Clivedurdle

Testable claim - when did sacrifices end? Destruction of Jerusalem?

Is Christianity actually a result of the destruction of the temple in 70CE?

Jim Larmore

Your proabably right, God knows whats in there and thats a fact. I see this text as applying here big time 2 Cor 4:2-4.

Wallener

The Paschal Lamb "tradition" doesn't make any sense. "The Lamb of G-d" would be the Yom Kippur sacrifice, if anything, not the Paschal lamb. The Paschal lamb is the symbol of the covenant between G-d and his people and has absolutely nothing to do with (pick one) atonement/guilt/forgiveness.

Wallener

Jim, I can't keep track of your posts. Would you be so kind as to succintly fill in the question marks according to your interpretation of the relevant passage?

Prophecy Made in year -> ?
Prophecy starts counting from year -> ? (same as above?)
One day means one -> Year(?)
7 weeks/49 years after prophesy this happened -> ?
62 weeks/lotta years later this happened -> ?
1 week/7 years later this happened -> ?

Clivedurdle

Destruction of Jerusalem

This site, although xian, gives the game away. Jesus' predictions of the destruction are too good - either they are true prophecies or they are obviously post destruction. Xianity looks like a post diaspora invention that has hidden its Roman roots. Hadrian razed Jerusalem and built a new city that Constantine later renamed Jerusalem!!

All the stuff about Jesus was made up to explain the destruction.

post tenebras lux

For those who don't know their bible by heart, Jim was refering to the following verses:OK, Jim. If you say so, Jim.

So why are you here at IIDB, trying to undo your god's decisions? If your god doesn't want the light of his 'glorious' gospel to shine into spin's mind (dark recesses or no), why are you trying to do just that?

Luxie

Amaleq13

There is always the hope that the "someone" (either the poster or a lurker with similar misconceptions) has enough capability for rational thought that the sound arguments presented will cause them to reconsider the faith-based assumptions that have resulted in blatantly faulty conclusions. Many of "us" take great pleasure in helping the light of reason banish the darkness of ignorance. :angel:

Sorry to burst your egocentric bubble, Jim, but "we" get along just fine without arguing against specious interpretations of alleged prophecies and tend to otherwise spend time discussing topics that are genuinely puzzling.

You can't "know" something that is false, Jim. Keep your opinions of "our" thought processes to yourself and try to defend your claims with reliable evidence and sound arguments.

BC&H is considered an "upper" forum where participants are expected to have at least a basic understanding of the scholarship relevant to the position they hold. If one lacks sufficient reliable information or an adequate understanding of the basis for their position, it might be best for the individual to go somewhere else where the standards are lower or simply lurk until they feel competent. Wading into waters that are well over one's head is less of a problem than failing to recognize that one is drowning.

Jim Larmore

That just goes to show how much you understand the Bible. The god of this world is not God its satan. Re-read it with that in mind and get the proper perspective.

spin

No, I'm saying you've shown no knowledge of history, nor how historiography dictates how historians proceed. And you've shown distain for history.

The dating of documents requires a good knowledge of the relevant history, as documents can't tell you when they were written, except maybe through controlled C14 or similar technique. A complex historical context needs to be reconstructed, which takes into account all the indications one can find in a text, the evaluation of which can point to a date, or at least a date range, for a text.

Why? Just because you haven't got your mind dirty wading in history and how it works?

Mild ad hominems have no effect on me, Jim. You'll have to try harder.

I tried to indicate last post that I had stopped. To whit: "Thanks for the discussion." I'm just chatting with you now.

I works along these lines: you test a person's willingness to interrelate with evidence; they may have ways of reflecting on that evidence differently from you and you learn something; you also may have ways of reflecting on that evidence and they learn something. Both are doing some sort of exegesis of the texts involved. Unfortunately, what I perceive from you is that you are not getting anything out of the text, you are not reflecting upon it at all, and you have shown you are not prepared to do so. Instead you are importing ideas into it, a process known as eisegesis. That means you are not playing kosher.



Doesn't that make you feel good, like you have at least some purpose in life?

As you hadn't noticed, people here are very happy to talk with each other not in need of someone who is not prepared to provide an upfront coherent methodology of textual analysis.

And I know a few schizophrenics with analogous delusions.

If you can't cite a coherent argument, that's not my fault, Jim.

As you haven't attempted to deal with the text we were looking at, I'm no longer responding about it, just benevolently answering your current questions, though, as you've avoided the textual analyses I've provided, ie not just cited a few names that mean nothing, but done the work on the text and have attempted to show you some of the fruit of that work directly regarding that text, I'll probably stop responding to your tangents as well.

Fair question. I shouldn't. But of course I'm an educationalist and as you are apparently doing everything assup, I cannot help holding out a hope that you'll get some understanding of logic and methodology. Your analyses are appalling to me. For example your if clause above, "if you already know it all" is based on resentment rather than analysis, as I have never claimed to "know it all". However, if someone knows a subject well, do you think that they cannot tell when someone else doesn't? If I ask you "How many sharps are there in the key of F major?" how will you react? Do you think it's unfair that I point out your lack of historical understanding when such knowledge is a prerequisite for the discussion?

Does this mean you are not going to do your historical homework? If that's the case, I will... go back....

Uh, well, blush, right, he said. Notes the glimmer of perception. And signs off.


spin

post tenebras lux

Um, are you a JWitness Jim?

If not, and if you don't mind me asking, what denomination are you, because - as far as I'm aware - not all denominations agree with your interpretation.

Thanks

Luxie