Comments
398,341 - 398,360 of 441,107 Comments Last updated 6 min ago

“GO CARDS!!!!!”

Since: May 08

Russell Springs

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421825
Nov 21, 2012
 
Happy Thanksgiving Y'all

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421826
Nov 21, 2012
 
Resurrectionologist wrote:
To HipGnosis:
Also,(I failed to mention in my previous post) the dating of the Gospel of John is now in dispute in many church circles as well as secular circles as well.
I hold the view that all 4 gospels were written prior to the 70A.D. destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. I don't hold this view just because early dating favors events as more likely to be historic.
I hold this view because of a curious omission in all 4 gospels.
In the account described in Matthew 24:2, Jesus is in the Temple complex with the disciples who are marveling at the buildings. Jesus tells them in a prophecy;
But he responded, "Do you see all these buildings? I tell you the truth, they will be completely demolished. Not one stone will be left on top of another!" -Matthew 24:2 (NLT)
(Unless otherwise noted, I use the New Living Translation (NLT) as it is accurate and consistent with the earliest Greek texts in my experience.)
Now, with regard to the above prophecy, there isn't one single account in the Bible that speaks of the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 A.D. from a historical perspective. Not one single past tense narrative anywhere in the NT. I think this prompts a very important question that currently can only be answered by speculation from the skeptical community.

If this prophecy by Jesus was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, then why didn't John or any of the others point to it and declare it as a fulfilled prophecy? Don't you think that would have been a very convincing argument for the advancement of Christianity? That would basically be a golden "I-told-you-so!" opportunity for the gospel writers.

So why is it missing if the gospels were written late? It wouldn't be omitted if it were available, and the only plausible reason I can see for that omission is that it hadn't been written about historically because it hadn't happened yet! I think that has enormous ramifications that significantly challenge the skeptical worldview. If you have a better explanation I'm certainly open to discussion.
IF I were writing a gospel AFTER the fact, but presenting it as being written before, I might think to put this prophecy in Jesus' mouth. Now, having done so, wouldn't I be giving myself away if I then wrote, "and it happened just as Jesus prophesied"?

We've got another small problem - Jesus' alleged prophecy says the Temple will be, "...completely demolished. There shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Have you heard of the Wailing Wall? I ask you, what good is a prophecy if it only kinda comes true?

An article in the Journal of Biblical Studies makes the the point that Matthew and Luke must have been written after the siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it.(Luke 21:20, Matt. 24:15)

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421827
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
But that's the part you're missing. Every time a prophecy is historically fulfilled in the Bible, we see an author saying it has been fulfilled. The OT prophecy from Zechariah 9:9 of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on the donkey is a clear declaration of a fulfilled prophecy in all four gospels. You can smack yourself in the face all you want with your face-palms, but it's not me that "doesn't get it." It's the opposite. Sorry about that. I can't force you to be correct.
Oh man. Ya hadda go there eventually, I 'spose.

This "fulfillment" is one of the worst cases, among several, of anony-Matthew totally butchering Hebrew scripture.

Yet another example of Matthean Messianic ballyhooey. This one contains several of the elements that make NT Messianic prophecy so phun and prophetable.

Zechariah 9:9b "See your king comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

Now this is a Messianic prophecy, for sure, according to the Jews (while Isaiah 7:14 is not), but as is done with so many Christian claims, it is actually part of a much larger series of prophecies about a future Davidic king. Why it is that more people don't at least think it odd that Jewish prophecy goes on for stanza after stanza, page after page, while Christian "prophecy" are always these little snippets and bon mots scattered throughout Hebrew scripture like plastic Easter eggs, full of hi-sugar content but low on nutrition, all hidden amongst a wealth of interesting but inconsequential chaff?

In this instance, Matthew shows the character Jesus instructing his disciples to go get a donkey. The first thing we have to ask is, is it a prophecy fulfilled when you purposely stage the fulfillment?

But beyond that, let's look at how artlessly Matthew butchers the meaning of Zechariah. Zechariah reads,
"...riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey."

And what does Matthew do with it?

Matt. 21:7 "They brought the donkey AND the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on THEM." (emphasis mine)

Matt has Jesus' people gather up a donkey AND a colt, and then, not certain which one to set him on, Matt just goes for broke and sets Jesus on BOTH!

See, we've seen before how the author that calls himself Matthew is totally clueless when it comes to the poetry and prose of Hebrew scripture. Zechariah uses the very common literary technique of repetition in his description of the donkey colt. Matthew totally mis-reads it and assumes Zech is writing of two different critters, a donkey AND a colt, leading to the wholly inexplicable scene of Jesus astride BOTH of them, like some kind of Holy Lipizzaner circus act.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421828
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
In my view, the gnostics were suppressed because they were wrong. Period.
According to who? Do you think you're going to find an American Revolutionary writer saying, "Of course the British were right the whole time." The winner gets to say what is, and what ain't. In the case of the Bible, you're merely accepting what has been passed down to you by the winners.

I can see where you'd have a problem with Judas, Mary, or some of the others.

But you say you've read Thomas. What is "wrong" about it?

What of the passages in the Synoptics that read almost verbatim with parallel passages in Thomas? If one is wrong, aren't they all wrong?

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421829
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

2

HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>IF I were writing a gospel AFTER the fact, but presenting it as being written before, I might think to put this prophecy in Jesus' mouth. Now, having done so, wouldn't I be giving myself away if I then wrote, "and it happened just as Jesus prophesied"?
We've got another small problem - Jesus' alleged prophecy says the Temple will be, "...completely demolished. There shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down." Have you heard of the Wailing Wall? I ask you, what good is a prophecy if it only kinda comes true?
An article in the Journal of Biblical Studies makes the the point that Matthew and Luke must have been written after the siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it.(Luke 21:20, Matt. 24:15)
I looked up both Luke and Matthew. Both are narratives of the prophecies. Neither one of them are writing about present events.
My point is that if there were any historical reference to the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem, it is much more likely that the gospel authors would have actually written it into their gospel accounts than not.

Also, the Wailing Wall forms the base of the Temple complex, and not the inner sanctuary. The part of the temple that Jesus and the disciples were discussing were the upper buildings.

And regarding the donkey prophecies that I used as an example, my point is that the authors included it as a reference to a fulfilled prophecy from a historical standpoint. They didn't do this with the 70 A.D. destruction. Why? Because it hadn't happened yet. It would be in the gospels if they were written AFTER the destruction.

See?

Evangelical apologists like myself won't always be correct, but we'll be far more correct and much more often than our skeptical competition.

Yeah, yeah I know, I know. You disagree. I wouldn't expect any less.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421830
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

2

HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>According to who? Do you think you're going to find an American Revolutionary writer saying, "Of course the British were right the whole time." The winner gets to say what is, and what ain't. In the case of the Bible, you're merely accepting what has been passed down to you by the winners.
I can see where you'd have a problem with Judas, Mary, or some of the others.
But you say you've read Thomas. What is "wrong" about it?
What of the passages in the Synoptics that read almost verbatim with parallel passages in Thomas? If one is wrong, aren't they all wrong?
Thomas is not a narrative like the other gospels. Thomas is a list of sayings of Jesus, some of which are questionable. Anybody could write down a list of alleged sayings. When we look at the Canonical gospels, we see they are primitive attempts to write biographies. They aren't biographies in the modern sense mind you, but rather long passion narratives. At least that's the way I read them. That's just my take on it, and why I feel GoThomas isn't authentic enough to be included. Look at any web page that deals with quotations. Anybody can compile a list. Not anybody can write a biography without some eye witness credibility.

Anyways, it's been nice sparring with you. I'm taking a few days off.

I've found another forum that needs some correcting. Now I know how NYC firefighters feel. Put out one fire, and go put out another one.
All in a day's work.

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421831
Nov 21, 2012
 
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I have studied them. That's why I said GoThomas is closer than all the rest, but still not falling into the criteria specified by the Council of Laodicea.
"but still not falling into the criteria specified by the Council of Laodicea."

Why do you believe those men over what Jesus stated?

“What are you looking at?”

Since: Jan 08

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421832
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read GoThomas, GoPeter, & GoJudas.
None of these are consistent with the canonical gospels.
We each see this differently. AT this point we have to part ways. I think I'm right, and you think you're right. We're just going to have to agree to disagree because neither of us is going to concede. Have a happy Thanksgiving.
Of course they are not consistent with the canon - you can thank men for that.

But it still doesn't discount the fact that they include teachings by Jesus, that you refuse to accept, now do they?

Do you always believe men in what they tell you to believe?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421833
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Resurrectionologist wrote:
Thomas is not a narrative like the other gospels. Thomas is a list of sayings of Jesus, some of which are questionable. Anybody could write down a list of alleged sayings. When we look at the Canonical gospels, we see they are primitive attempts to write biographies. They aren't biographies in the modern sense mind you, but rather long passion narratives. At least that's the way I read them. That's just my take on it, and why I feel GoThomas isn't authentic enough to be included. Look at any web page that deals with quotations. Anybody can compile a list. Not anybody can write a biography without some eye witness credibility.
Anyways, it's been nice sparring with you. I'm taking a few days off.
I've found another forum that needs some correcting. Now I know how NYC firefighters feel. Put out one fire, and go put out another one.
All in a day's work.
So called secret sayings make it questionable and perhaps proto gnostic.
13. Thomas. Master my mouth is incapable of saying who you are like. Then Jesus speaks three words to Thomas. Thomas returns to his companions who asked what Jesus said. If i tell you one of the words which he spoke to me, you will pick up stones and throw them at me. And fire will come from the stones and burn you up.

22 is a real tongue twister. When you make the two one, the inner the outer the outer the inner, the upper the lower and the male the female into a single one (Marriage? Who knows since the whole thing is non narrative!) so that the male is not a male and the female is not a female, when you make eyes in the place of an eye, and hand in place of a hand and foot in place of a foot, and image in place of an image then you shall enter the kingdom of heaven.

74. Lord there is many standing at the drinking trough but no one is at the well.

105. He who knows father and mother shall be called son of a harlot.

Then there is 114 which i will not bother about making poor Mary into a male so she can go to heaven.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421834
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> So called secret sayings make it questionable and perhaps proto gnostic.
Secret sayings? How about 2 Corinthians 12:3 where Paul is oddly speaking of himself in the third person: "And I know that this man whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell."

Hmmm, I guess that makes Paul questionable and proto-gnostic too.

And then there's that Jesus, always making with the parables! Too many to list here, but here's his comment about them,

And the disciples came, and said unto Him, Why do you speak unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto YOU to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them it is NOT given.(Matt 13:10-11)

So, Paul and Jesus both spoke of "secret sayings". By your vague definition, that makes them both "questionable and proto-gnostic".

We could list a series of parables here, and I'll bet dollars to donuts that between the two of you, we'd get two different "interpretations" of the bulk of them, proving that the meaning is "hidden" from at least one of you.

Neither of you have yet to give a sound reason that makes one "canon" and the other not, except that's the way some dudes whose names you don't even know said 1700 years ago that's the only books they wanted you to read 1700 years later.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421835
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

SatansDaughter wrote:
Happy Thanksgiving Y'all
Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours..Hope you have a wonderful holiday.

“Hello Darlings!”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421836
Nov 21, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
Truth is consistent; you have just admitted that those four different versions for four different audiences were deliberate falsehoods.
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really.
Each of these inspired writers bears his own unique witness
concerning the gospel of Jesus Christ
They were not witnesses to his birth, life, testimonies and death. They all conflict with each other. They reported hearsy, and nothing more.

“Hello Darlings!”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421837
Nov 21, 2012
 
Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you get to question other's faith if they don't share yours, don't you?
What motivates you to impose your religious beliefs on others?
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't question other's faith. I invite others to see what my faith has to offer and to add to their faith.
In order to live in compliance with your "god' word," you deny others their faith by claiming that yours is the "one and only true" faith.

“Hello Darlings!”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421838
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Before I go any further...

People, please. I understand tomorrow is Thanksgiving, and I understand you will be wanting to share some of your dinner with your four-footed family members. If you must, make cetain that you give them *meat,* and not *skin* from your holiday birds; the skin is as bad for them as it is for us. And please, please, please, PLEASE wrap those bones securely and take them straight out to the trash so dogs and cats cannot get at them. Let's all try to avoid Thanksgiving night veterinary emergencies, okay? Think ahead, and protect your pets.

Besides, you really don't want to spend your night in veterinary clinics and paying that extra emergency fee, do you?

“Hello Darlings!”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421839
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Kaitlin the Wolf Witch wrote:
Mr Wiggley wrote (to waaasssuuup):
<quoted text>
Religion does not even fully recognize the rights of women even today. You lie to cover for your religion and that's not nice.
<quoted text>
Why do you refuse to admit that christianity is a religion?
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
The world's greatest champion of woman and womanhood is Jesus the Christ.
Oh, bullshit.

Now, why do most christians refuse to admit that christianity is a religion?

“Hello Darlings!”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421840
Nov 21, 2012
 
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>No, you don't invite, you impose.
Here's a sample invitation, "Hey, who'd like to see what my faith has to offer?" Then you wait and see if anyone takes you up on your invite.
I wouldn't put anything off while you wait....
Sambrotherofnephi wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, here is a sample invitation I have used: Hi, we are looking for people who are seeking to make changes in their life that will bring them closer to Jesus Christ and make them happier. Are you one of these people?
If "no," then you leave them alone.
No.

I know your con game. I don't want your jesus.

Now, leave me alone.

“Hello Darlings!”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421841
Nov 21, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

New Age Spiritual Leader wrote:
<quoted text>
So you accept the decisions by other men, for what you are to believe.
I understand.
But why? What do these other men have that Jesus didn't, since you've decided to disregard those teachings by Jesus?
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that the Gnostic gospels were written by anyone even remotely close to Jesus and His disciples....
You still haven't told me what your god expects to gain by punishing people for all eternity with burning agony and flames for the thought crime of disbelief. In contradiction to your own buybull, you tried to pass off such punishment with your own personal interpretation by calling it a metaphor.

If that's the case, then you are obligated to state right up front that the bible, like Captain Barbossa's pirates' code, is more what you'd call guidelines rather than the "literal and infallible word of god."

Are you prepared to admit that?

“Hello Darlings!”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421842
Nov 21, 2012
 
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
You must have me confused w/ somebody else. I have never claimed to be catholic. I reject catholicism. I was raised in a catholic household, but I didn't accept catholicism. I floated between deism and agnosticism in my younger years. Only recently (within the last 5 years) have I turned towards progressive evangelical protestantism.
Whose roots are in Catholicism.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421843
Nov 21, 2012
 
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
But that's the part you're missing. Every time a prophecy is historically fulfilled in the Bible, we see an author saying it has been fulfilled.....
You need to read the Bible. Maybe talk to a few Rabbis and historians.

Most of the stories are ex post facto. Esp. Isaiah which is a history written in a 'prophetic' style and has nothing to do with events in the 1st cent.

They are more of a "I told you so." than anything else.

“Hello Darlings!”

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421844
Nov 21, 2012
 
T-Town Clown wrote:
The christians are winning... the non-belivers are goofy
Still living in your own little world, are you?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Come on Toshi Sanyo 4 min you are so good 4
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 min BenAdam 599,556
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 6 min Lost In Transition 172,976
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 7 min KiMare 94,412
God says in the Bible to cook the dead and eat. 11 min Carl Bowen 1
Wake up, Black America!! (Sep '13) 13 min Senecus 2,208
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 17 min Catcher1 730,452
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 18 min RoSesz 537,228
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 27 min Dr_Zorderz 259,347

Search the Top Stories Forum:
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••