Steven Carr

In this book, NT Wright says that Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple (at an unknown time) because 'it had come to symbolise all that was wrong.

Why then, as late as Acts 5, do the believers all meet at the Temple?

If my leader prohesied that a place would soon be destroyed without warning, would I choose that place as my main meeting place?

If the Temple had been a symbol of all that was wrong with the Jewish religion, why did people choose to meet there?

On a secondary note, reading the early chapters of Acts, I get the impression that Christianity only existed at that time in Jerusalem. In which case the 120 believers mentioned early on, would be the only ones who existed.

So where did the 500 come from , who saw Jesus before the Ascension?

Rymmie1981

Iraneaus(I think that's how to spell his name) says that Jeebus lived to ripe old age(for that time). I love to use parentheses. If such is true, then it would be entirely possible. There are others who know much more about this than I, so I will be silent now.

Vinnie

Yeah but he also accepted traditional authorship and no one accepts that.

Jesus died around 30 years of age.

What evidence does Wright cite that Jesus actually made these predictions?

Vinnie

JoeWallack

JW:
Good points. Related to Jesus' supposed prophecy of the destruction of the Temple, using it as support for the theoryology of "Preterism" has become an important Apology of late. Perhaps the most definite assertion of the Christian Bible is that Jesus was supposed to return SOON. Even Jesus' name is disputed as "Matthew" claims he was supposed to be named "Immanuel" and even the crucifixion is disputed as the Christian Bible also says Jesus was hung. Since the time Christianity stopped simply killing people who raised issues they weren't supposed to raise (this disastrous trend can be traced back to the time of Martin Luther's Pope who foolishly permitted men to speculate on why Church doctrine was correct. Apparently (the) holy spirit never bothered to tell him that once men were permitted to speculate on why Church doctrine was correct they would inevitably also speculate on if Church doctrine was correct) Christianity has increasingly been forced to deal with the apparent problem that Jesus did not return SOON.

The modern apologetic solution for this is "Preterism". Preterism works backwards, as all apologies do, starting with the assumption that Jesus did return SOON, and then trying to explain how this was so. Preterism takes the predictions that Jesus would return SOON in judgment and claims that this happened when the Temple was destroyed. Preterism than claims that any prediction of Jesus returning SOON that doesn't mention judgment is still tied to the predictions that do mention judgement. Preterism then requires the position that the early Christians, such as Paul, didn't understand what Jesus' related predictions about returning SOON really meant, but they do. Preterism is a desperate argument ("Do you think it will work. Hey, it's gotta work better than the truth.") but somewhat better than its predecessor, "In the eyes of the Lord, a thousand years is like one day." (Course the thousand years argument is in the Christian Bible and Preterism is not but X-Uh-Jesus marches on!).

I'm still waiting for Apologists like NT Wrong to do a critical commentary on "Mark" since he acknowledges that "Matthew" likely used "Mark" as a source. Why only do a detailed analysis of the second Gospel that used the first as a source without doing a detailed analysis of the first Gospel? Because he knows that "Mark", long ignored by Christian revisionists, has exponentially more Bible difficulties than "Matthew" and the primary thing such an analysis would do is expose Christians to probable errors in "Mark" they'd never heard about before. This is the same reason Gibson did a movie about the supposed crucifixion and not the supposed resurrection. After Wright does a critical commentary on "Mark" he could then follow up with a commentary on the significance of "Matthew" and "Luke" feeling free to edit their primary source, "Mark".


Joseph

PREDESTINATION, n.
The doctrine that all things occur according to programme. This doctrine should not be confused with that of foreordination, which means that all things are programmed, but does not affirm their occurrence, that being only an implication from other doctrines by which this is entailed. The difference is great enough to have deluged Christendom with ink, to say nothing of the gore. With the distinction of the two doctrines kept well in mind, and a reverent belief in both, one may hope to escape perdition if spared.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

Steven Carr

It's in the Bible??

Steven Carr

Yes, it starts from the assumption that there are no errors in the New Testament, so if Jesus said he was coming back soon, the prophecies must be read to make them come out true.

There is a 'Mark for Everyone' by NT Wright. He does write a lot of books.

One problem with criticising Christian scholars is that they pump out a huge number of books, and criticising the arguments in one is met with the retort that that was covered in another book, and have you read that one?

That would be interesting to read.....

CX

(pssst...it's Irenaeus)

Rymmie1981

You see, I know that, but the medicine makes everything really fuzzy for the first few hours in the morning. Once the fuzziness wears off, though, all I have to worry about is falling asleep on duty.

In anycase, thank you most wonderful CX. :notworthy I bow before you in awe of your splendor and might.

Maybe the meds are still in control after all...*yawn* *falls asleep*

CX

Riiiiiiiight. Ummm...I assume at some point you'll be erecting a shrine to me? Let's not make it too ostentatious.

Toto

Matthew for Everyone Part I.

Of course, there is also an Acts for Everyone along with every other NT book. Perhaps he explains it there.