offa

Offa;
NOGO: I am talking about the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE. Romans, under Titus, destroyed Jerusalem and the temple. Is this something new?

Offa; Apples and oranges. Jesus was not talking about the temple destroyed in 70 CE. He died prior to that. Jesus was born in 7 b.c.e. and he was talking about the temple during his crucifixion which occurred in 33 CE when Jesus was forty years old.

Is this something new?

Xman

Well, in point of fact we are not talking about the RCC since it did not come into existence as a distinct entity until 1054, and the modern RCC has very different views about much of history than do other branches of the church that also stem from the fourth century church.

If you doubt their honesty by suggesting that they invented the earlier writings, why believe them when they report that they began translating them in 379? Do you or do you not believe that they were translating from Greek? If they were, who wrote the Greek and when? Your skepticism seems highly arbitrary at this point. Can you flesh it out a bit?

Xman

Hi NOGO,

And thanks for the welcome. Originally I stopped by as part of a class assignment, but I've gotten involved in some discussions so I'm still here. It's kind of interesting, as long as the conversations stay civil, so perhaps I'll hang out for a bit.

Ra

Biff the unclean

Well, in point of fact we are not talking about the RCC since it did not come into existence as a distinct entity until 1054
I guess you aren't Catholic then because they trace their church back to St Peter
and the modern RCC has very different views about much of history than do other branches of the church that also stem from the fourth century church.
I take it you are referring the Orthodox Church and not 16th century Protestant heretics.

If you doubt their honesty by suggesting that they invented the earlier writings, why believe them when they report that they began translating them in 379?
I doubt their honesty. I should have put the word "translation" into quotes since there was apparently nothing to translate from. They appear to use the word "translation" as an assumption based only on the fact that the book is in the wrong language.

While you're looking through the Catholic Encyclopedia take a peak at Justin Martyr. It has a great deal about his many writings. But you have to read between the lines. They as much as tell you that they have nothing original from him and imply that it all dates only to Eusebius and some is much newer even than that. They, of course see nothing sinister in that. These are really old books after all. It's only when you start checking bibles, books, art and buildings that you find an abrupt halt to artifacts. There are tons of claims of an early and colorful Christian history…only there are no artifacts from it.

NOGO

The temple in Jerusalem which Jesus entered and preached in was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. Yes, this was long after his death. In Mt24 Jesus prophesied the destruction of that very temple. In 70 CE that prophecy was fulfilled.

I am claiming that the prophecy was written in retrospect.

offa

offa; the problem with fundie scholarship is that they throw up numbers without research. In Acts 12:25 "they returned to Jerusalem" posts a problem because they were already in Jerusalem. See "The Catholic Bible, Copyright 1995, Oxford University Press, Inc." footnote page 203. There was more than one Jerusalem and more than one temple. Did it ever strike anyone's fancy how Jesus could be privy to Caiaphas' Temple (the one that was destroyed in 70 CE)? Where was Caiaphas and the boys when Jesus and his disciples were running around in its garden?

NOGO

Every Jew could enter the temple for prayer, sacrifice etc. The temple was a place of worship; it was not a fortress for only Caiaphas and his boys. The temple also had an outer area in which gentiles were allowed. It was a huge place.

It is not surprising that Jesus and his disciples entered the temple.