Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Prophetessofrage · 09-28-2003, 02:34 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tod

Quote:

Originally posted by Prophetessofrage

MY REPLY: Ah, but there is no reason NOT to believe that the author of Exodus meant for us to understand the statement to mean that Abraham didn't know the significance of the name instead of meaning exactly what it says, that he simply didn't know his name especially in light of the fact that iit s a 'valid' answer, that does clears up the matter, now don't it?

Yes, there is a good "reason NOT to believe that the author of Exodus meant for us to understand the statement to mean that Abraham didn't know the significance of the name." He doesn't SAY that! Pretty damn fine reason. Secondly, there is no biblical precedence for a biblical author using a phrase like "know my name" to mean "know the significance of my name." Therefore it isn't a valid answer at all, and clears up nothing. It is not a valid argument to go from "Hebrews saw significance in names" to "Hebrews did or sometimes use the phrase "know such-and-such's name" to mean "know the significance of such-and-such's name."

Again, it is just a wild guess.

Secondly, there is no new significance to his name as a covenant god for Moses to know that Abraham didn't. As was pointed out to you by another poster: Abraham already knew Yahweh as the covenant God.

As such, I say back unto YOU, "That is a wild guess with no basis for believing it to be true."

Believing that the author is claiming that Abraham didn't know YHWH's name is not a wild guess and has every basis for believing it to be true since that is precisely what is said.

I have the text on my side. You have to establish a case that it meant other than what it says. All you have done, again, is take a wild guess that has NO evidential support or biblical precedence.

Tod earlier: The fact that the ancient Hebrews may have seen significance to a name doesn't mean that when they said a person didn't know another's name that they meant anything other than the person didn't know their name!

MY REPLY:Oh, now you want to put 'logic' where you yourself profess 'illogic' to exist.

No, actually I give the author far more credit than you do, and do believe him competent and "logical" enough in his word usage to say what he means. Just because I think one author contradicted another due to a lack of inspiration by a divine being doesn't mean I don't expect that the authors would use logical choices in their words.

The reality is this, the ancient world, let alone Hebrews, knew God by many names and so it could very well have been that they meant 'the person didn't know their name." Scripture backs that up...

I'm glad you think scripture backs up the interpretation that "they meant 'the person didn't know their name" when they said it. It makes a lot more sense then thinking that they really MEANT to say "the person didn't know the signficance of their name."

Although I suspect you didn't word that quite like you meant.

Scripture backs that up, when it tells us of the many names the patriarchs gave to Deity. Abraham names a place 'beth this or that', Issac, follows suit, with Jacob close behind. All naming a Divine experience with God, "EL this or El That.' In fact, that they did so do this, kinda clears up the 'contradiction' now don't it?[

Quote:

Uh, no, not at all. It is rather irrelevant any how, because the text says Abraham named a place "Yahweh provides." Not "El" or "Elohim" provides, but Yahweh. And no matter how many names "the patriarchs gave to Deity" or how many "Divine experience[s]" Abraham et al named after God matters in determining whether the verse in question means to say Abraham didn't know Yahweh's proper name: Yahweh.

MY REPLY:I'd like to thank you 2 learned ones for pointing out my 'error' with regard to Yahweh and Jehovah. My point was, the many names 'God' is known by in the Old Testatment or Torah or Pentateuch, (I have confidence you 2 will correct me if there is a spelling or semantical error) does explain away the seemingly contradictions. That in itself, is fact!

No, it isn't a fact, if the "fact" your claiming as fact is that this nonsense "does explain away the seemingly contradictions." The number of titles given the Hebrew God doesn't change the fact that the verse in question specifically states that "YHWH" is the only name in question. The author says Abraham didn't know God by his proper name of "YHWH" but only as "El Shaddai" which, like El or Elohim isn't a proper name anyway. Let's clear that up since you keep speaking of these "many names" when what you should be saying is "many titles." There is only one name of the Hebrew God and that is YHWH.

If Abraham really named the place using one of the other titles then the author in Genesis is mistaken to claim that he named the place "Yahweh provides."

Whether or not you believe the anwer is valid is irrelevant, the fact is it is a valid answer that does clear up the seemingly contradictions is it not?

It isn't a valid answer, however. To be a valid answer you'd have to show evidence that this is what the author means, something you obviously can't do or won't, and you'd have to show precedence for Hebrews using a reference to knowing somebody's name in the context of simply knowing the significance of his name.

Again, simply stating that ancient Hebrews saw significance in names doesn't at all in any remote way imply that they would ever say "x didn't know y's name" to mean "x didn't know the significance of y's name." [/B]

----------

Look Tod, we've got to stop going around in circles like this. You've altered so much I've forgotten what the subject matter is. Okay, what ever the writer was trying to say, it caused controversy in that what is written concerning 'not knowing the name of God' is seemingly a contradiction. I gave a valid answer though not to 'your liking' but then, who are you? My point in replying to the original poster was to show that there are plausible reasons for the many seeming contradictions.

Now, granted you broke it down 'word for word' but sometimes we simply need use 'common sense' as a valid answer, and not so much be bogged down with the details lest we lose sight of rhyme and reason. Let's just say, the 'seemingly' contradictions are cleared up using 'common sense.' As so, perhaps this matter is best summed up thus, the author of that ancient text meant, Abraham didn't go by that 'TITLE'.

Tod · 09-28-2003, 02:36 PM

First of all, this is all irrelevant since we are discussing in this present debate the author's being wrong only in regards to their belief Jesus would return soon. However, since this is a good opportunity to show how these so-called prophecies are no such thing, I'll address them.

Originally posted by Madkins007
Huh. Let's see...

Matt. 24: 4 And Jesus answering said to them, `Take heed that no one may lead you astray, 5 for many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and they shall lead many astray [FULFILLED in 53-66AD. In fact, some of them had a major role in the revolts of 66 that lead to the wars of 70AD}

And messianic claimants were a dime a dozen during that period. They were around prior to Jesus and after Jesus. Jesus was allegedly "predicting" things that had already happened, were happening, and probably would continue to happen so long as the Jews were under the thumb of Rome. This isn't an example of fulfilled prophecy fulfillment but rather of simple observation. Yawn...

6 and ye shall begin to hear of wars, and reports of wars; see, be not troubled, for it behoveth all [these] to come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 `For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places; 8 and all these [are] the beginning of sorrows; [FULFILLED with the growing unrest leading up to 70AD. The great famine of about 45AD is mentioned in Acts 11:28. Earthquakes were happeing from 37-54AD, and some nasty ones were recrded in 68AD.]

"wars,...reports of wars...famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes" are common events that are always happening around the world throughout history. To predict them is to predict the obvious.

9 then they shall deliver you up to tribulation, and shall kill you, and ye shall be hated by all the nations because of my name; 10 and then shall many be stumbled, and they shall deliver up one another, and shall hate one another. 11 `And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray; [FULFILLED and discussed in Acts and some of the Epistles.]

And again "false prophets" (as if there are true ones) are a dime a dozen, particularly at that time. Considering the hostility the gospels record Jesus himself facing, it isn't a stretch to think he told his followers they would be persecuted as well. Also, you cite New Testament books to claim prophecy fufillment. That, again, assumes inerrancy. Still, this is pretty generalized stuff that is hardly examples of amazing prophecy fulfillment.

12 and because of the abounding of the lawlessness, the love of the many shall become cold; 13 but he who did endure to the end, he shall be saved; 14 and this good news of the reign shall be proclaimed in all the world, for a testimony to all the nations; and then shall the end arrive. [FULFILLED, as per Col. 1:6 and 23]

Hardly fulfilled! The gospels were not "proclaimed in all the world." In the case of Col. 1:23 we KNOW that Paul doesn't mean this unsubstantiated meaning of "Jewish world as they knew it", because he claims the gospel "has been preached to every creature under heaven." That clearly includes more than Judah, as Judah isn't the only nation "under heaven," and the gospel had most certainly NOT "been preached to every creature under heaven" at that time (and NOT even at this time! There are many indigenous folks in South America among the Yanomamo people that haven't met an evangelist).

15 `Whenever, therefore, ye may see the abomination of the desolation, that was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever is reading let him observe) [FULFILLED in 70AD when Ceaser was worshipped in the Temple after it was breached and burned.]

Be more specific.

16 then those in Judea -- let them flee to the mounts; 17 he on the house-top -- let him not come down to take up any thing out of his house; 18 and he in the field -- let him not turn back to take his garments. 19 `And wo to those with child, and to those giving suck in those days; 20 and pray ye that your flight may not be in winter, nor on a sabbath; 21 for there shall be then great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world till now, no, nor may be. 22 And if those days were not shortened, no flesh would have been saved; but because of the chosen, shall those days be shortened. [FULFILLED in the aftermath of the seige and battle]

This is not prophecy fulfillment for two reasons: One you assume your use of the word "world" to refer to only "the Jewish world as they knew it" to claim prophecy fulfillment. You haven't given a good reason to think it doesn't refer to the whole world. Two: in an early post I pointed out that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the short seige that accompanied it were not even to the Jews an unprecedented event.

23 `Then if any one may say to you, Lo, here [is] the Christ! or here! ye may not believe; 24 for there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and they shall give great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, also the chosen. 25 Lo, I did tell you beforehand. 26 `If therefore they may say to you, Lo, in the wilderness he is, ye may not go forth; lo, in the inner chambers, ye may not believe; [FULFILLED, as mentioned above]

Delt with above.

27 for as the lightning doth come forth from the east, and doth appear unto the west, so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man; 28 for wherever the carcase may be, there shall the eagles be gathered together. 29 `And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken; [FULFILLED. Josephus and Tacticus record something odd in the sky durin the wars, and comets and other phenomena were recorded in ths period as well.]

First of all, I was assuming you didn't suscribe to the idea that these stellar events spoken of were literal, but that this was simply literary imagery. That is why I haven't brought it up. However, if you do claim this verse refers to actual stellar events, I'd hardly call "something odd in the sky" or "comets" in any way fulfilling a claim that the "sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven."

30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory; 31 and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof.

V.30 and 31 are the verses in debate. Does/did Jesus need to return in the flesh to fulfill these? The 'coming on the clouds of heaven' bit is a symbol of judgement well known to the Jews (Isaiah 19:1, Psalms 18:7-15, etc.), and in these passages, the actual presense of God is not taken to be literally, so is it to be so here? I suspect not.

The difference is, in Isaiah the context clearly shows it is prophecized that Egypt will undergo calamity. In Psalms, again we have extreme anger being unleased. In the context of Jesus' alleged statement, however, we are not told that he comes in anger or to cause ruin, but rather to "gather his elect." That kinda changes up the context a bit.

Secondly, it is never implied in the Old Testament that YHWH himself will ever come to earth. In other words, there is no doctrine of a second coming that applies to Yahweh. With Jesus, however, there is such a belief that he will return, so any reference to his return wouldn't be seen as simple symbolism.

IF the 'gathering of the elect' and the 'coming in the clouds' bits mean the rapture and second coming as commonly understood, then something is badly glitched here.

Yeah, the gospel writers goofed.

On the other hand, Jesus was talking to fellow Jews who would have known the symology, and probably took these verses very differently than we read them now.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that these "fellow Jews" would have interpreted the use of the word "world" to mean "the present Jewish world as we know it" or that they would have seen the "gather[ing] of his elect" and the references to the "trustworthy servant[s]" being "taken" to mean that these people would die unexpectedly!

Let's not forget that in the next chapter 25 we find the verse "When the son of man comes in his glory, escorted by all the angels, then he will take his eat on his throne of glory. All nations will be assembled before him and he will separate people one from another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats. He will place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right hand, "Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take as your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world." (vs 31-34)

Again this speaks of the end of the world, final judgement, and the introduction of the believers into "the kingdom prepared for [them]." If Jesus' second coming occurred in 70 AD, when did all of this happen? Has final judgement occurred? Have the faithful been granted entry into paradise? What are you still doing here?

Tod · 09-28-2003, 02:45 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prophetessofrage
----------

Look Tod, we've got to stop going around in circles like this. You've altered so much I've forgotten what the subject matter is.

Oh my, what have I altered? You say that you don't know the subject matter, but then deal with it directly in your next statement:

Okay, what ever the writer was trying to say, it caused controversy in that what is written concerning 'not knowing the name of God' is seemingly a contradiction.

I thought I'd "go[ne] around in circles" so much that you weren't sure what the subject matter is? Now you quite concisely sum up the problem in your next sentence.

I gave a valid answer though not to 'your liking' but then, who are you? My point in replying to the original poster was to show that there are plausible reasons for the many seeming contradictions.

But it is neither "valid" nor "plausible," and dispite repeated request in every post to show ANY precedence for the Hebrews refering to somebody not knowing the name of God, or anybody else for that matter, with the intent of conveying the idea that the person simply didn't know the signficance of the name.

Again, you offer ONLY the fact that ancient Hebrews saw significance in names. That is it. How on earth do you reason from the fact that just because they see significance in names that when they use the phrase "didn't know his name" they mean "didn't know the significance of his name"?

Knowing a name and knowing the significance of a name are two completely different things.

Now, granted you broke it down 'word for word' but sometimes we simply need use 'common sense' as a valid answer, and not so much be bogged down with the details lest we lose sight of rhyme and reason. Let's just say, the 'seemingly' contradictions are cleared up using 'common sense.' As so. perhaps, this matter is best summed up thus, the author of that ancient text meant, Abraham didn't go by that 'TITLE'.

First of all, what you offer isn't common sense. If it was, you'd show why, which you repeatedly refuse to do. Secondly, Abraham's title is irrelevant. I assume your last sentence was a typing error. Perhaps you mean to say that "Abraham didn't use that 'TITLE' to refer to YHWH." That is kinda the point. Exodus says he didn't know YHWH's name, but Genesis says that named a place using YHWH's proper name.

Madkins007 · 09-28-2003, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tod
"wars,...reports of wars...famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes" are common events that are always happening around the world throughout history. To predict them is to predict the obvious.

I wan't going to keep bashing heads with you on this... I really wasn't, but this was too fun to pass up!

At the time Jesus was saying this, things were going pretty good for people. The crops had been good, a general peace was on the land, no quakes were reported (that I can find) in that region in this period- and yet, even by the time of Acts, things were begining to unravel.

Now, maybe it is not a prophecy, per se, insofar as it is pretty obvious that at some unspecified point in the future there WILL be earthquakes, famines, and wars, it is still interesting that other sources discuss how these things were building to a head just before the 70AD period.

(Again, check out www.planetpreterist.com 'Outline to Preterism' for sources, etc.)

Tod · 09-28-2003, 03:28 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Madkins007
Tod-

I am a little confused (well, according to you, I am a LOT confused, which would not be unusual for me!) but, what is your stance on the rapture?

My stance is that there is no reason to believe any of the supernatural elements of the Bible are true.

I thought you did not generally buy into the Bible (althought I could be mistaken, I'm still trying to figure out who is who around here), yet you are arguing for a doctrine that is not even believed in by many of the denominations of Christian churches.

I'm arguing what the text says.

The idea that the people in the Noah/Second Coming analogy, for example, are taken into heaven is a stretch here- they are heading into a horrible war and desolation and you are wondering where the violence is coming from?

No, the gathering of his faithful in a rapture-like fashion isn't a stretch since the references to "gather[ing] of his elect," saying that when he returns some will be "taken" and others "left," that these people will be his "trustworthy servant[s]" (24:45) which he will then judge and allow into his "kingdom prepared for them" (25:31-34) ALL indicate as much!

Secondly, Jesus didn't say when referring to the "one taken, one left" that there would be "horrible war and desolation," but SPECIFICALLY says "This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes"! He doesn't imply violence AT ALL, but unambiguously states that these people "taken" will be "taken" when he returns. Again, you have in no way offered to substantiate your claim that "taken" refers to being killed and "left" refers to surviving. That is the most twisted interpretation of these words I've yet seen.

As for the use of the word 'world' (Greek- 'kosmos') in much of the writings of the time. I have been describing it as the 'Jewish world', but which I meant (and thought I had described as) the world (culturally, geopolitically, physically) in which the Jews lived and operated, which would include not only the lands of the Middle East, but much of the Roman territories and so forth as well.

And the ONE verse you've used to support this claim, Colossians 1:6, does not indicate at all it refers only to this increasingly vague "Jewish world." Secondly, the definition you gave earlier was "...their world, as it existed when Jesus was saying the things in Matt 24," and again, this "world" you define was a short lived one, and I must again ask you to tell me when the era that marks this "Jewish world...as it existed when Jesus was saying the things in Matt 24" began. In other words, why don't you spell out the temporal and geographical boundaries of this world referred to in the word "world"?

Pushing the word to include ALL the planet Earth is not supported by the Bible when many uses of it clearly refer to a more limited meaning, and a lot of other passages make more sense if it is given a more intimate defintion.

Well I'm sorry, I thought your god was god of the whole world, and that the second coming, judgement, et al applied to the whole world. Any discussion of Jesus' second coming that refers to the "world" with all of its "nations" and "people" would seem to speak of the entire world!

The use of the word 'world', like so many others in the Bible, are just like many of the words in English. We both have multiple meanings of the words, and can both use the word in many different ways in one discussion, depending on context to help sort it out.

In the case of Matt. 24, the context of 'world' as a more regional and cultural term makes sense, if the 'end times' under discussion are 70AD. The more planetary definitions make sense of the end times have not yet happened- yet it would be odd ot me that SO MANY verses in the Gospels refer to an early time for the end times and Christ's return, and so many of the related prophecies have already come true.

And as pointed out in another post these "prophecies" either aren't prophecies because they predict the obvious or didn't come true. Secondly, if we are going to focus on things "related" to "Christ's return," be can't ignore that throughout the New Testament Jesus' second coming is "related" to judgement and the last days, things that didn't occur in 70 AD.

The big desolation, unparalleled since the Earth began is an interesting point. God has exagerated for effect before (Ez. 5:9, 2 Kings 18:5, 23:25- admittedly not the best examples, but I could not find my copy of the 'long list' and these were handy).

Saying an event is "unparalleled since the Earth began" is either true or it isn't. Since "exaggerate" is defined as "to think, speak, or write of as greater than is really so; magnify beyond the fact; overstate," an exaggeration is by definition "beyond the fact" or "greater than is really so," and hence a falsehood. If God exaggerates, then God doesn't tell the truth.

(By the way, my Strong's reference, clipped and pasted straight from the reference, came from the on-line Strongs Greek Lexicon located within www.crosswalk.com- the main place I use for online searches, definitions, etc. The other cross-references are from "The Outline to Covenant Eschatology" at www.planetpreterist.com. Click on 'Outline to Preterism')

Well that crosswalk reference is a vague one. When I went, I saw no preexisting link to the Strong's Greek Lexicon, so I did a search. At http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...84&version=kjv
I found the following definition:

1. a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together
1. a company, troop, swarm
2. a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus
1. the human family
3. a tribe, nation, people group
4. in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles
5. Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians

Again, the usage implies a large-scale assortment of people, NOT a small one.

Tod · 09-28-2003, 03:30 PM

Now, maybe it is not a prophecy, per se, insofar as it is pretty obvious that at some unspecified point in the future there WILL be earthquakes, famines, and wars,

Thank you...

it is still interesting that other sources discuss how these things were building to a head just before the 70AD period.

Again, you work under the still unsupported assumption that "world" only refers to "the Jewish world as they knew it when Jesus said these things."

The fact remains, war, pestilence, earthquakes, and famine are common things throughout the world and history.

09-28-2003, 03:34 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tod

Quote:

Originally posted by Madkins007
.

I'm arguing what the text says.
.

I hate to tell you this Tod but I actually think that you are arguing against your own oblivion because the text tells me something entirely different.

Prophetessofrage · 09-28-2003, 03:46 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tod

Quote:

Originally posted by Prophetessofrage
----------

QUOTES:"Look Tod, we've got to stop going around in circles like this. You've altered so much I've forgotten what the subject matter is.

Oh my, what have I altered? You say that you don't know the subject matter, but then deal with it directly in your next statement:"
----------
MY REPLY:Well Tod, it's just an expression that more or less is saying, 'all your detail makes you lose sight of the forest for the trees.' Every conversation directed to you does not require you to be a grammar teacher, okaaaay? However, I said it, you got the point, now didn't ya?
----------
QUOTES:Okay, what ever the writer was trying to say, it caused controversy in that what is written concerning 'not knowing the name of God' is seemingly a contradiction.

I thought I'd "go[ne] around in circles" so much that you weren't sure what the subject matter is? Now you quite concisely sum up the problem in your next sentence."
----------
MY REPLY:Hey, hey, hey, Tod, lighten up will ya? Bookworms can be a bit of a bore ya know? Now see if you can follow that statement without giving a grammar lesson. At any rate, at least you showed sense enough to recognize when someone has 'summed' up an issue to 'THEIR' liking, if not yours.'
----------
QUOTES:"I gave a valid answer though not to 'your liking' but then, who are you? My point in replying to the original poster was to show that there are plausible reasons for the many seeming contradictions.

But it is neither "valid" nor "plausible," and dispite repeated request in every post to show ANY precedence for the Hebrews refering to somebody not knowing the name of God, or anybody else for that matter, with the intent of conveying the idea that the person simply didn't know the signficance of the name.

Again, you offer ONLY the fact that ancient Hebrews saw significance in names. That is it. How on earth do you reason from the fact that just because they see significance in names that when they use the phrase "didn't know his name" they mean "didn't know the significance of his name"?
----------
MY REPLY:Okay, here's a valid reply to the overall, Tod, OVERALL matter of the name/title thing. Did not Moses inquire as to 'God's name and/or title? (Exodus 3:13-15) Now this is a interesting Scripture that validates my point. Moses inquires as to what was the NAME, not TITLE but NAME of God that he should inform the masses/leaders? God reveals his name as 'I am that I am.' Now, I'm sure in you will tell of the ethmylogical or whatever you call the 'root of words' and that will be all well and fine. However, my VALID REASONING on this matter says about the same thing to a being using 'common sense.' Yeah, the 'common sense' approach is many times a satisfactory answer that outweighs minutia for as stated, 'the letter killeth, the Spirit giveth life.
----------
----------
----------QUOTES:"Knowing a name and knowing the significance of a name are two completely different things.

Now, granted you broke it down 'word for word' but sometimes we simply need use 'common sense' as a valid answer, and not so much be bogged down with the details lest we lose sight of rhyme and reason. Let's just say, the 'seemingly' contradictions are cleared up using 'common sense.' As so. perhaps, this matter is best summed up thus, the author of that ancient text meant, Abraham didn't go by that 'TITLE'.

First of all, what you offer isn't common sense. If it was, you'd show why, which you repeatedly refuse to do. Secondly, Abraham's title is irrelevant. I assume your last sentence was a typing error. Perhaps you mean to say that "Abraham didn't use that 'TITLE' to refer to YHWH." That is kinda the point. Exodus says he didn't know YHWH's name, but Genesis says that named a place using YHWH's proper name.

----------

MY REPLY:You know Tod, the reason you go on and on is because you get bogged down into 'details' that are a bit boring, but I guess that's just your 'boreworm, i mean, bookworm' disposition, eh? I mean do you have to describe the pony in order to ride the pony? Think about that Tod, and lighten up with the grammatical lesson. If I wanted to take English I'd go to school and do so. At any rate, I meant to say that which I did say, but now that I know you are bogged down with 'minutia' I'll spell it out to you every now and then, but mostly I'll stick to good old 'wisdom' as it'll do it for you everytime.

Now, here this...and here this good. I've given you the one contradiction with regard to Moses. Now, I will say this with regard to Abraham, or is it proper phrasing Ibrahim, do tell Tod? Still my point is this, the many 'titles' given to any specific incident in Biblical era meant different things to different people. For instance, when Abraham's grandson Jacob parted company with his father-in-law, the two men made a 'covenant' and named the place of agreement after 2 different titles (Genesis 31:47-50). Now granted, Laban and Jacob were of two different Semitic groups, but the fact is, they used different 'titles' to describe the same incident. Well, there you have your 'evidence.' Learn from it Tod, learn from it.

[

Doctor X · 09-28-2003, 03:55 PM

Methinks the Readership would "learn" better if the argumenta ad hominem were dispensed with and the point addressed.

Then, again, I remain an optimist. . . .

--J.D.

Amlodhi · 09-28-2003, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Prophetessofrage

. . . I'll stick to good old 'wisdom' as it'll do it for you everytime.

Wisdom is made manifest through those who have learned to speak wisely; not through those who say "I am wise".

Namaste'

Amlodhi

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

09-28-2003, 02:36 PM	#52
Tod Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Little Rock, AR Posts: 152	First of all, this is all irrelevant since we are discussing in this present debate the author's being wrong only in regards to their belief Jesus would return soon. However, since this is a good opportunity to show how these so-called prophecies are no such thing, I'll address them. Originally posted by Madkins007 Huh. Let's see... Matt. 24: 4 And Jesus answering said to them, `Take heed that no one may lead you astray, 5 for many shall come in my name, saying, I am the Christ, and they shall lead many astray [FULFILLED in 53-66AD. In fact, some of them had a major role in the revolts of 66 that lead to the wars of 70AD} And messianic claimants were a dime a dozen during that period. They were around prior to Jesus and after Jesus. Jesus was allegedly "predicting" things that had already happened, were happening, and probably would continue to happen so long as the Jews were under the thumb of Rome. This isn't an example of fulfilled prophecy fulfillment but rather of simple observation. Yawn... 6 and ye shall begin to hear of wars, and reports of wars; see, be not troubled, for it behoveth all [these] to come to pass, but the end is not yet. 7 `For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places; 8 and all these [are] the beginning of sorrows; [FULFILLED with the growing unrest leading up to 70AD. The great famine of about 45AD is mentioned in Acts 11:28. Earthquakes were happeing from 37-54AD, and some nasty ones were recrded in 68AD.] "wars,...reports of wars...famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes" are common events that are always happening around the world throughout history. To predict them is to predict the obvious. 9 then they shall deliver you up to tribulation, and shall kill you, and ye shall be hated by all the nations because of my name; 10 and then shall many be stumbled, and they shall deliver up one another, and shall hate one another. 11 `And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray; [FULFILLED and discussed in Acts and some of the Epistles.] And again "false prophets" (as if there are true ones) are a dime a dozen, particularly at that time. Considering the hostility the gospels record Jesus himself facing, it isn't a stretch to think he told his followers they would be persecuted as well. Also, you cite New Testament books to claim prophecy fufillment. That, again, assumes inerrancy. Still, this is pretty generalized stuff that is hardly examples of amazing prophecy fulfillment. 12 and because of the abounding of the lawlessness, the love of the many shall become cold; 13 but he who did endure to the end, he shall be saved; 14 and this good news of the reign shall be proclaimed in all the world, for a testimony to all the nations; and then shall the end arrive. [FULFILLED, as per Col. 1:6 and 23] Hardly fulfilled! The gospels were not "proclaimed in all the world." In the case of Col. 1:23 we KNOW that Paul doesn't mean this unsubstantiated meaning of "Jewish world as they knew it", because he claims the gospel "has been preached to every creature under heaven." That clearly includes more than Judah, as Judah isn't the only nation "under heaven," and the gospel had most certainly NOT "been preached to every creature under heaven" at that time (and NOT even at this time! There are many indigenous folks in South America among the Yanomamo people that haven't met an evangelist). 15 `Whenever, therefore, ye may see the abomination of the desolation, that was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (whoever is reading let him observe) [FULFILLED in 70AD when Ceaser was worshipped in the Temple after it was breached and burned.] Be more specific. 16 then those in Judea -- let them flee to the mounts; 17 he on the house-top -- let him not come down to take up any thing out of his house; 18 and he in the field -- let him not turn back to take his garments. 19 `And wo to those with child, and to those giving suck in those days; 20 and pray ye that your flight may not be in winter, nor on a sabbath; 21 for there shall be then great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world till now, no, nor may be. 22 And if those days were not shortened, no flesh would have been saved; but because of the chosen, shall those days be shortened. [FULFILLED in the aftermath of the seige and battle] This is not prophecy fulfillment for two reasons: One you assume your use of the word "world" to refer to only "the Jewish world as they knew it" to claim prophecy fulfillment. You haven't given a good reason to think it doesn't refer to the whole world. Two: in an early post I pointed out that the destruction of the temple in 70 AD and the short seige that accompanied it were not even to the Jews an unprecedented event. 23 `Then if any one may say to you, Lo, here [is] the Christ! or here! ye may not believe; 24 for there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and they shall give great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, also the chosen. 25 Lo, I did tell you beforehand. 26 `If therefore they may say to you, Lo, in the wilderness he is, ye may not go forth; lo, in the inner chambers, ye may not believe; [FULFILLED, as mentioned above] Delt with above. 27 for as the lightning doth come forth from the east, and doth appear unto the west, so shall be also the presence of the Son of Man; 28 for wherever the carcase may be, there shall the eagles be gathered together. 29 `And immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken; [FULFILLED. Josephus and Tacticus record something odd in the sky durin the wars, and comets and other phenomena were recorded in ths period as well.] First of all, I was assuming you didn't suscribe to the idea that these stellar events spoken of were literal, but that this was simply literary imagery. That is why I haven't brought it up. However, if you do claim this verse refers to actual stellar events, I'd hardly call "something odd in the sky" or "comets" in any way fulfilling a claim that the "sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from the heaven." 30 and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory; 31 and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof. V.30 and 31 are the verses in debate. Does/did Jesus need to return in the flesh to fulfill these? The 'coming on the clouds of heaven' bit is a symbol of judgement well known to the Jews (Isaiah 19:1, Psalms 18:7-15, etc.), and in these passages, the actual presense of God is not taken to be literally, so is it to be so here? I suspect not. The difference is, in Isaiah the context clearly shows it is prophecized that Egypt will undergo calamity. In Psalms, again we have extreme anger being unleased. In the context of Jesus' alleged statement, however, we are not told that he comes in anger or to cause ruin, but rather to "gather his elect." That kinda changes up the context a bit. Secondly, it is never implied in the Old Testament that YHWH himself will ever come to earth. In other words, there is no doctrine of a second coming that applies to Yahweh. With Jesus, however, there is such a belief that he will return, so any reference to his return wouldn't be seen as simple symbolism. IF the 'gathering of the elect' and the 'coming in the clouds' bits mean the rapture and second coming as commonly understood, then something is badly glitched here. Yeah, the gospel writers goofed. On the other hand, Jesus was talking to fellow Jews who would have known the symology, and probably took these verses very differently than we read them now. There is absolutely no reason to believe that these "fellow Jews" would have interpreted the use of the word "world" to mean "the present Jewish world as we know it" or that they would have seen the "gather[ing] of his elect" and the references to the "trustworthy servant[s]" being "taken" to mean that these people would die unexpectedly! Let's not forget that in the next chapter 25 we find the verse "When the son of man comes in his glory, escorted by all the angels, then he will take his eat on his throne of glory. All nations will be assembled before him and he will separate people one from another as the shepherd separates sheep from goats. He will place the sheep on his right hand and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right hand, "Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take as your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world." (vs 31-34) Again this speaks of the end of the world, final judgement, and the introduction of the believers into "the kingdom prepared for [them]." If Jesus' second coming occurred in 70 AD, when did all of this happen? Has final judgement occurred? Have the faithful been granted entry into paradise? What are you still doing here?

09-28-2003, 02:45 PM	#53
Tod Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Little Rock, AR Posts: 152	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Prophetessofrage ---------- Look Tod, we've got to stop going around in circles like this. You've altered so much I've forgotten what the subject matter is. Oh my, what have I altered? You say that you don't know the subject matter, but then deal with it directly in your next statement: Okay, what ever the writer was trying to say, it caused controversy in that what is written concerning 'not knowing the name of God' is seemingly a contradiction. I thought I'd "go[ne] around in circles" so much that you weren't sure what the subject matter is? Now you quite concisely sum up the problem in your next sentence. I gave a valid answer though not to 'your liking' but then, who are you? My point in replying to the original poster was to show that there are plausible reasons for the many seeming contradictions. But it is neither "valid" nor "plausible," and dispite repeated request in every post to show ANY precedence for the Hebrews refering to somebody not knowing the name of God, or anybody else for that matter, with the intent of conveying the idea that the person simply didn't know the signficance of the name. Again, you offer ONLY the fact that ancient Hebrews saw significance in names. That is it. How on earth do you reason from the fact that just because they see significance in names that when they use the phrase "didn't know his name" they mean "didn't know the significance of his name"? Knowing a name and knowing the significance of a name are two completely different things. Now, granted you broke it down 'word for word' but sometimes we simply need use 'common sense' as a valid answer, and not so much be bogged down with the details lest we lose sight of rhyme and reason. Let's just say, the 'seemingly' contradictions are cleared up using 'common sense.' As so. perhaps, this matter is best summed up thus, the author of that ancient text meant, Abraham didn't go by that 'TITLE'. First of all, what you offer isn't common sense. If it was, you'd show why, which you repeatedly refuse to do. Secondly, Abraham's title is irrelevant. I assume your last sentence was a typing error. Perhaps you mean to say that "Abraham didn't use that 'TITLE' to refer to YHWH." That is kinda the point. Exodus says he didn't know YHWH's name, but Genesis says that named a place using YHWH's proper name.

09-28-2003, 03:28 PM	#55
Tod Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Little Rock, AR Posts: 152	[QUOTE]Originally posted by Madkins007 Tod- I am a little confused (well, according to you, I am a LOT confused, which would not be unusual for me!) but, what is your stance on the rapture? My stance is that there is no reason to believe any of the supernatural elements of the Bible are true. I thought you did not generally buy into the Bible (althought I could be mistaken, I'm still trying to figure out who is who around here), yet you are arguing for a doctrine that is not even believed in by many of the denominations of Christian churches. I'm arguing what the text says. The idea that the people in the Noah/Second Coming analogy, for example, are taken into heaven is a stretch here- they are heading into a horrible war and desolation and you are wondering where the violence is coming from? No, the gathering of his faithful in a rapture-like fashion isn't a stretch since the references to "gather[ing] of his elect," saying that when he returns some will be "taken" and others "left," that these people will be his "trustworthy servant[s]" (24:45) which he will then judge and allow into his "kingdom prepared for them" (25:31-34) ALL indicate as much! Secondly, Jesus didn't say when referring to the "one taken, one left" that there would be "horrible war and desolation," but SPECIFICALLY says "This is what it will be like when the Son of man comes"! He doesn't imply violence AT ALL, but unambiguously states that these people "taken" will be "taken" when he returns. Again, you have in no way offered to substantiate your claim that "taken" refers to being killed and "left" refers to surviving. That is the most twisted interpretation of these words I've yet seen. As for the use of the word 'world' (Greek- 'kosmos') in much of the writings of the time. I have been describing it as the 'Jewish world', but which I meant (and thought I had described as) the world (culturally, geopolitically, physically) in which the Jews lived and operated, which would include not only the lands of the Middle East, but much of the Roman territories and so forth as well. And the ONE verse you've used to support this claim, Colossians 1:6, does not indicate at all it refers only to this increasingly vague "Jewish world." Secondly, the definition you gave earlier was "...their world, as it existed when Jesus was saying the things in Matt 24," and again, this "world" you define was a short lived one, and I must again ask you to tell me when the era that marks this "Jewish world...as it existed when Jesus was saying the things in Matt 24" began. In other words, why don't you spell out the temporal and geographical boundaries of this world referred to in the word "world"? Pushing the word to include ALL the planet Earth is not supported by the Bible when many uses of it clearly refer to a more limited meaning, and a lot of other passages make more sense if it is given a more intimate defintion. Well I'm sorry, I thought your god was god of the whole world, and that the second coming, judgement, et al applied to the whole world. Any discussion of Jesus' second coming that refers to the "world" with all of its "nations" and "people" would seem to speak of the entire world! The use of the word 'world', like so many others in the Bible, are just like many of the words in English. We both have multiple meanings of the words, and can both use the word in many different ways in one discussion, depending on context to help sort it out. In the case of Matt. 24, the context of 'world' as a more regional and cultural term makes sense, if the 'end times' under discussion are 70AD. The more planetary definitions make sense of the end times have not yet happened- yet it would be odd ot me that SO MANY verses in the Gospels refer to an early time for the end times and Christ's return, and so many of the related prophecies have already come true. And as pointed out in another post these "prophecies" either aren't prophecies because they predict the obvious or didn't come true. Secondly, if we are going to focus on things "related" to "Christ's return," be can't ignore that throughout the New Testament Jesus' second coming is "related" to judgement and the last days, things that didn't occur in 70 AD. The big desolation, unparalleled since the Earth began is an interesting point. God has exagerated for effect before (Ez. 5:9, 2 Kings 18:5, 23:25- admittedly not the best examples, but I could not find my copy of the 'long list' and these were handy). Saying an event is "unparalleled since the Earth began" is either true or it isn't. Since "exaggerate" is defined as "to think, speak, or write of as greater than is really so; magnify beyond the fact; overstate," an exaggeration is by definition "beyond the fact" or "greater than is really so," and hence a falsehood. If God exaggerates, then God doesn't tell the truth. (By the way, my Strong's reference, clipped and pasted straight from the reference, came from the on-line Strongs Greek Lexicon located within www.crosswalk.com- the main place I use for online searches, definitions, etc. The other cross-references are from "The Outline to Covenant Eschatology" at www.planetpreterist.com. Click on 'Outline to Preterism') Well that crosswalk reference is a vague one. When I went, I saw no preexisting link to the Strong's Greek Lexicon, so I did a search. At http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/...84&version=kjv I found the following definition: 1. a multitude (whether of men or of beasts) associated or living together 1. a company, troop, swarm 2. a multitude of individuals of the same nature or genus 1. the human family 3. a tribe, nation, people group 4. in the OT, foreign nations not worshipping the true God, pagans, Gentiles 5. Paul uses the term for Gentile Christians Again, the usage implies a large-scale assortment of people, NOT a small one.

09-28-2003, 03:30 PM	#56
Tod Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Little Rock, AR Posts: 152	Now, maybe it is not a prophecy, per se, insofar as it is pretty obvious that at some unspecified point in the future there WILL be earthquakes, famines, and wars, Thank you... it is still interesting that other sources discuss how these things were building to a head just before the 70AD period. Again, you work under the still unsupported assumption that "world" only refers to "the Jewish world as they knew it when Jesus said these things." The fact remains, war, pestilence, earthquakes, and famine are common things throughout the world and history.

09-28-2003, 03:55 PM	#59
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Methinks the Readership would "learn" better if the argumenta ad hominem were dispensed with and the point addressed. Then, again, I remain an optimist. . . . --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.