Objective Moral Values

[makedonin]

Are you only able to post idiotic

Is that all you can say? Watch your mouth you are drolling.

Yes. No scholar, atheist or theist believes it was written by Thomas the apostle, rather, at a later time by someone else.

Nor any secular scholar or atheists consider that the gospels are written from the disciples whose names are attached to them.

It is only the evangelicals that cling to this!

Can't you positively defend your own belief that the universe popped out of nothing? How is it that things just don't pop out of nothing now or even since this first popping our of nothing?

If you were near to intelligent you would have noticed that I don't have a belief, not in the sense you understand what belief is.

Get mature.

[makedonin]

I wonder if God, the Atheists, Agnostics and anyone Iv'e missed out, would agree that the amount of time and energy put into this thread could have been better used in formulating a solution to Macedonia's problems and a plan for the unification and a better future for all Macedonians?

Well this discussion came into being when I suggested that the Ausies don't realize that if they don't cling to a religion they will not give the bastard Peter to create new Macedonian dispute in Australia i.e. the Macedonian Church dispute.

Obviously many have argued that there is need for church, others have argued that there is not.

On the end of the day, there is no consensus.

[makedonin]

What a hell of a chat!
When Jesus returns, I wouldn't want to hear trumpets .... I'd like to think a more sinister electric guitar playing a E7b9 chord through an eternity of Marshall amps is more appropriate.

That would be dramatic, specially when you hear how the chord sound. (play it here)

A heavenly guitar with a hard distortion would blow everyones mind

[Philosopher]

That is true, but as I said before, that must not necessary be a proof that it is a prophecy. To take that at face value and grant it the benefit of doubt is only to introduce highly probable falsehood of mans nature in the whole thing. If there is no independent way to verify that, it will remain only matter of belief.

Hence the problem with discussing this matter with you. Rather than addressing the actual evidence (the gospels), you simply bypass what is written, scoff at it, and say they can’t be trusted.

As said above, internal evidence is not enough and is only a matter of belief.

Taken isolated it may lead to what you suggest, but that does not necessary makes it true.

Daniel is only a good example which I gave on the way. It is not intended to change the subject but to give an example.

Again, the problem with discussing this matter with you. Apparently, words don’t mean what they mean. By your train of logic—and I know you will agree with this—we can’t trust or believe anything written, in anytime, in history, because words don’t mean what they mean.

Rather than exam the actual first hand evidence of the gospels, you start with presuppositions that you bring into the text and say “if the gospels don’t align with my thinking, I will dismiss them as untrustworthy and false.”

I must say that it was something refreshing and new for me to read your defense.

I must say that I haven't yet made up my mind about how valid your argument is, thus what I am about to write is only what have drew up my attention and whith what I have little problems.

Actually, this is a common theory held by Christians, throughout the ages.

It is interesting that you point out. I did some research, let me give you my quick insight.

It is obviously very tentative argument on which your base your assertion. I have read for example here the word eon is something that was commonly misinterpreted or mistranslated. I also stumbled upon this small image and the author of it have argued for eon being not eternity but short period of time, which is corresponding to an age, which is true, but as you can see on the image, he does not include such an eon or age as end of the Jewish nation, as you argued.

So it is very vague what you are trying to say.

But the first somewhat understandable and not that vague explanation what eon might mean is given here:

The literal meanings of aion are an “age,” an “indefinite time,” or “dispensation.” Not flowing or flows.

Regardless of this: the word aion is used in different senses, in different times. For example, the writer of Hebrews (9.26) states:

Since it had behooved him many times to suffer from the foundation of the world, but now once, at the full end of the ages, for putting away of sin through his sacrifice.

This verse indicates that his sacrifice came at the time of the full end of the ages, namely, of the Jewish dispensation of the Temple, its sacrifices, service, etc.

One of the most important uses of olam and its companion word aion in the Bible is as a name or descriptive title for that condition of things which will be manifest upon this earth when God's government, the kingdom of God, becomes a reality. In many places in the New Testament this entire period of time is simply called the eon. This is not at all strange since that condition of things upon the earth is produced by God in Christ flowing out and flowing down in many streams, each one producing its beneficent effect upon the earth and those upon it.
.....
Many passages in Scripture will speak clearer than ever before when we realize that in many places "the eon" is another name for "the kingdom of God."

The fact remains the above information is partly erroneous. Aion is not another name for the Kingdom of God. In the Bible, there are many “ages,” or “dispensations,” such as the Noahic, Abrhamic, Mosaic, etc. Aion can mean the Age of the Kingdom of God but what does this mean? The Church in this World is the Earthly Representation of the Kingdom of God; and the Kingdom of God is within each believer. Christ reigns from Heaven the Heavenly Kingdom (the perfected souls) and the Earthly (his Church).

It appears to me that you might misinterpret what the word aion i.e. eon means. The eon means that world order that was chaotic and with out Gods reign is about to end. It is the same meaning when the Authors of the testaments were talking about the end of the world, world meaning, the world of the present affairs, in rebellion against God.

It appears to me that you misinterpret Matthew and confuse the meaning between Aion and Kosmos. If the author of Matthew meant to express the end of the world, he would have used the word KOSMOS, the Greek word for WORLD. He would not have used the word AION. You’re discrediting yourself by your poor understanding of the Koine Greek.

Aion is used in different senses. No one disputes that there is an “AION” to come, the Heavenly world, but this something vastly different than what Matthew 24 speaks of. Matthew 24 stating that the Jewish Age, the Age of being the visible kingdom of God, would be taken from them; that the Temple, which was their sanctuary for sacrifices and worship, would be destroyed; that the Jewish nation would be wiped off the map; that there would be mass death and destruction upon the Jews for their all sins “that all the blood” may come “this generation.”

So when you say "full end of the age” than you mean to bring the flow of the current state of the world as we know it, the age of anarchy with out Gods reign and after that new world should begin, the world with Gods reign.

The Full End of the Age, in Matthew 24, means the end of Jewish Age and the start of a New Age--the Christian Age, the Start of the New Heavens and New Earth. It means the end of the Age of the Jewish system of life, their Temple, their city, their religious life would be destroyed and taken from them. The problem is you are reading into the text your own notions, and not allowing the gospel to speak for itself. The fact remains: you cannot show me in Matthew 24 Christ saying the “WORLD” will end; nor can you show me that He means anything other than PALESTINE engaged in war. Show me; I want proof!!!

It is all true what you say about the Jews. Yet you presuppose that this was only said for the Jews, and try to narrow it to Palestine. However Jesus makes it clear that the apostles did not understand him who he is and what his mission was, since they were looking through their Jewish understanding of what the Messiah should be, and certainly the Jews did not saw the Messiah as suffering and crucified one.

That is true—the apostles didn’t understand him. But the fact remains the discourse of Matthew 24 is only referring to the land of Palestine. There is no evidence in that chapter that indicates otherwise. All the destruction spoken of in this chapter is about the full end of the Jewish Age, the destruction of the Jewish temple, the destruction of Jerusalem, the expulsion of the Jews, the mass murder of the Jews, and death to life as they knew it. When the Temple was destroyed, the Jewish Age died with it.

for there shall be then great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world till now, no, nor may be.
Matthew 24:21 Young's Literal Translation

The word “world” here refers to Kosmos, which is quite distinct from the word “Aion,” or Age. The fact remains: this was absolutely true! The Jews have never experienced, nor have they experienced since that time, a greater tribulation as a people or nation.

Why don’t you look up the Jewish-Roman Wars.
The Romans destroyed their Temple; murdered up to (perhaps more than) a million Jews; burned Jerusalem with fire; destroyed their city; and eventually expelled the Jews from Palestine. It wasn’t until 1948 that the Jews, in rebellion to God, returned to Palestine and created Israel. Jews from all over the world go to Jerusalem and weep at the fallen Temple and their miseries for the last 2000 years or so.

So if we restrict the passages only to the ending of the Jewish Age during the destruction of the Temple, than we must admit that the above is false prophecy, because the distress meant in Matthew 24 should have been the greatest tribulation from the beginning of the world until than, and shall never be such again.

That is plain false because there certainly were many tribulation before the fall of the Temple which were great even greater, and afterwards there were many others too.

Actually, the prophecy was 100% correct. You're saying that Matthew wrote his gospel after 70AD, after the temple, then if Christ didn't predict the Desctruction of the Temple, and it was made up, why would Matthew after the fact write information that was factually incorrect? Surely he would have time, after the fact, to change the words of Christ or pretend Christ said this or that. Yet, he didn't!

From the beginning of the world, the Jewish nation has never experienced more misery than in that era. The prophecy was that the destruction that fell on the Jews was never to be greater ever again than what happened to them. And this 100% true.

Which tribulations before the fall of the temple were greater than those which happened to the Jews during the Jewish-Roman Wars? Name them. Christ is not speaking of non-Jews; he is speaking of the punishment of the Jewish nation for all their sins, and the chief sin, of Murdering the Son of God.

Remember the statement of Christ

That the blood of all the righteous be on this generation

. He doesn’t mean all humanity; he means on the Jews. Look at the audience; look at the people he is addressing.

That is a good example that he was trying to include the public of Palestine, and that is also OK, because he is also talking about the destruction of the Temple, BUT that does not restricts his sayings only to the Jews and his audience.

As shown above, Jesus cared less for the understanding of his disciples or his audience, which saw the Messiah as a wining King, not a suffering one (that is why Peter jumped when Jesus said he has to be killed, because he was the one who previously have identified him as the Christ i.e. Messiah [Matthew 16:15-16]), thus to presuppose that Jesus is restricting his sayings only for his audience is introduction of facts that actually don't exist.

You’re comparing apples to oranges. Christ did care for all of mankind; that is why he sent his apostles to the gentiles with the gospel. Christ is the God of all people, not just the Jews. But this has nothing to do with the prophetic message he is speaking about. He is discoursing on the Judgment that would befall the nation of Israel. Did you not read the parable on the marriage feasts? When God sends his servants to Israel to proclaim the marriage of His Son, and the Jews rejected the Gospel. What does it say? The King sent an army to murder them and burn their city with fire. This was the penalty on the Jewish nation. This is what happened in 70AD

However Matthew 24 is full with supernatural events that should have taken place during this tribulation or "full end of the age" which you want to call the end of Jewish Age. Here is a quick list of supernaturalism that did not take place:
“Immediately after the distress of those days
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’[a]
“Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[b] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[c]
Matthew 24:29-30

The “sun” mentioned is not the literal “sun”; nor is the moon spoken of, the literal “moon”; nor are the stars mentioned literally “stars;” but rather typical Jewish phraseology. They are symbolic esxpressions relating to the fall of the Jewish nation, see Daniel, (the Stars), and the Glory of God (could be the Sun) being darkened on the Jewish nation, and the moon his oracles (his words to Israel).

Since you believe that came on cloud, why the other things did not happen? Sun, moon, stars, you know what I mean?
No one in Palestine have seen Jesus coming from the heaven on a cloud.
If anyone of the Jews or the Romans have seen this signs and saw Jesus to come on the cloud, at least one of them would have reported it.
NO ONE DID SO!

What difference does it make if it did? Even if documents are found that say just that, you will dismiss it, since you don’t believe anything written by anyone. You believe words have no meanings.
The truth of the matter is: this did happen. Whether it was recorded and lost through the destruction, I can’t say for sure.

Also the above events are description of what the author of 2 Peter was telling to take place on the end of the Lords day, when he was trying to comfort his public from the scoffers that should have come in the end of the days, and he is meaning his days: Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”
..........
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.
...

But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
2 Peter 3:3-4,10

There are two theories as to the meaning of 2 Peter. (1) Peter is speaking of 70AD; or (2) He is speaking of the Second Coming of Christ, in which the world will be destroyed by God. There is a difference between the prophecy of Matthew 24, and the end of the Jewish Age and 2 Peter, the End of the World. There are similarities to both, since Christ will appear as a thief but this is to be expected, since he refused to give a date of his return.

It is important to note that the promise is new earth and heaven where righteousness will dwell, other words for the kingdom of God the end of a eon. Obviously the author of 2 Peter is using Matthews’s parable about the unknown hour and day as reported. Also, Jesus in (Matthew 24:15-16;Mark 13:14;Luke 21.20-21) is linking his prophecy with the apocalypse of Daniel 12:11 this chapter includes other things that had to happen in those days, namely:
Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.
Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever.
Daniel 12:2,3

HA! Nice try. So because Jesus links the Abomination of Desolation spoken of in Daniel chapter 9 to the Destruction of the temple, this in fact means that Daniel 12 is also speaking of the same prophetic time? Just because Daniel is the author of both prophecies, it does not mean he is speaking about the same time or event. Again, you are blending the two as if they were the same event.

The destruction of the Temple which was supposed to be the House of God on Earth and it's destruction were seen as the staging of the last tribulation.
The allusion that the Kingdom of God was taken away from them can't stand any historical scrutiny, since the Jews of the time were eagerly awaiting the Messiah to come and to establish the Kingdom of God. That is a vague and speculative point of yours which does not stand reality.

Actually, you are quite wrong. First off, the Temple of God was destroyed by God because it no longer was to be the House of God for the people of God. The New Temple of God is every believer—as Paul writes,

you are the temple of God

. God lives in his people when he gives the Holy Spirit. This is why Christ says in Luke

The kingdom of God is within you

.

The allusion that the Kingdom of God was taken away from them can't stand any historical scrutiny, since the Jews of the time were eagerly awaiting the Messiah to come and to establish the Kingdom of God.

Really? So then how do you explain these verses:
Matthew 21.43

Because of this I say to you, that the reign of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth its fruit

And again, Hosea 1.9

ye are not my people

Yes, the Jews expect their Messiah to come; but the Jews don’t realize that he already came 2000 years ago, and that the physical Jews of today are no longer the people of God, and that their kingdom was taken from them, and given over to the Spiritual Seed of Abraham and the corporate, visible, Church of Christ. The Jews are a blind people.

[Risto the Great]

The Jews are a blind people.

Following this, their nation does not deserve to exist. Yet it does. In fact it is one of the stronger nations.

I started this thread because I was not sure how we could reconcile nations or nationalism with Christianity. Surely living in God's love is far more important than defending one's piece of dirt.

What are your thoughts about this Philosopher?

BTW, do you have any thoughts about the Pope's recent discussion on the significance of the Jews and the justification for their existence?

[Philosopher]

Following this, their nation does not deserve to exist. Yet it does. In fact it is one of the stronger nations.

My comment is purely in a religious sense. And it based on the writings of Jewish writers (Old and New Testaments). They are spiritually blind because they crucified their Messiah and don’t realize it. But, from a political and historic perspective, the modern day state of Israel is a racist state engaged in genocide against the Palestinians, and is one the world’s most notorious terrorist states, which the world condemns at the UN, save for the U.S, on a consistent basis. But I do not gainsay that Israel is highly armed and very dangerous State.

I started this thread because I was not sure how we could reconcile nations or nationalism with Christianity. Surely living in God's love is far more important than defending one's piece of dirt.

What are your thoughts about this Philosopher?

Nationalism is perfectly compatible with Christianity and with Judaism. Nationalism is love for country, love for your values, and love for your culture, etc.

We must distinguish personal Christian Ethics from National Christian Ethics. For example, when Christ says “turn the other cheek,” and “love your enemies,” he means those who persecute you because of your faith in Christ, and like Christ, to give place of vengeance to God.
However, we also know from the writings of Paul, that the State is established by God to bring order and justice. The ministers of God (the government) is there to punish the wicked (look at the book of Romans). Naturally, God does not intend the State to turn the other cheek; this would pervert God’s justice and sanity on its head. The State, being separate from the Church, or even if they are the same (no separation of church and state), the State has an obligation to do the justice, including wars if necessary. I see nothing wrong with Macedonia defending itself militarily, politically, historically, linguistically, or otherwise; in fact, I encourage it.

BTW, do you have any thoughts about the Pope's recent discussion on the significance of the Jews and the justification for their existence?

I do; the Pope is wrong. This was politically motivated to appease international Jewry. The New Testament is clear: the Jews arrested Jesus, the Jews condemned Jesus, false Jewish witnesses came against Jesus, the Jews handed him over to Pilate, and despite the fact that Pilate wished to release him, the Jews said “Let his blood be upon us and our children.” And they cried “Crucify,” “Crucify.”
And hence, that is why Christ says their Temple would be destroyed, their people killed by the Romans, and their city set on fire. Crucifying the Son of God is no small crime.

[Philosopher]

I must correct myself on an earlier post.

I wrote that few outside of the near east would know of Christ. In reality, however, at this point in time, 70AD, I’m guessing his name was well known throughout the Roman Empire, since churches were established throughout the Roman Empire.

Moreover:

In regard to the issue of Christ’s Prediction that the Temple would be destroyed (roughly 40 years before it happened).
Notice the hypocrisy of Makedonin. He states that this prophecy is no prophecy at all because it was written after the fact. Well, if this is so: then why does Makedonin find fault with the rest of Matthew 24? He makes all kinds of allegations that the prophecies of Matthew 24 were not fulfilled.

Yet, let us think critically:

On the one hand, Matthew, witnessing the events of 70AD, decides to make up a story (which is true) for his readers, to wit, that Christ predicted the temple being destroyed; but, alas, for some odd reason, despite seeing the events and living in them, decides to concoct the rest of Christ’s prophecy, which is false, even though he knew it was false, and could be proved to be false. Why would Matthew do this?

So either:

(1) Matthew is an idiot and can’t seem to make an accurate prophecy even though he lived after the events themselves.
(2) Or Matthew was written before the events, and Christ having rightly predicted the Temple razing, also rightly predicted the rest of the account. And that the full end of the Age spoken of is the Age in which the Jewish Temple and city were to be razed and burnt with fire.

I know of no other way of looking at this.

I’ll let you guys be the judge on this.

[Risto the Great]

Always fun chatting with you Philosopher.
Thanks

[Philosopher]

BTW, do you have any thoughts about the Pope's recent discussion on the significance of the Jews and the justification for their existence?

My apologies; I misread the question. What are his views on the significance of the Jews and the justification for their existence?

Need more details

[makedonche]

Well this discussion came into being when I suggested that the Ausies don't realize that if they don't cling to a religion they will not give the bastard Peter to create new Macedonian dispute in Australia i.e. the Macedonian Church dispute.

Obviously many have argued that there is need for church, others have argued that there is not.

On the end of the day, there is no consensus.

Makedonin
The Aussies had religion and churches before Petar came along, part of the problem is that he failed to acknowledge the work and sacrifices people made to uphold the Macedonian name and religion. His only interests are assets and cashflow and being able to control them for his own benefit - hence the crux of the problem - so abandoning religion will not make him go away, he will then target schools, cultural centres, retirement homes, whatever he can get his hands on- in fact he has already stated he wants not only the churches but the other assets of the communities as well. The only thing that will stop him is a unified national Macedonian Community that organises a ban on his churches and followers. Having said all that I have now contributed to the waste of time I was trying to make people aware of! That's enough - back to the drawing board to work on my masterplan for Macedonia and all Macedonians!

[Vangelovski]

Is that all you can say? Watch your mouth you are drolling.



Nor any secular scholar or atheists consider that the gospels are written from the disciples whose names are attached to them.

It is only the evangelicals that cling to this!



If you were near to intelligent you would have noticed that I don't have a belief, not in the sense you understand what belief is.

Get mature.

Actually, all serious scholars, secular and atheist consider the gospels were written by those apostles. Again, your inaccuracy is due to being uninformed (probably because you troll through really bad atheist websites rather than reading books and visiting museums). You have stated many of your beliefs on this thread and the other, only to quickly disown them (temporarily) when they are shown for the foolishness they are.

[Risto the Great]

My apologies; I misread the question. What are his views on the significance of the Jews and the justification for their existence?

Need more details

This is a recent statement that was on the news recently:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/03/3153637.htm

Pope says Jews not responsible for Jesus' death

Pope Benedict XVI has personally exonerated Jews of allegations they were responsible for Jesus Christ's death.

The Pope makes his complex theological and biblical evaluation in a section of the second volume of his book, Jesus of Nazareth, which will be published next week.

In it, he repudiates the concept of collective guilt that has haunted Christian-Jewish relations for centuries.

"Now we must ask: Who exactly were Jesus's accusers?" the Pope asks, adding that the gospel of St John simply says it was "the Jews".

"But John's use of this expression does not in any way indicate - as the modern reader might suppose - the people of Israel in general, even less is it 'racist' in character," he writes.

"After all John himself was ethnically a Jew, as were Jesus and all his followers. The entire early Christian community was made up of Jews."

Pope Benedict says the reference was to the "Temple aristocracy," who wanted Jesus condemned to death because he had declared himself king of the Jews and had violated Jewish religious law.

He concludes that the "real group of accusers" were the Temple authorities and not all Jews of the time.

The Roman Catholic Church officially repudiated the idea of collective Jewish guilt for Christ's death in a major document by the Second Vatican Council in 1965.

[Bill77]

BTW, do you have any thoughts about the Pope's recent discussion on the significance of the Jews and the justification for their existence?

Can i give you my thoughts mate for what they are worth,

I don't think the jews (People) are to blame nor the "Temple aristocracy," as the pope suggesting is to blame. Why, because it was pre destined according to scripture. If anything Christians should be thankful towards the Jews for playing part in Gods plan. If the crucifixion did not happen, Christians would not be Christians today.

We all know the story about the resurrection and how its important to Christians. But do people know this,
According to scripture on who the "messiah" would be, it was taught that "not one of his bones will be broken". And "They will look on the one they have pierced."

Now what's so amasing about this? it was routine to break the legs of the crucified to make sure he is dead. If Christ's legs were broken, then according to scripture, Jesus could not have been the messiah. As the Roman executioners approached Jesus who was next to get his legs broken, one of the Roman executioners out of nowhere (Longinus) pierced the side of Jesus with his spear, which again was according to scripture. This action by the Roman "Longinus" was the most crucial moment for Christians that not many know about. Which is where the saying "Spear of Destiny" comes from.

I am not trying to bible bash anyone, i am only trying to show acording to the bible, how the out come was meant to happen. It was written and Jews can not be blamed.

[Rogi]

Bill, I'm curious, to which scripture are you referring and when was it written?

[Bill77]

Bill, I'm curious, to which scripture are you referring and when was it written?

John 19:36 "These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken,"

John 19:37 "and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."

Now i don't know the bible like the back of my hand. John was talking to his people of his time. I don't know if these scriptures he is talking about, is in the old Testament or not. Or they would be found in the Torah or any other Hebrew scriptures. But for him to preach this must have been understood at the time and such scripture (in identifying the masire) would have existed.

Actually, it could be in the book of Isaiah which was hundreds of years before Jesus was born. I will search it. There are also other prophecies pointing to Jesus as the messiah coming from the book of Daniel just to name another.


On a side note, According to the myth of "Longinus" (Roman executioner who speared Jesus) he became immortal and is still alive. He will remain that way till the return of Christ. Surely thats a punishment and i don't know why he would have to suffer. But like i said, its a myth.