disciple, it is never explained.Why did Jesus love this person seemingly above all other never explained[1] Lazarus was on a hitlist but never explained: Why? What had Lazarus done to deserve to die...again?[2] “Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead.But The chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death;Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus”.John 12:9-11[3] He didn’t even attend the crucifixion and after being raised from the dead himself, that’s gratitude for you. Didn’t this man owe Jesus his life?- STEPHEN
[1] This is all pure speculation on your part. The rule of Scripture is that Scripture interprets itself. The context and other relevant verses explain the narrative.
Jesus was the first to be raised from the dead to never die again.
Romans 6:9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.
1 Corinthians 15:20 [ The Order of Resurrection ] But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming,
Colossians 1:18
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.
Jesus is the firstborn from the dead to eternal life.
[2] The chief priests were plotting Lazarus' death because of jealousy and resentment. Many people who heard of his resurrection were coming to see him, and some were believing in Jesus because of him.
11 because on account of him many of the Jews were going away and were believing in Jesus.
[3] Again, an omission from the text is not something you can read into the text anything you please without being guilty of eisegesis unless there is sufficient reason from other texts to do so.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
Why does one have to die first to "live" forever? - STEPHEN
Because your nature towards God needs to change. You need to die to the old sinful nature and be transformed by God's Spirit.
God regenerates (i.e., the new birth, the spiritual birth) the spirit of those who put their faith/trust in Jesus Christ as Lord. We are no longer hostile to God but love Him for who He is and what He has done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Your first point ignores the text:
It has Jesus not being able to make up his mind and not seeming too bothered about this person he “loved”. It has suicidal followers and confused women and there are even hints that it all could have been a staged affair. And in my opinion for this story to be included in the scriptures it has to mean something other than the “miracle” the gospellers want us to believe it is. - STEPHEN
1) Not able to make up His mind?
We are told as early as verse 4 that Jesus did not go then (when Lazarus was sick) because it was for the glory of God and His glorification that He tarry. Jesus not being able to make up His mind is not what the narrative tells us. It tells us there is a reason He did not go right there.
4 But when Jesus heard this, He said, “This sickness is not to end in death, but for the glory of God, so that the Son of God may be glorified by it.”
6 So when He heard that he was sick, He then stayed two days longer in the place where He was.
'So' in verse 6 refers back to the reason of verse 4.
'So' in verse 14 Jesus again reiterates that the reason He did not go earlier was for their benefit so that they might believe He had the power over death, "I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe."
14 So Jesus then said to them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, 15 and I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, so that you may believe; but let us go to him.”
Thus, Thomas could say, "Let us also go, so that we may die with Him.”
If Lazarus was dead and Jesus was going to raise him, then Thomas would reason that if he died Jesus could do the same, per Jesus' previous statements:
John 5:25 [ Two Resurrections ] Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Following up on this statement regarding resurrection, Jesus reiterates it in John 11 that also collaborates with what He stated in verse 4, for His glory and the glory of God.
21 Martha then said to Jesus, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You.” 23 Jesus *said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” 24 Martha *said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” 25 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” 27 She *said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”
Again, this reinforces Thomas' understanding of
dying
that He would be raised again.
***
Next, onto your objection to the mention in only one gospel. J.P.Holding gives an answer which I will condense and provide the link:
- there is NO requirement for ANY gospel to contain ANY specific events at all...it is ALL a function of what the authors were trying to focus on
- John points out that there are MANY events that were not recorded in his gospel---there is no reason to believe that the other gospel writers believed their accounts were exhaustive!!!
- Jesus did resurrections in the Synoptics that are not mentioned in John; therefore, we should not be surprised that John has some that the Synoptics didn't mention.
- There are many, many events in the Synoptics that are NOT mentioned in John...and there is evidence that John KNEW the Synoptics, and simply supplemented them, mostly withmaterialthey did NOT select to include.
***
Your next point is simply a restatement of your earlier point:
On arrival they blurted out that Lazarus “who he loved” was sick. Jesus’ response is somewhat dismissive with him saying Lazarus is not going to die and decided that there was no urgency to Lazarus’ “sickness” and decided to extend his holiday down by the river for another two days and even contemplated taking an excursion into Judea were it was known that the Jews wanted to “stone him”.
Again this point is answered with Jesus' statement in verse 4. The reason He did not go was so that they would learn a lesson about trusting in Him and who He claimed to be. The reason He did not go was so that the Father and He would be glorified. People would learn that what He said about being the truth and the resurrection was indeed true.
***
Regarding verses 11-14 you said:
So above, so far we have Lazarus, sick but not in any critical danger of dying, Jesus not worrying too much about and tarrying & dallying a further “two days longer”. Lazarus“asleep” and then, Lazarus is dead which is in complete contrary to what Jesus said at verse 11:4. He is not going to die.
And it did not END in death, for Lazarus was resurrected.
KJV - "This sickness is not unto death"
NIV - “This sickness will not end in death."
NASB - “This sickness is not to end in death"
What is the object lesson here? It is that those who believe in Jesus, even if they die they will live because they will be raised from death to life again, and spiritually that is what happens when one is born again. Spiritually their relationship with God is new and alive at the new birth, which is spiritual in nature.
***
Your next quip:
How did Jesus even know that Lazarus was dead? - STEPHEN
The logical answer? He was lead by the Spirit of God and He was in constant communion with His Father:
Matthew 12:18 “Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen; My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased; I will put My Spirit upon Him, And He shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles.
John 8:38 I speak the things which I have seen with My Father; therefore you also do the things which you heard from your father.”
John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on My own initiative, but the Father abiding in Me does His works.
***
So you have made a big mountain out of a molehill.
Continuing in next post.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
But I have explained to you many times now that I do believe some to these biblical events and characters to be historical truths...So stop with your preaching and start explaining a few of the anomalous and two faced contradictory statements coming from these gospellers...Listen is all I have done on the – religion – forum is point out these vague and ambiguous half truths to anyone who cares to read them......I decided to read the scriptures for myself and almost immediately seen what an absolute load of contradictory, ambiguous vague nonsense it all appeared to be... on the surface...But I did prophesy that the point would be wasted on you and the point would fly clean over your head.. which it did...I don’t believe in prophecy which leaves me with nothing to discuss......I don’t believe in prophecy...I read the scriptures different to you. I believe I see a different story altogether, a hidden story that the gospellers are at pains and are desperately struggling to hide.
I don't see how our conversation would be productive since you have made up your mind and are not open to the discussion. You will funnel everything through this bias ("I don’t believe in prophecy which leaves me with nothing to discuss"). I will focus on those who are willing to reason it out. I'm not going to flog a dead horse (i.e., wasting my time, and yours).
Created:
-->
@disgusted
That is my hope and faith.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
So, you want me to tell you what I think and challenge you?
First, when you say, "How is it not obvious to you there is more than one truth?" and "All religion is intertwined," it is counter-intuitive and goes against common sense and the laws of logic, the same logic you use to communicate these ideas. The REASON this is so is because all religions espouse different/opposite truth claims regarding the same being - God. Some regard God as a personal Being, others as a force, others everything there is, etc. If 'A' is true then the opposite of 'A' is false since it states the opposite and opposites both cannot be true. If you give a particular animal an identity that is 'DOG' and another different type of animal is given the same identity the identity is lost. 'DOG' can mean anything, therefore the name becomes meaningless. There is no distinction between animals. You can't identify different animals because they all mean the same thing.
Second, while feelings are personal to the individual, many times they are just that and nothing else. You have described your own personal experiences that I cannot collaborate. People all over the globe are telling of different personal spiritual experiences that counter your claims. Why would I believe your feelings when they go against the claims of the Bible that I can collaborate.
Third, if God is not as you FEEL or suppose, without any credible evidence but your personal feelings, you are risking everything. The reason I say this is because, as you have identified, none of us are perfect - we all have done wrong. If God is perfect, holy, pure and just, then we are answerable to Him. Justice demands wrongful actions be addressed. When you treat Jesus like any other religious figure you are missing the entire point of Christianity. He is not. According to the NT writings, He lived a perfect life before God on behalf of those who would put their trust in Him. So He is different than you or I or any other person of accountability because none of us have. What is more, the biblical teaching is that He paid the penalty that should have been the sinner/wrongdoer. He took the punishment that should have been ours (the BELIEVER) upon Himself, showing His great LOVE for us. That is gracious. It is merciful. It is just. His payment meets the righteous requirements of God's law, that those who sin will die. He has no sin so He had no reason to die to God either spiritually, or physically, yet He willingly did so that those who trust in Him might have eternal life with God.
Fourth, when you say, "Honestly, what ever you believe your afterlife will be... that is where you are going" then you had better be right in what you believe. Not every belief is a valid belief. I can believe I can fly and take off from the top of the Empire State Building expecting to touch-down in the Boston. That is not the reality of what will happen and my belief is ill-founded. So, you had better be sure you have a TRUE belief before you die, if God exists, and if there is an afterlife, of which I believe in both. (John 4:23-24)
Fifth, you have a volition. You can believe whatever you like, but personal feelings alone can be a risky thing to gamble your life on, IMO.
Sixth, maybe the "spiritual community" you hang around thinks that of you, but you had better be sure you are and not deluding yourself. There have been countless others throughout history that felt spiritually enlightened too that believed differently from what you do.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I used whiteflame in my last panel and he accepted. I will do it again then. I'll send you the challenge either tonight or tomorrow. I think you have two or three days to accept or decline.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
BTW, if you accept, I am going with a panel of judges. That way we are guaranteed of an outcome. We are allowed five on a panel. Are there any good debaters from DDO that have been in lots of debates and will consider both sides of the argument that you would like to see on the panel? I'll ask RationalMadman to be the fifth because he is the leading debater on this forum. I was thinking Danielle because I challenged her to a debate on the same subject matter. She has been in two debates on abortion and is a pro-choicer. Those are both pro-choicers. I want two pro-lifers and you choose the fifth.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Thank you!
I'll set it up again since it was accepted once, then one of the judges did not come, which automatically terminates the debate. So I set it up a second time with different judges and the person I challenged did not respond this time, so it was declined again.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
My opponent declined my challenge to debate abortion, so the offer still stands if you are willing and you still hold a pro-choice position, which you did on the DDO forum.
The BIG Issues
• Abortion Pro
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
So let's say this "prophecy" is true... how does that equal the Bible being right? The Bible as a whole is flawed... that doesn't mean people couldn't guess certain events correctly. However, that in no way makes the Bible correct in its metaphysical claims. I believe in intelligent design... however creationism is baloney. It's an attempt at describing intelligent design and that is the key word "attempt" which presupposes fallible humans. Humans wrote the Bible, humans wrote religion... it is all flawed, yet sometimes right. That portion it's right is blinding you to the bigger picture of its flaws.
It is a confirmation that what is said is true. It is one more reason, and a good one, to believe the testimony on its pages since it claims divine authorship and divine inspiration. When you speak of guessing at events, there are too many to make accurate predictions and they all come true and are confirmable. When you add up all the other confirmations regarding the biblical God I believe the evidence is without doubt as to His existence. To doubt Him after considering all the evidence would be to live a delusion.
You say the Bible is flawed. That is a worldview bias. The truth of the matter is that either your beliefs regarding the Bible or my beliefs regarding the Bible is wrong. Logically, they both can't be right/true. I invite you, too, to test to see which are more reasonable and logical, based on the evidence of prophecy. That is the vehicle I chose to debate the subject. I could have chosen a number of different topics to debate the issue of the Bible's reliability and the evidence for God, but I chose prophecy because I like that topic. It is something related to history that has some verification properties built into it.
The whole premise of my argument is which is more reasonable and logical since everyone comes to the table with worldview confirmational bias. They seek to justify their worldview and sift evidence according to that bias. There is no neutrality in this discussion. There is an agenda by unbelievers to malign the Bible and a desire by Christians to show its merits and why it matters.
Since you believe in intelligent design then you must believe in a Creator of some kind, an intelligent one at that. That is the biblical revelation, an intelligent, supernatural Being has created the material universe and sustains it by His power. Biblical prophecy is one confirmation of this intelligent Being, if true. After all, who could predict hundreds, perhaps thousands of events, as the Bible does, and have every one of them come true (of the ones we can confirm with reasonableness, like the historical Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70)?
There are a lot of facts we can verify from the biblical accounts that meet with historical accounts. That is why I left open in the discussion those who want to make claims of the prophetic events being written after the fact, to check the reasonableness of that particular claim.
They can either attack the prophecies themselves, or they can attack when the prophecies were written. Let's see which side in these two arguments is more reasonable, and logical to what can be known.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
You are demonstrating an inadequacy to address the NT prophetic passages - ME
I don't believe in prophecy, so I have nothing really to address on that score. I will add though that historian Flavius Josephus "prophesied" that Vespasian would become Emperor, Vespasian did become Emperor and in Josephus' lifetime. Was this a miracle of prophecy? Had god revealed this prophecy to Josephus? - STEPHEN
Not believing is your bias, not mine. You make charges against God, and I challenged you on them. I wanted to show you that your claims are unfounded and the evidence for your bias is unwarranted. That is why I started the thread. I take it, that at one time, you professed to be a Christian? If you went to university you probably got talked out of that stance, as is the case for many young people who walk away from the faith. We live in a secular culture (both in the USA and in Canada) that uses its "values" to promote a secularism in every avenue of society.
A one-time prediction by Josephus does not make a prophet. The biblical prophecies are vast in their scope. Regarding the Messiah, there are over three hundred prophecies concerning the Messiah alone. Then there is a multitude that speaks of the last days of Israel, a number that speaks of warnings and judgments to come that relates to the Mosaic Law and the curses thereof. So, prophecy is not an isolated prediction.
What do you know of eschatology? How well have you studied it? I ask because I want to either establish a particular bias or a poor knowledge of Scripture.
I will tell you this: Josephus wasn't a prophet, he was a hardened warrior Jewish priest. He was defeated by the Romans at the battle of Jotapata. He went over to the Romans and became Vespasian'sright hand man. Josephus was also very vain, and I know from all his works that he would have mentioned if his "prophecy" was revealed to him by his god. This point no doubt will fly completely over your head. - STEPHENDEFLECT - ME
I agree he wasn't a prophet, nor did he claim to be (Deuteronomy 18:15-18). For one thing, he never claimed to be a prophet. If he did then his prophecy would have been judged according to biblical lines of evidence, or the lack thereof. (Deuteronomy 18:20)
'Fly completely over my head' is another deflection. It attacks the man, rather than the argument.
I Have nothing to "deflect from, my friend .You on the other hand have had to start a complete new thread in my name and honour to deflect away from those embarrassing questions I have posed and that you have struggled and completely failed to address and or answer.IMO You are not faring very well in this thread you have started especially for me, either. I don't think you need embarrassing any more than you have been thus far. Good luck anyway.
You maligned the Christian worldview with your views. I invited you to test your knowledge and understanding to its reasonableness and logic by focusing on a specific topic - prophecy. I did this because I believe it demonstrates the truthfulness of God's word when rightly interpreted. That is what our argument is all about, interpretation. Prophecy is something that can be measured with reason and logic since it speaks of events in the future that have already happened but had not at that time.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
The other point I want to make regarding Daniel is that your claims still do not address Daniel being written AFTER the fact. They still predict the destruction of Jerusalem and the six-fold list of things that would be accomplished, the coming of the Anointed One, Him being killed, and a whole lot more, such as the wars and rumors of wars and the abomination of desolation. Since your articles address Daniel as a whole, then I would add other prophecies such as Daniel 2, Daniel 7, and Daniel 12 that also apply to an OT people and before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.
Not only this, there are other OT prophecies from other OT prophets that address the last days and the destruction of Jerusalem that I have not included yet. Once we finish with Daniel I will bring them into the slew, other than to include timelines with Daniel.
Created:
It this what you want me to dispute?
Because its religious ideas do not belong to the 6th century BC, numerous scholars date Daniel in the first half of the 2nd century BC and relate the visions to the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164/163 BC). - Encyc. Britannica
For your 'Evidence' and 'More' please make the points you want me to address. I don't want to get into a linkwarz where all we do is exchange links and the other person has to filter through reams and reams of information and doesn't know exactly what the point is or what the other side wants to be addressed.
Peter
Created:
Yes, it does lend credence to an early date. - MEHow so? - SKEP1We don't have any early records/data to show your claims are true. - ME
A question (How so?) is not a claim. Do try to answer the question - SKEP1
A question that was answered - "We don't have any early records/data to show your claims are true."
If you believe otherwise, then present the evidence. (I'm waiting)
Then you charged/asserted, without any evidence, that these prophecies were written into the gospels after the fact. - ME
Again, a question is not an assertion, claim, or charge. This is the question I asked:(1) Were these verses written before the destruction of the temple? If so, how do you know? What do scholars who consider these verses critically make of them and why? [Skep]
I asked you what the late date evidence hinged on to a large degree before I would address the evidence, even though I did address the evidence. I stated that the audience of address, the time frame, and the warnings which were given in the NT Olivet Discourse mean nothing after AD 70.
I mentioned that in the NT there is NO evidence/mention of an already destroyed temple and city.
I mentioned that this omission is highly significant since the OT Mosaic people and their whole economy rested on temple worship, a priesthood, and animal sacrifice in their relationship with God.
I mentioned that God continually warned these OT people of a once again coming judgment if they did not repent and turn from false idols to Him. All these and many other arguments you failed to address. Those alone are good reasons to believe the original manuscripts were written before the destruction of the city and temple. There is more evidence that will be peeled back when we examine the documents in question, the NT writings, specifically the Olivet Discourse.
What does the late date dating game hinge on? Answer that question instead of bombasting me with links and no explanation of what you want me to glean from those links. I'm not playing that game any longer.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
I am well aware of what you said in te OP (seeing as I responded to it). You are attempting to have Stephen prove you wrong rather than prove yourself right. It is a lazy and dishonest strategy to make your view seem valid. I'm pretty sure I've already called this what it is: an attempt to shift the burden.- SKEP1
You failed to do what you accused me of doing in the other thread. You failed to put a quote in place when quoting someone else since this is SkepticalOne's statement, not yours.
It is indeed. This is a simple but devious ploy to distract from the questions I have posed to this - Religion - forum. My questions it seems , are making some of the resident christians here a little edgy in my opinion. They are finding them uncomfortable and are struggling to explain them away without blaming these anomalous, vague, enigmatic, and ambiguous verses on translation or misunderstanding and of course the introduction of an omnipotent all hearing, all seeing and all knowing miracle working, so called God. - STEPHEN
A bunch of baloney. What you are doing is called deflection. Avoid at all costs addressing the subject at hand. You are demonstrating an inadequacy to address the NT prophetic passages in regard to their truthfulness to see if what YOU claim of the Bible and biblical God has a warrant.
I have stated a number of facts. Can you CHALLENGE any of them? If not then your argument (or lack of) has no teeth.
ASSERT, ASSERT, ASSERT; DEFLECT, DEFLECT, DEFLECT - standard operating procedure. I've come to expect nothing less because your arguments are weak.
Created:
'm offering challenge to your claims. I do not need to provide evidence to do this. SKEP1Here is what I said in the OP: - ME
I am well aware of what you said in t[h]e OP (seeing as I responded to it). You are attempting to have Stephen prove you wrong rather than prove yourself right. It is a lazy and dishonest strategy to make your view seem valid. I'm pretty sure I've already called this what it is: an attempt to shift the burden.- SKEP1
What I am attempting, and he nor you will cooperate, is to provide the evidence, piece by piece, and let him/you present the counter-evidence/argument and see whose position is more reasonable regarding the facts, what we know, the data and evidence available. My claim is that it would be my position, not his or yours that is reasonable and logical and corresponds to the data available.
How am I being dishonest in complying with what I stated? The evidence cannot be presented in one post, and I have presented some of it that
has not been disputed.
For those who have contended, there is no evidence I am willing to dispute this, and I have. If you question my factual statements then present contrary evidence.
What evidence do we have available? We have over 24,000 NT manuscripts - FACT.
We have over 5,000 gospel accounts - FACT.
Contained in many of these manuscripts are prophecies concerning Jerusalem and its destruction - FACT.
We have documents/scrolls/documents other than the OT itself (Dead Sea Scrolls), some of which contain OT writings, such as Daniel and Isaiah - FACT.
Some of these OT documents have references to the destruction of Jerusalem also - FACT.
We have the destruction of the city and temple in AD 70 - FACT.
We have all kinds of NT references to a coming judgment and to an OT relevant audience of address and time frame - FACT.
We have numerous references to a still existence city, temple, and ritual system of worship, which revolves around a temple, a priesthood, and animal sacrifices to atone for sin - FACT.
We have early church fathers who record verses and passages from the Bible - FACT.
After AD 70, none of this Mosaic system of worship is functional - FACT.
After AD 70 the Mosaic Law can no longer be followed as prescribed - FACT.
That covenant relationship is no longer operational as prescribed - FACT.
The predictions of the Messiah was to an OT people - FACT.
There are no EARLY writings that describe the NT gospels and epistles, or their prophecies, as written in AFTER the fact - FACT, to my knowledge and that of others. Please, present counter-arguments to dispute this factual claim.
The whole of the NT is concerned about a SOON, coming judgment - FACT.
There is NEVER a reference to an already destroyed city nor temple - FACT.
It is reasonable to believe, based on these off-hand points, plus many more, that the NT writings are finished before AD 70.
Then, based on the Olivet Discourse, I am willing to demonstrate that it applies primarily to these 1st-century people as the audience of address and to the time frame of the prophecies. Dispute it if you can?
I asked you a specific question concerning what you believe the dating game of the NT is largely based upon (what it hinges on). So far, no answer.
I asked you to present counter evidence that what I claim about the prophecies being written before the AD 70 event is NOT most reasonable to believe. So far all I got was on the book of Daniel, and I have asked you to present more of your "evidence." So far, no answer.
I asked you what these NT writers had to gain by promoting something that you claim they knew was untrue? So far, no answer.
I asked you how reasonable it is that the writers would manufacture a "Story" that so much would have to be manufactured after the event and taking these soon judgments and prophecies out of the text would make no sense of the text. It would leave very little of the NT, IMO, although I have not subtracted the prophecy and warnings from the text to find out how much. So far, no answer.
So, I invite you to present your evidence and your argument as being the more reasonable.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
Just like you don't find my view meaningful.
You mean your view that non believers are in some way less human than you? Yes. I find that extremely distasteful. However, I realize that you (most likely) have a basic desire to preserve human life. I feel (reasonably) certain you would not walk by a drowning child - and this has absolutely nothing to do with your belief in god and everything to do with the inherent value of humanity built into most every human by our evolutionary heritage. You once told me I borrow from the Christian worldview, but the opposite is true. Protecting human life is intrinsic - yet you assign this to the god of the Bible ignoring every passage which shows "God" (if he existed) is not interested in humanity but merely a portion of it. - SKEP1
You INTENTIONALLY mischaracterize my beliefs. I believe that we, as humans, are all created in the image and likeness of God. Thus, there is no distinction to be made by me regarding our humanness, regardless of skin color or culture, unlike what some people believe, including some social evolutionists (even evolution as a whole). They believe some cultures and peoples are less evolved than others, thus are inferior (savages). Hilter, who was greatly influenced by Darwin, thought his "race" was superior to others. If we are evolving, then this would naturally be the case, so it is your worldview that promotes this kind of reasoning, not mine. It would be those who were inconsistent with the Christian worldview as the ones who thought themselves "BETTER" than others. I do not consider myself better than you. The Christian mandate is to think of yourself as a servant to others. It is to present the truth of the Christian worldview regardless of persecution and hardships. I consider my worldview better because it has what is necessary to make sense of life, the universe, meaning, purpose.
The secular worldview does not appreciate human life. Learn a lesson from secular socialism. Your country, in the form of the Democratic Party, is heading in that direction. What idiots!
A drowning child? Take a look at abortion, also. We, as Christians, defend the most helpless. We are pro-life! 1.5 billion abortions worldwide since Roe v. Wade. This nonsense of pro-choice is nothing but legislated murder. Where do you stand on the position? If my debate on abortion is not accepted I will challenge you next if you hold a pro-choice position.
What a joke - protecting human life is intrinsic - hah. Pro-choice is a crime against humanity.
In other words, a moral code with the god of the Bible as a basis could not (and would not) be concerned with all of humanity. It would be more concerned with protecting the 'righteous' rather than the wronged, the believer rather than the innocent, or the in-group rather than the ostracized.- SKEP1
God is concerned with the whole of humanity. Evil, whether in those who profess Christ or those who deny Christ will be judged, whether in this world or the spiritual realm/world to come. For an atheist, there is no ultimate justice. All the wrongs that were done and unanswered in this life go unpunished. Is that just? Some can get away with murder in this lifetime. Where is the justice there?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
1) I'm just supporting that it is not just me that says this. It is documented in the early manuscripts available to us. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that this is not my own opinion exclusively. - ME
It is reasonable to believe that it is not your opinion alone, but that doesn't change the fact that it is circular logical and unreasonable. - Skep1
The Bible is one aspect we use to examine the evidence. That is why prophecy is so convincing. It deals with history too. It is not unreasonable when you include the history of the times, nor when you consider that God is the ultimate authority, not you. You place your authority in the opinions of men. Why is what they believe any better than what you or I believe? It brings into the question axiology.
With any argument, if peeled back far enough, I am convinced all arguments come back to the main point. A circular argument starts on one point and does not stray from that point. The Bible confirms itself on many levels. If your starting presupposition is the biblical God is real, then He created all things, understands all things, and sustains all things. If your starting presupposition is chance happenstance then it does not have reason to it. You build logic and reason into the system that is devoid of it. Thus, your worldview is contradictory and inconsistent. Such a worldview goes in the face of what we witness. We continually find meaning and purpose in the universe. We continually find mathematical equations that EXPLAIN nature with natural laws. With such a God it is reasonable to believe that truth comes from Him because He is truth and true to what He says. We have a necessary foundation that does not change. With science, the paradigm continually shifts as we learn more and more. What was held as a major theory one hundred years ago is dismissed by a new paradigm. In finding meaning it is reasonable to believe that you need an ultimate best as a starting point, otherwise the goalpost is always shifting (relative and subjective). Thus, your secular argument for morality lacks what is necessary. I'm still waiting to see/hear/read someone who makes sense of morality from an atheistic worldview. They just beg the question.
There are multiple varieties of different arguments that are reasonable and logical that support the biblical God, but as always, it comes down to your ultimate authority. So, your point is mute. The Bible just happens to be the Christians ultimate authority, like secular science is sometimes the ultimate authority of the atheist. It is usually that or him/herself. They place themselves in that position. Why should I trust your opinion? It lacks what is necessary.
So my contention is that with what we know about history, the biblical view and the prophecy contained within is reasonable and logical. THAt is what this thread is about.
2) Skeptical, your authority is circular logic too. Why do you believe what you believe regarding the Bible? - ME
Evidence and reason. I don't assume the Bible is nonsensical in important ways - it is demonstrable. "God is love" AND allows slavery? God is merciful AND commands genocide? Etc. etc. etc. In each case, only one of these things can be true - not both. The Bible is broken.SKEP1
Here you go with your duplicity. You continue to use rhetoric, misinformation and fallacious reasoning in accessing and presenting God's character with just two alternatives, when in fact there is a third. It is a typical atheistic trick. By stating evidence and reason you are implying that there is none with the Christian worldview. Instead, you substitute it with what you see as a demonstrated contradiction, but you don't look at the reasons why God told these people to eliminate these different tribes/cultures from the land.
You present an either-or situation when you state either God is love and merciful or He is mean and commands genocide. What about His justice? You never mention that. It goes against your propaganda smear. If God is loving (and He is) then He is good and just also. He will not let sin and wrongful actions go unpunished. These people that dwelt in the "Promised Land" were evil. Some, like the Canaanites, practiced child sacrifice. If God did not address the sins of these peoples living in the land then when Israel entered the land of promise these people would have swayed the people towards evil also, which we read as happening because of the disobedience of the Israelites. If left unchecked these evil inhabitants would have stymied God's plan by eliminating or absorbing the Israelites into their culture. God had a purpose in choosing the Israelites. That was the people the Messianic line would be traced from.
You present the issue of slavery. Have you studied ANE cultures? That culture was the situation/reality God was dealing with in the OT. Biblical "slavery/servanthood is different from the slavery surrounding them. This has been demonstrated by experts on ANE culture in comparison with the biblical teaching.
All this is a deflection against the argument of prophecy. You have fuelled and incited emotions in others by atheistic propaganda (spread over the web for years) on the OT God and His supposed misogynies, xenophobia, and racism, rather than addressing the subject at hand. You intentionally continue to ignore the argument from prophecy in this post. Let me see if you address it in other posts.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm offering you to put forth evidence if you think my claims are unreasonable - ME
I'm offering challenge to your claims. I do not need to provide evidence to do this. SKEP1
Here is what I said in the OP:
"I start with the case of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation. These prophecies all concern the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and judgment of the Mosaic Covenant people for their apostasy, per Deuteronomy 28 and the curses thereof.
You have a few goals (as I see it, but you can add more).
1) Establish that it is REASONABLE and LOGICAL to believe these prophecies were written AFTER the EVENT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
OR
2) Show that the events do not apply to the 1st-century audience of address and the timeline.
AND
3) Show that the OT does not predict the same event, the destruction (once again) of the city and temple and the coming Messiah.
OR
4) That the OT documents were also written after the fact. [That fact being the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70]
Let us see who has the more reasonable case."
Created:
-->
@disgusted
""This is faulty logic, IMO"And yet you never provide the evidence I request.Wanna try again?
Evidence of what? There is no context for your post. Is this in regards to prophecy or creation? This thread is not dealing with creation.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
That is its [the Bible] teaching. There are thousands of statements that are attributed to God. Whether you believe it or not depends on what you base your ultimate authority, - ME
This is circular logic, Peter. Essentially, you accept the Bible as true because the Bible says it is.
1) I'm just supporting that it is not just me that says this. It is documented in the early manuscripts available to us. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that this is not my own opinion exclusively.
2) Skeptical, your authority is circular logic too. Why do you believe what you believe regarding the Bible? Because you view your authority (yourself, others) as greater than the authority which is outlined in the Bible. You trust secular reason as authoritative because you think that secular reason is the greater authority. How is that not circular logic?
Mere assertions! (^8They can't.
The answers have been provided to you many times. I get that you don't find them meaningful, but that doesn't change the fact that non believers can answer the questions without the need to appeal to a god. That's another subject, so I'll leave it there.
Just like you don't find my view meaningful.
Answer what questions.
What questions have you answered, and with certainty at that? How do you know your views are reasonably certain, as you put it? Because you believe them? Because the DATA/EVIDENCE has been built using a particular paradigm in discerning it? Because people who share like-minds support them? Because a worldview that you support has shifted the paradigm so that your views are supported by a majority of those who wield power to influence others?
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
The fact that it happened does not lend credence to an early or late date for the [...] Olivet Discourse - SKEP1Yes, it does lend credence to an early date. - ME
How so? - SKEP1
We don't have any early records/data to show your claims are true. Show me them.
The internal evidence of the Bible gives credence to an early date. I laid a brief outline out in the last post.
I'm offering you to put forth evidence if you think my claims are unreasonable - ME
I'm offering challenge to your claims. I do not need to provide evidence to do this. - SKEP1
It is always the same theme with you guys. You make wild, unsubstantiated assertions and charges, then leave the entire burden of proof on the Christian. I already made the topic of discussion the reasonableness and logic of prophecy. That is a two-way street since you are making claims too. I set the ball in motion by providing the content I was speaking about, Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation, in regard to the Olivet Discourse. I put forth the notion that they focused on the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in AD 70. Then you charged/asserted, without any evidence, that these prophecies were written into the gospels after the fact. So, you need to support your allegations IF YOU WANT TO refute my claim of prophecy as reasonable and logical.
Give me early evidence that what you say is reasonable (and don't
linkwarzme - i.e., provide a whole array of links without the context that you want me to glean from them. I don't want to get bombasted by the information I have to sift through for hours on end to get your point. Outline the specific point first from any link)
I will have to give you a number of OT passages that tell the reader otherwise - ME
Daniel was written 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 (not in the city not in the country) and has nothing to do with 70AD.
Again, no support for your claims.
Who said that?
What evidence do you have?
If Daniel had written in the 2nd century BC, why would Daniel insert the decree to rebuild a city that had already been rebuilt centuries earlier? It is not reasonable. It makes no sense. Why would he put in specific occurrences that would have to be fulfilled and that find fulfillment in AD 70, and these centuries before the destruction?
How could a Messiah come to a covenantal people (i.e., Daniel's people), as prophesied, when after AD 70 these people no longer have a covenant relationship as specified in the Law of Moses? All these things, and many others, you fail to take into account. So, let's see who your "scholars" are, how early from the biblical times they assert their viewpoint on history or DO YOU HAVE ACTUAL STATED, WRITTEN, EVIDENCE that Daniel was written in the second century.
You see, you work on the assumption that prophecy in these OT books was written in after the fact once again, without any evidence.
How is that reasonable? HOW?
***
Regarding Deuteronomy, towns would include Jerusalem. If you read the Olivet discourse it has many of the themes from Deuteronomy. I can demonstrate this both by comparing the curses of Deuteronomy to the Olivet Discourse, as well as via the writings of Josephus. I can also discuss it in relation to the sevenfold curses in Revelation.
16 “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country...until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken Me.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
What I said was nowhere in the NT are we told of the (that) ALREADY DESTRUCTION.
If the destruction had already happened and the Olivet discourse was being presented as prophecy, then it stands to reason the author would not record the destruction of the temple as part tense. - SKEP 1
Your statement is pure ASSERTION. How is that REASONABLE with the evidence that we have available? Show me EARLY data/evidence/proof that says these gospels and epistles were altered to give the appearance of prophetic fulfillment. Go ahead!
Why would the authors lie about Jerusalem's destruction to give the appearance it had NOT already happened?
Why would they and others (i.e., the writers of the epistles that build on the theme of the gospels, specifically the Olivet Discourse), go to their deaths proclaiming something they knew to be a lie when all they had to do was admit they had cooked the whole thing up?
You see, YOU have to answer the question of these epistles too since I can give good reason to show that the epistles contain the same themes of the Olivet Discourse. Paul borrows on Jesus' Olivet Discourse theme. That gives good evidence to surmise the Olivet Discourse contained in the gospels are already written, for Paul to reference His teachings. Don K. Preston, among others, has given a good, reasoned response to demonstrate this claim that these epistles contain themes from the Olivet Discourse. I can lay down my case regarding this theme if you want to pursue it further.
Prove that these epistles were written after the fact too. You can't, you can only ASSERT these bits and pieces were added later to the epistles.
You see, you have to prove that these epistles were not written by Paul, or Peter, or James, who were dead by AD 70. You have to ignore the TIMELINES, the warnings to the audience of address, that speak of a coming judgment and treat them as already come. Does that sound reasonable? If so, present your argument.
Is it reasonable to believe these authors would craft into each epistle a sacrificial system and priesthood as existing that is no longer existent if in fact the real time is after AD 70 and there is no more sacrificial system?
Is it reasonable to believe these authors would craft into each epistle a sacrificial system and priesthood as existing that is no longer existent if in fact the real time is after AD 70 and there is no more sacrificial system?
Do you realize how much of the NT you would have to reconstruct to ignore all these bits and pieces in regards to the sacrificial system, the priesthood, the audience of address (i.e., the churches of address or individual people of address), the warnings, the time frame, the still existing city and temple that they frequently visit, as per the Book of Acts?
Show me proof from the biblical time period that collaborates such a claim that you are trying to make here. You can't to my knowledge. All you can do is use "scholarship" from 17-20 centuries later that reads into history a liberal, biased point of view and ignores the early manuscripts and evidence from biblical times.
I ask, how reasonable is it to do that?
Created:
-->
@disgusted
You are claiming that there is evidence proving the contents of the book to be truth.In order that you support this claim show me the evidence that supports the genesis creation story.If you can't then your bible doesn't contain truth and can be summarily dismissed by me and no longer used by you to support your claims.
This is faulty logic, IMO. Rather, if I can give reasonable and logical evidence that prophecy is a vehicle God uses to display His sovereignty and power (that confirms His word as true) then you reasoning that Genesis must be wrong and invalid is in question. Rather, if I can show reasonable proof and reasonable evidence that prophecy is logical to believe, then it is another reason to show the foundation the secular house of cards rests upon is faulty. It brings into question whether secular naturalism is the answer to finding the truth, especially since there are many competing views of origins within the scientific community and so many relative, subjective opinions as to origins that compete with each other.
A worldview that recognizes God as objective and true gives what is necessary to know the truth. Limited subjective, relative human beings with shifting values and shifting views of origins brings into question whether certainty in origins is possible.
Now, hopefully back to the topic of this thread.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
The topic is "Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe."
I have chosen to take prophecy as the vehicle to demonstrate the reliability of the Bible on this thread.
I don't want to get too tied up with another focus, except to quickly counter a charge.
With creation, neither you nor I were there, so the evidence for beginnings/origins is a matter of INTERPRETATION. A worldview with a natural origin will look at the data through a different lens than one that recognizes a Creator. A world governed, by-in-large, by a secular outlook will look for a natural "scientific" explanation to origins. Ideas have consequence and with the "Age of Reason" and the Enlightenment the focus shifted from a Creator based explanation to a human-based explanation. That is what I believe, and I have a good reason for my belief. I have examined the consequence of ideas that shifted the paradigm in this area and in the rise of macro-evolution via Darwinism. These are different topics and deserve a thread of their own. I am not going to spend a lot of energy defending my beliefs in those areas here. I don't have the time to address a multiple of tangents and also expand on the theme of this thread at the same time.
Please focus more on the topic at hand.
Created:
-->
@disgusted
Different and complicated subject.
What is more reasonable, Creator or chance? (Hint, there is no reason to chance - so why do you continually find reasons from it?)
What is more reasonable, conscious being come from other conscious beings (that is all we ever witness) or that conscious beings somehow arise from inanimate, lifeless, non-conscious matter?
What is more reasonable, to believe that meaning comes from the meaningless or that a necessary meaningful Being gives meaning to all other beings? Why would you continually find meaning in a meaningless universe?
Why would reasoning beings come from the unreasoning?
What is more reasonable, that 2+2=4 is a universal, absolute, unchanging truth, or that it can change - that 2+2 can equal something other than 4? If that truth does not depend on you or me believing it, then it must depend on an absolute, universal, unchanging Being for the reason that if it is not a fixed truth that depends on mindful beings discovering then 2+2 can mean anything. 2+2=4 is a concept and depends on being to know it.
What is more reasonable, that chance happenstance can create uniformity of nature - natural laws - that are sustainable and discoverable, or on blind, indifferent chance for their being?
Can you answer these questions? How will you answer them? Let me see, even though they are off-topic.
So, if you want to believe something despite the unreasonableness of it, that is your problem, not mine.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
The Bible reveals this Being that is beyond nature/the natural. Is that unreasonable? - ME
I don't think the Bible *reveals* a being beyond nature. To think that it does is to accept the Bible as claim and evidence. That is unreasonable.
That is its teaching. There are thousands of statements that are attributed to God. Whether you believe it or not depends on what you base your ultimate authority, as some subjective, relative being who can't know with certainty, or Someone who is necessary for us to have certainty at all.
[...] from a naturalistic worldview, they can't warrant a sensible explanation for existence, for life from inanimate matter, plus energy over time. They can't demonstrate via science how from mindless matter comes conscious beings. They can't explain the purpose and MEANING they continually find in a supposedly meaningless universe. They don't have the grounds of morality. They can't explain why the necessary ingredients for science - the uniformity of nature (hence natural laws/constants) can operate by unintentional chance happenstance. - ME
Actually, they can, but you don't like the answers. ;-) - SKEP1
Mere assertions! (^8
They can't.
It is all based on your worldview slant. Why would I believe you as my ultimate authority? And you don't like my answers, either.
How can a mindless, purposeless, chaotic, irrational, impersonal, unintentional process give certainty, give meaning (yet we continue to find meaning in a supposedly meaningless universe; we continue to find laws, mathematical laws that give information in which we do science by)? It is your ASSUMPTION that they can. BS.
We discover laws because there is a Lawgiver, an intentional Being behind the universe. We discover meaning and purpose because an intention Mind gives the universe and humanity such meaning and purpose. To attribute all this to chance is idiotic. It's idiotic. Chance can do nothing. You continually give anthropomorphic qualities to "Nature" and "Chance." Chance does not have any ability to do anything. It is a mathematical principle mindful beings use to determine likely probabilities.
They don't have the grounds for certainty. - ME
They don't have grounds for *absolute* certainty, but reasonable certainty works just fine. ;-) - SKEP 1
How can something be certain unless it is absolute?
Certain: known for sure; established beyond doubt
You mean "reasonably confident."
Now, back to the topic at hand.
Created: