Choosing a faith

PaulK writes:Well that completely ignores the point. Again. The point was that - despite being asked - Jesus does not say where in the sequence of events the Temple will be destroyed. I conclude that Jesus meant that would be at the end of those events. You apparently object but won’t give any reason why.

PaulK writes:I pointed out that Daniel was about a successful revolt - as is well known - and you insisted that it wasn’t about an earthly revolt,

PaulK writes:Daniel’s predictions failed, but the Maccabees substantially reduced the Seleucid yoke and were able to expand the kingdom. They were also rather successful against the Hellenising faction in Judaism.

PaulK writes:An interesting redating, but it’s your invention. Daniel is dated prior to the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, since he’s a major part of it - and Daniel gets his death wrong. So before 164 BC, not more than 100 years later,
​
(ABE Daniel 7 “predicts” that the Seleucid Empire - the 4th Beast - will be destroyed under Antiochus - the “little horn” - and the Jews will take over. It seems an odd way to criticise the Hasmoneans about a hundred years later.)

GDR writes:Yes, it was used as being about a human being but it was also used as Daniel used it here to have a heavenly significance.

Paulk writes:No, Daniel uses a different phrase - like a son of man. A being who appears human - but implicitly is not. I’ve already pointed this out, so I don’t see why you persist in this error.

Tangle writes:I don't have an online source but you'll find it in 'Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, the 'Fourth Philosophy' and the Political Messianism of the First Century CE. D Mendels. p261-75. Amongst others. Fill your boots.
​(That and two other references are from 'On the historicity of Jesus' by Dr Richard Carrier which you should read if you haven't already. One of the very few peer reviewed non-Christian biblical authors.

Tangle writes:Josephus has four messiahs some called Jesus (Joshua). Plus yours, makes at least five. In fact there were probably dozens.

Percy writes:If I am worshipping a god that that does not represent the actual nature of God, Allah, Yahweh or whatever then so be it.

Percy writes:I'm sure you've chosen the right God.

Percy writes:There are hundreds, probably even thousands depending upon your criteria, of religions. It isn't possible that they're all wrong, right? Certainly at least one of them, or at least some combination of parts of some of them, is right. Right? And some guy from British Columbia has as good a chance as anyone of figuring it all out, right?

Percy writes:Look, all that matters is that you're happy with the choices you've made. Don't let it get all mixed up with convincing other people that they're correct. Why does that even matter to you?

Percy writes:Look, all that matters is that you're happy with the choices you've made. Don't let it get all mixed up with convincing other people that they're correct. Why does that even matter to you?

Admin writes:The next time you post a message containing strange symbols, please point me to it.

Percy writes:Why are you harboring doubts that the God you've expressed belief in can fuel an everlasting fire? And it isn't people who bodily go to heaven or hell. It is souls. Jesus is the only person ever taken bodily into heaven. Of course the Bible equivocates quite a bit, so there's lots of room for interpretation.

Percy writes:This is your gig. We have no secret powers for divining how you might answer. Please answer the question instead of being evasive.

PaulK writes:As is too often the case, this doesn’t address the point, Christians generally hold that Jesus will fulfil the Messianic prophecies after the Second Coming. That’s the point of it.

GDR writes:Not true for the early followers of Jesus

PaulK writes:I disagree. I think that is EXACTLY what happened.

GDR writes:The messianic stuff as you call it is an earthly thing with no connection to the second coming.

PaulK writes:Most Christians disagree.

GDR writes:Sure, it is John's theology that explains the views of the early Christians as that sort out the meaning that they could glean from Jesus' teachings and also of His resurrection.

PaulK writes:But your original claim was that the phrase itself was all that was needed. Which is rather obviously not supported by quoting theology which makes a similar claim for other reasons.

Tangle writes:I dunno GDR, this stuff just makes me feel tired and frustrated. Maybe I'll attempt a futile answer to what you say here but more likely I won't - because, well, it's futile.
​
The point I'm trying to make is that there is no real historicity for Jesus, let alone the miraculous stuff he's supposed to have done and how he saved the world an' all. Sure, there's acres of shelf space for Christian scholars and apologists but there's virtually no peer reviewed history. There should be so much that it's beyond all doubt, but there's virtually none.
​
Jesus, if real, would be the most important guy that ever lived. But there's no factual evidence of him actually even existing! It's bizarre. We shouldn't even be able to have this discussion, it should be obvious to everyone. But it's not, simply because he left no historical footprint, just an enormous mythology.

Tangle writes:Like you, I don't have any first hand knowledge of the bible, other than having read it. I get my information from historians. It's mainstream scholarship that the Sermon on the Mount wasn't said by Jesus, it's a complex literary creation based on previous texts. This is a summary -
​
"The Sermon on the Mount relies on the Septuagint Greek version of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, so it doesn’t go back to a Hebrew or Aramaic source. Matthew also redacts other Greek scriptures like “turn the other cheek” taken from Isaiah 50:6-9. The sermon has a literary structure so it didn’t originate in oral tradition, and it deals with issues that would have come up after Jesus died, so it didn’t originate with him. The sermon also assumes the temple doesn’t exist, so it had to have been written after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. It also addresses the rabbinical argument that followed the destruction of the temple."
​
ie Matthew made it up.
​
The analysis of written rather than oral structure comes from this peer reviewed paper. I wish you luck with it.
​
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1987_allison.pdf

Stile writes:So I'll just scrap it all and start over:
​
1. A purpose feels strong and good and right if it is something you personally hold as a priority.
-the more the purpose aligns with your own personal feeling on it's priority, the stronger the sense of "this is right" will be
​
2. If you can find a purpose that aligns with something that you personally hold as the highest of all priorities, this will then be your "ultimate purpose" because you will be taking action in directions that align with your highest of all possible priorities.
-like bad-ass Stone Mason Stile making bad-ass ornaments
-like GDR and sacrificial love
-like Roman leaders and trying to "bring Rome to the world"
-like baseball-lovers trying to get everyone to play baseball
​
3. My point is: It's possible to become aware of a purpose from an outside source that matches your personal feelings on priority. But with the nuance that comes along with "personal feelings of priority" it's highly likely that it's not going to match exactly or possibly not match at all.
However, if you do some inner-soul-searching and discover for yourself exactly what your personal feelings on priorities actually are... and then create a purpose for yourself that matches your highest priority... it will, by definition, match EXACTLY, and therefore have a much greater chance (100%, actually) of being your "ultimate purpose" rather than any other purpose found from any other external source (even an all-powerful, creator God.)
​
This is the context I'm coming from when I'm saying God's purpose can only match our own "ultimate purpose" and can never exceed it. Because "purpose" comes from our own feelings on priorities. God can provide an idea that matches our own feelings on priorities... but never exceed them, since ultimate-purpose/feelings-on-highest-priorities come from within.
​
This is where I'm coming from when I say that claiming other-information can be an "ultimate purpose" simply doesn't understand what purpose actually is.
​
If you do not agree, and still think ultimate purpose can come from any external source (even God,) I would expect something along showing me that #1 or #2 is wrong above, and that isn't actually what "purpose" is and "purpose" is something else.
-this would involve you actually defining/identifying what "purpose" is and how your explanation is more accurate (closer to reality) than mine.
​
That is mostly correct but what I mean by ultimate is when this world is fully recreated sacrificial love will be freely chosen as the norm.
​
If you want to argue that "ultimate purpose" is "ultimate nice/love/sacrificial-love..." on some made up scale (even if made up by God Himself) I find that argument easily shown to be incongruent with reality as many people have "ultimate purpose" in things that do not involve people at all (like my example of bad-ass Stone Mason Stile) and this is immediately disproven if you have any respect for how many people live their lives in reality.
​
To me, this reads as "what I think is best is ultimate for everyone because I really like what I think is best."
-it's nothing but arrogance and ego
-it's easily proven to be false
-why should anyone agree with you unless they already happen to agree with you before you even talk to them?
-it is entirely unpersuasive from an objective, outsider position

PaulK writes:But the end of the events is God’s intervention, and that is when it occurs.

PaulK writes:The revolt is still earthly.

PaulK writes:The Resurrection isn’t even part of this.

PaulK writes:he Maccabean revolt is the right date - but for some reason you confused it with the end of the Hasmonean dynasty. In reality the Maccabean revolt lead to the foundation of that dynasty.

PaulK writes:That is likely fiction. And nearly half the chapter is the explanation of the “dream” (verses 15-28)

PaulK writes:Since we don’t have Jesus’ exact words he could have been just emphasising his humanity, since that is the meaning of that phrase.
Or even sometimes speaking of humanity in general.

Tangle writes:I know, it's really unfair, a non-Christian historian researching and writing about Christianity. Progress hurts.

Tangle writes:I've read a lot of stuff written by Christians - who are "hardly impartial sources" - there is almost nothing else. I suggest you read Carrier if you want a less biased view. His book 'On the Historicity of Jesus' is peer reviewed and fully referenced so you can check the sources yourself and you will have seen another side of the argument.

Tangle writes:There were in fact dozens of apocalyptic cults based on the fictitious Daniel prophecies that were supposed to come true in the 1st century CE. The only way the Christians could continue against the Romans was to invent the idea of a virtual victory through resurrection. It's a smart move. Or at least it would have been if it had any semblance of fact. It's all myth and propaganda. You can't even show that the main character in the story actually existed, let alone all the stuff that he was supposed to have done. You haven't even started.

Tangle writes:It seems that you've abandoned everything in the bible apart from the nice stuff that you prefer to believe. You also add that it's not important which god you believe in so long as it has all these nice attributes.

Tangle writes:But all this leaves you is a general belief to live by the Golden Rule. Under that regime there is no need for all the paraphernalia of any particular religion; worship, preaching, scripture, beliefs etc etc.
​
It seems that under your scheme atheists get to heaven too to why the need for any religious belief at all?

Percy writes:But it was addressed to you. You quoted Dylan's "ya gotta serve somebody" and insisted that worship was the only alternative, either of a God or something material. And as a way of pointing out that you're wrong I used myself as an example of someone who worships nothing, and of course I'm by no means alone in this. There are things that I value, but nothing that I worship. Obviously one doesn't have to worship something. You have no response?

Percy writes: This is a non-answer. It is still circular to say that the portions of the Bible you choose are based on what you see in Jesus who you only know about from the Bible. Unless, as I said, you're making stuff up about Jesus or listening to what other people make up.

Percy writes:This isn't really a discussion. It's you making non-sequiturs, us pointing them out, and you ignoring them to continue repeating what you've been saying all along. Nothing we say seems to have any effect on you. It doesn't matter what we say, you just keep repeating yourself.

GDR writes:Frankly I don't know what most Christians believe. However the messianic prophesies were about bringing about the end of the age which would be the end of Roman occupation.

Paulk writes: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,

PaulK writes: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).