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?
There was strong support for a militant revolution with that culture. Who else would they be referring to? There is no need to specify the Romans.
Percy writes:
Jesus also says that "this generation shall not pass away before all these things have happened," and even if we generously define a generation as 35 years then he was wrong. Some of that generation would still be alive when the Temple was destroyed, but Jesus described many other things happening while the current generation still lived, such as that his gospel message would reach the entire world. The reality is that it didn't reach the New World until 1500 years later, and I think that generation was all pretty dead by then
And again, it was a prediction. Certainly there would be many who would have been alive in 33AD who would also have been alive in 70AD. But so what. If His prediction was out by a few years what does it matter.? Again it's a prediction, and actually it is amazing how quickly it did get spread to a huge part of the known world.
Percy writes:
A response should keep the focus on history, no religious apologetics, which at heart is just making up explanations for differences between what the Bible says and the real world, and even for differences between what the Bible says in one place versus another.
I'm not a fundamentalist that insists on an inerrant reading of the Bible. It is a series of books written by different individuals and in different times. Of course I am working at explaining my beliefs but that doesn't make it apologetics. I respond to what I'm asked, and in many cases there is no historical record and when there is you reject it anyway as not having sufficient secondary support.
Percy writes:
Don't like a particular explanation? Just find another apologist.
You mean like everybody else here.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Don't like a particular explanation? Just find another apologist.
GDR writes:
You mean like everybody else here.
Can you point to a single instance of any of us quoting apologists?
We've tried to explain the difference between apologists, theologians, and historians. With the exception of quoting your apologists and theologians right back at you, I'm only interested in what real historians are saying.
I don't think you understand the difference between the categories, but two out of three of them are worthless and the third is dubious at 2,000 years out.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Can you point to a single instance of any of us quoting apologists? We've tried to explain the difference between apologists, theologians, and historians. With the exception of quoting your apologists and theologians right back at you, I'm only interested in what real historians are saying.
I do understand the difference. Here is what defines an apologist.
a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial. "critics said he was an apologist for colonialism"
I quote Wright or Bauckham. You like to quote atheistic or non-Christian apologists. You just don't see it in yourself.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
I do understand the difference. Here is what defines an apologist. a person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial. "critics said he was an apologist for colonialism" I quote Wright or Bauckham. You like to quote atheistic or non-Christian apologists. You just don't see it in yourself.
But you plainly don't.
quote:Christian apologetics (Ancient Greek: ἀπολογία, "verbal defense, speech in defense")[1] is a branch of Christian theology that defends Christianity.[2]
They're people who make up whatever arguments they can to defend their belief. In business and political terms we'd call them spin doctors, lobbyists, diplomats and PR people. They're only interested in historical facts if they help their position.
NT Wright is a Bishop and a theologian. He spends his life interpreting the new testament, he's not doing history.
quote:Nicholas Thomas Wright FRSE (born 1 December 1948), known as N. T. Wright or Tom Wright,[3] is an English New Testament scholar, Pauline theologian and Anglican bishop. He was the bishop of Durham from 2003 to 2010. He then became research professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary's College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland until 2019, when he became a senior research fellow at Wycliffe Hall at the University of Oxford.[4]
Bauckham is an Anglican theologian - that's what he spent his life teaching - but at least his first degree is in history, you should listen to him when he tells you things like the Sermon on the Mount was never a speech given by Jesus.
There are almost no atheist biblical historians but if you're remotely interested in properly exploring the subject you should read those few that do exist for a different view. (I'd recommend Ehrman as he's a real expert, objective, very available and less likely to offend you than Carrier or Price.)
If nothing else it will show you how little evidence is available to actual historians and therefore how much of what is argued is simply motivated speculation.
If you want a short cut, there are two 1 hour discussions between Ehrman and Bauckham here for your Christmas viewing (on a Christian radio station so don't be scared - the interviewer gives a lot more air time to Bauckham.) Notice who uses evidence and who mostly doesn't.
Edited by Tangle, .
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
But you are making secularism the default option. Which I suppose it is...for you. But what about us? Granted secularism is the default in a secular evidence and fact based society. My beef, however, is that if you had an experience, epiphany, intuition or inner unction one or more times that demonstratedly changed your life and worldview without being brainwashed by Religion...since you would have nevergiven religion that opportunity...then what? Are we (secularist psychologists and critics) simply to lump you in as a mild delusional mental case? I beg to differ
My beef, however, is that if you had an experience, epiphany, intuition or inner unction one or more times that demonstratedly changed your life and worldview without being brainwashed by Religion...since you would have never given religion that opportunity...then what?
This argument seems to be saying that if you have a religious experience, it can make you believe in that religion.
This implies that before people have these religious experiences... then they are "secular" as well. This is what I mean what I say that you, too, are making secularism the default option.
If you think a religious experience demonstrates a valid position for belief - that's great, have fun with that.
As a whole, though, our collective best-ways-of-identifying-the-truth-of-reality have shown time and time again that "religious experience" is an awful way to identify the truth of reality, and is almost always very, very wrong in it's conclusions.
Which brings most of us back to the position we both agree is the default and if you'd like to convince others that your religious experience should be persuasive to them... well, that seems like a steep cliff to climb. All we ask for is actual evidence... actually show us that what you're saying is true. Actually engage in what's been proven over and over again to be our best methods to identify the truth of reality.
If you don't want to, or can't do that that... why do you begrudge us not believing you? How overpowering is your arrogance?
I must admit you have a point. You do always make my emoticon blush. Sometimes I go off on rants because I get frustrated with arguments. Im beginning to think, however, that it has more to do with my blood sugar. Looking back on my sensor app, (Libre 2) I see that my blood sugar was rising to a spike of 300 right about the time I went off on AOC and that whole rabbit trail. Though I gotta love data. It explains a lot.
(BTW my average for the last 24 hour period was 170. ) And right now, as I type, my current blood sugar is 128.
I know you argue that that thinking is circular as the place I learn about Jesus is in the Bible. However, it isn't as I'm not using it to prove anything. I accept, at the very least, the essential message of love, forgiveness, kindness etc that Jesus espoused and I also believe that God resurrected Him.
That isn't what you said. The thinking that I labeled circular was when you said you used Jesus to inform you about what parts of the Bible to accept, and of course everything you know about Jesus comes from the Bible. That is classic circular thinking.
Faith and I are a long way apart although I believe that she has a good heart and means well.
Faith uses religion to justify all manner of evil behavior. She thinks the evil comes from somewhere else, but there's a reason she and people like her are at the center of it. I feel it a mistake to interpret her sincerity and devout faith as goodness. More evil has been done in God's name than any other.
I think the big difference is that her Christian focus is on an inerrant Bible while my focus is on Jesus as the one who has perfectly imaged God for us.
The information for your Jesus focus comes from the Bible. You've acknowledged that your views of Bible and Jesus evolve over time. You see your past views as being held in error, but by tomorrow the views you hold today will also lie in the past alongside all your older views. You think you're getting closer and closer to the truth, but just as evolution should be understood as change and not progress, your changing views should be viewed in the same way. There is no final goal for you, only continual change in views.
Sure, but I would just argue that the "God meme' or "the still small voice of God" reaches out to all of us. That part has nothing to do with religion.
As you read my quote of what you said nearly a month after you said it, does it still make sense to you? Are you seriously talking of God while asserting it has nothing to do with religion?
In any case, while I've never liked the term "meme," I of course agree that the concept of God saturates our culture. But for me there is no "still small voice of God."
Where am I doing that? I don't remember ever mentioning either secularism or any default position. But fwiw, secularism SHOULD be the default position; baptising and brainwashing babies should be a criminal offence. If you're so confident in your beliefs, let the kids decide for themselves when they're old enough.
But what about us?
What about you? You guys get on doing what you're doing regardless of how daft it looks to people like me.
Granted secularism is the default in a secular evidence and fact based society.
You prefer a theistic society? History tends to show that doesn't work out well. Luckily we currently live in a reformed society where evidence and method helps us make rational choices that benefit us all. It's the reason that we're not dying of toothache and burning homosexuals and blasphemers. But sure, if you need to do all that grovelling and chanting, no one's trying to stop you - just leave the rest of us out of it.
My beef, however, is that if you had an experience, epiphany, intuition or inner unction one or more times that demonstratedly changed your life and worldview without being brainwashed by Religion...since you would have never given religion that opportunity...then what? Are we (secularist psychologists and critics) simply to lump you in as a mild delusional mental case? I beg to differ
It sounds like you're having one of your turns.
As much as I can make any sense out of that, many religious beliefs would be categorised delusional if they ween't so widely held as to be considered normal. Visions that change your mental state aren't normally seen as good things.
It's not like you all have the same hallucinations and epiphanies is it? How do you explain the visions of other religions? How come your visions are the right ones and those of the devout Muslim flying his plane into tall buildings aren't?
Was John Smith's epiphany right and yours wrong?
quote:The doctrines of Mormonism began with the farmboy Joseph Smith in the 1820s in Western New York during a period of religious excitement which is known as the Second Great Awakening.[10] After praying about which denomination he should join, Smith said he received a vision in the spring of 1820.[11] Called the "First Vision", Smith said that God the Father and his son Jesus Christ appeared to him and instructed him to join none of the existing churches because they were all wrong.[12] During the 1820s Smith chronicled several angelic visitations, and was eventually told that God would use him to re-establish the true Christian church.[13]
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
But you are making secularism the default option. Which I suppose it is...for you. But what about us?
Default is default, period. When you buy Windows, you get default settings, period. Anything that fits your personal preferences is an option.
Phat writes:
My beef, however, is that if you had an experience, epiphany, intuition or inner unction one or more times that demonstratedly changed your life and worldview without being brainwashed by Religion...since you would have nevergiven religion that opportunity...then what?
Been there, done that, the T-shirt doesn't fit any more, answered your question more than once.
Grew out of it.
Phat writes:
Are we (secularist psychologists and critics) simply to lump you in as a mild delusional mental case?
Please do.
Phat writes:
I beg to differ
Beg all you want. You're still delusional.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
This is all just silly apologetics. We know that there were dozens of apocalyptic jewish cults in 1st century Jerusalem predicting the end times because of previous prophecies. Even Paul thought it would be in his lifetime. Nothing to do with Romans.
From everything I have read end times wasn't a major issue. Most of the 1st century Jews thought that in the end God would in some way look after His people. The Sadducees believed that there was no afterlife.
Tangle writes:
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
Ya, this is the favourite verse of those that believe in the rapture. Firstly Paul's point was responding to those who were concerned about their dead ancestors. Paul is saying that there is no need to worry and that it is for everyone dead or alive.
In the both the OT and the NT clouds are used to represent the presence of God including God leading them with a pillar of cloud in the Exodus story. God spoke to Moses from a cloud etc.
Also in Daniel 7 with see the Son of Man coming in the clouds to the Ancient of Days.
Yes, I agree that Paul thought that Jesus would return at the climax of time and even in his lifetime. The resurrection changed end times thinking completely as Jesus was resurrected after the crucifixion. As Jesus' resurrection had occurred in his life time Paul assumed that the end was near. Paul got it wrong.
Tangle writes:
We keep quoting Matthew but of course it's also in Mark. The actual words The Arrival of the Son of Man 24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, ‘the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.’f 26 And then they will see the Son of Man arriving in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels, and will gather theg elect together from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of heaven. The Parable of the Fig Tree 28 “Now learn the parable from the fig tree: Whenever its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also you, when you see these things happening, know that he is near, at the door. 30 Truly I say to you that this generation will never pass away until all these things take place! 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
Firstly you have pulled these verses out of Chap 13. When you read it in the context of the whole chapter then you are right it couldn't be clearer and it turned out that He predicted it accurately.
quote:5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. 9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.
Jesus is saying that there will be other messianic movements that will lead them to war against Roman occupation. He is saying that those who oppose the armed rebellion will be persecuted.
quote:12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
If you read Josephus you will see that a bag part of the reason that Jerusalem fell was that the opposition to Rome was badly divided that the various factions were also at war with each other which would pit brother against brother and so on.
The apocalyptic language of stars falling etc denotes the disaster that will befall the Jewish nation.
Vs 26-27 is again a reference to Daniel 7 when Jesus will have been shown to be right so they will understand that He has come on the clouds to the Father and established a Kingdom of those who follow His message of l;ove and peace.
The fig tree passage you quoted has Jesus saying that this desecration will happen relatively soon but that in all of that Yahweh is still near and that out of what is left there will ne a new day for the Jewish nation.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Yes, I agree that Paul thought that Jesus would return at the climax of time and even in his lifetime.
Yes he did. As did Mark and Matthew. As did dozens of messianic cults that were around at the time all trying to make Daniel and Isiah happen.
The resurrection changed end times thinking completely as Jesus was resurrected after the crucifixion.
It was the death of Jesus that changed everything. It turned out that he was just human after all, not the saviour warrior god they all hoped for and predicted.
Firstly you have pulled these verses out of Chap 13.
Yeh, quoting stuff directly from the bible is cheating isn't it?
When you read it in the context of the whole chapter then you are right it couldn't be clearer and it turned out that He predicted it accurately.
So, did they all miss this bit then? I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed.
And then they will see the Son of Man arriving in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels, and will gather theg elect together from the four winds, from the end of the earth to the end of heaven.
What you're doing is apologetics.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine.
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
Though I gotta love data. It explains a lot. 
™ Version 4.2
(1)