|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Choosing a faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: That is how they might be interpreted at the time of Jesus. It certainly isn’t how Jews interpret them now. Or how they were originally meant,
quote: How about using the handy links at the bottom of each post to see? To be clear my point is that I believe that Jesus did not fulfil the Messianic prophecies, so his followers - those that did not abandon the cult - made up excuses to get around that. Hence the Second Coming. (And please don’t suggest that they wouldn’t make up excuses - you certainly do).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: So you think that the Gospel of the Hebrews is the real Gospel written by Matthew, not the one we call “Matthew”? Because that is what you just said,
quote: My point is that your original claim - which only used the phrase “Son of Man” - was false.
Also the Jewish nation at had two particular hopes for the future. One was the return of Yahweh to their nation and the other was that of a messiah who would be a man anointed by God to lead them against Rome. The Gospels story essentially sees Jesus as fulfilling both of those hopes but in a very different way than what the Jews expected. Jesus used the term "son of man" which combined both hopes. It is not the term at all. It is Christian beliefs added after Jesus’ death.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Really? Mark 13
26 “Then they will see ‘the Son of Man coming in clouds’ with great power and glory. 27 Then he will send out the angels and gather the elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.
You think that that’s the Romans doing that ? Consider also verses 33-36 - do you really think that the metaphorical “master of the house” is the Romans? And then look at Daniel 7, which is clearly alluded to:
27 The kingship and dominion and the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven shall be given to the people of the holy ones of the Most High; their kingdom shall be an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey them.” Do you really think that the Romans are going to arrange that? Rather than, say, mass executions for the rebellious Jews?
quote: You can call the “dream” a metaphor if you like but the explanation seems to be intended literally.
quote: Since we don’t know for sure exactly what Jesus said, trying to parse his words closely is futile. We can’t be certain how often he used the phrase referring to himself (perhaps not at all) or what he meant by it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Which is just an interpretation popular at the time, not the originally intended meaning, nor one with any special claim to be “the” meaning.
quote: Which ones did he fulfil? The “suffering servant” in Isaiah hardly qualifies.
quote: Which is rather at odds with predictive prophecy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Indeed, the Gospel of the Hebrews is not in the NT at all. By the way, how did you convince yoursek& it was the “real” Matthew? Just because Jerome said so?
quote: Are you talking about the non-canonical Gospel of the Hebrews - which you call the “real” Matthew here? Or are you just making an irrelevant comment about the canonical Matthew?
quote: On what basis do you contend that Jesus agreed with your thinking?
quote: As we’ve seen from Daniel and Zechariah the expectation was that God would give victory to the Jews, not an army. But God did not, even though Jesus reportedly stoked such ideas by alluding to Daniel.
quote: Or distorted it based on their wants and needs, and the wants and needs of their successors. The growing hostility to the Jews and the desire to fit in with Rome were no doubt major factors. The attempts to blame the Jews rather than the Romans for Jesus’ death include rather obvious distortions of this sort.
quote: I note that you do not mention that Jesus implies that he will do just that. He talks about when it will happen, rather than offering any correction on what will happen.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: It’s more than that as I showed,
quote: Which “predicts” how the Romans would provoke a rebellion - as well as alluding to Daniel which predicts that God would intervene to save the Jews.
quote: Indeed, to show that it is not about the Romans.
quote: I would point out that it indicates that Jesus would be seen doing so and that the elect would be gathered by angels. Also, Mark 13:20 indicates that God has “cut short” the tribulation to preserve the elect, indicating that the elect are alive on Earth at the time they are gathered. (And if the Tribulation is the Roman military response that would also point to divine intervention)
quote: Neither Mark nor Daniel make such a claim (indeed, the Temple is not destroyed in Daniel). That is simply your invention.
quote: Other than wishful thinking, how do you derive that from the text?
quote: Nonsense. It is about desecration of the Temple by the Seleucids. Which had already occurred at the time of writing.
quote:Daniel does not predict the destruction of the second Temple. Daniel “predicts” the desecration by Antiochus and predicts that the Temple will survive and be resanctified, quote: As I have already shown it makes perfect sense given the Jewish understanding of the End Times. (See Zechariah 14 for an example).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: I think that should be Sadducees, Percy. Or maybe the Sanhedrin. Certainly not the Pharisees.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Because there is no reason to run away if a gentile army is going to storm Jerusalem, murdering and raping the inhabitants? Jewish end-times prophecies do not fit with your ideas about “the end of the world”. As I’ve pointed out to you more than once. The only daft thing is Luke’s idea of waiting until the attacking army surrounds the city.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I am going on what you say. You claim that there would be no point in running away from Jerusalem. Which is quite enough.
quote: Which proves that you are still wilfully ignoring Jewish ideas about the end times. Which are full of war. As you certainly ought to know by now.
quote: So it is only too late for the people who most need to run. That’s helpful.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: I think that the Zechariah quote was sufficient.The Jews are attacked - and suffer - God intervenes to save them, and gives the Jews a preeminent place in the world. It’s the suffering of the first part that people would be running away from. Often you’d get the restoration of the Davidic line and the return of the Lost Tribes, too.
quote: But that would not be in the Tanakh - even though Daniel has references to Roman intervention in the wars, Rome wasn’t seen as a threat. And off hand I don’t think any of the other books of the Tanakh mention Rome at all - most are too early anyway.
quote: The instruction to run to the hills is explicitly linked to the armies surrounding Jerusalem, which is both obvious and late. If the Romans had installed pagan worship in the Temple - as Matthew and Mark say - that would have been a trigger for revolt, but one that would give time to flee. Of course that didn’t happen, hence the change.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I note that you don’t admit that there is a clear reason to run away given Jewish views. A fact already proven when you made the claim before.
quote: It’s right there in the quote. Mark and Matthew say to run when the Romans start pagan worship in the Temple - which would have almost certainly provoked a revolt. Luke says that the sign to flee is armies surrounding Jerusalem which would not have happened until the Romans mobilised their forces to respond to the revolt (at the earliest).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Yes, I’ve mentioned that before. That’s the reason for changing the prophecy.
quote: Of course it wouldn’t. It’s a reference to Antiochus Epiphanes erecting an altar to Zeus in the Temple. That’s what Daniel is talking about.
quote: Please keep track of the context. That is what Matthew and Mark wrote, which was changed in Luke,
quote: It’s pretty obvious. Something that didn’t happen (but might have happened - Caligula got very close) was replaced with something that did. Which is pretty easy with hindsight- but what would be the motivation to change the supposed words of Jesus otherwise?
quote: But Jesus did not say who would do the demolition, and as I have pointed out that demolition seems to come at the very end. (I also note that Jesus is supposed to have said that he would rebuild the Temple in 3 days. It’s a bit tricky to nail down, but it certainly seems plausible that that was related to this prophecy.)
quote: And I don’t see why you would think that when, I clearly said that that was what was in Matthew and Mark - and was changed in Luke. The point I made about what the Jews believed is that the Jews believed that the End Times would feature a war which would go very badly for them until God intervened- and that provided adequate reason to run for the hills
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Luke has a noticeable difference (actually more than one) from Mark and Matthew. Luke is derived from at least one of those. Therefore the difference in Like is a change. It really isn’t at all hard to see. That it involves replacing an event which did not happen with one that did is evidence that the change was made after the predicted events.
quote: I suppose you mean your presumed reference to Isaiah, although it is questionable whether it does come from Isaiah (I think Joel more likely).
quote: Given the fact that it is not mentioned, and God’s presumed intervention would defeat the Romans at the end I can’t see that as true at all.
quote: Which rather reinforces the point that it is Jesus who wants the Herodian Temple destroyed.
quote: You forget that we are discussing Luke, and even in your view Luke is derived from Matthew, not a first hand account. If Luke is copying from Matthew, any deviation is a change.
quote: I’ve discussed Daniel extensively here, and the Olivet Discourse has seen some serious discussion, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5
|
quote: Since you are rather obviously very strongly biased not only in favour of the resurrection, but in favour of the idea that the evidence must support it, that is a self-serving falsehood. You merely like the idea that you are being objective about it, just as you like the idea that you primarily care about the truth.
quote: Or, an atheist might simply note that an apparently miraculous event is likely font a miracle at all and would require strong evidence to justify belief. Which would be an objective viewpoint. On the other hand, throwing out much of the Gospel accounts as irrelevant details, or insisting that the participants in a car accident could have no idea where the accident occurred - would be a very clear sign that you weren’t being objective at all. Dismissing evidence that doesn’t suit your conclusion without valid grounds for doing so is undeniable proof of bias. Or in short your “suggestion” is an obvious and self-serving falsehood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
quote: Under your preferred hypothesis the author of Luke directly copied from the Gospel of Matthew.
quote: What is wrong with the one we’ve been discussing? The signal to flee being changed from pagan worship in the Temple (which would set off a rebellion) to armies surrounding Jerusalem (after things have already started to go badly for the revolt).
quote: Since all the Daniel 9 references in the Olivet Discourse refer to events after the fall of Babylon then you must be wrong. Your Isaiah reference is about the fall of Babylon.
quote: There is no reference to the Babylonian attack in the Olivet Discourse - and even if Jesus were alluding to Isaiah it would be to the fall of Babylon. Even the frame story in Daniel is set during the Exile (and by Daniel 9 Babylon has already fallen).
quote: In my view - which is consistent with the text - the Temple will be destroyed as part of God’s intervention.
quote: Or - more consistent with Daniel - that a new and better Temple with a new priesthood will be established.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024