Choosing a faith

I don't believe that the Romans started pagan worship in the Temple. As far as I know they simply plundered it which is interesting but I don't think addresses your point. At any rate it would be at least about the Roman occupation of the Temple and in reference to the Babylonian occupation back in 589 BC.I suggest that it would be quite natural for Jesus to predict that the Temple would be desecrated prior to the more general invasion. As I said I contend that His prediction was based on His understanding of the political situation in His world then.I don't see though why you believe that this was a view held generally by the Jews. I see it as Jesus saying that if you carry on with this violent revolution that the Romans will do what the Babylonians did 600 years earlier. So I agree that this would be an indicator that it was time to get out of Dodge.BTW, you said something about this suggesting a later writing. I just don't see that and in addition it is recorded as Him having said that not one stone would be left on another in regards to the Temple. As we know, there are still quite a few stones on top of one another. If any of these were written after the war then surely they wouldn't have included that statement.I don't see though why you believe that this was a view held generally by the Jews. I see it as Jesus saying that if you carry on with this violent revolution that the Romans will do what the Babylonians did 600 years earlier. So I agree that this would be an indictor that it was time to get out of Dodge.

quote:

---

I don't believe that the Romans started pagan worship in the Temple

---

Yes, I’ve mentioned that before. That’s the reason for changing the prophecy.

quote:

---

At any rate it would be at least about the Roman occupation of the Temple and in reference to the Babylonian occupation back in 589 BC.

---

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:

---

I don't see though why you believe that this was a view held generally by the Jews.

---

Please keep track of the context. That is what Matthew and Mark wrote, which was changed in Luke,

quote:

---

BTW, you said something about this suggesting a later writing. I just don't see that…

---

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:

---

..and in addition it is recorded as Him having said that not one stone would be left on another in regards to the Temple.

---

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:

---

I don't see though why you believe that this was a view held generally by the Jews

---

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

I don't know what you would agree to as evidence. Here is a wiki page that provides considerable support for what he wrote. Tacitus on JesusHere is one brief bit from that site.

quote:

---

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd argue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.

---

There is also this.

quote:

---

Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus. Charles Guignebert argued that "So long as there is that possibility [that Tacitus is merely echoing what Christians themselves were saying], the passage remains quite worthless".[68] R. T. France states that the Tacitus passage is at best just Tacitus repeating what he had heard through Christians.[69]

---

My concern is my ability to express my conclusions is not at the level of someone like yourself. Agreed The problem is though, when it comes to things that can't be concluded objectively we look at what information we have, and then subjectively conclude of how strongly we rate the material, and then come to our own conclusions. In many cases, such as the subject of this discussion, we all come to it with a bias which can't help, in spite of our best efforts, to influence our conclusions regardless of how critically we review the material.In many ways I suggest in looking at something like the resurrection of Jesus that I as a theist can look at it more objectively than an atheists can. As an atheist has decided that there is no cosmic intelligence involved in our existence then there can't be any reason to believe it to be historical. However, I as a theist can accept that it could possibly be historical and the look for more material to form a conclusion. I agree with all of that. In the case of the junior stone mason his purpose cna be formed by just wanting to get the job done so he can get on with what he wants to do, maybe he just ignores the assignment altogether or just maybe it does become his purpose, at least until it is finished, to do the best job that he can. The only place I take issue with any of that is that our basic nature is not a fixed point. I think that our basic nature is largely formed based on the lens through which we view our existence. However the lens is adjustable. Maybe someone grows up in a home where he is abused but as he gets older he marries into a family where he is treated like a beloved son or daughter. The individuals lens has been adjusted and likely alters hi/her purposes. Agreed. I think we're on the same page, it is just that you express it better.

We need to get this straightened out.In principle no one is totally objective about anything, because, as an old professor used to say to me, “where we stand affects what we can see.”That's why the scientific method is so successful at sorting out fact from beliefs.Almost all 'scholarly' work about the bible has been done by believers, usually theologians, often clergy. It is impossible for them to deny the resurrection as historical fact and still be a Christian, so anything written by them about the resurrection has to be regarded with deep scepticism. They have the largest conflict of interest possible.You would say that atheists have an equal but opposite bias and that's possibly true. I could make an argument why that is not the case based on the fact that I, as an atheists can be convinced by good evidence. Like I could be convinced about elves. But that's not my starting point.More interestingly, believers have to believe that Christ existed as a real person, atheists definitely do not, I'm pretty neutral - Christ could be proven to be as real Alexander the Great but it would make no difference to whether the resurrection was real or not. But the evidence for a historical Christ is so poor that it's actually impossible to find for one side or the other and the evidence for the resurrection is not just non-existant, it's actually negative. The evidence, such that it is, shows that the anonymous authors made it up.It's only recently when a few real historians have got involved that these things have been argued. For centuries it's been theologians doing literary criticism, starting from the common understanding that it's all true and that's all you've read - stuff that confirms your beliefs. We've read both sides.
​

Frankly, I'm not sure how you contend that the prophesy was changed. Also, I'm not that keen on calling it a prophesy as prophesy has in my view a suggestion of supernatural knowledge. I simply see Jesus as predicting what will happen if and when they go ahead with a military revolution.
Also the most likely prediction to be changed would be the one where no rock is left on another. Of course, but Jesus referred to it as paralleling the Babylonian situation to the Roman situation in which they lived. It is clear that he is referencing the Romans for the demolition. I'm not clear as to what comes at the end of what.Jesus conducted a counter Temple movement and that the current Temple culture was corrupt, a den of thieves even, and that era would end. Jesus saw Himself as the Temple replacement as the man who embodied the Word or nature of God and represented the return of Yahweh to the Jewish people for the world. There are several details like that in the Gospels that don't line up with one another. Different authors.AbE BTW, I'm impressed with you knowledge in all of this. Is this something that you have studied previously or are you just googling around. In either case you have a good grasp of it.

Agreed Sure that works great with questions that can be answered by science. It can't for example tell us who we should vote for in an election. Actually that used to be true but not in the last few decades. Look at the likes of Dom Crossan, Marcus Borg and the balance of the Jesus Seminar. Actually, (although I believe it's a decreasing number) there are many in the CoE. However, I would agree that if I didn't believe in the resurrection of Jesus that I would refer to myself as Christian but simply one who believed in what Jesus taught. Yes, that leaves me with a bias, which of course doesn't mean that my beliefs are in error. But we both know that an historical event can't be proven so we have to decide for ourselves if what we do have written is sufficient for us to believe or not. No sense in running around that again. We simply disagree. Yes, and as a Christian I say thankfully so, and many of the past assumptions are being overturned such as the meaning of Matthew 24.

I don't think that's correct. You may be reading too much into the word "atheist". I usually prefer to say that I am agnostic, so as to avoid that misunderstanding. I have not decided that there was no cosmic intelligence involved. The most I can say, is that I do not see any evidence of a cosmic intelligence. But I readily admit that I cannot answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" That's what I did back when I was still a Christian and still regularly attending church. The conclusion that I reached was that I came to doubt the resurrection, but I did not immediately leave Christianity at that time.

I did say theist as opposed to Christian, but you have a point. I was an agnostic for years but I never was atheistic. I just hadn't formed an opinion. I left agnosticism primarily from reading Mere Christianity. Over 20 years ago I decided that I wanted to put more thought into what I believed. It was relatively easy to accept the idea that God is about love and that we should live by the Golden Rule but then I started wondering about things like resurrection, miracles, how to understand the bible etc.I have shelves of books that I went through and was impressed by N T Wright in particular in his argument for the resurrection. I found that those like Borg and Crossan etc simply argued that it didn't happen because we know it can't happen. I was also interested in how it connected with the world as seen by science. Of course, resurrection requires a different law than the ones we know but I found that people like John Polkinghorne very helpful in finding where the Christianity and science can go together. This was a very helpful book in that regard. Testing Scripture - A Scientist Explores the BibleIt shows how we can understand the Bible while getting away from the idea of it being dictated by God.Anyway, that was kind of my journey.

This has nothing to do with exploring historicity. History is a science. Historians use the scientific method to determine what mist likely in the past. There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus Christ or followers. None.
Your bible is not evidence. It is not evidence until you provide provenance and evidence of authorship. Without that it is equal to Lord of the Rings.

Crossan, Borg and the rest of the Jesus Seminar are all christians. It is not a group of historians. Its work is a lame attempt to shoe horn evidence for a historical Jesus. Evidence that does not exist.

Some would say that you were actually an atheist. You did not believe in God.Atheism can be taken to just mean the lack of any belief in God.

quote:

---

Frankly, I'm not sure how you contend that the prophesy was changed

---

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:

---

Of course, but Jesus referred to it as paralleling the Babylonian situation to the Roman situation in which they lived.

---

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:

---

It is clear that he is referencing the Romans for the demolition.

---

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:

---

Jesus conducted a counter Temple movement and that the current Temple culture was corrupt, a den of thieves even, and that era would end. Jesus saw Himself as the Temple replacement as the man who embodied the Word or nature of God and represented the return of Yahweh to the Jewish people for the world.

---

Which rather reinforces the point that it is Jesus who wants the Herodian Temple destroyed.

quote:

---

There are several details like that in the Gospels that don't line up with one another. Different authors.

---

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:

---

AbE BTW, I'm impressed with you knowledge in all of this. Is this something that you have studied previously or are you just googling around. In either case you have a good grasp of it.

---

I’ve discussed Daniel extensively here, and the Olivet Discourse has seen some serious discussion, too.

quote:

---

In many ways I suggest in looking at something like the resurrection of Jesus that I as a theist can look at it more objectively than an atheists can.

---

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:

---

As an atheist has decided that there is no cosmic intelligence involved in our existence then there can't be any reason to believe it to be historical.

---

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.