aza wood

You are very observant. I believe, many things that i can not prove, much in the same why that both Not-theis and Xians, believe what they each wants to from the Bible.(and can not prove)

enemigo

And from the beginning to now, this argument of yours has been misdirected.

Well, like she said, your argument is lost (if you ever even had one in the first place). Your argument is irrelevent to this situation, and you're arguing in circles. You say that we can't use the Bible to prove anything. We say that we can use it to prove that it is flawed. You agree. We use it to prove that it is flawed. Then you say that we can't do that because we can't use the Bible to prove anything. And round and round you go.


IRRELEVENT. If you refuse to concede that the Bible is not flawed for the sake of argument, then there can be no argument with a believer at all on this subject, because the believer will reject anything except the Bible. If I just say, you can't believe in Jesus because the Bible is flawed. They'll just argue that it is not. However, if you concede that it isn't flawed, that is if you give them the benefit of the doubt, then you can prove them wrong on their own playing field. You can then show them that the Bible is flawed by showing that Jesus was wrong in his prophesy. Is any of this getting through?

No need for you to respond to any of these points. I'll do it for you: "You can't prove anything with the Bible." And round and round we go.


Don didn't agree with you that the Bible could not be used against itself or Jesus presented within it. Here is Don's last post to you:

Do you disagree with this? You have repeatedly agreed that the Bible can be used to prove that it is unreliable. Then you turn 180° and say that it can't be used to prove anything. One of the ways that it is unreliable is the fact that Jesus' prophesies were not fulfilled in the manner he said they would be. Therefore, by pointing this out, the Bible has been proven unreliable. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING. However, you then say, that nothing has been proven because the Bible can't be used to prove anything. And round and round we go.

Then in another attempt to prove that Don was incorrect in saying Jesus was a false prophet, you take the position of the believer. For this position you make the temporary assumption, for the sake of argument, that the Bible is not flawed. In order for you to "hop in the ring" you must suspend your belief that the Bible is flawed. So it seems that you are the one that is violating your own maxim. We aren't the ones using the fact that the Bible is flawed as part of our argument. You are using that fact as a part of your argument and then arguing using passages from the Bible.

Do me a favor. Go read Thomas Paine's The Age of Reason. Then come back here and tell me that he never should have written it because he used the Bible as his only source against the Bible. That is essentially what you're already telling us, because that is all any of us have done here. We have used the Bible against itself.

Fine. But you have failed to successfully demonstrate why your interpretation of Matthew 24:36 is valid. You are saying that,
equals
Since you say that this is the qualifying statement, you must demonstrate how you interpretated this using an actual quote. Where does he explicitly exclude his return from "all these things?"



richard

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: enemigo ]</p>

enemigo

He said that all the signs he mentioned and his return would happen during the lifetime of his disciples. All the signs and his return did not happen during that generation, therefore, Jesus was a false prophet according to the Bible. If he returned during the lifetimes of his disciples, then he would not have been a false prophet.

richard

NOGO

I assure you, Aza, that I have read Mt24 over and over again. We disagree on the interpretation of only a few verses. This does not mean that we cannot tie in other verses if need be to make our points. It is obvious that the interpretion to these few verses will determine how you interpret the rest of the Mt24 and indeed all of the gospel of Matthew.

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 is near, right at the door.

Basically you claim that that "it" in verse 33 and "summer" in verse 32 can mean anything that I want except Jesus' return despite the fact that Jesus' return is stated in verse 30 and 31.

I claim that "it" and "summer" refer to Jesus' return.
I also claim that "all these things" in verse 34 refers to everything Jesus' talked about up to that point including his return which is stated in verses 30 and 31.

This is our basic disagreement.

Where? Please show me where I said that.

I see you start answering my posts before you evern read them.
Aza, I do you the courtesy of reading your posts and trying to understand you main points (the essence of your thought) before I answer. I would hope that you do the same for me. I did complain in the past that you did not answer the main points of my posts. I can see why now.

If these are the lost tribes of Israel then how did the above authors know where they were?
There is zero evidence that any semitic people moved to china nor Japan.
There is zero evidence that any semitic people moved to India.
There is zero evidence that any semitic people moved to Noth America.
Before Jesus' time that is.

They were deported to the then Assyrian empire; the rest is hyperbole.
At the time of Jesus there may have been Jews in Greece and Italy but that was not because of deportation. Paul for example was a Roman citizen and moved about the Roman empire as he pleased before AD 66 when the war started. I call this immigration.

In typical believer fashion you confront sripture against scripture and arbritarily choose what you want to believer.

Mt10:23
... I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

versus

"Go ye into all the world, and preach the good news to every creature".

Tell me Aza what in the second statement above "Go ye into ..." permits you to change the meaning of Mt10:23 ?

Also how to you select which meaning overrides the other ?

Mt10:23 says that they will not finish going through the "cities of Israel".
What are the cities of Israel ?
They are the cities within the then state of Israel.

You cannot just wave a magic wand and make this statement disappear.

The statement "Go ye into all the world ..." is in direct contradiction with
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.

This contradiction is for you to exaplain. It does not affect my arguement in the least.
My point is that Mt10:23 says that a very definite task of preaching in every city of the then state of Israel would not be finished that the Son of Man would come.

There were just so many cities in Jesus' Israel. You cannot include here cities in the Parthian empire who may have some deported Israelites living there because those citites were not "cities of Israel". (P1)

Aza, I will indicate the points which I believe you should answer with as (P1, P2 ... Pn).
So please do make an effort to answer at least those points marked as such. Thank you.

The instructions as given to the 12 could not possibly have included Israelites outside the state of Israel. Why?

Because to reach Israelites who were deported the 12 would have to NECESSARILY go among the Gentiles in order to find these people. But Mt10:5 says DO NOT GO AMONG THE GENTILES. (P2)


Mt10:23... I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

This sentence must have a meaning to you, Aza, as well as I.
It is not a meaningless statement. To fix this statement, in order to salvage Christianity, you need to change the meaning so that it becomes a huge task that must take thousands of years to accomplish. But once you have done that what is the impact on the statements by Jesus. Let's see.

"I tell you the truth"
This means that some significant statement will follow. These words are used as emphasis to command attention.

"You will not finish this gargantuan task which will take milleniums to accomplish before the Son of Man comes."

Some great truth that is. This statement really commands attention doesn't it.
This statement is open ended and therefore says absolutely nothing. It gives absolutely no clue as to when Jesus will return. It is a non-statement.

Jesus could have said something like this

"I tell you the truth, you will go on preaching throughout the world and I will come whenever.

You have effectively removed all meaning from this sentence. What is left is just a monumental farce.

With Mt10:23 Jesus tied the task of "going through the cities of Israel" on one hand to his "return" on the other. The task thus becomes a measuring stick which can be used to assess when Jesus will return.

Jesus assigned his disciples a task and before this task is complete He will return. So the task is a ruler of sorts to help them determine when he will return.

That is the purpose of Jesus' statement. The purpose of the statement is to give his disciples a way of assessing when he will return. Otherwise why associate the task to his return?

As I see it the task is for 12 people to visit all the cities of the then state of Israel. This task is doable withing their life-time. This gives them a sense of when Jesus would return. This is what Jesus is trying to communicate with this statement.

On the other hand what you have done, Aza, is to remove the markings on that ruler which effectively defeats the purpose of the statement. Jesus is then saying this just to confuse everybody and not to convey any useful information.

I hope, Aza, that you see this point because it is a very important point. (P3)

You keep repeating this, Aza, and you keep misquoting it.
It does not say that Jesus did not know when he would return it says that he did not know the day and hour. You are distorting the words. You can believe whatever you want, Aza, but when you are debating and trying to convince others you cannot distort words and just keep repeating the same false statement in the hope that your audience will suddenly agree.

We should be able to agree that Mt 24:36 says that Jesus did not know the day and hour of his return. You cannot add to this statement. You have to look elsewhere to prove your point.

Your point here is that all mass murderers are liars and remain liars all their lifes.
Ok, Aza, I will keep this in mind when I stoop next.

You bit on the wrong piece. Why I am not surprized. Please bite on this statement.

one can say "before this generation passes" and still not know the exact day and hour that the event will happen. (p4)

The other statement about the surprize is saying that just because a specific time-frame has been given for the event (ie within this generation) it does not remove the surprize element alluded to in Mt24. (you can ignore this point but please do answer the one above marked P4)


You are splitting hair.
Mt24
29"Immediately after the tribulations of those days ...
30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, ...
They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory.

"Immediately after", "those days", "At that time"
All of these are time related.
So Jesus, in his answer, gives the "when" of his return.
He does not limit his answer to the "what" as you claim.

I suggest that you are misinterpreting the question.
Have you ever asked yourself the following question.
Why is the fate of the temple linked with Jesus' return?
It is linked not only in the disciples' questions but also in Jesus' answer.

The destruction of the temple is one of the signs leading to Jesus' return.
If the destruction of the temple, Jesus' return and the end of the world were three distinct events separated by thousands of years then Jesus would have given three distinct answers.

The three questions and answers are treated as one in Mt24 because the war with Rome, the destruction of the temple, the end of the world and Jesus' return were to be one continuous event. The final bang so to speak.

That is why the words mt24:29"Immediately after the tribulations of those days ..." are placed just before Jesus' return.

To make sense of this you are forced to argue that the tribulations have been going on since the destruction of the temple and will continue until Jesus' return.

That makes a farce of Jesus' answer just like the Mt10:23 statement.

This hair splitting got us off the point that I made in my previous post. (P5)

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

NOGO

I realize this. But what do you mean by "prove"?
One can place the bar so high that nothing can be proven. This to me is just playing games.

I can prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that Mt24 and Mt10 do say that Jesus was expected to return before the then generation passed.

However if you want to show that this cannot be done by placing the bar high enough, that is higher than a reasonable doubt, then you become unreasonable in your interpretation of even the most simple and obviously statements.

I do see that this is what you have been doing.

But, is this useful or constructive?

aza wood

I see your point. What I should have said is that, If , by simply quoting from the bible can prove anything (as Not-theis and Xians are doing) then it can be used to prove anything. See what can happen if we do not build on what has already be put forth, and take every statement as a universe unto itself.



Don said that he was not really trying to prove that "Jesus was a false prophet', but was just using that phrase as an eye catcher.


Do you believe that the NIV has the actual quote? Get out! The NIV is taken from Gr. Manuscripts, writings that no one knows are accurate, because they do not have one originals, and if they ever found the original Gr. Writings, "Jesus' and his disciples, did not use gr. To speak to each other.(being hebrews). So it is very hypocritical of you to accuse me of misquoting, something already so misquoted .

The only part of the disciple's question, that involved a time frame in the first place was, "when well the destruction of the temple take place"? Christ told them that would be in their generation) and then added, the word but. If some one says something to you and then says the word "but", you need to go look behind their but, and see "but" what. In this case it is the fact that Christ said that he did not know something. (When he would be back)

[ May 26, 2002: Message edited by: aza wood ]</p>

aza wood

Good point, BUT It would appear that i am not confused on this issue. Some Not-theis(ex-fundies) who have swallowed this crap, that is supposed to be only for believers, have been arguing that, "jesus" actually is a false prophet. based singularly on the flawed bible. They are not saying "if the bible is true, then he is". but that "he is", based only on the bible's truths, and if you misquote their precious book watch-out.

aza wood

[quote]Originally posted by NOGO:
True, BUT not as much as, the Whole rest of 24 and indeed all of matthew should be used to clarify your 2 verses.

Only to the point that you can not prove this. You can believe this , BUT can not prove it.


quote"It" refers to the kingdom of God, (((the end of the world))) or his return. It cannot refer to some obscure insignificant event. May 21, 2002 07:55 PM
i do not answer them before i read them. I answer them as i read them.


Marco Polo found them in the chief places of government

<a href="http://members.aol.com/KHoeck777/Comstone.html" target="_blank">http://members.aol.com/KHoeck777/Comstone.html</a>

They where first taken by, Titus in ships to Egypt, as foretold in Due. 28;68.
"And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy [you]".


I do not believe the bible is correct, or reliable enough to prove anything. I am just showing you repeatedly that your interpretation could possibly be wrong.

According to the bible, "go into all the world was "Jesus's" last command. If he had before said, " i will come back , before you go through all the cities of Israel, and it was not this same command, then he must have come back to them in order to give them this last command.

I have done just that. In 12: 1 His disciples are with "Jesus' again. So he must have appeared unto them again. "At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. Also it tell about the fact that the nect time "Jesus' sent out 72 disiples instead of just the 12,. Now how did he do that without appearing to them again? This makes all your points irrelevant, doesn't it?(Mat.12:1)

See above explanation.

No. Maybe two weeks. Think outside the box!

[quote]But once you have done that what is the impact on the statements by Jesus. Let's see.
"I tell you the truth"
This means that some significant statement will follow. These words are used as emphasis to command attention.
"You will not finish this gargantuan task which will take milleniums to accomplish before the Son of Man comes." [quote]

Two weeks!
Opened ended? He had to return to them, to say all the things that he said from matt. 10 through the end of matt.

If you call "SOMETIME before you finish going through all the cities of Israel ", "a ruler of sorts, to help them determine when", they will see him again, ok, but it seems very vague to me.

Especially when later he sent out the 72.

I see that it is to you for some reason.

If you will go back and check, you will see that I have only repeated this after, each time you repeated you opposite view. (without exception)
Why can't i add my view, of what was meant , you have added yours?

My point is only that, you will take a murderers view, to prove that "Jesus is a false prophet". You must want this proven pretty badly.


I have already give other possibilities. You would just like me to keep reiterating so that you can accuse me of the same.
You don't have an answer to,"where dose it say that a whole generation was disappointed?" but where bluffing.
It is not.

He did give three distinct answers.

I agree that i have done as well in both chapters 24 and 10.

Hair spitting, is what i would prefer to think of it as.

NOGO

Please tell me which verses of Jesus' answer belong to which question.

NOGO

Please show me where I have so arbitrarily deformed the meaning of a particular verse.