Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aza wood · 05-20-2002, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:


Contrast the statement that you made above with your point about "it/He".

Basically (and in both cases) you are digressing.

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

It does not mater which it is. My point is that the bible can not be used as proof of anythging. The "Scholars" as you call them, can not even agree. Yet you believe that you can use this flawed book to prove your point. You can not.

aza wood · 05-20-2002, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:
It" cannot be the destruction as you claim because the destruction is part of the "things" that they will see which will tell them that Jesus (or the Kingdom of Heaven) is at the door.

I would like to answer you, but I do not follow your line of thought. I do know that it is not "Door" as used metaphorically, but doorS as those of a their houses.

aza wood · 05-20-2002, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:
Look again at Matthew 24 (NIV)
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.

Webster Bible says, So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, [even at] the doors. Most say doors(plural). I am not saying that my translation is right. Heck, I do not yet have a translation. What I am saying is that there is no way that we can know. If any of it is wright or wrong. How can you honestly say that you can prove anything by the bible?

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: aza wood ]

aza wood · 05-20-2002, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:


Your conclusion is incorrect. All of these verses are in no way incompatible with "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." as a time-frame for Jesus' return.

verse 36 says this and only this
NIV "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

This does not mean that Jesus had no idea of when he would return. Verse 36 only says that the day and hour is unknown. Together "day" and "hour" indicate that what is not known is the precise time.

Here is another passage which proves it.

Matthew 10:5-7
These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.'

Matthew 10:23
I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Two things are to be noted here.

1. "The kingdom of heaven is near".
Just imagine people in the first century hearing such a message. What would they think if "near" meant 2000 years later.

2. They will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
That sounds like about the same as this generation.

Here again Jesus gives clear indication of when He would return "before they finish going through the cities" and again not the exact "day" and "time".

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

This is all just wonderful fundi knowledge, but we do not even know who the heck this fellow Matthew was, and how he got any of these details(that you seem to know so well) and whether or not it is true. How can you prove anything by the bible ? (except that it has mistakes in it of corse)

aza wood · 05-20-2002, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:
1. "The kingdom of heaven is near".
Just imagine people in the first century hearing such a message. What would they think if "near" meant 2000 years later.

In the first century, they would know, that the word "Near" use here, has nothing to do with time,(2000 years) but has to do with distance.

You do not know this, and think that you can use the bible well enough to prove things using it. There are thousands of such words, with millions of variables. No one can prove their point using the bible.
<a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1021949183.html[/URL]" target="_blank">http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1021949183.html[/URL]</a>

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: aza wood ]

enemigo · 05-20-2002, 06:54 PM

aza said:

Quote:

"All these things"-everything that "Jesus" had predicted in the chapter(prior to saying all these things)But minus what he excludes in verse 36 by, adding the qualifying statement, "But I can not include my return in this because i do not know when that will be.(emphasis mine)

Which translation of the bible is this quote from?

I don't see where he explicitly excludes his return from "all these things" in any of the translations I have read.

NLT Matthew 24:

30. And then at last, the sign of the coming of the Son of Man will appear in the heavens, and there will be deep mourning among all the nations of the earth. And they will see the Son of Man arrive on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

This should be included in "all these things" since it is "predicted in the chapter(prior to saying all these things)"

31. And he will send forth his angels with the sound of a mighty trumpet blast, and they will gather together his chosen ones from the farthest ends of the earth and heaven.

So should this.

32 "Now learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its buds become tender and its leaves begin to sprout, you know without being told that summer is near.

33 Just so, when you see the events I've described beginning to happen, you can know his return is very near, right at the door.

34 I assure you, this generation will not pass from the scene before all these things take place.

35 Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will remain forever.

36 "However, no one knows the day or the hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."

He claims not to know the exact day or hour that "these things will happen." That does not necessarily mean that he his return is excluded from happening during the lifetime of that generation. Please explain 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.

In another post you stated:

Quote:

My point is that the bible can not be used as proof of anythging. Yet you believe that you can use this flawed book to prove your point. You can not.

Why can't you use a flawed book to point out flaws in the book itself or the characters contained within? Thomas Paine did just that in The Age of Reason in order to discredit the Bible. What book(s) should Thomas Paine have used as sources for his material? Why can't the words of Jesus be used to point out where he was mistaken? What flawless account of Jesus' life should we be using as a source to debate his prophesies?

richard

NOGO · 05-20-2002, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Aza wood
I would like to answer you, but I do not follow your line of thought. I do know that it is not "Door" as used metaphorically, but doorS as those of a their houses.

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).

Quote:

So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that(((IT)))is near, [even] at the doors. Mat. 24:23 "It" could refer to the destruction, that he was asked about, but can not refer to his coming, as He states in verses 36,(and more below) that he did not know the time of his return.

"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.

Quote:

Aza wood
In the first century, they would know, that the word "Near" use here, has nothing to do with time,(2000 years) but has to do with distance. You do not know this, and think that you can use the bible well enough to prove things using it. There are thousands of such words, with millions of variables. No one can prove their point using the bible.

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.

Quote:

Aza wood
This is all just wonderful fundi knowledge, but we do not even know who the heck this fellow Matthew was, and how he got any of these details(that you seem to know so well) and whether or not it is true. How can you prove anything by the bible ? (except that it has mistakes in it of corse)

These four books are virtually the sum total of all we know about Jesus. If you cannot trust any of it then how can anybody believe that Jesus was the son of God or God himself?
All of Christian faith rests on these four books.

There seems to be a certain duplicity in your language. You are saying that we can`t critize the Bible because we don`t know who this fellow Matthew is and how reliable can he be yet you are a believer.

aza wood · 05-20-2002, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by enemigo:

Why can't you use a flawed book to point out flaws in the book itself or the characters contained within?

Why would you want to use a book that has no proof of it's authenticity, or honesty? How can you prove anything from such a book. You must believe that there is some credibility, or why quote it. How do you know that a man named "Matthew" ever knew a man named "Jesus"? You give them this much credibility by quoting them both. Are you an ex-fundi, like Don?

Thomas Paine did just that in The Age of Reason in order to discredit the Bible.

Here you are not discrediting it, but using it as a believable reference. Which you must hypothesize that it is. if you do not believe this , then why use it?

What book(s) should Thomas Paine have used as sources for his material?

This is a circle, you must not have been reading my posts. I have said that of corse, you can prove the bible is wrong by using it, but having proved it wrong, you can not turn around and use it as evidence to prove anything else is wright or wrong..

Why can't the words of Jesus be used to point out where he was mistaken?

How can we prove if he ever said any of those things, by using a book that is 2000 years old and as been translated several times, by the Xian Church, of all people?

What flawless account of Jesus' life should we be using as a source to debate his prophesies?

There is none. How could there be one, and why ask, such a question?

richard

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: aza wood ]

aza wood · 05-20-2002, 08:35 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NOGO:

These four books are virtually the sum total of all we know about Jesus. If you cannot trust any of it then how can anybody believe that Jesus was the son of God or God himself?

Believing is has nothing to do with proof. What can be proven, is not believed, but known.

All of Christian faith rests on these four books.

No. The Christian faith existed for nearly 3 centuries before the bible was canonized. These four gospels where picked arbitrarily, form many letters, non of these where the originals.

There seems to be a certain duplicity in your language. You are saying that we can`t critize the Bible because we don`t know who this fellow Matthew is and how reliable can he be yet you are a believer.

That is a straw man. I have said repeatedly, that you can use the bible to prove itself wrong, but once it is proven wrong, then it can not be use as viable evidence to prove anything else right or wrong.

enemigo · 05-20-2002, 09:36 PM

Quote:

aza said:
Why would you want to use a book that has no proof of it's authenticity, or honesty? How can you prove anything from such a book.

you can logically prove that it is internally contradictory.

Quote:

aza said:
You must believe that there is some credibility, or why quote it. How do you know that a man named "Matthew" ever knew a man named "Jesus"? You give them this much credibility by quoting them both. Are you an ex-fundi, like Don?

I don't have to believe in its authenticity or accuracy in order to use it make an argument about the character of Jesus as he is depicted in the Bible. Since the Bible is the only account we have of his life, it is the only source anyone can use to discuss the character of Jesus as he is depicted in the Bible. It doesn't matter if the book is flawed or not. It doesn't even matter if Jesus is 100% fictional.

Quote:

aza said:
Here you are not discrediting it, but using it as a believable reference. Which you must hypothesize that it is. if you do not believe this , then why use it?

In my argument, I am using the Bible to discredit the character of Jesus, as he is depicted in the Bible. I don't know that he ever even existed. That is not the point. For the sake of arguing that he is a false prophet, one must argue using the only scriptures in which he prophesies.

Quote:

I said:
What book(s) should Thomas Paine have used as sources for his material?

aza said:
This is a circle, you must not have been reading my posts. I have said that of corse, you can prove the bible is wrong by using it, but having proved it wrong, you can not turn around and use it as evidence to prove anything else is wright or wrong..

I am using the bible to prove itself wrong. I am not "turning around and using it as evidence" against anything external to the Bible. Please demonstrate to me how I am using the Bible in an attempt to prove or disprove anything that is not contained within the Bible. I am showing that the central character of the Bible is a false prophet by using the Bible. And as you said,

Quote:

I have said that of corse, you can prove the bible is wrong by using it

So what is wrong with what I (or anyone else arguing against you in this thread) am doing?!
Your argument about not being able to use the Bible as proof for anything is correct, if we are talking about using it to positively prove the Flood or even Jesus' existence. But that is not what the issue is here.

Quote:

aza said:
How can we prove if he ever said any of those things, by using a book that is 2000 years old and as been translated several times, by the Xian Church, of all people?

Once again, you're missing the point. We can't prove that he ever said those things. That is irrelevent to this debate. The Bible is the only record of his supposed existence. It doesn't matter if he ever said what is ascribed to him in Matthew, or even if he existed at all. The fact is, that the Bible exists, and we are discussing what was said by Jesus in the Bible.

Quote:

There is none. How could there be one, and why ask, such a question?

That is my point exactly. Then why discuss Jesus at all? If the Bible is flawed, then its absolutely useless right? (note: I am aware that it is pretty damn worthless, however in discussing the character of Jesus, there is nowhere else to turn.)

richard

[edited for: formatting]

[ May 20, 2002: Message edited by: enemigo ]

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

05-20-2002, 08:35 PM	#89
aza wood Junior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Planet Earth,Solar system of the Sun,Galaxy Milky Way,U.C.L. D- 51 Posts: 99	[QUOTE]Originally posted by NOGO: These four books are virtually the sum total of all we know about Jesus. If you cannot trust any of it then how can anybody believe that Jesus was the son of God or God himself? Believing is has nothing to do with proof. What can be proven, is not believed, but known. All of Christian faith rests on these four books. No. The Christian faith existed for nearly 3 centuries before the bible was canonized. These four gospels where picked arbitrarily, form many letters, non of these where the originals. There seems to be a certain duplicity in your language. You are saying that we can`t critize the Bible because we don`t know who this fellow Matthew is and how reliable can he be yet you are a believer. That is a straw man. I have said repeatedly, that you can use the bible to prove itself wrong, but once it is proven wrong, then it can not be use as viable evidence to prove anything else right or wrong.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.