Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sschlichter · 05-31-2008, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray

I am not concerned with any prophecies that come from Joel, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Revelation or anyone else. I am concerned with Jesus' prophecy and his alone. It is not valid to combine prophecies from many different sources, since that assumes that Jesus agreed with everything that his predecessors thought. This would be like saying that Plotinus must have agreed with what Plato said, or with what every Greek philosopher before him said.
Many Christians insist on the notion that the Bible is "a unified and harmonious whole", which allows them to combine and mix together passages from many different places in the book. Some of us say this is not valid practice for a scholar.

really,

You think scholars would recommend not bothering understanding 1st century Judaism including their books in an effort to understand Jesus' prophecies??? Even with the goal of debunking, wouldn't that be a prudent place to start.

Perhaps many Christians became Christians because they found a harmony. Some also beleive God reveals himself and that revelation is progressive.

Since you are not interested in this, how would you know whether it is true. Perhaps Platonis agreed with Plato. Wouldn't you have to understand both of them to determine if they do not. Of course, if you presumed they do not, then you would not bother trying to understand either. This presumption is actually what would keep you from finding out if presumption is accurate.

~Steve

arnoldo · 05-31-2008, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray

Unless I'm reading all of this all wrong.

Yes, you are

The disciples were also expecting the Kingdom of Israel to be fully restored and even argued amongst themselves who would be sitting on the thrones however as it turned out Yeshua was executed and the disciples were scattered. According to christian theology, or mythology, the world will not end however the Kingdom of Israel will be fully established, as per the Abrahamic covenant, and will rule all of the nations during the millenium.

arnoldo · 05-31-2008, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray

Many Christians insist on the notion that the Bible is "a unified and harmonious whole", which allows them to combine and mix together passages from many different places in the book. Some of us say this is not valid practice for a scholar.

The first century writers of the New Testament thought it was absolutely valid to mix different passages from the OT since the reality of Yeshua transcended everything else. Perhaps Venard Eller in his book: War and Peace from Genesis to Revelations (or via: amazon.co.uk) says it more eloquently.

Quote:

.....They gave no thought to the difference between Isaih, Deutero-Isaiah, or the third part of Isaiah. In fact they gave little or not thought to the difference between one prophetic book and another. A not at all uncommon occurrence in the New Testament is to find an author saying, "As it is written in the prophets," and giving a quotation that is constructed out of lines taken from a number of different prophets."

Decypher · 05-31-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yes, same topic is all they share....

Just as "the son of man will come in all his glory, but tell you what, some of you will see that glory firsthand."

The emphatic insertion, is not a change in topic, it is an attention getter. The topic (glorification of christ) stayed the same but those chosen were going to get a preview before they died (and I expect they needed it since they were going to die in similar manner).

2 Pet 1:16-17 is in accord with this interpretation. Peter, himself referred to the same event as advancing the same purpose.

For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur.
2 Pe 1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: "This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted."

The phrase underlined is the phrase used by God in the transfiguration. Peter seemed to understand the purpose of the transfiguration in the same context as Matthew.

~Steve

As I said:

"Everything in Matthew 16:27 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. In the description of the event, in the time prediction of the event, they line up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse material."

Now why wouldn't we simply think the verses are talking about the Olivet Discourse event?

Also, Matthew 16:27-28 is not really talking about the "glorification of Jesus". Matthew 16:27 does say, "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father...", but that doesn't mean the verses are focused on "glorification". And Matthew 16:28 doesn't say anything about "glory" or "glorification".

Matthew 16:28 is talking about the "kingdom of God". In the descriptions of the Transfiguration, it never says anything about the kingdom of God. I know some Christians will say that they witnessed a "preview" of the kingdom. But it doesn't say that in the Bible. It doesn't mention the kingdom at all. Such interpretations are highly speculative.

sugarhitman · 05-31-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray

I am not concerned with any prophecies that come from Joel, Ezekiel, Daniel, the Revelation or anyone else. I am concerned with Jesus' prophecy and his alone. It is not valid to combine prophecies from many different sources, since that assumes that Jesus agreed with everything that his predecessors thought. This would be like saying that Plotinus must have agreed with what Plato said, or with what every Greek philosopher before him said.
Many Christians insist on the notion that the Bible is "a unified and harmonious whole", which allows them to combine and mix together passages from many different places in the book. Some of us say this is not valid practice for a scholar.

Then you will never understand, for all the Prophets are in agreement concerning the Messiah and the nation of Israel.....if you can find one contradiction concerning these two things then the prohets do not agree. But ill let you in on something....you wont.

sschlichter · 05-31-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decypher

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

yes, same topic is all they share....

Just as "the son of man will come in all his glory, but tell you what, some of you will see that glory firsthand."

The emphatic insertion, is not a change in topic, it is an attention getter. The topic (glorification of christ) stayed the same but those chosen were going to get a preview before they died (and I expect they needed it since they were going to die in similar manner).

2 Pet 1:16-17 is in accord with this interpretation. Peter, himself referred to the same event as advancing the same purpose.

For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur.
2 Pe 1:17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: "This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted."

The phrase underlined is the phrase used by God in the transfiguration. Peter seemed to understand the purpose of the transfiguration in the same context as Matthew.

~Steve

As I said:

"Everything in Matthew 16:27 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. In the description of the event, in the time prediction of the event, they line up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse material."

Now why wouldn't we simply think the verses are talking about the Olivet Discourse event?

Also, Matthew 16:27-28 is not really talking about the "glorification of Jesus". Matthew 16:27 does say, "the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father...", but that doesn't mean the verses are focused on "glorification". And Matthew 16:28 doesn't say anything about "glory" or "glorification".

Matthew 16:28 is talking about the "kingdom of God". In the descriptions of the Transfiguration, it never says anything about the kingdom of God. I know some Christians will say that they witnessed a "preview" of the kingdom. But it doesn't say that in the Bible. It doesn't mention the kingdom at all. Such interpretations are highly speculative.

Zoom out a little in Matt 16, Mark 8, Luke 8. It is not about Jerusalem at all. he is talking about his death and resurrection and the cost of following him. The cost being worth it because the Son of Man will be exalted and here is a peek for those chosen. All 3 synoptics go right from this phrase to the transfiguration. The authors all launch into the transfiguration directly from this phrase.

~Steve

Decypher · 05-31-2008, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Zoom out a little in Matt 16, Mark 8, Luke 8. It is not about Jerusalem at all. he is talking about his death and resurrection and the cost of following him.

Yes.

And I will point out that this material (one verse of it) is also mixed up with Olivet Discourse material in Luke 17.

Quote:

The cost being worth it because the Son of Man will be exalted

Where does it say that?

Quote:

and here is a peek for those chosen.

Where does it say that?

Quote:

All 3 synoptics go right from this phrase to the transfiguration.

What phrase?

The Transfiguration comes after "There be some standing here...", but that doesn't prove much.

Decypher · 05-31-2008, 06:06 PM

Everything in Matthew 16:27 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. In the description of the event, in the time prediction of the event, they line up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse material.

Why wouldn't we simply think the verses are talking about the Olivet Discourse event?

Joan of Bark · 06-01-2008, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

"Repent for the kingdom of Heaven is at hand"---Jesus Christ....Indeed it is.

P.S. Jesus did not say "before this generation has passed away" He siad "This generation shall not pass until till all these things are fulfilled." The generation in which the signs appear in is the generation that will not pass away.....the generation which goes through the tribulation.

Then the apostle Paul and the disciples were all idiots for not noticing what Jesus really meant, huh?

Read A History of the End of the World (or via: amazon.co.uk) sugarhitman and you will learn that you are just another in the long line of deluded Christians who think that the end of the world is near. Every generation since Jesus has had nutjobs making this claim ... and every one of them was wrong.

If I thought I could trust you (and had more disposable income), I would make you a simple wager: I will pay you $1000 every year until, oh ... say, 2020 (or whatever year you believe will be the upper limit for the end of the world). When that year arrives, you will pay me ten times that amount. You would obviously accept this offer, since what have you got to lose? The world will end and you won't have to pay up!

jules? · 06-01-2008, 07:08 AM

I know it probably flamming, and naughty but... believing that it will all kick off in the near future based on some half baked ideas from 2000 years ago is mental illness. It is so so clear in an historical context.

The exilled Jews wrote of a return, perhaps they looked forward for it to be a more equal society, perhaps they really thought they had the ear of God. they would return and would be great again.

they did return only to spend a few decades with self rule but conquest brought oppresion that brought hope that their day would come

The day, the end time, judgement for 'gods' people, and they believed this with such conviction that they went to war with the greatest military machine of the day and almost won.

The Temple was destroyed, again but even despite such a set back a new 'Star' rose up to wack the forces of kittem in 135 to fail again.

Jesus [I will avoid the historical issue] represents a JEWISH response to defeat, the messiah defeated death rather than the Roman Empire, not bad really so either the end of the world has happened

= Catholicism, the defeat of death, the conquest of the world by the 'star', a 1000 years reign of god on earth [the body of church being the ressurected body of christ] new Jerusalem being Rome etc.

Or B/ there was never [i.e not for a few more billion years] going to be an end time and the prophets were talking bollocks which was finally exposed in 135 with the complete destruction of the Jewish homeland.

either way all the mental talk of 'end time' and 'judgement day' is a complete waste of time at best but really does drive madman with planes into skyscapers at worst.

sorry for the out burst.

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

05-31-2008, 06:06 PM	#38
Decypher Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: England Posts: 688	Everything in Matthew 16:27 fits with the Olivet Discourse. Everything in Matthew 16:28 fits with the Olivet Discourse. In the description of the event, in the time prediction of the event, they line up perfectly with the Olivet Discourse material. Why wouldn't we simply think the verses are talking about the Olivet Discourse event?

06-01-2008, 07:08 AM	#40
jules? Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: mind the time rift, cardiff, wales Posts: 645	I know it probably flamming, and naughty but... believing that it will all kick off in the near future based on some half baked ideas from 2000 years ago is mental illness. It is so so clear in an historical context. The exilled Jews wrote of a return, perhaps they looked forward for it to be a more equal society, perhaps they really thought they had the ear of God. they would return and would be great again. they did return only to spend a few decades with self rule but conquest brought oppresion that brought hope that their day would come The day, the end time, judgement for 'gods' people, and they believed this with such conviction that they went to war with the greatest military machine of the day and almost won. The Temple was destroyed, again but even despite such a set back a new 'Star' rose up to wack the forces of kittem in 135 to fail again. Jesus [I will avoid the historical issue] represents a JEWISH response to defeat, the messiah defeated death rather than the Roman Empire, not bad really so either the end of the world has happened = Catholicism, the defeat of death, the conquest of the world by the 'star', a 1000 years reign of god on earth [the body of church being the ressurected body of christ] new Jerusalem being Rome etc. Or B/ there was never [i.e not for a few more billion years] going to be an end time and the prophets were talking bollocks which was finally exposed in 135 with the complete destruction of the Jewish homeland. either way all the mental talk of 'end time' and 'judgement day' is a complete waste of time at best but really does drive madman with planes into skyscapers at worst. sorry for the out burst.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.