Jesus predicted Jerusalem would fall For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground (Luke 19:43,44) He also predicted the complete destruction of the temple of God, (Matthew 24:1,2). But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near (Luke 21:20). This happened in 70 Ad when Titus conquered it, 40 years after Christ spoke it. 100,000 people believed what He said and fled to safety in Pela, while over a million people who stayed and fought Titus either died or went into captivity. Those who heeded the words of Christ- lived. The same offer is for us today. Noah warned of the flood, he spoke of this while he built the ark for 120 years but they mocked him because they had never seen rain. But God spoke and the flood came just like God said. God says there is a tribulation coming unlike anything we have seen in history. We have it written for us today, but now we have people say there wasn’t even a flood despite the scientific evidence of a cataclysm and fish remains on the top of many of the high mountain peaks. God judged the earth once and He says he will do it again. They don’t believe it.
A major portion of both the Old and New Testament is devoted to prophecy- nearly one third of the Scripture. Only four of the 66 books of the Bible are without prophecy-Ruth, the Song of Solomon, Philemon, and 3 John. Even the shortest book of the Bible mentions prophecy (Jude 14, 17-18, which refers to Enoch and the second coming of the Lord). Out of the Old Testament's 23,210 verses, 6,641 contain predictive material, over twenty eight percent. Out of the New Testament's 7,914 verses, 1,711 contain predictive material, over 21 percent. The apostle Peter, after testifying that he had seen Jesus Christ in all His glory, said, “And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:19). Peter here is appealing to fulfilled prophecy as a witness to the truth of the Scriptures. Proverbs 22:19-22: “So that your trust may be in the LORD; I have instructed you today, even you. Have I not written to you excellent things of counsels and knowledge, That I may make you know the certainty of the words of truth, that you may answer words of truth to those who send to you?”
Found this little tidbit and decided to add it to the mix. Not saying I have the answers but it seems these and other prophesies are unique among other religious writings.
sirguessalot, I appreciate any constructive input.
"Not saying I have the answers " that is why I am here to post then listen and learn.
but i gotta ask...have you actually ever looked through other religious writings for predictions and prophets and prophecies and such? That would be a yes..but not by no means all of them and probably not nearly as many as some people have.
"prophesies are unique among other religious writings"....I believe my point was the focus of many of the biblical prophecies directed us to a Savior Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Salvation, Justification, Reconciliation through no other name.
I agree with you that there are many other prophesies but for some reason these are the ones that seems to cause such a big fuss. Kind of unique.
I sincerely do appreciate your honesty and I do enjoy the dialogue especially when we don't resort to unfruitful put-downs.
It helps also for me to realize that this is a process which takes time, patience and understanding. From my perspective there is much at stake here so it is worth it. We all have different talents and abilities that's why I rely on folks like you as a resource for information that I would otherwise overlook.
Jesus predicted Jerusalem would fall For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground (Luke 19:43,44) He also predicted the complete destruction of the temple of God, (Matthew 24:1,2). But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near (Luke 21:20). This happened in 70 Ad when Titus conquered it, 40 years after Christ spoke it.
If you believe that the bible is inerrant than it did happen 40 years after he spoke it, but all that a disinterested observer knows is that it was written down after the city and temple were destroyed.
100,000 people believed what He said and fled to safety in Pela, while over a million people who stayed and fought Titus either died or went into captivity. Those who heeded the words of Christ- lived.
I'm not familiar with this, 100,00 leaving due to Jesus' prediction. What's your source? I'd be interested in learning more if you would be so kind as to point me in the right direction.
Even the shortest book of the Bible mentions prophecy (Jude 14, 17-18, which refers to Enoch and the second coming of the Lord).
That's an interesting one. The quote about "The Lord cometh with 10 thousands of his saints" is a quote from the apocryphal Book of Enoch.
Edited by Oakspear
If you believe that the bible is inerrant than it did happen 40 years after he spoke it, but all that a disinterested observer knows is that it was written down after the city and temple were destroyed.
Excellent point, so are you convinced that there are absolutely no historically verifiable prophecy in the bible? If there are none then the above statement would carry much more authority.
Are you totally convinced that nothing prophesied in Revelation has happened or is going to come to pass?
I don't think the numbers were what Oak was interested in so much as that these people left because they believed JC's prophecy.
I think Oak's point has nothing to do with whether there are other historically verifiable prophecies claimed in the Bible. But the ones you put forward would fall within his point perfectly. Pretty easy to prophecy about things that already happened.
Regardless, if you do believe the inerrantcy of the Bible, I don't think this is Jesus' prophecy. It is Jesus referring to Daniel 9 who is quoting Gabriel. Luke's is kinda vague... when the city is surrounded by armies... you can bet it is going down. Then again when the city is SURROUNDED by armies, how do you flee to the hills? But anyway, when you look at Luke's sister references in Mark 13 and Matthew you can then wonder about it's accuracy as prophecy.
Matthew 24:
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) 16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. 23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. 24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. 25 Behold, I have told you before. 26 Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he is in the secret chambers; believe it not. 27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: 30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Did, "immediately after" the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus return? I'm not positive, but I don't think so. Interesting how in Luke, which was written much later, doesn't include this part. Luke skips the return of the Son of Man part and goes straight to the fig tree. So is it referring to 70 AD? The way the world is going there will be yet another destruction of Jerusalem in the future. Will Matthew be referring to that time? Is God so busy that he really needs to recycle his prophecies like this?
...so are you convinced that there are absolutely no historically verifiable prophecy in the bible?...
...Are you totally convinced that nothing prophesied in Revelation has happened or is going to come to pass?
Personally, I think there is enough vagueness and/or symbolism in pretty much all of those claimed prophecies for every generation since them to believe they apply to their time or their near future.
I think when prophecying, the more vague you are and the more generic symbolism you use, the more likely it will be that your prophecy comes true.
What about Mormons and the authenticity of their book. After all it is much more current and they actually have a signed affidavit from Joseph Smith, his neighbors, and friends who claim they saw the golden tablets and the "magic" translating spectacles, or so I've read. Seems more legit than stories which may or may not be written by some guys in their golden years about a guy they may or may not have known for a couple of years in their teens or twenties which differ in detail and which are the sole testimony of that person's full, part, or semi divinity. The story from the tablets doesn't exactly mesh with history too well, but hey, they freakin' saw the golden tablets and magic spectacles!
Mmm...this thread has taken several interesting turns! It's fun to see the thinking going on.
Yesterday I attended a graduation at which the commencement speaker encouraged the graduates to continue...are you ready?...READING. It seems to be a lost art. I do feel it is an art....an art of the inquisitive mind.
A friend of mine sent me the link below to a site with textual info and stuff on topics we've been discussing here. For the past 20 years, he's conducted group discussions at his "sunday school" about these topics and found these tapes helpful. Granted, they cost something, but then, doesn't everything?
For free, you read the summaries of the tapes' contents and see what scholar or author is on the tape. Some of them have books you can check out in the library.
Visit www.Teach12.com. On the left, click "Religion" and you'll see a list of topics pertinent to this thread.
other 'prophecies' are questioned as to their meaning
why not this one?
A bit on this topic from Karen Armstrong's The Bible, a Biography pg 41:
"[Daniel] was particularly preoccupied by Jeremiah's prediction of the number of years that must pass 'before the successive devastations of Jerusalem would come to an end, namely seventy years.' [refer to Jeremiah 25:11-12 and Daniel 9:3]. The second-century [bCE] author [Daniel] was clearly not interested in the original meaning of the text: Jeremiah had obviously prophesied, in a round figure, the length of the Babylonian exile. He [Daniel] wanted to find an entirely new significance in the ancient oracle that would bring comfort to the Jews who were anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Maccabean wars. This would become typical of Jewish exegesis. Instead of looking back to uncover its historical meaning, the interpreter would make the text speak to the present and the future."
ex-twi folks: Does that last line sound familiar?
~ Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ~ George Santayana
~ Those who are not curious about the past are never enlightened by it ~ penworks :unsure:
Thanks Penworks ... from your site ... I found this in one synopsis ...
Perhaps most provocatively, Professor Johnson
parts company with much modern scholarship
by arguing that
Paul, though he may not have literally written any of his letters
, should nonetheless be considered the true author of all.
So it appears here that much modern scholarship does not even believe Paul literally wrote ANY of his letters. I suppose this guy ascribes authorship to Paul because the letters were based in Paul's expressions/teachings ... or something. But it appears real scholarship has this open debate on the authority of those writings ... in TWI we were indoctrinated from the start ... The Word of God is The Will of God. Case CLOSED.
And here is a place that discusses the political side of Paul's claim to being an apostle.
Paul insisted on using the title apostle despite never having met Jesus and never being called personally by Jesus because of his vision on the road to Damascus. Paul claimed that the resurrected Jesus spoke to him and called him at that time. Taking the title "apostle" has clear political implications because the original apostles would have had the greatest authority within the growing Christian movement. They were, after all, the ones who had personally known and personally been called by Jesus. This would have put Paul in a secondary position at best, especially given his recent background as an opponent of Christianity.
Adopting the title apostle could have been perceived as an attempt to assert equal authority alongside the original apostles, especially since Paul claimed to have been called by the resurrected Jesus rather than by Jesus when he was still alive. On more than one occasion in his letters Paul has to defend his status as an apostle, suggesting that it was questioned by various people
Perhaps vp's class should be called the fundamental class, instead of foundational. His foundation seems built on fundamental acceptance of the KJV, and some stolen ideas of other men. Most in twi and even many here, still argue with all those verses accepted as god breathed.
Questioning whether the translation is even close, or if Paul even wrote any of those epistles (that disclose the great mystery) seems taboo ... or just too much darn trouble. Paul being the apostle to the gentiles makes for a nice religion ... there is diversification ... the doors are open to everyone. But acceptance of those writings (written by people in Paul's name?) as "God breathed scripture" seems tenuous at best.
I think a real foundational class would start with those questions ... and allow room for individual intellectual curiosity to remain. Instead we were taught fundamental dogma ... "it is either all God's Word or none of it is".
It seems ironic that we were to study for ourselves, yet we were to study in light of vp dogma. To question vp was to question God' apostle, he was really the only one allowed to interpret the Bible. Remember vp burned all those books in the city dump ... he decided he would just determine The Truth on his own ... hmmmm ... another self appointed apostle.
It would be interesting where a truly independent research team could have gone ... diversity in that case would have been a good thing .... but it took the adultery paper to really show just how pervasive the vp dogma had become.
But I've had enough Bible searching ... I think the answers are in the garden ... or maybe in the woods ... or on the beach ... or in the wine ...
Source: Foxes’ Christian Martyrs of the World: From this perspective Luke among several of the others died for what some are suggesting as an elaborate hoax.
Oakspears point was well taken in that Luke wrote about Jesus's prophesy after the event had happened. So when Luke wrote about what he claimed to be a witness to he really knew it wasn't true but was willing to die to keep the hoax alive.
I realize many people have died for what they have been convinced to be the truth but why would many of those that were with Jesus be tortured and go to their death for a cause they would have known if it was not true.
Again this is just one consideration among others. It is no more illogical to believe that someone who was with Jesus would later write or have written about the prophesy than to just disregard it because it was documented later.
Especially if there were other prophesies that were historically verifiable, would this type of consistency not be worth of noting.
Perhaps most provocatively, Professor Johnson parts company with much modern scholarship by arguing that Paul, though he may not have literally written any of his letters, should nonetheless be considered the true author of all.
So I suppose this means that Professor Johnson must be wrong? Maybe.
Just a little qualifier...I realize this thread is on the "About The Way" forum and I suppose if you sat through the PFAL then that needs to be taken into account. But this is a very personal endeavor and I prefer not to muddy the waters any more than necessary. Those that brought up the issue about reading more books, I suppose that meant being better informed and again the point is well taken. I am not trying to present some neat little package that I have already assembled looking for someone to contend with. This dialogue is part of my search/research along with trying to live, love and see how this applies to life. I appreciate your tolerance.
According to the only accounts that mention Luke, he never was with Jesus and wasn't a witness to the events of his life, and there is no mention in "Luke" that Luke wrote it.
And I'm not saying that the events in the bible definitely didn't happen. What I'm saying is that just because they're written down in the bible doesn't mean that they did.
Another thing is, even if nothing in the gospels is historically accurate, I can easily imagine people feeling that the message of the gospels was worth taking a stand and even dying for. There were plenty of sects in the Roman Empire that didn't even pretend to be based on an historical figure.
By the time the gospels were written down at least a full generation had passed, even the early epistles were not written down until several decades had passed. Plenty of time for myth and legend and embellishments to make it into verbal and later written accounts. Some scholars, like Bart Ehrman, theorize that the many writings about Jesus were the position papers, the pamphlets, of the various "Christianities" at the time. You can see it in the canonical books as well as the apocrypha and pseudopegrapha where the authors are defending their position and demonizing their opponants. The faction that became orthodox/catholic Christianity got to write the history, with few exceptions, their's were the only books that made it, so they got to declare anyone who disagreed as heretics.
So it's not as simple as either the gospel writer was faithfully recording what happened or he was lying.
When I was just a young pup sitting in the PLAF class, I really had no means of investigating or challenging what was being taught.
The way Wierwille presented it was grossly simplistic. He made it sound as if these guys were perched there with "pen in hand", so to speak, just waiting for instructions of what to write. Remember this?(paraphrased from session #2)----" Adam said, 'What should I call it'? and God said 'bovine' so Adam called it a bovine. It was just that simple." He either purposely avoided the time lapse dilemmas or was truly ignorant of the process himself. Either way, it doesn't shed a very favorable light on his motives or academic ability. And he called himself The Teacher!!
Perhaps most provocatively, Professor Johnson parts company with much modern scholarship by arguing that Paul, though he may not have literally written any of his letters, should nonetheless be considered the true author of all.
So I suppose this means that Professor Johnson must be wrong? Maybe.
Just a little qualifier...I realize this thread is on the "About The Way" forum and I suppose if you sat through the PFAL then that needs to be taken into account. ...
It seems this is "about the way" twi was NOT biblical research so much ... the research centered around finding ways to back up what vp had concluded already... not exactly the scientific method. Real questions like penworks asked were nixed.
It seems helpful to establish that vp started with a lot of assumptions ... like that the original was perfect. Then that what we have is anything close to the original. As someone said ... vp said the greatest of God's works was His Word. ...
Of course even accepting those things, vp mangled other people's research pretty badly ... piffle just gave neophytes enough twisted logic to feel superior to others, and to have the illusion of being inside some great new light. If he could just get people to believe the gas pumps story ... he'd have them hooked.
Teaching one doctrine, one viewpoint, one MOG ... made things much easier than actual research which considers so many variables that no "consensus" can be readily achieved.
But it does take a bold brain to step out of the "chapter and verse" mentality. I think the air is better outside though :)
Good points there Oakspear. I can't recall if vp ever tries to discount the problem of when the epistles were written, or if he even acknowedges that Paul did not write them.
So we don't have any written evidence that Luke was or was not an eyewitness?
Help me understand this one please. Would any of these know that this was a hoax but was willing to be put to death for it. Do we know of any other sects etc where this is comparable?
Acts: NIV When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
As to Luke being an eye witness, I think I agree with some scholars that say just from a simple read of his books you get an admission of not being one.
Acts 1
:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Any "we section" fan can clearly see this is NOT one of them.
Luke 1
:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Here is a maybe a little less clear to some but there is a definite distinction between "eyewitness" and "perfect understanding." Of course, to many Christians including us in our former way daze thought this to mean he knew by revelation and the backing of this as being apart of that 2 Peter 1: 20 "scripture."
More on some of the other thoughts and questions later.
So we don't have any written evidence that Luke was or was not an eyewitness?
If we assume that Luke wrote "Luke", he never claims to be an eyewitness, Lindy covers that in his post. But there is scant evidense, if any, to show that the writer of "Luke" was Luke. Nowhere is his name mentioned in the body of the gospel, like Paul's is at the beginning of his Epistles. It seems probable that the writer of the gospel of Luke and Acts are the same, and that due to the "we" sections, the writer of Acts was a companion of Paul.
Help me understand this one please. Would any of these know that this was a hoax but was willing to be put to death for it. Do we know of any other sects etc where this is comparable?
I don't think it was a hoax, if by hoax you mean a deliberately contrived lie. I believe it is plausible that the story just grew in the telling, little bit by little bit. Since we don't have any contemporaneous writings by any of the eyewitnesses, we really don't know if any of those original followers of Jesus were willing to die.
Since I don't think that Christians thought that it was a lie, I can't provide you an comparisons, but many groups were persecuted and killed over the centuries, one (not the only) example would be witches and suspected witches in medieval Europe and North America.
Acts: NIV When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the point that you're making by quoting this section. can you elaborate?
In order to do justice to some of your replies I will take some time to absorb them. Better understanding is the goal.
On some of the others, what I think the focus was....since it was noted that Luke was not documented to be an eyewitness then I used the quote from Acts to see if these individuals would qualify.
Acts: NIV When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
I understand that many people have died for their beliefs, including Christians and witches etc. The point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between someone who has been persuaded to believe in something to the point they are willing to die and someone who actually was a witness to the fact.
"I don't think it was a hoax, if by hoax you mean a deliberately contrived lie. I believe it is plausible that the story just grew in the telling, little bit by little bit. Since we don't have any contemporaneous writings by any of the eyewitnesses, we really don't know if any of those original followers of Jesus were willing to die." Is it not also plausible that they were actually eyewitness? Even though it may have been documented at a later date is it not plausible that Peter for example, did witness the fact as recorded in Acts, was filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and did die for teaching and preaching that Jesus was the Christ?
"Here is a maybe a little less clear to some but there is a definite distinction between "eyewitness" and "perfect understanding." Of course, to many Christians including us in our former way daze thought this to mean he knew by revelation and the backing of this as being apart of that 2 Peter 1: 20 "scripture."
:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
:3 It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
I removed the comma between also and having just to see if there were truly a definite distinction between eyewitness and perfect understanding.
As to Luke being an eye witness, I think I agree with some scholars that say just from a simple read of his books you get an admission of not being one.
Acts 1
QUOTE
:1 The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
:2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
:3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
Any "we section" fan can clearly see this is NOT one of them.
A question for you though....why do you list Acts first before Luke....just curious. Obviously, with the opening verse, "the former treatise..." therefore, I see it as clearly referring to Luke's Gospel, and then in v. 2-3 he simply writes statements of fact that he had already covered in the Gospel. It should be obvious that he must have thought these "eyewitness accounts" contained verity, else why write them down. Luke was known as a physician....therefore, we can infer that he was educated and perhaps because he was a "man of letters" he was the natural choice to be the compiler. With that in mind...I think we can also infer as well, that he was smart enough to be able to choose the best "memories" that were presented along with the leading of the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1
QUOTE
:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.
Luke was acting as an historian, compiling the memories of those who had been in the direct presence of the Lord Jesus in the Gospel of Luke. He also accompanied Paul and the others on some of their journeys, writing down the things that were going on, thus forming what came to be called, The Acts of the Apostles.
Here is a maybe a little less clear to some but there is a definite distinction between "eyewitness" and "perfect understanding." Of course, to many Christians including us in our former way daze thought this to mean he knew by revelation and the backing of this as being apart of that 2 Peter 1: 20 "scripture."
It doesn't mean that revelation wasn't happening. Part of what the Holy Spirit's job is, is to bring up our memories of those things that concern the truth and telling us new things to come. While Luke was compiling the memories from the "eyewitnesses" it was probably a sure bet that the Holy Spirit was causing the people to remember things that the Holy Spirit wanted to have in the compilation.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
11
13
22
34
Popular Days
May 18
30
May 1
18
May 4
15
May 8
11
Top Posters In This Topic
sirguessalot 11 posts
Oakspear 13 posts
penworks 22 posts
brideofjc 34 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
30 posts
May 1 2008
18 posts
May 4 2008
15 posts
May 8 2008
11 posts
excathedra
hi danny i can't tell you how happy i am to see you
i don't know if this question fits in but who can intellectualize jesus christ ?
love also goes for you all
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
this is one of the coolest threads ive followed in awhile
to add...
seems to me
particularly when reading in anything ancient about something simply more ancient
what is often meant by "scripture" and "books being studied" and such
or any books or scrolls in any "sacred" or "holy" context
is pointing to something very very rare in those times
done for very specific super important reasons
not casual reasons
but something at the other edge of our penultimate concern
from the beginning
a certain gravitas pushed and pulled us to lift a pen and write in the first place
for reasons shared by every race on earth at similar times...along similar lines
as we all moved through the same stages of discovery
how and why we wrote and what we wrote about
seems to share common and recognizable patterns in history
"sacred," or "holy"
and rare and specialized
exoticly
and genericly
continentally
...
and then it seems many significant shifts
to have groups in passive seclusion devoted to creating these artifacts
writing over many generations
while studying others of the already rare and hard to find more ancient writings
...
another significant shift for people from similar groups of other races
able to collaborate to illuminate the words
such as songs as medicine for suffering and dying
traces of hebrew lettered words on catholic pages
traces of gaelic lettered words on catholic pages
yada yada
...
another shift centuries later
caregivers took notes in the margins while serving the active dying in europes earliest hospitals
building palaces for the singing for their dying
where mud huts only recently stood
then more centuries later
millions of these books are burned
millions of these people from all over the world killed
mostly in the name of one of the religions involved
...
more centuries later
and not a mere few shifts and slides down the road
we now see elders acting like teenagers on Porkies (the movie)
or emperors acting like hitler on cocaine in the name of christ
strip mall preachers
claiming that they have done all their spiritual homework
and that nothing significant has been written for 2000 years
and then only a sliver of the ancient jewish canon before that
then they send us into the world saying the craziest stuff
like "we are here to save you...we have the only keys to these holiest books about the holiest books about the holiest books of them all"
wow is right
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
jeast
Jesus predicted Jerusalem would fall For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground (Luke 19:43,44) He also predicted the complete destruction of the temple of God, (Matthew 24:1,2). But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near (Luke 21:20). This happened in 70 Ad when Titus conquered it, 40 years after Christ spoke it. 100,000 people believed what He said and fled to safety in Pela, while over a million people who stayed and fought Titus either died or went into captivity. Those who heeded the words of Christ- lived. The same offer is for us today. Noah warned of the flood, he spoke of this while he built the ark for 120 years but they mocked him because they had never seen rain. But God spoke and the flood came just like God said. God says there is a tribulation coming unlike anything we have seen in history. We have it written for us today, but now we have people say there wasn’t even a flood despite the scientific evidence of a cataclysm and fish remains on the top of many of the high mountain peaks. God judged the earth once and He says he will do it again. They don’t believe it.
A major portion of both the Old and New Testament is devoted to prophecy- nearly one third of the Scripture. Only four of the 66 books of the Bible are without prophecy-Ruth, the Song of Solomon, Philemon, and 3 John. Even the shortest book of the Bible mentions prophecy (Jude 14, 17-18, which refers to Enoch and the second coming of the Lord). Out of the Old Testament's 23,210 verses, 6,641 contain predictive material, over twenty eight percent. Out of the New Testament's 7,914 verses, 1,711 contain predictive material, over 21 percent. The apostle Peter, after testifying that he had seen Jesus Christ in all His glory, said, “And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:19). Peter here is appealing to fulfilled prophecy as a witness to the truth of the Scriptures. Proverbs 22:19-22: “So that your trust may be in the LORD; I have instructed you today, even you. Have I not written to you excellent things of counsels and knowledge, That I may make you know the certainty of the words of truth, that you may answer words of truth to those who send to you?”
Found this little tidbit and decided to add it to the mix. Not saying I have the answers but it seems these and other prophesies are unique among other religious writings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
jeast, not picking on you...
but i gotta ask...have you actually ever looked through other religious writings for predictions and prophets and prophecies and such?
maybe walk into a library or bookstore and tear into any ole freaky thing for awhile
actually looking for other end-of-the-world prophecies made from continents apart?
cuz my guess is that there is at least a million bodies of prophecies in all of pre-modern written history...oral and written
and perhaps even 1000 times that (or more) if you include all modern to present recorded predictions, religious contexts or not, into the mix
we watch patterns and waves and trends every day of life
in economics, technology, weather, healing, sports, criminology...
in the generations of cultures that rise and fall and crash on the shore
i recall jesus asking why they could predict the weather
but they couldnt predict the passing of generations
and cultural and social upheaval around it
some are good at it
some are real real good at it
some are not so good at it
some are real real bad at it
and there are a gazillion different kinds of things one can be good or bad at predicting
science fiction and technology to have predicted very well in the last century
hubberts peak oil predictions seems quite on track and relevent
hopi prophecy speaks quite direct earthy and powerful to us today
the histories of old buddhist prophecies unfold through various ages too
they even sent missionaries out to get lost in the middle east hundreds of years BC
"spreading the dharma" and such, with a messiah age, contests between prophets...yada yada
just sayin
seems we cant know how much we havent looked into
which applies no matter how much one has looked into
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
jeast
sirguessalot, I appreciate any constructive input.
"Not saying I have the answers " that is why I am here to post then listen and learn.
but i gotta ask...have you actually ever looked through other religious writings for predictions and prophets and prophecies and such? That would be a yes..but not by no means all of them and probably not nearly as many as some people have.
"prophesies are unique among other religious writings"....I believe my point was the focus of many of the biblical prophecies directed us to a Savior Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Salvation, Justification, Reconciliation through no other name.
I agree with you that there are many other prophesies but for some reason these are the ones that seems to cause such a big fuss. Kind of unique.
I sincerely do appreciate your honesty and I do enjoy the dialogue especially when we don't resort to unfruitful put-downs.
It helps also for me to realize that this is a process which takes time, patience and understanding. From my perspective there is much at stake here so it is worth it. We all have different talents and abilities that's why I rely on folks like you as a resource for information that I would otherwise overlook.
Thanks,
Peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
yeah...written conversations are hard enough as it is without put-downs
i feel i could have asked that question a lot better, btw...asked more about depths and degrees...or "how much?" "what kind?" etc...
but i find its hard for any of us to guage language in such large anonymous spaces
easy to come across like we are interrogating each other
or on some sort of trial for truthiness
as if...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeast
Hey Oakspear,
You are gonna make me get off my lazy tail and dig a little deeper. Thanks
I am not sure what else to do about the number issue that would convince everyone rather than find someone who did a first person head count.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_o...on_of_Jerusalem
http://www.letusreason.org/proph16.htm This was the source concerning the numbers issue with the destruction on Jerusalem.
If you believe that the bible is inerrant than it did happen 40 years after he spoke it, but all that a disinterested observer knows is that it was written down after the city and temple were destroyed.
Excellent point, so are you convinced that there are absolutely no historically verifiable prophecy in the bible? If there are none then the above statement would carry much more authority.
Are you totally convinced that nothing prophesied in Revelation has happened or is going to come to pass?
Thanks for your input and your patience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I don't think the numbers were what Oak was interested in so much as that these people left because they believed JC's prophecy.
I think Oak's point has nothing to do with whether there are other historically verifiable prophecies claimed in the Bible. But the ones you put forward would fall within his point perfectly. Pretty easy to prophecy about things that already happened.
Regardless, if you do believe the inerrantcy of the Bible, I don't think this is Jesus' prophecy. It is Jesus referring to Daniel 9 who is quoting Gabriel. Luke's is kinda vague... when the city is surrounded by armies... you can bet it is going down. Then again when the city is SURROUNDED by armies, how do you flee to the hills? But anyway, when you look at Luke's sister references in Mark 13 and Matthew you can then wonder about it's accuracy as prophecy.
Matthew 24:
Did, "immediately after" the destruction of Jerusalem, Jesus return? I'm not positive, but I don't think so. Interesting how in Luke, which was written much later, doesn't include this part. Luke skips the return of the Son of Man part and goes straight to the fig tree. So is it referring to 70 AD? The way the world is going there will be yet another destruction of Jerusalem in the future. Will Matthew be referring to that time? Is God so busy that he really needs to recycle his prophecies like this?
Personally, I think there is enough vagueness and/or symbolism in pretty much all of those claimed prophecies for every generation since them to believe they apply to their time or their near future.
I think when prophecying, the more vague you are and the more generic symbolism you use, the more likely it will be that your prophecy comes true.
What about Mormons and the authenticity of their book. After all it is much more current and they actually have a signed affidavit from Joseph Smith, his neighbors, and friends who claim they saw the golden tablets and the "magic" translating spectacles, or so I've read. Seems more legit than stories which may or may not be written by some guys in their golden years about a guy they may or may not have known for a couple of years in their teens or twenties which differ in detail and which are the sole testimony of that person's full, part, or semi divinity. The story from the tablets doesn't exactly mesh with history too well, but hey, they freakin' saw the golden tablets and magic spectacles!
Just a thought.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
What does it mean-
the destruction of Jerusalem
other 'prophecies' are questioned as to their meaning
why not this one?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
Mmm...this thread has taken several interesting turns! It's fun to see the thinking going on.
Yesterday I attended a graduation at which the commencement speaker encouraged the graduates to continue...are you ready?...READING. It seems to be a lost art. I do feel it is an art....an art of the inquisitive mind.
A friend of mine sent me the link below to a site with textual info and stuff on topics we've been discussing here. For the past 20 years, he's conducted group discussions at his "sunday school" about these topics and found these tapes helpful. Granted, they cost something, but then, doesn't everything?
For free, you read the summaries of the tapes' contents and see what scholar or author is on the tape. Some of them have books you can check out in the library.
Visit www.Teach12.com. On the left, click "Religion" and you'll see a list of topics pertinent to this thread.
See you 'round the forums!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
penworks
A bit on this topic from Karen Armstrong's The Bible, a Biography pg 41:
"[Daniel] was particularly preoccupied by Jeremiah's prediction of the number of years that must pass 'before the successive devastations of Jerusalem would come to an end, namely seventy years.' [refer to Jeremiah 25:11-12 and Daniel 9:3]. The second-century [bCE] author [Daniel] was clearly not interested in the original meaning of the text: Jeremiah had obviously prophesied, in a round figure, the length of the Babylonian exile. He [Daniel] wanted to find an entirely new significance in the ancient oracle that would bring comfort to the Jews who were anxiously awaiting the outcome of the Maccabean wars. This would become typical of Jewish exegesis. Instead of looking back to uncover its historical meaning, the interpreter would make the text speak to the present and the future."
ex-twi folks: Does that last line sound familiar?
~ Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. ~ George Santayana
~ Those who are not curious about the past are never enlightened by it ~ penworks :unsure:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
Thanks Penworks ... from your site ... I found this in one synopsis ...
So it appears here that much modern scholarship does not even believe Paul literally wrote ANY of his letters. I suppose this guy ascribes authorship to Paul because the letters were based in Paul's expressions/teachings ... or something. But it appears real scholarship has this open debate on the authority of those writings ... in TWI we were indoctrinated from the start ... The Word of God is The Will of God. Case CLOSED.
And here is a place that discusses the political side of Paul's claim to being an apostle.
Perhaps vp's class should be called the fundamental class, instead of foundational. His foundation seems built on fundamental acceptance of the KJV, and some stolen ideas of other men. Most in twi and even many here, still argue with all those verses accepted as god breathed.
Questioning whether the translation is even close, or if Paul even wrote any of those epistles (that disclose the great mystery) seems taboo ... or just too much darn trouble. Paul being the apostle to the gentiles makes for a nice religion ... there is diversification ... the doors are open to everyone. But acceptance of those writings (written by people in Paul's name?) as "God breathed scripture" seems tenuous at best.
I think a real foundational class would start with those questions ... and allow room for individual intellectual curiosity to remain. Instead we were taught fundamental dogma ... "it is either all God's Word or none of it is".
It seems ironic that we were to study for ourselves, yet we were to study in light of vp dogma. To question vp was to question God' apostle, he was really the only one allowed to interpret the Bible. Remember vp burned all those books in the city dump ... he decided he would just determine The Truth on his own ... hmmmm ... another self appointed apostle.
It would be interesting where a truly independent research team could have gone ... diversity in that case would have been a good thing .... but it took the adultery paper to really show just how pervasive the vp dogma had become.
But I've had enough Bible searching ... I think the answers are in the garden ... or maybe in the woods ... or on the beach ... or in the wine ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeast
Source: Foxes’ Christian Martyrs of the World: From this perspective Luke among several of the others died for what some are suggesting as an elaborate hoax.
Oakspears point was well taken in that Luke wrote about Jesus's prophesy after the event had happened. So when Luke wrote about what he claimed to be a witness to he really knew it wasn't true but was willing to die to keep the hoax alive.
I realize many people have died for what they have been convinced to be the truth but why would many of those that were with Jesus be tortured and go to their death for a cause they would have known if it was not true.
Again this is just one consideration among others. It is no more illogical to believe that someone who was with Jesus would later write or have written about the prophesy than to just disregard it because it was documented later.
Especially if there were other prophesies that were historically verifiable, would this type of consistency not be worth of noting.
Perhaps most provocatively, Professor Johnson parts company with much modern scholarship by arguing that Paul, though he may not have literally written any of his letters, should nonetheless be considered the true author of all.
So I suppose this means that Professor Johnson must be wrong? Maybe.
Just a little qualifier...I realize this thread is on the "About The Way" forum and I suppose if you sat through the PFAL then that needs to be taken into account. But this is a very personal endeavor and I prefer not to muddy the waters any more than necessary. Those that brought up the issue about reading more books, I suppose that meant being better informed and again the point is well taken. I am not trying to present some neat little package that I have already assembled looking for someone to contend with. This dialogue is part of my search/research along with trying to live, love and see how this applies to life. I appreciate your tolerance.
Peace.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
According to the only accounts that mention Luke, he never was with Jesus and wasn't a witness to the events of his life, and there is no mention in "Luke" that Luke wrote it.
And I'm not saying that the events in the bible definitely didn't happen. What I'm saying is that just because they're written down in the bible doesn't mean that they did.
Another thing is, even if nothing in the gospels is historically accurate, I can easily imagine people feeling that the message of the gospels was worth taking a stand and even dying for. There were plenty of sects in the Roman Empire that didn't even pretend to be based on an historical figure.
By the time the gospels were written down at least a full generation had passed, even the early epistles were not written down until several decades had passed. Plenty of time for myth and legend and embellishments to make it into verbal and later written accounts. Some scholars, like Bart Ehrman, theorize that the many writings about Jesus were the position papers, the pamphlets, of the various "Christianities" at the time. You can see it in the canonical books as well as the apocrypha and pseudopegrapha where the authors are defending their position and demonizing their opponants. The faction that became orthodox/catholic Christianity got to write the history, with few exceptions, their's were the only books that made it, so they got to declare anyone who disagreed as heretics.
So it's not as simple as either the gospel writer was faithfully recording what happened or he was lying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
When I was just a young pup sitting in the PLAF class, I really had no means of investigating or challenging what was being taught.
The way Wierwille presented it was grossly simplistic. He made it sound as if these guys were perched there with "pen in hand", so to speak, just waiting for instructions of what to write. Remember this?(paraphrased from session #2)----" Adam said, 'What should I call it'? and God said 'bovine' so Adam called it a bovine. It was just that simple." He either purposely avoided the time lapse dilemmas or was truly ignorant of the process himself. Either way, it doesn't shed a very favorable light on his motives or academic ability. And he called himself The Teacher!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
It seems this is "about the way" twi was NOT biblical research so much ... the research centered around finding ways to back up what vp had concluded already... not exactly the scientific method. Real questions like penworks asked were nixed.
It seems helpful to establish that vp started with a lot of assumptions ... like that the original was perfect. Then that what we have is anything close to the original. As someone said ... vp said the greatest of God's works was His Word. ...
Of course even accepting those things, vp mangled other people's research pretty badly ... piffle just gave neophytes enough twisted logic to feel superior to others, and to have the illusion of being inside some great new light. If he could just get people to believe the gas pumps story ... he'd have them hooked.
Teaching one doctrine, one viewpoint, one MOG ... made things much easier than actual research which considers so many variables that no "consensus" can be readily achieved.
But it does take a bold brain to step out of the "chapter and verse" mentality. I think the air is better outside though :)
Good points there Oakspear. I can't recall if vp ever tries to discount the problem of when the epistles were written, or if he even acknowedges that Paul did not write them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeast
Good stuff,
So we don't have any written evidence that Luke was or was not an eyewitness?
Help me understand this one please. Would any of these know that this was a hoax but was willing to be put to death for it. Do we know of any other sects etc where this is comparable?
Acts: NIV When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
I really appreciate the tone that has been taken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Me too, this IS good stuff.
As to Luke being an eye witness, I think I agree with some scholars that say just from a simple read of his books you get an admission of not being one.
Acts 1
Any "we section" fan can clearly see this is NOT one of them.Luke 1
Here is a maybe a little less clear to some but there is a definite distinction between "eyewitness" and "perfect understanding." Of course, to many Christians including us in our former way daze thought this to mean he knew by revelation and the backing of this as being apart of that 2 Peter 1: 20 "scripture."
More on some of the other thoughts and questions later.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Since I don't think that Christians thought that it was a lie, I can't provide you an comparisons, but many groups were persecuted and killed over the centuries, one (not the only) example would be witches and suspected witches in medieval Europe and North America.
I'm sorry, I don't understand the point that you're making by quoting this section. can you elaborate? Hey, we can use a fork and spoon here!Link to comment
Share on other sites
jeast
Thanks,
In order to do justice to some of your replies I will take some time to absorb them. Better understanding is the goal.
On some of the others, what I think the focus was....since it was noted that Luke was not documented to be an eyewitness then I used the quote from Acts to see if these individuals would qualify.
Acts: NIV When they arrived, they went upstairs to the room where they were staying. Those present were Peter, John, James and Andrew; Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew; James son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot, and Judas son of James.
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: “Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.
God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
I understand that many people have died for their beliefs, including Christians and witches etc. The point I was trying to make is that there is a difference between someone who has been persuaded to believe in something to the point they are willing to die and someone who actually was a witness to the fact.
"I don't think it was a hoax, if by hoax you mean a deliberately contrived lie. I believe it is plausible that the story just grew in the telling, little bit by little bit. Since we don't have any contemporaneous writings by any of the eyewitnesses, we really don't know if any of those original followers of Jesus were willing to die." Is it not also plausible that they were actually eyewitness? Even though it may have been documented at a later date is it not plausible that Peter for example, did witness the fact as recorded in Acts, was filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost and did die for teaching and preaching that Jesus was the Christ?
"Here is a maybe a little less clear to some but there is a definite distinction between "eyewitness" and "perfect understanding." Of course, to many Christians including us in our former way daze thought this to mean he knew by revelation and the backing of this as being apart of that 2 Peter 1: 20 "scripture."
:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;
:3 It seemed good to me also having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,
I removed the comma between also and having just to see if there were truly a definite distinction between eyewitness and perfect understanding.
Peace
Edited by jeastLink to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Funny how some get a way of thinking out of old writings.
Beating a dead horse I think.
Life is in the spirit of the words I believe.
Catch that wind and see what scripture you may be sailing on.
Not to put down anyone or any way of thinking.
It's just that there is so much scripture being written/spoken now,
it seems the old will not become new without it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
brideofjc
Isn't that why we are instructed to bring out the NEW along with the OLD?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.