enemigo

So since the Bible has been proven wrong, we can't use it as evidence for or against anything. And apparently you believe this includes arguing about whether or not the Jesus as depicted in the Bible was a false prophet. And even though this character is in the Bible, the Bible has already been proven wrong so it is not viable evidence against what is said in the Bible.

So, if you would, please give me an example of how one might go about using the Bible to prove itself wrong. Keep in mind that the Bible has already been proven wrong, so you can't use it as viable evidence to prove anything else right or wrong.

And you accused me of arguing in circles?

richard

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: enemigo ]</p>

aza wood

If you just want to slam people, and have no concern for accuracy, as you have above stated, then you are openly agreeing to my point.

What you are saying is "The heck with all truth, i will use whatever i can to slam a historical figure if i wish, if i don't have a true account, i will even use one that i know to be erroneous.

I rest my case.

aza wood

It has not been proven wrong to every individual.
If i prove to am individual that the bible is unreliable, then i go ahead and try to use it to prove something. They would be correct to say," Wait a minute! You tell me that it is wrong and now you use it. What gives"?

NOGO

This is true but you must also know that before a canon was established there were all sorts of contradictory beliefs about Jesus.

Most of what you hold today as true about Jesus was a result of the canonization. If we were living in the second or third century I would have far more contradictory material on hand to prove that Christianity is a hoax.

Have you read the gnostic gospels?
Bringing in more material wont help your cause.
It is not as if before the canonization there was a clear Christian faith and after there was a mess. On the contrary before there was a much greater mess and after we got what we got.

At any rate I will settle for the statement that "according to the gospel of Matthew Jesus is a false prophet".

You have not answered my post on what "it/He" meant.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

enemigo

Think of my argument as a literary criticism of a fictional character. Can't I use the actual book to point out a discrepency in the plot? All I am doing is pointing out why I think that the character of Jesus and thus, why I think that the Bible is flawed. Do you not understand that? I am not trying to prove that the actual Jesus (if he existed) said any of these things.

You're saying that once I believe that the Bible is flawed, I may no longer criticize anything about it. I may no longer say why I think the main character is flawed. I am using deductive reasoning to show that Jesus was a false prophet, based on the book in which he prophesies. I am not assuming that the Bible is flawed in order to prove that it is flawed. That would be the circular reasoning that you accused me of. You, however, are the one that is begging the question by saying that I can't use a Bible, which I know is flawed, in order to demonstrate one of the ways that it is flawed.


<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />


Straw man. When did I first prove that the Bible was unreliable, then "go ahead and try to prove something else?" I did not assume that Bible was false in order to prove that Jesus was a false prophet.

Now, if you would, please demonstrate why Matthew 24:30-31 (which are "predicted in the chapter(prior to saying all these things)") are not included in "all these things" in Matthew 24:34.

richard

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: enemigo ]</p>

NOGO

This to me is totally irrelevant.
The New Testament is a set of books which gives us some insight into something that happened around the first century AD.

Within these books there is consistant and clear evidence that the early Christians believed and were waiting for Jesus to return within their life-time.

I have shown you some of that evidence which you have not countered in any way.

In Matthew 24 and Matthew 10 it says that Jesus would return within the then current generation.

Many places in the Epistles give clear indication that Christians expected to be present when Jesus returned.

There is even indication of reactions when it became obvious that the generation had passed and nothing happened.

What that tells me is that Jesus wont return and Christianity is a hoax.

NOGO

This is the part that you missed Aza.

You have claimed that the "it" in verse 33 was not Jesus or anything to do with Jesus' return but could be the destruction of the temple (or other destruction).

"It" cannot refer to anything but his second coming and here is why.

Look again at Matthew 24
32 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it/He is near, right at the door. 34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Notice verse 32.
When you see that the fig tree's twigs get tender and its leaves come out then you know that the summer is near.

Jesus is making an analogy.
The twigs and leaves are the signs which tell you that the summer is near.

Likewise

verse 33 "all these things" are the signs which tell the disciples that

verse 33 "it/He is near"

"It" or "He" or anything that may be there in the original language is the equivalent (in Jesus' analogy) to the "summer". It is what the disciples are waiting for. It is what all Christians have been waiting for, for 2000 years.

It cannot be the destruction of the temple nor any other destruction.

It has to be his second coming. That is the "summer" that they are waiting for.

"It" refers to the kingdom of God, the end of the world or his return.

... and it was all suppose to happen before the generation passed.

As usual you chose to answer a secondary point rather than the main point.
The main point is that Jesus tells his disciples that they will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. How long can it take to go through all the cities of Israel? Answer: before this generation passes is a good estimate.

You cannot deny that there is a time element here "before they finish going through the cities of Israel". "before" is a time limit.

If you see the time element and you associate the coming of the Son of Man to the kingdom of Heaven then it is perfectly legitimate to say that "near" in "the kingdom of Heaven is near" means near in time.

aza wood

i do not believe the Bible, or "Jesus". I am the one who is against using it, to prove anything. You're the bible thumpers, no me.


You are bring all this in, not i.


You are preaching to the quire.



Yes, If your understanding of the gospel of Matthew is true, and if matthew ever really new "jesus", and if He got the story straight. Then it is possible, that you are correct. If you call this proof, ok , but to me, this sounds more like faith than knowledge.

The "It" would refer to events, possible even "Jesus's"return (If ver.36 is not a qualifying statement), and "he" would refer only to"jesus's" return and not to many of the other events, that are not associated with that return.. Both depend completely on the reliability of the bible. If the bible is not reliable, then both mean nothing.

aza wood

That's cool, as long as you and those reading are aware that nothing is being proved. Of cores you can believe or "Think"whatever. That is the way i see it too.

How many times will you repeat this. As i have said over and over to you, you can prove that the bible is wrong, by the bible, but then you can not use a flawed book to prove any thing else, right or wrong.


No one has said, that you can not think what ever you please. What i am talking about is proving.(NOT THINKING)


Do you believe that the book is true, or are you using "deductive reasoning" on a book that you Know is not true?

i have not accused you of trying to prove the bible is flawed. I may have said that you (Plural) can prove it wrong.

of corse.

because in verse 36 "jesus" said that he did not know when he would be back. The word "but" at the beginning of 36 is the opening word to a qualifying statement.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: aza wood ]</p>

aza wood

How can you know this, as fact, and not just by faith.

i have countered it all by, saying that there is no proof that these books where really written by "jesus's followers. Not one book is the original, or the monks who translated it, may have monkeyed it up.

25:13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man cometh.

as have every generation sence then.

I am not debating this.

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: aza wood ]</p>