Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Amaleq13 · 09-30-2004, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJD

The way I explained the passage above is thoroughly Jewish in its particulars and not only makes for a more natural reading, it fits perfectly with the notion that a sectarian prophet from Nazareth deliberately puts himself in the shoes of the Danielic 'son of man'.

Does the fact that the shoes seem to fit require one to assume they were actually worn?

How does it not fit with the notion of a post-70CE author putting those shoes on the prophet in his story?

Quote:

The question about Saint Paul, though interesting, has little relevance. The first question to answer is "Why have you asked this question?"

The earliest available testimony seems like a reasonable place to look for an allegedly "deep" and "early" tradition.

Quote:

Tell me why Paul's corroboration by using the titular 'son of man' makes the Olivet pericope inclusion of a 'son of man' valid?

I don't know that it does but it would, IMO, stand as strong evidence in support of this title as a "deep" and "early" tradition.

Quote:

Secondly, Jesus wasn't making "public proclamations" about this. According to the text, he was speaking privately with his disciples on Mount Olives.

True but the disciples made this concept public as part of preaching their gospel, didn't they?

Doesn't Jesus refer to himself in public as "son of man"?

Quote:

...what would be more effective, an emphasis on an esoteric 'son of man' (a concept that includes the entire history of Israel; note that Gentiles — not the 'god-fearing' ones — mostly got from Paul only Creation then the Christ, cf. Acts 14:15ff.; 17:22ff.) or an emphasis on the idea that this Jesus was both Lord and Christ, contra Caesar?

Paul offers arguments in his letters that believing gentiles were legitimate inheritors of the "entire history of Israel" so I question how "esoteric" the concept would have seemed.

Are you suggesting that none of the believers to whom Paul wrote were familiar with Jesus as the Son of Man ala Daniel?

DetectedDestiny · 10-13-2004, 08:19 AM

Is anyone still following this debate? I totally don't understand Jason's latest reply.

Is he asking Jon to defend the full preterist position, a position Jon is explicitly not holding?
Even more, the weaknesses #1 (Jesus seperating the sheep and the goats; this is exactly what Jon claims didn't happen), #3 (condemnent of the preterist postition by the Reformed Church of America; what? you're wrong because my buddies think you're wrong?) and #4 (radical departure from other theological positions; see #3) don't even apply to Jon's position.

Can he seriously think he's winning this debate because Jon won't defend full preterism?

I would almost view his latest reply as an insult to Jon's intelligence.

Jack the Bodiless · 10-13-2004, 08:35 AM

Indeed, that was my reaction too.

Jason apparently has nothing more to offer, so I guess it's all over. Jon Promnitz is the victor!

There's supposed to be another round from each, then closing statements. Jason has apparently forfeited round 5 by merely repeating his failed arguments from round 4. It doesn't seem likely that he has anything left for round 6.

Jon, meanwhile, can freely hammer him twice more.

KnightWhoSaysNi · 10-13-2004, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

There's supposed to be another round from each, then closing statements. Jason has apparently forfeited round 5 by merely repeating his failed arguments from round 4. It doesn't seem likely that he has anything left for round 6.

Jon, meanwhile, can freely hammer him twice more.

Round 6 is the concluding round, by the way. Their next statements will be their last statements.

KnightWhoSaysNi · 10-28-2004, 11:10 AM

The formal debate is now complete. Jason Gastrich and Jon Promnitz are welcome to post in this thread now if they wish to.

- FD, Moderator

Craigart14 · 07-10-2005, 01:14 PM

I, for one, am glad it's over. Debates with Jason never stay on topic past the first round.

Mark 9 is enough for me: "There are some standing among you who will not taste of death until the kingdom of god has come with power." Jesus was speaking to a group of his contemporaries. They're all dead. The kingdom of god hasn't come.

Craig

Chris Weimer · 07-10-2005, 01:25 PM

um, dude, this debate has been over for almost a year. Let it go.

Johnny Skeptic · 07-10-2005, 08:58 PM

Consider the following Scriptures:

MAT 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

The gospel of the kingdom has been preached unto all nations. Where is Jesus?

REV 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Well, the writer was off by at least two milliennia. What happened to divine inspiration?

07-10-2005, 08:58 PM	#58
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	The return of Jesus Consider the following Scriptures: MAT 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. The gospel of the kingdom has been preached unto all nations. Where is Jesus? REV 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John: Well, the writer was off by at least two milliennia. What happened to divine inspiration?

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

10-13-2004, 08:19 AM	#52
DetectedDestiny Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Netherlands Posts: 141	Is anyone still following this debate? I totally don't understand Jason's latest reply. Is he asking Jon to defend the full preterist position, a position Jon is explicitly not holding? Even more, the weaknesses #1 (Jesus seperating the sheep and the goats; this is exactly* what Jon claims didn't happen), #3 (condemnent of the preterist postition by the Reformed Church of America; what? you're wrong because my buddies think you're wrong?) and #4 (radical departure from other theological positions; see #3) don't even apply* to Jon's position. Can he seriously think he's winning this debate because Jon won't defend full preterism? I would almost view his latest reply as an insult to Jon's intelligence.

10-13-2004, 08:35 AM	#53
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Indeed, that was my reaction too. Jason apparently has nothing more to offer, so I guess it's all over. Jon Promnitz is the victor! There's supposed to be another round from each, then closing statements. Jason has apparently forfeited round 5 by merely repeating his failed arguments from round 4. It doesn't seem likely that he has anything left for round 6. Jon, meanwhile, can freely hammer him twice more.

10-28-2004, 11:10 AM	#55
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	The formal debate is now complete. Jason Gastrich and Jon Promnitz are welcome to post in this thread now if they wish to. - FD, Moderator

07-10-2005, 01:14 PM	#56
Craigart14 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Georgia Posts: 718	I, for one, am glad it's over. Debates with Jason never stay on topic past the first round. Mark 9 is enough for me: "There are some standing among you who will not taste of death until the kingdom of god has come with power." Jesus was speaking to a group of his contemporaries. They're all dead. The kingdom of god hasn't come. Craig

07-10-2005, 01:25 PM	#57
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	um, dude, this debate has been over for almost a year. Let it go.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.