Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Calzaer · 01-21-2005, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Was Jonah a false prophet as well?

Yes. And, if Jesus is really THE Jesus, Isaiah was a false prophet as well. All sorts of Messianic prophecies that never came to pass were his work.

Sven · 01-21-2005, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

Well, this is all right and well. But if the problem is dirt, why not simply tell them to clean them? Why not simply tell them about soap (this is, I think, originally an argument by Vinnie)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

ahahahahahahaha, and why should Shakespaire write a whole play for "Much Adue About Nothing" when he could just put on a wedding?

:huh:

Sven · 01-21-2005, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

so what happened was he had two questions, two sets of answers, they assumed in listening to him that these events would happen soon and at the same time. So they just callapesd the qeutions into one and even matt where the two distinct questions are preserved the answer is collapsed into one.

So why Jesus did not take the simple step and cleared up the misunderstanding?

Sensei Meela · 01-21-2005, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anat

Cooking was common since the stone age. It is not entirely obvious that the purpose of laws regarding food avoidances was to promote physical health. All cultures have food taboos of one kind or another (though not in all cultures are these taboos written into law) and many make no sense from strictly health considerations, some are even deleterious to the physical health of those observing them. But taboos have other effects as well. For example, they form part of a set of customs that promote group identity and separation from other groups. They give people opportunities to practice self-control. They add ritual into daily life. There might be additional effects. It is not at all clear which of them are the 'original' purpose of the taboos.

I was waiting for someone to mention this. :thumbs:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calzaer

Yes. And, if Jesus is really THE Jesus, Isaiah was a false prophet as well. All sorts of Messianic prophecies that never came to pass were his work.

Whoa whoa whoa...aren't you guys being a bit presumptuous, here? Hadn't you better wait for Jesus' 2nd, 3rd or Millionth Coming before you declare something he'd promised never came to pass?

Atheos · 01-21-2005, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

So are you a Jewish fundie? It occurs to me that this is a typical case of atheists trying to paly both sides of the street. On the one hand, as athiesst you reject the Jews too. But on the other, if you can make allience with a Jew to fustigate the Christians you will do so.

Now that statment about false prophets has not been violated by matt. not at all. First, it doen't even apply to misquoting, it applys to fortelilng events that dont' come to pass. You can't say Matt ever did that.

In terms of getting quotes wrong, it really is a matter of LXX vs the MT and also testamonia. The testimonia prove to have been used at Qumran, they were like sunday school work books. So the quotation might come out of the workbook, thus the wrong attribution because the quote from one prohet might be givne on a page titled as another prophet's work. So if the redactor knew the scripture by the testimonia then he would be apt to quote it according to that schemea.

Moreover, Matt doesnt' lead away to other Gods nor does he fortell anything that didn't come to pass, that's the real test.

Metacrock, it seems I have a tremendous time trying to understand what you're talking about. Maybe you're just too damn smart for the likes of me.

I'm just a simple country boy who, pushed into it by his momma, went to school and got a BA in Bible and preached for 16 years in a fundamentalist christian church but eventually saw that it was all just bullshit and deconverted.

But when I read Jesus saying something like:

Quote:

Matthew 24

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer [is] nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even] at the doors.
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

There are several things in this passage that have never happened in the history of the world:

All tribes of the earth mourning because of seeing the sign of the Son of man in heaven simultaneously
The son of man descending from heaven with power and great glory
The sending of angels by said Son of man to gather his elect from the four winds
And it's arguable that the sun has not been darkened (eclipses don't count because they're only temporary and do not actually darken the sun). The moon doesn't "give forth her light" but rather reflects it, which of course is moot. Also, "the stars" have not fallen (hoi aster - "the stars" - the use of the article disallows us to justify saying that just some of the stars would fall)

Jesus is quoted as saying they'll all happen in the lifetime of "this generation" in verse 34. Creative interpretation can't separate verse 34 from the immediately preceeding verses. I don't have a problem with the interpretation that Jesus is handling two issues (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming). But verse 34 is clearly associated more with the passage describing the "Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" than with the earlier stuff about "fleeing into the mountains" to avoid the sacking of Jerusalem.

Don't be telling me I "need to read it like this". I don't. And I'll thank you not to accuse me of being a "Jewish fundie" because I use the Bible to disprove the Bible. If a biblical apologist whips out the bible and tries to appeal to its authority I have every right to point out its problems. If the account given in Matthew is to be accepted, Jesus was a false prophet.

-Atheos

Metacrock · 01-22-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven

So why Jesus did not take the simple step and cleared up the misunderstanding?

How could he clear up a misunderstanding that was developing through a redaction process several decades latter?

Metacrock · 01-22-2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calzaer

Yes. And, if Jesus is really THE Jesus, Isaiah was a false prophet as well. All sorts of Messianic prophecies that never came to pass were his work.

Not true! Read Edershiem

Diogenes the Cynic · 01-22-2005, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metacrock

Not true! Read Edershiem

Don't just tell us what to read. Give examples. Name one example of a fulfilled Messianic prophecy in Isaiah.

Metacrock · 01-22-2005, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atheos

Metacrock, it seems I have a tremendous time trying to understand what you're talking about. Maybe you're just too damn smart for the likes of me.

Now your cooking with gas!

Quote:

I'm just a simple country boy who, pushed into it by his momma, went to school and got a BA in Bible and preached for 16 years in a fundamentalist christian church but eventually saw that it was all just bullshit and deconverted.

It's quite ironic to me how many times real faith is destoryed by fundieism. Fundieism is such an evil, it really is a menage to socieity,and to humanity and to the faith. Ironic, but the fundies, who would set themselves up as the guairdians of the faith, are the greatest danger to the faith. I've never seen a liberal give up his faith in disillusionment, but I"ve seen that of fundies so many times.

Quote:

But when I read Jesus saying something like:

There are several things in this passage that have never happened in the history of the world:

All tribes of the earth mourning because of seeing the sign of the Son of man in heaven simultaneously
The son of man descending from heaven with power and great glory
The sending of angels by said Son of man to gather his elect from the four winds
And it's arguable that the sun has not been darkened (eclipses don't count because they're only temporary and do not actually darken the sun). The moon doesn't "give forth her light" but rather reflects it, which of course is moot. Also, "the stars" have not fallen (hoi aster - "the stars" - the use of the article disallows us to justify saying that just some of the stars would fall)

Jesus is quoted as saying they'll all happen in the lifetime of "this generation" in verse 34. Creative interpretation can't separate verse 34 from the immediately preceeding verses. I don't have a problem with the interpretation that Jesus is handling two issues (the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Coming). But verse 34 is clearly associated more with the passage describing the "Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory" than with the earlier stuff about "fleeing into the mountains" to avoid the sacking of Jerusalem.

Don't be telling me I "need to read it like this". I don't. And I'll thank you not to accuse me of being a "Jewish fundie" because I use the Bible to disprove the Bible. If a biblical apologist whips out the bible and tries to appeal to its authority I have every right to point out its problems. If the account given in Matthew is to be accepted, Jesus was a false prophet.

-Atheos

Ok try to follow my logic. JC and boys are setting around listening to JC rant about the end times and stuff ok? He mentions that no stone of the temple will be left upon another.

The guys say to themselves, so the end will come and the temple will be destoryed at the end because after all, it how can you have Judaism without the temple? Surely God would save the destruction of the temple until the end of times, and Jesus will come back right after that happens.

such would be their assumtion. but in fact they do as "when will the temple be destoryed, and what will be the signs of the end?" Maybe he told them the time fame, mabye he didnt'. But that doesn't matter it's a long redaction process that goes for years.

The mistake isn't made righ then and there. Its' made by subsequent people, mabye even in the next generation. Sometime between about AD 30 and AD 70 when Mark as we know it came out, the conflation of questions happened.

They assumed the two events were at the same time, so they assumed the answers to "when" these thigns would be were the same answers.

In Mark the two questions themselves are taken out and made into one question. In matt the presence of two questionsa are still preserved but the answer is conflatted to one because they assumed these events are at the same time.

So the mistake wasn't made then and there as Jesus spoke, but over time as part of the redaction process.

Metacrock · 01-22-2005, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Don't just tell us what to read. Give examples. Name one example of a fulfilled Messianic prophecy in Isaiah.

Chapter 53

Suffering servant, wounded for your transgressions: cut off from the land of the living, but saw the light of life.

this is real off topic. So maybe you should start another thread. But here's my page on the matter:

http://www.geocities.com/metacrock20...iah/Isa53.html

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.