Choosing a faith

It's not so much the material, although in some cases it is helpful, but the increased understanding of the early Greek and Hebrew languages. You completely ignored the verses prior to that clearly show that this is about a revolutionary war with the Romans.

You are so literal it hurts. You have absolutely no intrinsic insight into scripture, do you?The King invited common people (Gentiles) because the chosen people (Jews) ignored the wedding request.(To marry their Messiah, in effect)The clothes symbolize a covering, much as God needed to sew clothes (a covering) for Adam * Eve after they ate the fruit of knowledge and metaphorically "woke up" to the false fact that they could have the knowledge of their Creator. (which humans will never come close to having)This was why they became aware of their nakedness (lack of covering) and why God sewed them clothes that they previously had no need of. As for the naked guy at the wedding, perhaps he symbolized a commoner with an ego (such as you?) who thought he could come to a wedding little knowing that he was metaphorically the Bride (Bride of Christ) and thought so little of the messenger (despite thinking highly of the message and giving out spare change) and the King cast him out as a symbol and warning to secular humanists who feel no need to commune with nor be covered by a higher power than their chemistry books.

Firstly, the Bible is a library of books written by men for a number of purposes. (In sone cases to justify the evil they were doing.) Most of it though, particularly in the OT was about what they had observed and what Jesus taught. We can look at the Bible as evidence but then we can make up our own minds as to whether or not we accept the Bible as being an historical account.I'll agree that I'm replying to a number of people and it is sometimes difficult to keep everyone else's positions straight. I am trying hard not to be irritating. I would like to see an example of that. If it is a belief it can't be an objective reality. I'm not going to dig through this whole thread to find the quote and as far as I was concerned was that what I wrote was in agreement with what you had posted earlier.So are you saying that the Gospel accounts aren't evidence? Can you then explain why they are not.They are obviously written to be believed as can be attested to by the fact that many at the time and still now do believe the accounts to be accurate to one degree or another.

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.

So? Are you suggesting that the Bible was not made up? Why do you always fail to provide a rational argument that proves that I made it up, rather than deny deny deny? With a chemistry book, you can make a cup of coffee without beans. So what's your point? Most of your Christian friends wouyld likely agree that He was around from the beginning. Only a contrarian with a love of chemistry books would challenge such a belief. The jury is still out on that one.
Must I turn the other cheek? (I will, you know) I tried, but the mirror cracked.
​Will The Real God Please Stand Up?
Message 7
Im wondering what we actually see in this courtroom! Are any naked guys in there?

And how do you know that the early Christians didn't do a lot of work to support their claims? You make these statements without any support. I have no idea where that remark on hostility comes from. You should try sitting on this side of the fence. 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.
However even if he is correct it doesn't impact the dating or the order of the synoptics. Also Jerome wrote this.

quote:

---

Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed. Who translated it after that in Greek is not sufficiently ascertained. Moreover, the Hebrew itself is preserved to this day in the library at Caesarea, which the martyr Pamphilus so diligently collected. I also was allowed by the Nazarenes who use this volume in the Syrian city of Beroea to copy it.

---

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. 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.

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.

We were talking specifically about the passage in Matthew about the second coming.You said that the Dead Sea scrolls gave us a new understanding. I asked "Exactly what information has been revealed about that passage by the Dead Sea Scrolls?"Your answer is none. So please don't throw that chaff anymore. I didn't ignore it, I discarded t as irrelevant. The historical facts are that there were numerous cults around at the time preaching the end times as the 1st century was supposed to fulfil earlier apocalyptic prophecies.According to Josephus there were at least half a dozen messianic cults around preaching it and your Dead Sea scrolls mentions more. It was expected in their life time. You can't honestly negotiate your way out of these facts and the actually words said.​

Because they have no historicity; they fail all evidential tests. We've done this.We don't know who wrote them. They are full of contradictions, They bear all the hallmarks of myth including antecedents. They have no external confirming evidence. There are multiple frauds, redactions, interpolations and political interference in their construction. They were written at least 40 years after the supposed death of the main character by people who never met him let alone witnessed the events. Major elements that are core to the Christian belief are known to have never happened - eg the sermon on the mount. The list is almost endless.If you can find real historicity in there somewhere, please show us.

I wasn't referring to any specific passage but to your comment that there had been 2000 years to figure this stuff out. You are going to believe what you are going to believe but in the context of the whole passage it is clearly about what is going to happen when the revolution comes. Certainly there were other messianic movements during that period however I have never come across any evidence about end times predictions by them or Josephus. Can you give me an example.I do agree that many of the early Christians believed that it would happen soon, and you can still read about people claiming that for today. INHO it, like the first coming, which wasn't at all what people expected and I doubt the 2nd one will be either. My personal opinion for what it is worth, (which is very little I agree), is that it happens individually as we shuffle off this mortal coil.

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. No, it is simply about the vindication of His message and the confirmation of it, giving His message authority. Of course it was an earthly event and I don't understand why you thought I said it wasn't. 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 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. 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.​

Essentially, correct but we can observe that enough people testified about it that the early church was formed in contrast to all of the other messianic movements of the era. Some of the other movements even had some military success but when the Romans executed them their movements always ground to a an immediate halt. This movement didn't end in spite of the humiliating cruel death at Roman hands. Certainly Paul was the greatest evangelist but he was hardly alone. Also of course Paul was under the tuition of the Apostles prior to going to the Roman/Greek areas, that also did include the Jewish diaspora. There is some factual basis in that he clearly describes specifically who the account is about. With the amount of detail given I would say that there is a basis for the story, which I agree could have been fabricated by one of the characters. However, I would still contend that Luke was given that account and believed it. There is a difference between using mindless particles to facilitate consciousness as opposed to evolving from mindlessness. The it is empathy or even just consciousness.

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.

We were talking about the passage in Matthew that tells those listening that the Messiah will return in their lifetime. As the many messianic Jewish cults did at the time. You said that we know more now because of the Dead Sea Scrolls and gave me a pile of apologetics to explain it away. I asked what they have to say about the passage we were talking about and the answer was?
​ I don't believe a word of any of it! It's quite plainly pure myth from end to end. But I am capable of reading what it actually says.
​ I don't have an online source but you'll find it in 'Pseudo-Philo's Biblical Antiquities, the 'Fourth Philosophy' and the Political Messianism of the First Century CE. D Mendels. p261-75. Amongst others. Fill your boots.
​(That and two other references are from 'On the historicity of Jesus' by Dr Richard Carrier which you should read if you haven't already. One of the very few peer reviewed non-Christian biblical authors.Josephus has four messiahs some called Jesus (Joshua). Plus yours, makes at least five. In fact there were probably dozens. In the first century CE. Hence Jesus saying it (allegedly). Not some, the majority of American Christians as I've pointed out. Surely you can see the psychological need here? But you're just making stuff up that you feel comfortable with aren't you? That belief has no biblical basis at all - it's not even apologetics. But that's fine by me, believe whatever you like, our only grievance here is your attempt to evidence your beliefs.

There was no such prophesy .... you've misunderstood the Scripture.
You've also ignored a Scripture such as this one -"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, as a testimony to all nations; and then the end will come (Matt 24:14) -which suggests it could be a long time before the Messiah returns.But you want to believe that the Bible contains falsehoods and false prophecies, so nothing I say will change your closed and darkened mind.