Choosing a faith

quote:

---

The point wasn't about my view. I used the term theists simply as anyone who believes in a higher power but not one of any particular faith group. As a Christian of course I am biased. I believe that the resurrection is an historical event just as you believe it isn't.

---

Which just shows how self-serving the claim is. You are not just a theist - and even if you were the most you can say is that you would assume the resurrection to be more likely than the average atheist. But I don’t think even that can be called objectivity.If it was not about your view you should have said “a theist” or better “a theist who is not committed to Christianity” not “I, as a theist” which makes it very much about you.

quote:

---

Firstly I'm not claiming objectivity. I don't throw out much of the Gospels at all. I simply recognize the fact that they were written by fallible human beings and there will be differences in the details.

---

And by “details” you mean major events like Pentecost.

quote:

---

Just wondering about miracles. I think we would agree that the Earth was once completely lifeless. Basically dirt in one form or another. Now, out of that dirt we have sentient life. I know we have the evolutionary trail but isn't the fact that life exists fairly strong evidence of a miracle?

---

No, it definitely is not. We have yet to identify one stage where a miracle would be required. Nor do we have good reason to suppose that a miracle worker would even bother with the long trail, rather than creating everything in a relatively short period of time (a literal reading of Genesis 1 suggests a very short time).

quote:

---

Not really. As I said Matthew's Gospel would be a source but hardly the only source.

---

Yes really. If the author of Luke is copying material from elsewhere then a difference is a change. Even if the author of Luke got it from some hypothetical alternate source. Moreover the fact that an event that did not happen is replaced with one that did is evidence of after-the-fact knowledge,

quote:

---

Isn't that pretty nit picky?

---

Only to someone who wants to throw it out. Obviously it is quite a significant difference - especially to anyone who tries to follow the advice, delaying the decision to flee by - in the event - years.

quote:

---

The point was that a rebellion would bring about a Roman response and so be aware so that you can get to safety before things really go south.

---

Not if you follow Luke. The revolt started in 66AD, the Roman response force arrived in 67AD and the Siege of Jerusalem began in 70AD. Do you really think people in Judea were safe right up until then?

quote:

---

The Olivet Discourse is a warning about what the future will be as a result of violent revolution and Jesus is simply saying that it will be like the fall of Jerusalem and the Temple to the Babylonians except this time by the Romans.

---

Obviously that is your opinion, but that doesn’t really answer my point that the text does not support it. Neither Daniel 9, nor your Isaiah reference have any mention of the Babylonian siege. Nor is there any explicit reference. So where do you get this idea from?

quote:

---

I think the Romans pulled that off all on their own

---

So your basis for claiming that the text means that the Romans will destroy the Temple is that the Romans did destroy the Temple. Obviously if it is neither a supernatural prediction nor written after the fact that cannot be valid.

quote:

---

Sure, but Jesus changed the whole paradigm that didn't limit God to a specific location, but that He was in the hearts of those that love Him.

---

You may believe that, but Daniel has the Temple reconsecrated (and sacrifices resuming) and there is evidence that Jesus did talk of rebuilding it, and there is nothing in the text of the Discourse that rules it out. It is only the Herodian Temple buildings that are to be destroyed.

quote:

---

Luke was a travelling companion of Paul. Both of them spent time in Jerusalem with the disciples, quite possibly after Matthew, (possibly in its Hebrew form), assuming that there was an earlier Hebrew version), had been written. Luke and Paul would likely gotten a bit of a different take on things that what Matthew had when he wrote his Gospel. Also Paul would have had a effect on what Luke wrote. For that matter it might just be in the translations.

---

No, if Luke was copied from Matthew, as you believe, it was from a Greek copy of the Matthew we have. The rest doesn’t change that,

quote:

---

The point is simply to be careful and and be ready to head for the hills when it starts to look dicey. It is simply the writers putting their own words to what Jesus had said.

---

Do you really think that things only started “looking dicey” for the Jews when the Romans began to besiege Jerusalem? Because that is what you are saying.

quote:

---

t
It was an unsafe world in general. The point was to know that the whole thing would end badly, and so at some point you want to get to a place of safety at whatever time that it seemed prudent to the individual. There was really only two main points.
1/A Jewish revolt was going to end very badly.
2/Know point 1 and act accordingly.
​

---

So Luke would be giving very bad advice from your point of view.

quote:

---

The Isaiah passage was written prior to the Babylonian and would have been a warning about what would likely happen.

---

The Isaiah passage is expressly about God destroying Babylon. And using the Medes to do it.

quote:

---

Daniel was written about 4 centuries after the Babylonian destruction. The point is that both of these passages were written about major pollical and military upheaval. Matthew and Luke reference the apocalyptic wording of those books, making it clear that this is about an earthly event and not about end times.

---

No. Your point was that Jesus meant that the Romans would destroy the Temple and you “knew’ this because Jesus was somehow referencing the Babylonian destruction of the Temple. You insisted on that even after I pointed out that the references discussed so far do not include the Babylonian destruction at all. And it seems that you know of no such references.

quote:

---

I keep repeating this but I do not claim that this was a supernatural prediction

---

Which of course was part of my point
Since you don’t claim that it was a supernatural prediction, your argument that Jesus must have meant that the Romans would destroy the Temple because the Romans did destroy the Temple can’t be justified on that ground. Which leaves only the possibility that the claim originated after the destruction. Otherwise the fact that the Romans did destroy the Temple is irrelevant to the interpretation of the passage.So again, you have nothing to support the idea that Jesus meant the Romans or that he did not mean that the Temple would be rebuilt and restored.

quote:

---

I simply said that it might have been from a Hebrew version of Matthew. Although I think that a Hebrew version existed I agree that it could well be that it never existed. I think it makes sense as it is targeted at a Jewish audience and that later Matthew would add a Greek version for a broader audience.

---

And, as I pointed out that is wrong. Luke is written in Greek therefore the copying was from Greek. An independent translation would not look the same as copying.

quote:

---

I didn't say that and I don't think that to be the case.

---

So far as I can see that is exactly what you did say. Otherwise you couldn’t claim that Luke tells people to run when things “start looking dicey” - because Luke says to run when the Roman armies surround Jerusalem.

quote:

---

This is way off the point. The point was simply saying that the 2nd Temple would be destroyed like the 1st one if they went ahead with a militant rebellion.

---

That is what you assert. We have yet to see you offer any valid reason why you would think that Jesus meant that - or why you would expect others to think he meant that. That the Isaiah passage offers no support for your claim is relevant.And I will add that the fact that the Babylonians did destroy the First Temple is not in dispute and really is off the point. Please don’t waste everyone’s time with yet another lame diversion. Either support your assertion or have the honesty to admit that you can’t.

quote:

---

No

---

Since you disagree, without offering any reason at all I will repeat the point, You cannot use the fact that the Romans did destroy the Temple as evidence that Jesus meant that the Romans did destroy the Temple. That would require supernatural foresight which you deny.

quote:

---

If it was written after 66AD,. let alone 70AD, it would be then meaningless as it would clearly be contrived

---

If it was written before 70AD Jesus couldn’t know that the Romans destroyed the Temple. Therefore that fact could not influence his words. It really is that simple. So why are you still trying to argue a point you should never have made int the first place?(I will also note that there are reasons to suspect that historically Jesus really was in favour of rebellion. And the Olivet Discourse doesn’t really offer much to argue otherwise).

quote:

---

If we're looking for "ways for GDR to be happy" - then I think mentioning the evidence requirement is unnecessary and quite possibly verging on being rude.
If we're looking for "the truth about reality" - then why wouldn't we bring up evidence as it's our best known method to identify the truth about reality? That seems very reasonable

---

The problem is that to make GDR happy we have to pretend that he’s making a diligent search for the truth. We have to pretend that his “evidence” is good, no matter how false it is. We have to pretend his arguments are reasonable no matter how fallacious. We have to ignore the obvious evasions and diversions. And we certainly mustn’t mention that he’s desperately looking for excuses to pretend his beliefs are true, without any concern for the facts.

quote:

---

Wrong on both counts. It simply predicts what the Romans will do. Daniel makes the point that it isn't just about the Jews but about all nations.

---

Well you are wrong on both counts. And Daniel is rather clear that the rest of the Diadochi kingdoms will also fall.

quote:

---

Daniel again is not about the Jewish situation regarding the Romans but about the world.

---

Odd then that you are replying to a comment about Mark.

quote:

---

When you go to Daniel 7 the one like a Son of Man is given dominion over an earthly Kingdom that will never be destroyed, 13:20 refers back to Deut 30:4 indicating that this Kingdom ill be drawn from all nations.
​

---

Which simply evades the point that divine intervention is expected. And if Daniel is followed the Elect would be Jews.

quote:

---

No, it's more that I worded it poorly. The point is that when the Temple is destroyed, and along with it the corrupt Temple authorities, then through that they could have understand that the "Kingdom of Heaven", (Kingdom of God in other Gospels), had been established. Remember the Lord's Prayer when it says "Thy Kingdom come on Earth as in Heaven".
​

---

And it is still the case that neither Mark or Daniel make that claim.

quote:

---

Zechariah 14 is a prediction, (that is never fulfilled), about the nations gathering together against Jerusalem and then God coming in and redeeming it. It's not about end times.

---

It very much is. Compare with Daniel, and note that Daniel 8 is explicitly a prophecy of the end times (and it’s about the Maccabean revolt, too as can quite easily be worked out).

quote:

---

The Romans were the brutal occupiers. Why would Jesus be referring to anyone else? His reference to Daniel is to make the point that violent revolution was going to have serious consequences.

---

Because you have the point of it wrong - and the reference to Daniel with it’s support for revolt is part of that. The point is not just that bad things are coming but that God will intervene to set 3verything to rights - including, in my view, the destruction and replacement of the Temple and the Temple priesthood.

quote:

---

OK, but divine intervention was simply about establishing a Kingdom without Earthly boundaries. It was about a Kingdom within physical kingdoms marked by those who follow Christ's message of peace and love.

---

That’s how you interpret it. That doesn’t mean that is what it meant - and Daniel is a really odd choice if you are right.

quote:

---

It is in the connection that Jesus makes in the Olivet Discourse connecting the destruction of the Temple as being the confirmation of Daniel 7.

---

The fact that you assume a connection without adequate reason is hardly sufficient. I will point out, however, that although Daniel does not feature the destruction of the Temple - but it does include its purification and reconsecration. Which fits rather nicely with my interpretation (especially with the hostility to Herod).

quote:

---

The Jews talked about "the end of the age" which was a reference to their political situation. The Maccabean rebellion was the end of the Seleucid age.

---

Oh, no it is more than that.Daniel 12:1-2

quote:

---

If you're referring to Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke21, I did a search and the string of letters "Roman" doesn't appear even once in any of these passages. You must think you see some kind of indirect reference. Can you describe it for us?

---

I have been asking him for that for some time. There isn’t. The best he managed to do was assert that it was because the Romans did destroy the Temple. And yet he denies that it was either a supernatural prophecy or written after the event, so that makes no sense either.

quote:

---

Yes Daniel is talking about the reconstruction of the Temple after God intervenes.

---

Reconsecration, not reconstruction.

quote:

---

. The Temple was believed to be the place where Yahweh dwelled. Jesus is saying that the rebellion will lead to the destruction of the Temple but God was rebuilding the Temple in Himself and in the hearts of those who serve His message..

---

This is not present in the text at all. Thee fact that your opinions contradict mine is not a reason to think that mine are incorrect.

quote:

---

I agree that isn't what Daniel had in mind. The reference to Daniel is simply about His prediction of the destruction of the Temple as well as the replacement of the Temple through Him. They simply feed into His Kingdom message.

---

Daniel does NOT predict the destruction of the Temple. You can’t interpret allusions to scripture by deciding what you want them to mean, without regard to what the scripture actually says,

quote:

---

The destruction is referred to in Daniel 9:17-18. Yes Daniel is looking for the rebuilding of the Temple but Jesus is saying Yahweh is rebuilding the Temple, but not as a building, but through Himself.

---

That is part of the situation in the supposed time of Daniel. It is not the part alluded to by Jesus. Don’t make the mistake Buzsaw did of assuming that I will not check your references. I am not so easily deceived.

quote:

---

Yes Daniel in this passage is talking about the life to come but he doesn't use the term "end of the age". The term "end of the age" is probably more clearly understood as the "end of an era".

---

Nevertheless it is a part of the “end of an age” - as you put it - that Daniel predicted. Your attempt to write it off as just the end of a historical era is obviously incorrect.

I note that you’re replying to a post you have already replied to once.

quote:

---

I agree that Daniel thought that the Temple would be rebuilt.

---

We don’t agree on that. Daniel price that the Temple will be reconsecrated.

quote:

---

Jesus agreed but disagreed with it being a physical Temple but a Temple in Himself and in the hearts of those who follow

---

That’s your opinion, got any textual support for it?

quote:

---

I only referred to Daniel 9 as an indication that passages in the Gospels were about an earthly event, (the destruction of the Temple), and not about an end times event.

---

Daniel 9 is an End Times prophecy.

quote:

---

The connection is the fact that Jesus referred to Himself often as the "Son of Man" which the early Jews would have understood in reference to Daniel 7.

---

Which assumes that that misinterpretation of Daniel was already widespread. Got any evidence for that?

quote:

---

Daniel would have writing from his understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. and I understand it takes a view that combines renewal in his time and then extends it to eternal life. Daniel is saying that the righteous dead will be resuscitated in their earthly bodies, (as opposed to resurrected) and that it has eternal ramifications.
​

---

The general resurrection referred to by Daniel is an End Times event, and it is also an earthly event, (And it did not happen on Daniel’s schedule or Jesus’). Daniel 11-12 is largely an elaboration of preceding prophecies in Daniel, and the resurrection immediately follows the Tribulation which you equate with the Jewish revolt.

quote:

---

But the author had to get him to Bethlehem because that was where King David had lived and to do it he had to invent a non-existent census and donkey journey

---

Or refer to the actual census of Judaea, held after Archelaus was deposed (and Quirinius was in charge of that one). The only problem is that Matthew has Jesus born before Archelaus even took the throne - and Archelaus reigned for 9 years.Of course, Luke still didn’t give a valid reason for Joseph to go to Bethlehem for the census.

quote:

---

You know that I will say that I prioritize #1 as well even if you don’t think that is the case.

---

Well, we know that you prioritise what you want to be true over finding the truth. And in fact this is another example of exactly that.

quote:

---

Which of course is based on the fact that I don't agree with you.

---

Which is based on the fact that you tell obvious falsehoods. Band defend them past all reason.Want to explain why the third person is evidence of authorship? No, the fact that some authors use the third person when referring to themselves is not nearly enough - for reasons that should be obvious.

quote:

---

I would agree treating others decently is a base line. Why isn't the base line the evolutionary base line of the survival of the fittest?

---

Because of evolution. You have no excuse for ignoring the repeated corrections on this point. If you actually cared about the truth you would have at least done a basic investigation of the idea.Indeed you would have done so before misrepresenting the selfish gene as a version of “original sin” (and pointlessly so). But then again that’s just another example of your insistence on trampling on the truth to support your beliefs.So stop lying to yourself. Admit that your extreme bias is a problem that undermines your claims to rationality. Start really caring about the truth.

quote:

---

You guys have all sorts of theories of how empathy and altruism exist. Where is the physics in that.

---

Well that’s at least a double evasion, completely ignoring the point I made and dodging the point AZPaul was making, too. Which just further demonstrates your lack of interest in the truth.The physics is, of course, there but it’s really no surprise that physics is involved in the actual help physical beings give each other. It just isn’t a useful thing to mention (see Douglas Hofstadter on “greedy reductionism” in Gödel, Escher, Bach for one part of the problem).