PGA2.0

YOU: 1) Why am I here? Because I am here

That is a tautology. Basically, you have said nothing. How did you, as a human being originate. What is the origin of life; its starting point in time? How did you get here? Was it by natural processes? 

Still waiting for an answer to post #13.

 YOU: "Then said Thomas, which is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him."

In the verse above tell me, why would these other followers want to "die" along with Lazarus?

***

Because they trusted Him to death and many had wanted Jesus dead. They risked their lives as His followers. 

Here, in these passages, He conveys an important message to them about resurrection and trusting in Him.

YOU: "THAT IS THE WAY I READ IT. But it doesn't make my findings any truer than your mindreading, heart reading omnipotent so-called god any more real."

This is your problem in a nutshell - the way you see/read it. If you want to understand the authors meaning you must understand what the author is saying, to whom, and in what time frame. Rightly understanding the author's meaning is call exegesis. Reading into the Scriptures your meaning is called eisegesis. Proper hermeneutics is the key to understanding Scripture.

 

YOU: "Using a so-called all powerful super being to explain away all the anomalies and enigmatic verses in these gospels doesn't work for me as I am sure it isn't good enough for millions of others in the 21st century."

He provides the evidence and what you consider anomalies and enigmatic verses have REASONABLE explanations. Your analogy of Scripture has not made sense.

 

YOU: "You obviously do not take my personal opinions or findings as I read them and simply dismiss them. So exactly what is your problem?"

Personal opinions are a dime a dozen. I dismiss yours based on the Scriptures and how you read things into verses that are not conveyed or supported. Give me evidence that your personal opinions are true. 

 

YOU: "What I believe and or suggest about these unreliable gospels doesn't affect you in any way, does it."

No, because for one, the gospels are not unreliable and what you believe is your own business. What you believe affects you. I challenge you to discredit the gospels using proper hermeneutics and exegesis.

 YOU: "And let me just remind you again: this sub-forum is titled - Religion! 

It is not titled Religion for believers ONLY. And it is not titled Religion for the faithful ONLY, either. It is for anyone to discuss religion and not for the religious to have a monopoly and use it for your own religious propaganda. 

It is not compulsory for you to address my questions or opinions."

I address your questions and your thread because I care about truth, and I want to push you to demonstrate that what I believe is wrong and unreasonable and what you believe is the truth. I am confident in Scripture and the Preterist interpretation enough to put the challenge to you. 

ME: "If you have any system of belief at all you have faith in that system,"
YOU: "Where have [I] once said my opinions and or observations are in any way true or correct."

What does that have to do with you having faith in your system of belief?

You would be crazy to believe anything unless you at least thought it was true OR unless you wanted to justify to yourself what you were doing. Why would you want to believe a lie? Only because you enjoyed the lie.

YOU: "I am now getting sick of telling you the same thing over and over. I have read the scriptures and I claim the bible is ambiguous, puzzling, vague and enigmatic. It tells half stories. It hides details. It is hypocritical and at times clearly and simply unbelievable. And it has sinister undertones, which to me, makes the story that these 4 gospellers are telling  unreliable at least and a pack of lies at worse."

Who cares what you CLAIM. I like curry. Do you care? Back up your claims with evidence rather than feelings and preferences. 

The Bible is not ambiguous or vague when you understand its audience of address, its time references, the culture, the history of the times, its themes, its shadows, the passage in context, and how it relates to the greater context. 

It is not hypocritical, and the overtones are a judgment on sin by a sinless Being - the Creator. Does not the Creator not have a right to do with His creation as He sees fit?

The fact is that you choose not to believe in this SUPERNATURAL Being.

The gospels can be shown to be reasonable and logical in what these four writers convey. Prophecy is one evidence to verify this reason and logic. 

 ME: Some of those foundational questions that ANY religion and worldview attempt to answer are:
1) Why am I here?

An atheist answers all these questions. A Muslim answers all these questions. An agnostic answers all these questions. I bet you would too if I asked you.

What difference does it make is an axiology question?

Why am I here is a metaphysical question?

How do I know is an epistemic question?

Who am I is an ontological question?

Peter

It depends which one you reference. As a believer in Christ my answer to other religions, Islam included, is Yes.

STEPHEN:  and  Israelites.. Which is why I have never understood why people try bringing the OT into the argument against Christians when discussing the barbarity of Islam. 

The OT and NT are interconnected. The NT is the fulfillment of the OT. It provides a covenant that meets all the righteous requirements of God in one Person - the Lord Jesus Christ. It accomplishes what the OT is not capable of doing, restoring the relationship with God forever.

Peter

KEITH: The OT isn't even interested in all people - only the Hebrews.  The nt is about how to get yourself into heaven.

Both are covenant relationships that are concerned about a right relationship with God. The one foreshadows the other for the one is greater than the other.

Peter

MOPAC: What is a religion but a way of life? Is the cobbler any more correct than the carpenter?

Yes, a religion can be thought of as a way of life or following the decrees of God/gods.

Is the cobbler any more correct than the carpenter? It depends on the particular belief held. Is it a true belief (John 4:23-24)?

Peter

They can't all be TRUE interpretations of the same reality for they state OPPOSITES and misrepresent that reality. That defies logic and the laws of logic - specifically the Law of Identity (A=A) or the Law of Non-contradiction (A cannot be A and not-A at the same time and in the same manner.

Peter 

JANE: i doubt anyone really knows

By necessity, only one can be true for there to be reason and logic or truth.

The fact that you doubt leaves questions to you KNOWING your worldview is true. If there is an absolutely, omnipotent, almighty, necessary, self-sustaining Being who has revealed Himself, then we have the necessary means to KNOW. The biblical God makes that claim and the biblical revelation is reasonable and logical to believe. It corresponds to reality in what we would expect to find. So, by default, it would be the true belief once correctly held.

If you are an atheist there would be NO REASON to find uniformity of nature - the things science relies upon. There would be NO REASON to find meaning contained in the universe. There would be NO purpose or intention. Yet, in spite of this, you continue to find these things in everything you examine. You DISCOVER mathematical formulas behind the universe that do not depend on your making them up, yet they require mindfulness. IOW's, they existed before you or any other human being.

Peter

101 denominations are not the standard. The revelation is the standard.

Peter

Yes!

It is hard to gather what you are trying to say by your opening post. Your thoughts and ideas are minimal and all over the place. One to two words very seldom form(s) a coherent sentence.  

Peter

Peter

 

If you have any system of belief at all you have faith in that system, or else you would not believe what you do. Ideas are not formed in a vacuum. They build, one on another, from core/foundational starting points. The question becomes can you justify that system of thought from your starting point(s)?

STEPHEN: “IF” But what  I am saying is,  as it is written and conveyed by these gospellers it is not believable to me.

A belief is not worth its weight if it cannot be rationally justified. I claim the Bible can. I claim that those who do not believe it run into a slew of problems when they go against its truth claims.

STEPHEN: Oh stop it! I am only sharing my beliefs. I have stated I am not trying to convince anyone of anything. I don’t claim authority. I claim the bible is ambiguous, puzzling, vague and enigmatic. It tells half stories. It hides details. It is hypocritical and at times clearly and simply unbelievable. And it has sinister undertones. 

test

@ Stephen

And what do you believe this underlying story is?

Again, what EVIDENCE do you have?

What you have done is precisely what everyone who doubts the Scriptures do. You READ INTO it things it does not say or teach and then you come up with a bizarre, esoteric interpretation that is not reasonable or logical. What you do is make yourself an authority above that of Scripture. You judge it rather than it judging you.

As a relative, subjective, limited human being why is your authority any better than any other relative, subjective, limited human being?

If you do not take the Bible for what it claims to be you, the final, ultimate authority, then you place another authority as that authority. Unless there is an ultimate authority the question becomes why yours is any better than any other, IF what the Bible claims is reasonable and logical to believe. It demonstrates it is reasonable.

 What you do without any final, ultimate, absolute authority is make yourself that authority.

Peter

@ Terran

"Me: I exist around the timeline prophesied in reference to a rebuilding of Jerusalem in 1535 AD. 434 years and 490 years translate into 1969 and 2025 AD...483 years for the announcement of the messiah, translates into the year 2018, right now, this very moment. And here I am, in 2018, announcing myself as the man of prophecy. The timeline for me is more accurate than for Jesus, and the very estimate accurately represents my arrival to the very exact year. While the timeline is rounded, it is rounded very close and closer than with Jesus to the point of the estimate for my arrival being in total accuracy to the very year, this very moment. The rebuilding of Jerusalem in reference to my timeline, was in times of trouble as the 1000 year war between Christians and Muslims continued to escalate until Christians eventually won 400 years ago. Unlike with Jesus, after my arrival, war in Jerusalem has continued between Jews and Arabs to this very day, with no end in sight, despite the matter being the focus of the world stage and every effort from the rest of the world to establish Middle Eastern peace in futility, to the point of ISIS emerging, and the threat of a world war over how different powers are dealing with ISIS and who gets possession of Jerusalem."

Your reasoning is flawed.

Prophecy refers to Daniel's people. Are you a Jew?

The prophecy refers to a people following the Mosaic Covenant. Do you follow the Old Covenant law? (Demonstrate how you can)

The prophecy describes the once again destruction, not multiple destructions. That happened in AD 70. That excludes you from being the fulfillment. 

If you pay attention to the audience of address, the timeline, the events during the destruction, this can all be demonstrated to have happened in the 1st century. 

Don Preston's take is a little different. He sees the 490 years as figurative, or not an exact number, culminating with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Again, every one of the six stipulations of Daniel 9:24 can be demonstrated to have been met within that timeframe.

Peter

@ Terran

Philip Mauro http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1921_mauro_seventy-weeks.html starts the time frame of the going forth of the decree by Cyrus (Ezra 1:1) to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.

"The decree which was to bring the captivity to an end by freeing the Jews, granting them liberty to return to their own land and to rebuild the city and sanctuary, was to be also the starting point of the "determined" period of seventy sevens of years. This is clearly seen from the prophecy itself in connection with Ezra 1:1...

Mauro makes the point that every chronological system (excluding the biblical) of old works on a Ptolemy time frame, which he shows as wrong in some of its dates regarding the Persian kings.

"Concerning the dates given in Ptolemy's table of Persian Kings, Anstey says: "They rest upon calculations or guesses made by Eratosthenes, and on certain vague floating traditions, in accordance with which the period of the Persian Empire was mapped out as a period of 205 years." And he shows, by a great variety of proofs taken entirely from the Scriptures, that the period which Ptolemy assigns to the Persian Empire is about eighty years too long. It follows that all who adopt Ptolemy's chronology, or any system based upon it (as all modern chronologists prior to Anstey do) would inevitably be led far astray. It is impossible to make the real Bible-events agree, within 80 years, with the mistaken chronology of Ptolemy."

That would make the issuing of the decree around 456BC. (536-80=456)
The 490 would coincide with the crucifixion of Jesus in AD 30.

Jesus, with the Olivet Discourse narrative, gave His generation 40 years to repent before His coming in judgment (the Deuteronomy 28 curses) on the temple and worship system (Matthew 23:38; 24:1-2). That coincides with the destruction of the temple and city in AD 70 (and also with Daniel 9:26) and the end of the age (Daniel 9:27).

The Bible, which is its own interpreter, gives an understanding of its chronology. A generation (Matthew 24:36; 24:34 - "this generation") is 40 years (Hebrews 3:9-10, 17).

Note that Daniel 9:26 says that AFTER the Anointed One/Messiah is cutoff/killed that the city and temple would be destroyed. 

@ Terran

With your pronouncement, I see visions of grandeur dancing in your head. (^8

I'll stick with your example of Daniel 9:25-26 and use the greater context since I don't want to get into what is called a Linkwarz. A linkwarz is where two people use links as their main source of an argument instead of providing the relevant information (summary) from the link. If you want to use a link please summarize the information you want me to gather from that link. I don't want to spend twenty hours searching for what you are trying to say. 

1) Daniel 9:24 gives six conditions that would be met before the time frame for Daniel's people is fulfilled. They are all fulfilled by Jesus. 

BTW, Daniel's people are an Old Covenant people. They follow the Mosaic Covenant. 

2) The Mosaic Covenant cannot be followed as stipulated by the law of that covenant after AD 70. (i.e., no more animal sacrifices, no more temple, no more priesthood, no more feast days, etc.)

3) The six conditions of Daniel 9:24 are in judgment of the people's disobedience. (i.e., finish the transgression, put an end to sin, bring in everlasting righteousness, etc.)

So you do not fit into any of these categories.

Philip Mauro has written a book on the 490 years that I believe satisfied the timeframe. I can offer that evidence next.
Don K. Preston has offered another timeframe that does not see the period as literal but does see the fulfillment as meeting the six conditions and the one more time destruction of the city and (rebuilt) temple. 

Peter 

@ Stephen:

Post 3: "The gospel writer here has indeed re-hashed an Old Testament story, something they do often...I do agree though, that New Testament writers just love reaching for their trusty Old Testament for stories to rehash and bring into their own present time. Sometimes they didn't stop as simply rehashing these stories, they would go all the way and recreate them."

What you fail to realize (as an unbeliever) is those historic events in the OT convey greater spiritual truths that are brought to light in the NT. 

There is a mirroring or shadowing between the OT and NT; between the physical and spiritual realms/realities. The OT always points forward to the greater reality. One covenant is put in place by Moses, the other by the greater Moses - Jesus. (see 1 Corinthians 2:13; 9:11; 15:46; Colossians 2:17; Hebrews 8:5)

As you have Elijah in the OT so you have the Elijah to come, the one who comes in the spirit of Elijah - John the Baptist. 

@ Stephen:

Peter