Choosing a faith

quote:

---

I agree with that but you are answering my response to what you had said earlier about Luke using Matthew

---

But as I said that is not a problem. Matthean priority is all about Matthew being written before Mark.

quote:

---

Certainly the Jewish expectation for a messiah was for an earthly throne but Jesus rejected that idea. I'm not saying that Jesus didn't talk about the next life but I was responding to your quote, as well as the quote by Tangle which is simply two different guys giving their accounts of what Jesus said.

---

It’s not really clear what Jesus actually thought. And in standard Christian views Jesus will rule - the Messianic stuff is all postponed until the Second Coming.

quote:

---

I have no idea whether or not the authorities were after them If I had to guess I would think that they weren't. The point is that the disciples thought that they might be.

---

And my point is that fear goes away as soon as it is clear to them that the authorities aren’t after them. Since they aren’t. Really the whole argument is dubious psychologising - which doesn’t even take account of the stories we have.

quote:

---

Yes and he did so by inventing Q and discounting the work of all the early Christians and that was still true right up until his time. There are as you know other arguments for Luke using Matthew that don't require the invention of an unevidenced document

---

It is not as if the early Christians seem to have done a out of work to ensure the accuracy of their claims - or even that their claims are entirely clear. And indeed, you discount the claims about Mark. So drop the hostility.Interestingly it has come to my attention that Garrow proposes that the Didache is Q, so perhaps it is neither lost nor invented.

quote:

---

Also, Streeter claims that Mark was written about 70AD and then Matthew was completed in 80 to 90AD. This makes no sense at all. If Matthew was that late it would hardly have not included any mention of the destruction of the Temple. Also much of it was about the Jesus' argument against the Temple authorities which no longer existed by that time.
​

---

It is your argument that makes no sense. First there is no need to mention an event so widely known. Second, separating the Christians from the Jews would point to a later time of writing, not earlier, when Christianity had ceased to be a Jewish sect.

quote:

---

The position that any of the synoptics would be written after 70 AD simply doesn't make any sense either internally or externally.

---

It makes no sense that the Olivet discourse would be rewritten to better fit events until after the events had happened - yet we see exactly that in Luke. But that is what we see. How can you deny that?

quote:

---

The only evidence is what the church fathers wrote. However, as far as the argument for matthean priority goes it is inconsequential.

---

So, we have no real evidence that the Aramaic document referred to by Papias has any connection to the Gospel associated with Matthew.

quote:

---

Why, is it because it doesn't fit in with your position.

---

Because it simply associated Q with Markan priority, ignoring the arguments for Q and ignoring the Farrer hypothesis.

quote:

---

You left out the part of the kingdom which implies a throne.

---

I think that “rule over the people of the Earth” is adequate mention of a “kingdom”.

quote:

---

Also the Jewish nation at had two particular hopes for the future. One was the return of Yahweh to their nation and the other was that of a messiah who would be a man anointed by God to lead them against Rome. The Gospels story essentially sees Jesus as fulfilling both of those hopes but in a very different way than what the Jews expected.
​
Jesus used the term "son of man" which combined both hopes.

---

They were already combined. And “son of man” does nothing to combine them.

quote:

---

The Gospel message is that it was both with the earthly kingdom being a kingdom dedicated to bringing Christ's message of peace and love to the world, as we see in the Lord's Prayer where we pray "your kingdom come on earth as in heaven".
​

---

Daniel does not give the “one like a son of man” rule over heaven. Only Earth.

quote:

---

I agree that it reads like a contradiction but it is by two different authors and if Jesus met some in Galilee and some in Jerusalem it could be a different times. I know that is just a speculative answer.

---

Neither account mentions the Disciples splitting up. Both accounts have instructions from Jesus - which contradict. Neither account shows any awareness of the other story - unless it is by deliberate denial (and I think that Luke is deliberately denying Matthew’s story). So I wouldn’t say you had a “speculative answer”, just a false excuse for denying the truth.

quote:

---

Tell me more. This jumped out at me.

---

I’m sure I’ve discussed this before.The Olivet Discourse is the bit where Jesus is asked when the Herodian Temple buildings will be destroyed. Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21. Mark and Matthew are all but identical. Luke is different.Mark and Matthew say that the time to flee is when the “abomination of desolation” shows up. Luke says it’s when armies surround Jerusalem (which is a bit late for anyone in Jerusalem). No “abomination” showed up.Luke says that Jerusalem will be conquered and the inhabitants taken away. Neither Mark or Matthew mention any such thing. Of course the Romans did take Jerusalem and enslave many of the people who were caught there.

quote:

---

I would say that He doesn't say when it will happen for the simple reason He simply doesn't know.

---

In that case Jesus would only be pretending to answer the question instead of honestly admitting that he doesn’t know where in the sequence of events that destruction would actually happen.I don’t think that’s very likely.

quote:

---

It isn't really about fulfilling Daniel but the destruction of the Temple would be a confirmation of it.

---

Since the Temple is not destroyed in Daniel that can’t be true.

quote:

---

Yes I've read Maccabees. It was 100 years of Jewish reign that didn't go as well as the Jewish nation hoped. I really don't get your point.

---

My point is that the Maccabean revolt was an earthly rebellion - even though you said it wasn’t. Daniel is all about the Maccabean revolt as you certainly ought to know with all the research you boast about.

quote:

---

Incidentally it is interesting to note that the 7 brothers all died heroic deaths, talked about an eventual resurrection and yet when they were executed the movement simply died. They had achieved military success, ruled for 100 tears but that was it.

---

This makes no sense. If they ruled for 100 years how can it be that the movement died when the “seven brothers” did? And in fact Judaism is still around and still influenced by those events (eg the celebration of Hanukkah).

quote:

---

Daniel 7 was a prophet who dreamed what is in that chapter.

---

No. The author of Daniel 7 was a supporter of at least the aims of the Maccabean revolt, writing around that time.

quote:

---

Jesus certainly saw Himself in the role of the "Son of Man" as He referred to Himself that way many times.

---

How many times do I have to point this out? The figure in Daniel is implicitly not a son of man. The term usually refers to a human being.

quote:

---

Yes that was the common thinking but it is not how Jesus or the NT writers saw it

---

But obviously you didn’t know about it, or you would have known that there was good reason to run.

quote:

---

But you quote it out of context and ignore the OT reference.

---

I didn’t leave out any relevant context and I pay more attention to the OT references than you do.

quote:

---

Seriously? Are you referring to the ArchAngel Michael?

---

I seriously think that is what the author meant. Which is all I claimed.

quote:

---

I fear that the Jehovah's Witnesses have zombified your brain. If you are going to believe that Michael *could* have existed, why don't you believe the Gospel of John when it is clearly stated that Jesus *was* in the beginning?

---

Since I am not suggesting that Michael actually exists, this is not a very sensible response. And I get the idea from the Book of Daniel, not the silliness of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (eg Daniel 10:21).

quote:

---

You know what keeps you from believing? The critics (like jar) who attempted to demolish the idea of a Virgin Birth.

---

I don’t know how you can think that. The Virgin Birth is hardly that important an issue.

quote:

---

If you are going to bring Michael up, at least be honest enough to realize that Jesus created Michael.

---

You have a very strange idea of honesty. It is my honest opinion that the author of Daniel meant Michael because of the way the Book of Daniel references Michael. At least have the honesty to admit that I might have good reasons for my beliefs - and that I might know the Bible rather better than you.

quote:

---

And GDR was referring to Daniel.(not knowing)

---

GDR was referring to Jesus.

quote:

---

PaulK writes:

​

You will note that despite being asked when the destruction will happen Jesus never actually mentions it in his reply - which leads me to conclude that it is not scheduled until the end of the events. Nevertheless as you can see the point is the fulfilment of Daniel’s prophecy.

​

I would say that He doesn't say when it will happen for the simple reason He simply doesn't know

---

As you can see, it is Jesus who - according to GDR - doesn’t know when it will happen.

quote:

---

I will readily admit that you know the Bible far better than I do. I respect you as a fellow human more than you think. Keep in mind that these arguments are not meant to be personal. I am just engaging in a verbal joust based on what I believe

---

Then I would rather you avoided misrepresentation- as the rules of this forum required - and ignorant mockery,

quote:

---

Well if so, I would say that there were several things that Jesus did not know. He did not know when the end would come, for example.

---

Since Jesus is supposedly answering the question of when the Temple will be destroyed I would expect him to provide an answer or at least admit that he had no idea. Now, I say that the sequence of events he narrates is intended to be an answer - and the destruction comes at the end. Without that, the answer is something of an evasion.So it is not a question of “precisely when” - we get no “precisely when” for any of the events. It is “how does this answer the question?”. I say it does, GDR says it doesn’t (probably because he doesn’t like the answer).

quote:

---

I'm sure curious as to why you would make that claim

---

Because that’s what the Christians did. Jesus will rule - after the Second Coming. The Lost Tribes will return - after the Second Coming.

quote:

---

The messianic movement was very much part of that era

---

And Jesus failed and died, so Christians put off the fulfilment until the Second Coming - which never happened.

quote:

---

And how do you know that the early Christians didn't do a lot of work to support their claims?

---

I said “seem to”, which is entirely proper in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

quote:

---

I have no idea where that remark on hostility comes from

---

Your characterisation of Streeter’s work certainly seemed hostile to me.

quote:

---

The Didache does include some of Jesus' sayings but primarily it was an instruction manual on ho wthe church should be run. It evolved, apparently considerably over a period of time. The sayings of Jesus in the Diadache are just as likely to have come from the Gospels as the other way around. Garrow doesn't seem to have gotten much if any support for His view.

---

The Griesbach hypothesis is something of a minority view, too.

quote:

---

Also Jerome wrote this.

---

Which apparently was NOT about the book we call Matthew, but about the “Gospel of the Hebrews” Jerusalem Perspective

quote:

---

Just off the top of my head:
1/ The destruction of the Temple would have confirmed Jesus' forecast of the event. They would clearly want to have included that.
2/There would be no point to focus as much as they did on His opposition the the Temple culture and authorities as neither still existed after 70AD.
3/This was a major catastrophic event and they could hardly have ignored it, even when it supported their message.
​

---

Far from answering the question of why they would do this given that the destruction was so widely known, the first and third points can be answered by the fact that it was so widely known it would not be necessary. The second is also already answered in my reply.

quote:

---

Well it does. As John said in Chap 1 "the Word became flesh". Jesus the man embodied God's nature and revealed that nature to the world thus embodying the return of Yahweh. He also fulfilled the messianic role but by preaching and teaching non-violent revolution as opposed to a violent one

---

Obviously it is not the phrase itself but Christian theology that does the work. You have just said exactly that.

quote:

---

How many people predicted WWII prior to it happening. Jesus would know, that a revolution was a popular idea, and that a rebellion was going to happen at some point in time. He actually gave it a very wide period of time with His prediction.

---

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.

quote:

---

No, it is simply about the vindication of His message and the confirmation of it, giving His message authority.

---

Well, that is completely meaningless.

quote:

---

Of course it was an earthly event and I don't understand why you thought I said it wasn't

---

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,

quote:

---

However, the Jewish government in the Hasmonean did not bring about what had been hoped for. There ere a number of factions that simply didn't work well together and it was what was essentially a civil war that made it easier for the Herodians, backed by the Romans. to take over and bring that era to a close.

---

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.

quote:

---

Daniel was written near the end of the Hasmonean dynasty and the fact that He is writing the material in Chap 7 is an indication that he wasn't all that happy about things as they were

---

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.)

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

I haven't run across any Christians who didn't think that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. However, Jesus was a messiah who different didn't teach or act in the anticipated way. Messiah was simply the man anointed by God to lead them against their enemies. So yes, from a Jewish POV Jesus didn't do what they expected of Him

---

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.

quote:

---

Not true for the early followers of Jesus

---

I disagree. I think that is EXACTLY what happened.

quote:

---

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

---

Most Christians disagree.

quote:

---

You managed to find one guy with a different perspective on it. Nothing from everybody that I have read suggests that as a possibility to be the case.

---

Maybe you’re reading the wrong guys,Wikipedia on Jerome

quote:

---

You seem to want to read Jewish apocryphal writing as plain language, yet here you want to read something that is in plain language as meaning something altogether different.

---

False on both counts.

quote:

---

By the time of Jerome the Gospels had long been established as Gospels so he is clearly referring to the Gospel of Matthew

---

So the quote from Wikipedia above - apparently the Nazoreans believed the Gospel of the Hebrews to be “the true Gospel of Matthew”.You’re assuming a certainty of identification which is not there.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

I'd say it would be pretty obvious it would occur at or near the end of the revolution. That would be how the Romans would respond to the Jewish revolution.

---

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

quote:

---

The vision is about the establishment of a heavenly kingdom that is for the Earth. However nit is not a kingdom with an earthly king but a heavenly one.

---

The revolt is still earthly.

quote:

---

I hate getting dragged into these discussions as it is ancient Jews using Jewish apocryphal language to paint a picture. It shouldn't be taken to literally but it can be used to paint a picture of sorts to help build an understanding of what the resurrection means for the world. I agree that without the resurrection it all falls apart

---

The Resurrection isn’t even part of this.

quote:

---

With all the success they had the movement simply came to a grinding halt which would have been the case with Jesus' movement without the resurrection.

---

That “grinding halt” goes beyond anything Christianity established in a similar timeframe.

quote:

---

Oh the pain. You are right and I am wrong. I had to read up on it and I took the date of the Maccabean revolt as being the date Daniel was written.

---

The 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.

quote:

---

Firstly, I don't accept the idea that Daniel used supernatural knowledge to write what he wrote, however it was in his words a dream so we can make what we want of that.

---

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

quote:

---

Just the same, Jesus kept using the term Son of Man in reference to Himself so it obviously meant something to Him

---

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.