Choosing a faith

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. 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. 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. You mean like everybody else here.

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. 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. 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. You mean like everybody else here.

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. 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. 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. You mean like everybody else here.

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.

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. 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. 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.

I agree that Daniel thought that the Temple would be rebuilt. Jesus agreed but disagreed with it being a physical Temple but a Temple in Himself and in the hearts of those who follow and faith in His command to love. 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. 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. 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.Interestingly enough of course there was no one brought back from the dead after the city's deliverance from Antiochus.

Of course. No Christian would argue that Jesus wasn't an historical figure, however it seems that few non-Christians argue that position. We don't know that. Bauckham the historian in his book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses writes that John and Matthew were eye witnesses and that Luke and Mark had considerable contact with eye witnesses. The gnostic Gospels were written much later that the 4 we have and primarily they were trying to separate Jesus from His Judaic roots. In addition many of them presented a docetic and Platonic view of Jesus, denying His humanity and with the Platonic vision of leaving this evil world behind for some form of spiritual world. They present a very separate religion. Of course they are. Well as a joke I often say that the only person who has their theology 100% right is me. The trouble is my understanding of things continue to evolve. I don't want to get going down this road again but it is a belief for me and in spite of what you all say I find that there is sufficient historical evidence, (knowing that you guys don't even consider it evidence), to support my beliefs,I know I have used this before but I very much relate to this statement by CS Lewis,

quote:

---

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.

---

What evidence would that be. How in a strictly material world can there be any evidence for something other that the material world which we perceive. I would also suggest that science does go beyond the material world with theories of other dimensions etc. We can't examine anything beyond the material other than things like dark matter which has a physical impact on our material world. I don't agree except I do agree with the assumption part in that my views on issues continue to evolve so my assumptions change.Evidence can't necessarily be shown to be valid. To do that you need proof. For example in this I see the fact that Christianity arose as a belief in the 1st century. I can't prove that evidence to be valid but at the same time you can't prove it to be invalid. So we are back to assumptions and we come to our own conclusions. We both believe that we are views represent the truth of the issues but we have come to very different conclusions. Partly life experience, partly by what I have read and partly that I simply don't believe that all of those characteristics of this world can mindlessly come out of mindless material. Unless you have proof it then becomes a matter of individual belief about how valid the evidence is. There will be those who consider something to be bordering on proof and others who see a position as being invalid.For example is the Big Bang theory valid? It seems that there is growing uncertainty for that theory. My minimal understanding is that the primary evidence is that the universe continues to expand. (That's all a long ways above my pay grade. ) Whose views are valid? There are things that can't be resolved that simply. For example the difference between right and wrong. Was Robin Hood right or wrong by robbing the rich to give to the poor. Jesus argued against a military revolt where as it appears that the majority of His fellow Jews are in favour. Who was right and who was wrong. How about giving an example of that evidence. What evidence do you have other than blind theories of the first cells. I frankly haven't come to a conclusion of whether God simply set the evolutionary process in motion or whether there was any intervention along the way. (I probably favour the former.) I certainly don't suggest that my beliefs are scientific. As far as a plan is concerned I believe that God's plan is to ultimately wind up in a world where the world universally displays the heart law of the Golden Rule as personalized by Jesus. All we can do is look at what we know. You might read about a horrific situation in some other part of the world, or even about abused animals in our own society. You then decide that you are going to personally do something about it by sacrificing time or resources. Why did you come to that conclusion? It might be that you have evolved into a good guy or it might be that you have been directly or indirectly influenced by an external intelligence or as I would term it the still small voice of God. All you know is that you came to your conclusion. You don't know what influenced you to make that decision. Even if you can say that it was youe dad's influence you don't know what influenced him and so on. How do you show that when all we have to work with is the material. I would still maintain that the existence of life and even sentient life is evidence upon which we can draw our own conclusions but by your definition neither of our conclusions are valid. I've been saying that we should use all of the above, but you and others seem to be only allowing #4.
If we look at #2 I think that you are not regarding it in the proper manner. I see philosophy as not a statement of fact in the way that science does, but as a pointer towards some aspect of life. For example Plato believed that the world we live in is essentially an evil place and that after death we would live a spiritual existence somewhere else. I think that although he seemed to be primarily arguing for a post-lie spiritual existence we can also the look at the concept of the duality of conscious life within a physical body. I'm not arguing for the validity of his argument but I simply want to point out that you can't compare philosophy and science in the way that you have. T Believe me, I am only interested in the truth but also knowing that what I consider to be truth may not be truth at all.

I agree that there is no shortage of empty platitudes emanating from Christian communities. However, just because churches and their members have their failings says nothing about the truth about Jesus or God. For example I have a great deal of difficulty with the views of Faith, (our banished member),and if I had to believe what she believes in order to be Christian, the I would reject Christianity as well. Maybe it should have been the church you rejected and not God. That's hardly the point. Thank you. As part of that BTW it also then seems to me that if God is the source of life itself then the resurrection of Jeus isn't that much of a stretch. (I'm not claiming that as evidence as it isn't.) Sure it boils down to faith. However we all have a world view with which we interact with others. Everyone on this forum then argues to support that world view and science is one of the realities we can turn to. I know who Lee Strobel is but I haven't bothered to read him, but I don't see why atheists should be able to argue from science and theists not be able to.

Just to let you know I'm not ignoring you but I was tied up over Christmas and now I'm off to the US for a wedding.
Happy New Year to all

Hi Percy
I have been away and was very busy over the whole Christmas period. It seems that you are essentially closing the the thread and along with the fact that it has seldom been on topic anyway I think that unless someone has something specific they want me to answer I'll maybe spend some time looking at other threads. I did read all of the responses as I received them via email.
Happy New Year to all.

I'm still short of time. The problem is that I get so many replies that it is hard to keep up and to keep sorted what I replied to and what I didn't. Also there is a shortage of theists on this site and so I get it that I attract a fair bit of attention. I don't intentionally skip posts although not all posts require a response IMHO. I just read it as an indication that there wasn't a lot more to be said. I started the thread to discuss similarities within different religions, and to promote the the thought that what matters is not ythe religion or the name assigned to a deity that matters but the character or nature of the God we worship which of course extends into a call if any on our lives. In other words we can serve God/Yahweh/Allah etc and still be worshipping or serving the same deity. We can also be atheistic and serve the same deity.The thread became about me trying to support the idea of deity, or cosmic intelligence responsible for life, as opposed to materialism. I'm ok doing that, but it wasn't the point that I wanted to make. I'd like to but again today I don't have any more time available. It isn't easy as it isn't just you but several others and in many cases I get more than 1 person replying to what I post. I will get back to it when I can.
Thanks and Happy New Year

That is certainly better than what I usually get called. Thank you.
I would add though that I find Phat open to new views or to changing existing ones. He puts a lot of thought into them and expresses them well. I think in some ways he uses this forum as a sounding board which is a good thing. Sounds good to me. Well the obvious question is necessary for what.It seems that most theists align themselves with some religion or other. I am a Christian and yes I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. With that belief I am obviously very interested in Jesus in order to understand the nature of God and what that means for my life.Religion has largely been about getting on the right side of God so that He will be with us in defeating our enemies, (just read the OT) or often more recently how we gat ourselves into a good situation in the next life. In Jesus I came to understand that The God He called Father is loving, forgiving, merciful and just. The call on our life then is to emulate that.However, that is not to say that non-Christians can't live guided by those same principles as well.I think that the big problem in western culture is that too many people, both Christian and non-Christian alike see Christianity as focused on being in a good situation in the next life. I don't see that in the Gospels Jesus certainly acknowledges that there is a life to come. With that in mind I suggest that many of the Biblical passages that talk about living in fire etc is more about this life than the next.I think we can all see people throughout history who have quite happily used other s badly in order to benefit themselves. It seems to me that they usually wind up old and grumpy.

Hi Percy
I've combed through a very long series of psts by you and have tried to condense it down into the salient points. It's taken all afternoon and I have done what I can. OK. I made the point earlier that it is clear that The Bible wasn’t written as fiction. It’s an historical book like so many others. Yes, that doesn’t mean that it isn’t completely fabricated, or that there isn’t any truth in it.
So then we can look at other sources to see if there is support for it. We can also consider the rise of the very early church.
There is no physical evidence, other than what is written that can be examined.
So it simply boils down to how much credence do we give the ancient texts. Obviously, in your case you give them very little or no credibility. Here is a site that outlines what constitutes historical evidence. Types of historical evidence One of the statements is this. “All historical sources that have been written are considered written evidence. “. Wrong. It refers back to Daniel 12:11 where it talks about the abomination that causes desolation. Firstly Mark starts off with “when you see” which clearly shows it hasn’t happened yet and again why flee to the mountains, (Masada is by the Dead Sea and hardly in the mountains) if it has already happened? That is the equivalent of walking into a library and reading a book and find that you are in disagreement with it and on that basis reject the other books in the library. The Bible is a library of 66 books by who knows how many authors, written within different eras, different styles, within different cultural circumstances and over hundreds of years. From an amazon site detailing the point of Ehrman’s book Did Jesus Exist
From that site

quote:

---

In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts the question, "Did Jesus exist at all?" Ehrman vigorously defends the historical Jesus, identifies the most historically reliable sources for best understanding Jesus’ mission and message, and offers a compelling portrait of the person at the heart of the Christian tradition.
Known as a master explainer with deep knowledge of the field, Bart Ehrman methodically demolishes both the scholarly and popular “mythicist” arguments against the existence of Jesus. Marshaling evidence from within the Bible and the wider historical record of the ancient world, Ehrman tackles the key issues that surround the mythologies associated with Jesus and the early Christian movement.

---

Maybe you should read it. Prophesy implies divine inspiration. A prediction is simply looking at the situation and forming a conclusion on its outcome. My point was simply that you largely seem to insist that I should understand the Bible as a fundamentalist would, and then argue from that perspective. Christians have generally made the claim that Jesus was wholly man and wholly God. The Gospels have many accounts of Him praying to the Father. However, the Gospels also paint a picture of a man who had a unique connection the one He called Father. However, Jesus was a man who lived with fear, hunger, pain etc, but He also live by faith in the Father, and gained His understanding through the Hebrew Scripture and prayer. The miracles were a response by God to the prayers and faith of Jesus. This is something of connecting verse between two thoughts. Firstly it confirms His message opposing violent revolution and will be the vindication of Jesus as Messiah, (the anointed one of Yahweh), Then it His message is again in reference to Daniel 7 where the “Ancient of Days” establishes the Kingdom, from all corners of the world, with dominion given to the Son of Man. He draws a parallel between this and Moses meeting Yahweh at the top of Mount Sanai after being summoned by a loud trumpet. He wrote that 650 page book, full size not pocket book size, where he outlines the evidence. There is no way and can condense it down into a post here. If you really are interested, which I question, then read the book. (This is not an assignement but just information in case you really are interested. Acts 9:15 to the end of the Chap. Also another occasion in Acts 21. I don’t know where you get that from. I have said that the suffering in the world, particularly from natural disasters, is the most difficult subject we have when arguing for Christianity. Where I do see God in tragedies is in the response of those who sacrificially reach out to help those who suffer. ..and you and others are apologists for antitheism. Materialists believe that sentient life can by chance come from mindless matter without objective evidence. People in that era weren’t necessarily impressed by miracles. Some of the Jews accused Him of being an agent for the evil one. There were multiple stories of miracles. Remember too that each nation had its own set of deities with miraculous stories. [url=miracle - Miracles in the religions of the world | Britannica[]Miracles in various religions[/url] ..and again, the Bible is a library of books and it is not circular to take something from one book as a lens to understanding ad different book. The Bible is not one book but does have an ongoing narrative of the progressive understanding of the nature of God. There should be a barrier between church and state as it is a disaster for both institutions. However, I see that had been used to promote and agenda that the views of those of any religious organization are marginalized and that only secularist views should have influence.

Sorry to take so long to get back to you. That's fine but there are things that we can't show to be valid, such as something as simple as is an external intelligence responsible for life. Our conclusions are influenced by life experience such as the type of parenting received, our teachers and friends and the culture that we live in. Many of our beliefs then become what we choose to believe while realizing that we can't know that what we believe represents reality.I have no doubt that some or even much of what I believe is wrong. I just go with that until I can be given an argument to convince me I'm wrong or find evidence showing I'm wrong. Actually I think that in most cases I have a pretty good idea of who or what influenced my conclusions. I don't really think that way. I simply believe that God does influence us subliminally to do the loving thing, but that is mixed in with all the other influences in our lives. Ok, I'll outline how I see that which is strictly a belief without evidence. I don't believe that satan is an actual entity, but is used strictly as a way of personalising human evil or maybe even shifting the blame. I suggest that human evil stems from the evolutionary term of survival of the fittest, and that our calling as humans is to rise above that, either with or without any particular religious belief. No problem with that. But I do suggest that sitting around thinking does play a part. but also of course it is important to obtain the views of others. But it isn't that simple. There are things that are unknowable but that we come to non-evidenced conclusions that we still believe knowing full well that others will come to an entirely different conclusion. But there are tings that the scientific method can't or hasn't yet answered, and even then scientists speculates, (which is a good thing), about scientific questions and then goes about trying to prove what it is they believe. The problem is that for science to declare a view valid it requires scientific evidence. If there is no scientific way of proving a point to be valid then how else is it done. Philosophy only leads to belief which is also true of the views of GDR or Stile. Firstly science has often declared something to be valid but then later with better science dismisses what had been called valid for a different view. That is a good thing. A philosophical view might direct a scientist to prove his philosophy using the scientific but I'm not sure how it goes beyond that.