Freethought & Rationalism Archive

AdamWho · 04-27-2012, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achwienichtig

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWho

So you just plan on making stuff up?

This debate is inherently a Biblical inerrancy topic, if you are not interested in defending this angle, there really cannot be a coherent debate.

If I understand the original proposition by ShockofAtheism, I do not believe he was interested in debating Biblical inerrancy, at least, not in the typical sense. The question, as I understand it, assumes the context of the Bible is correct. Jesus really did make these prophecies. He might even have been raised from the dead. However, this one particular prophecy failed where he said he would return "before this generation is ended." It is a narrow topic.

Well ShockofAtheism is taking straight biblical inerrancy approach. Quoting verses of prophesy/promises and demonstrating that they have failed.

The only realistic response:

1. The promises where kept but in a metaphorical sense. The problem here is that these promises certainly didn't seem metaphorical and even if they were, it still looks like the prophesy/promise failed.

Terrible responses:

1. Armegedon happened in 70 AD and Jesus was ruling Earth for a thousand years till around 1000 AD.

2. The text is wrong and such promises where never made.

AdamWho · 05-02-2012, 04:36 PM

I thought there was 5 days between posts... I was hoping to see if ToF would actually start the debate

Achwienichtig · 05-05-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWho

I thought there was 5 days between posts... I was hoping to see if ToF would actually start the debate

Nope. One week between posts.

And ToF's arguments aren't very strong INHM.

AdamWho · 05-05-2012, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Achwienichtig

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWho

I thought there was 5 days between posts... I was hoping to see if ToF would actually start the debate

Nope. One week between posts.

And ToF's arguments aren't very strong INHM.

I was partially right though... ToF still hasn't actually joined the debate. His side is a shambles.

spin · 05-05-2012, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief of Fire

In Daniel we see a change where "one like ason of man" comes on clouds.
Daniel 7
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Jesus, in matthew seems to be combining all these themes. He sees himself "coming on clouds" like Daniel but rather than going to the "ancient of days" he will be seen by the tribes of the earth, and unlike in daniel but like the hebrews prophets writings this coming on clouds is associated with a great calamity that befalls, in this case, Jerusalem.

The citation from Daniel shows that someone didn't understand the text on two grounds. First it is not "the son of man" who is coming on the clouds, but "one like a son of man", which in the context indicates that a figure that looked human. The first figure was like a lion, the second like a bear, etc. The last figure, which was acceptable to god and naturally in human form, was not called "the son of man" at all. This is just a misguided riff on the original. The second issue is that the one like a son of man is going up to heaven into the presence of god on the clouds of heaven, not down to earth as indicated in Mk 13:26, "they will see the son of man coming...".

Don2 (Don1 Revised) · 05-11-2012, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thief of Fire

In Daniel we see a change where "one like ason of man" comes on clouds.
Daniel 7
13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,[a] coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

Jesus, in matthew seems to be combining all these themes. He sees himself "coming on clouds" like Daniel but rather than going to the "ancient of days" he will be seen by the tribes of the earth, and unlike in daniel but like the hebrews prophets writings this coming on clouds is associated with a great calamity that befalls, in this case, Jerusalem.

The citation from Daniel shows that someone didn't understand the text on two grounds. First it is not "the son of man" who is coming on the clouds, but "one like a son of man", which in the context indicates that a figure that looked human.

Jesus was called the son of man. Are you sure about this?

AdamWho · 05-11-2012, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The citation from Daniel shows that someone didn't understand the text on two grounds. First it is not "the son of man" who is coming on the clouds, but "one like a son of man", which in the context indicates that a figure that looked human.

Jesus was called the son of man. Are you sure about this?

Is that REALLY the pivotal issue of this debate?

Don2 (Don1 Revised) · 05-16-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamWho

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Jesus was called the son of man. Are you sure about this?

Is that REALLY the pivotal issue of this debate?

Relatively speaking, the whole debate is silly since Christ if he existed was not a god and there is no God anyway. And besides this, thief_of_fire isn't making any sense and what's-his-face decided to start posting in other threads instead of debating. So I reserve the right to discuss an aside that someone else started talking about that is not a pivotal issue in a non-pivotal debate.

spin · 05-20-2012, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Jesus was called the son of man. Are you sure about this?

Jesus frequently uses the term, implying its relevance to himself, eg Mk 8:31,

the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Don2 (Don1 Revised) · 05-23-2012, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised)

Jesus was called the son of man. Are you sure about this?

Jesus frequently uses the term, implying its relevance to himself, eg Mk 8:31,

the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.

Sorry, my question was vague. I was asking if you were sure about your conclusion.

It seems like "son of man" could be a figurative phrase related somehow to its usage, "Christ." It is also odd (to me) to hear a specific meaning of "human" defined for it. I don't recall instances where "son of man" has meant something else such as "human," but then I don't recall a lot of things. So maybe I am wrong. Can you give an example where the phrase is used where it obviously means "human?"

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

05-02-2012, 04:36 PM	#12
AdamWho Contributor Join Date: May 2001 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 13,389	I thought there was 5 days between posts... I was hoping to see if ToF would actually start the debate

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.