Toto

How about Matt 16: 28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

or Matt 24: 34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

as two examples.

Another thread in the forum on 2 Peter presents evidence that it was not written until the 2nd c.

Besides, what is your point? That Jesus predicted he would return, and those words were recorded in the gospels, but the early church gave up on that belief? That would make Jesus a false prophet and the gospels a shakey basis for a new religion, would it not?

The Jesus recorded in the gospels (if he existed) was predicting the immanent end of the world and the triumph of Jesus as a worldly leader. Some Christians have dropped this or deemphasize it, but it's there.

I will refer you to the Evolution-Creation forum if you want to debate the macroeviolution of species. There is so much evidence that the Biblical accounts are not accurate I would not know where to start.

I sense we are drifting off the original topic of this thread, and I am not sure what you are arguing. You seem to need to convince yourself that the Bible is inerrant if properly interpreted, especially in the area of prophecy. I sometimes find it hard to take the subject of Biblical prophecy very seriously.

I suggest that you start a new topic and lay out your new understanding of rabbinical interpretations of prophecy.

Toto

I only brought up Tagalog because I worked in an office once with, among other characters, and Evangelical Christian and a Philipino who had long conversations on the phone in Tagalog. The Evangelican remarked that it sounded like people do when they are speaking in tongues.

Geoff Hudson

Toto,

There was no preaching about Jesus, but there was proclamation of the Spirit of God which when obeyed brought inner purification (of the person's spirit) without animal sacrifice. Any references to Jesus were later editor's overwrites, as they were in all the NT. It is interesting to note that the idea of Jesus' atoning sacrifice for sins is missing in the early part of Acts.

Apart from the editor's dramatisations, such as the tongues, the shipwreck and the snake incidents, Acts is mostly garbled history. Chapters 1 to 12 all occur in Italy.

Geoff

Toto

Was Gamaliel in Rome? Was Stephen (or James) stoned in Rome?

Geoff Hudson

Toto,

I said Acts was garbled history. It was made so by expert garblers. Gamaliel was not Gamaliel, but a substitute for someone else. The expert editor knew about Gamaliel, and that he would fit into his scheme to allow the removal of the original character.

At the moment, I have James being sent back to Jerusalem, possibly with a shipment of grain for the poor, and with a bodyguard for his protection. I now think it is likely that he was executed in Jerusalem.

Yes, I think Stephen was executed in Italy. Stephen was a Roman "Christian".

Geoff

Geoff Hudson

Toto,

I think Eisenman has the stoning of Stephen as an attack on James when the latter was only injured. This I am considering, but the event would be in Rome.

Geoff

NOGO

I am not guessing. I am telling you an undeniable fact substantiate by a mountain of evidence.

Your statement on the other hand is based on ZERO evidence.

If you have evidence for what you stated show it.
I have no interest for preaching.

Your statement is very clear. It simply does not fit the facts.
Take Mt24 for example.

Jesus was asked two questions:
One is about the destruction of the temple
and the other is about his return.

He answers the two questions describing the destruction of the temple and then describing his return and adds
"This generation will not pass till all of this takes place"

The conclusion is inevitable Christians expected the end of the world and Jesus' return within a generation.

I provided plenty of precise examples and anybody can read them throughout this thread; where are yours?

NOGO

Is the end of the age the end of the Jewish state as YHWHtruth suggested?

There are so many elements which simply do fit with this scenario. Many people have already trashed this issue to death.

Here is but one element just as example.

The question put to Jesus is whose wife will be a woman who married seven men in the Kingdom of God or if you like after the resurrection?

Jesus answer is that people do marry in this age
BUT
those who attain the next age and the resurection do not marry.

Note there is only one transition.
This age - people marry
Next age - people don't

So after the destruction of the Jewish state in 70 CE people still married and are still part of this age.

The next age is associated with the resurrection.
ie with the end of the world.

NOGO

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would tell you what to say.

Paul realized that people who spoke in tongue although inspire by the Holy Spirit was rather useless because nobody understood them, including the speaker. So he told to keep quet unless somebody could explain what was said.

So the Holy Spirit inspire Paul to figure this out.
Wow!
But the same Holy Spirit spoke through these people in meaningless babble talk and never figured out that it was useless.

Another mystery!

YHWHtruth

Does the Bible say that all who would have God’s spirit would “speak in tongues”?

1 Cor. 12:13,_30: “Truly by one spirit we were all baptized into one body ._._. Not all have gifts of healings, do they? Not all speak in tongues, do they?” (Also 1_Corinthians 14:26)

1 Cor. 14:5: “Now I would like for all of you to speak in tongues, but I prefer that you prophesy. Indeed, he that prophesies is greater than he that speaks in tongues, unless, in fact, he translates, that the congregation may receive upbuilding.”

Is the ‘speaking in tongues’ that is done today the same as that done by first-century Christians?

In the first century, the miraculous gifts of the spirit, including the ability to “speak in tongues,” verified that God’s favor had shifted from the Jewish system of worship to the newly established Christian congregation. (Heb. 2:2-4) Since that objective was accomplished in the first century, is it necessary to prove the same thing again and again in our day?

In the first century, the ability to “speak in tongues” gave impetus to the international work of witnessing that Jesus had commissioned his followers to do. (Acts 1:8; 2:1-11; Matt. 28:19) Is that how those who “speak in tongues” use that ability today?

In the first century, when Christians ‘spoke in tongues,’ what they said had meaning to people who knew those languages. (Acts 2:4,_8) Today, is it not true that ‘speaking in tongues’ usually involves an ecstatic outburst of unintelligible sounds?

In the first century, the Bible shows, congregations were to limit the ‘speaking in tongues’ to two or three persons who might do that at any given meeting; they were to do it “each in turn,” and if there was no interpreter present they were to keep silent. (1_Cor. 14:27,_28, RS) Is that what is being done today?

Max