Objective Moral Values

[Risto the Great]

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.

OK, inappropriate humour off.

Back to the real stuff.

[Philosopher]

It was suppose to be a laugh, I am glad you liked it, I like it too! Maybe we ain't that different after all

I know. I enjoyed it. We are both seeking the truth—but we have very different philosophies.

The internal evidence of the gospel writers is telling everybody another story!

It actually tells you what you want to tell you, and this case to the apologists it tells them what they think will justify their story.

That this is so, you only have to read through the literature and see that every one is turning the water to his mill.

You’re dodging and changing the subject. You know very well that there is not one mention in the gospels speaking of the destruction of the temple.

See Daniels prophecies of end days is similar construct. It is very accurate and aligns with secular history, but than after certain point it does not preserves it's accuracy, thus apologists are forced to make the time leap and project to the future.

Again, you’re changing the subject. We could speak of Daniel, but let us first discuss the gospels. The fact remains: internal evidence does not allow a post 70AD date. Show me in the text, in the gospels, any evidence suggesting otherwise.

Do not quote me or relate to me the writings and beliefs of secure “scholars,” who simply preclude the possibility of prophecy. For these scholars, any answer will suffice—except that prophecy is possible.

That is very interesting, I must say I am surprised.

No Christian in the history of Christianity (broadly speaking) has believed that the meaning “that” generation or “this generation” refers to a future generation. Only modern day evangelicals hold to this position; in particular, those of the dispensationalist belief dating from the 1800s.

If all the earth have seen the Son of Man coming on a cloud and that all have mourned and he selected his elected from the four winds, than why are you still here?

Why no one have been writing about it, if everyone have seen him?

I really want to see your argument!?

I would be happy to give my defense.

First, if you notice, nowhere does Matthew 24 say “the end of the world.” This is commonly mistranslated; Young’s Translation gets it right. The word is “aion,” or “age.” The correct reading is when the “full end of the age” will be.

Second, if you notice Mark 13 and Luke 21, neither one speak of the end of the world; it all centers on the prophecy of Christ that the Temple will be destroyed. In Matthew, this destruction is seen as the “full end of the age.”

The correct reading, with notes, would be:

Tell us, when shall these be? And what is the sign of thy presence [to destroy the temple and Jerusalem], and of the full end of the [Jewish] Age.

The Greek word “ge,” commonly translated as Earth, more literally means “land,” depending on the context of the usage. Christ is speaking to a Jewish audience (his apostles) whose only idea or concern of the “earth” is the” land” of Palestine, not the whole earth, of which they did not care for or about. Notice when Christ says in Matthew 24 that there will be wars and reports of wars,” he means in the land of Palestine, not China, Russia, England, France, or Egypt. Why would the apostles care for far off, distant lands, that don’t effect them or the Temple, which was to be destroyed? He means the land of Palestine. The wars that were to erupt there when the Romans ravaged Palestine.

The Jews were a very ethnocentric people who did not concern themselves with the gentile world. They didn’t even eat with those outside of another race. Why would Christ be speaking to the apostles that “all the peoples of the earth will mourn” when they see Christ, when the apostles didn’t care for the “world”; and outside of the near east, few knew of Christ or his existence—so why would they mourn him who they didn’t know? All the “Tribes of the earth” means all the Jewish tribes of the land of Palestine (and thereabout). They will mourn because Christ will come to bring Judgment on the Jews.

Evidence of this is here: Matthew 24;16, 20

Then those in Judea—let them flee to the mounts…and pray ye that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath…

The audience is those living in Palestine, not those living in Norway or Brazil.

And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

The angels spoken of are “messengers,” human servants of God, like John the Baptist is called an “angelos,” an angel.

I send my messenger (angelos) before thy face…

It’s referring to the apostles and servants of Christ bringing the children of God (as seen in the book of acts) from the ends of the heavens to the church of Christ. This was prophesied in Jeremiah, speaking of the new Exodus, greater than that of the exodus of Moses.

I’m still here because Matthew 24 is not about the end of the world; it is about the end of the Jewish age (dispensation). The new dispensation has existed since this time to the present age. Nowhere does Matthew 24 say the world will end. In fact, why would the destruction of the temple have anything to do with the end of the world? It doesn’t. It was the end of the Jewish Age—the Kingdom of God being taken from them.

I have checked them, and still they say pretty much the same, well maybe don't say strictly 7th Century (I don't even know how this 7th century argument came into the play) but to defend the trinity was not hard, cause there were no living that could have oppose.

All that did not subscribed to the doctrine of Trinity were deemed heretics.

Take Arianism as example:

You keep dancing. You wrote 7th century—now you are abandoning this? No one disputes that there have been people in the history of Christianity, including Arian, that denied the divinity of Christ. But this was in the fourth century AD. There are people till this day who deny the divinity of Christ. No one disputes this.

The question is what is the consensus of the Church, the consensus of the Scriptures, and the consensus of the early Church Fathers. In the Council of Nicaea, the Trinity was not formulated; rather, it was canonized and defended against the heresy of Arian. This was in the fourth century AD. These people were deemed heretics because they are denying what the Scriptures teach about who Jesus is.

[Vangelovski]

Makedonin,

Are you only able to post idiotic reasoning based on an uninformed face-value reading of text? 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?

[Bill77]

Bill, i specifically said "exact words of God". Do you believe that everything about Alexander has been written or everything you read about him is totally correct? Dont you think there would be exaggerations, subjective thoughts in the interpretations of him by 3rd persons?

So, cant we claim the same about Jesus too?

Well i am also talking about the words of God (Gospel) that was written centuries after the life of Alexander.

No i don't believe everything is accurate about Alexander (for a number of reasons). But there is no doubt Alexander existed and was powerful. Why can't similar things be said about Jesus and about his teachings (gods words). Infact the life of Jesus would be more accurate since his story was 350 odd years after Alexander.

On another note, Its a shame the scriptures according to Thomas have disappeared. He was the only one (out of all the deciples) that wrote his scriptures in Aramaic which was the language Jesus spoke and the writing used during that time. According to some theologians, Thomas would have written his scriptures as Jesus was alive, as things were happening. Kind of a stenographer. There are alegations the Catholic church have hidden or destroyed them because there was something in it that did not suit Catholicism. Its a shame because i am sure we would have learned something more from these scriptures that if true it was written during the life of Jesus, would have been more accurate.

[George S.]

THere is no doubt that the universe was created by a big bang 16 billion years ago?? by a supreme being called God.THe universe is far complex to just happen.How can you get order
out of nothing.Virtually everything in the universe has a purpose.Just think there is no design in the universe it just happened come on where did matter come from nothing.How can you get something from nothing.GOD created the heavens & the earth he made it happen it didn't just happen by itself.

[George S.]

Sorry to interrupt there bill the bible is claimed to be the word of god.So if God wrote that then who are we to question him.The different parts of the bible actually confirm each other & also the dead sea scrolls found in 1948 show how accurate the bible is it is very highly accurate when compared to the st james bible.Don't forget Jesus said him & the father are one & he is literally the son of God.Other religions like the muslem limit jesus to just a prophet.This is because the last prophet is mohamed & muslems want to give him preminence..Think about it if God is the creator of the universe & is lord & master of everything,do you think he hasn't left his word for man??It's called the Holy Bible.He claims he is the only God & there are no other.Check out the ten commandments it says you shall have no other God but God.You shall not make any images or worship images of God.etc.

[Vangelovski]

Bill77,

The 'Gospel of Thomas' was a fraud and was not written by the apostle.

[makedonche]

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?

[Bill77]

Bill77,
The 'Gospel of Thomas' was a fraud and was not written by the apostle.

Is that a fact?

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?

With God's willing

[Vangelovski]

Is that a fact?

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

[George S.]

Makedonche i support you 100% With God willing,I don't think the macedonian govt is very willing.If the macedonian govt took a small notice evevn of the diaspora it would be for the better but it doesn't.

[makedonche]

Bill77
God helps those who help themselves!

GeorgeS
That's correct, but we can't sit here doing nothing while the ROM govt. plays with our identity, which was my original point - the energy spent on this thread would have been better spent holding the govt. to account and coming up with alternatives/plans etc. for unity and a better future for all Macedonians.

[George S.]

I emailed the macedonian govt many times do they respond no.I emailed both gruevski &Ivanov as a macedonian citizen in the diaspora do they respond NO.Will i give up no but i'm getting sick of being ignored.

[makedonche]

I emailed the macedonian govt many times do they respond no.I emailed both gruevski &Ivanov as a macedonian citizen in the diaspora do they respond NO.Will i give up no but i'm getting sick of being ignored.

George S
They can only ignore you for so long, keep at it, others will notice what you do and join in, then lets see them ignore you!

[makedonin]

I know. I enjoyed it. We are both seeking the truth—but we have very different philosophies.

Yeah, seeking the truth is something personal which in my opinion no one can give it to you on the way. If you accept it from someone else it is only second hand knowledge which you may or may not have understood or utilized.

Our philosophies are different, that much is true. I for my part will question everything that man has ever done or written, because man is not to be trusted.

You know very well that there is not one mention in the gospels speaking of the destruction of the temple.

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.

Again, you’re changing the subject. We could speak of Daniel, but let us first discuss the gospels. The fact remains: internal evidence does not allow a post 70AD date. Show me in the text, in the gospels, any evidence suggesting otherwise.

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.

Do not quote me or relate to me the writings and beliefs of secure “scholars,” who simply preclude the possibility of prophecy. For these scholars, any answer will suffice—except that prophecy is possible.

If we exclude the others than we will never know what might be the truth.

Apart from that, the naturalistic explanation that can be testified by common human experience is much more possible than some supernatural premises.

Said that, we again have only the word of the gospel writers that this is really a prophecy, and we have to believe their word and grant them the benefit of the doubt, but human experience have made it known that humans are unreliable when it specially comes to religious questions.

You chose to give the gospel writers the benefit of the doubt by saying that they were sanctified. However I have previously given my argument why this sanctification argument is a circular argument and can't be real evidence.

So if you don't have any real evidence apart from the so called inner evidence which requires me to give the gospel writers the benefit of doubt, I will keep my right to doubt.

No Christian in the history of Christianity (broadly speaking) has believed that the meaning “that” generation or “this generation” refers to a future generation. Only modern day evangelicals hold to this position; in particular, those of the dispensationalist belief dating from the 1800s.

I don't know about that, but it ain't really important, because it is false anyways.

I would be happy to give my defense.

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.

First, if you notice, nowhere does Matthew 24 say “the end of the world.” This is commonly mistranslated; Young’s Translation gets it right. The word is “aion,” or “age.” The correct reading is when the “full end of the age” will be.

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:

Since aion was selected by divine inspiration to express the word olam in New Testament quotations of passages containing this word, it is then normal to expect that the same basic idea of flowing should be found in every occurrence. However, let it be understood that I am not suggesting that aion be translated flow, flower, or flowing in any occurrence. In translating I will always use the anglicized forms eon and eonian to render noun and adjective, but I will know from long and careful study what these words mean. In Eph. 2:2 where the KJV reads "the course of this world," I will translate it "the eon of this world" but will know that it means "the flow of this world."

......

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." If God's government should come today, bringing in this glorious eon, there are many who would perish in relationship to it. There is no place in the coming eon for such as those described in 1 Cor. 6:9-10. God will determine (judge) who among the living will be allowed to continue to live in that time of the outflow of His blessings (2 Tim. 4:1).

http://www.heavendwellers.com/hd_what_does_aion_mean.htm

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.

After all this was the first call that Jesus have made:

And after the delivering up of John, Jesus came to Galilee, proclaiming the good news of the reign of God,
and saying -- `Fulfilled hath been the time, and the reign of God hath come nigh, reform ye, and believe in the good news.'

The whole gospel is about the reign of God, which should end the current ungodly state of affairs.

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.

So in the light of the above, I must only conclude that when you say:

Second, if you notice Mark 13 and Luke 21, neither one speak of the end of the world; it all centers on the prophecy of Christ that the Temple will be destroyed. In Matthew, this destruction is seen as the “full end of the age.”

The correct reading, with notes, would be:
Tell us, when shall these be? And what is the sign of thy presence [to destroy the temple and Jerusalem], and of the full end of the [Jewish] Age.

(although the destruction of the temple is part of it) you introduce in the given text something that isn't there and is based on vague explanation what eon might be or might not be i.e. the Jewish Age.

But that is not the only problem of your defense.

The Greek word “ge,” commonly translated as Earth, more literally means “land,” depending on the context of the usage. Christ is speaking to a Jewish audience (his apostles) whose only idea or concern of the “earth” is the” land” of Palestine, not the whole earth, of which they did not care for or about. Notice when Christ says in Matthew 24 that there will be wars and reports of wars,” he means in the land of Palestine, not China, Russia, England, France, or Egypt. Why would the apostles care for far off, distant lands, that don’t effect them or the Temple, which was to be destroyed? He means the land of Palestine. The wars that were to erupt there when the Romans ravaged Palestine.

The Jews were a very ethnocentric people who did not concern themselves with the gentile world. They didn’t even eat with those outside of another race. Why would Christ be speaking to the apostles that “all the peoples of the earth will mourn” when they see Christ, when the apostles didn’t care for the “world”; and outside of the near east, few knew of Christ or his existence—so why would they mourn him who they didn’t know? All the “Tribes of the earth” means all the Jewish tribes of the land of Palestine (and thereabout). They will mourn because Christ will come to bring Judgment on the Jews.

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.

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”
Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”
Matthew 16:21-23

In other words, Jesus did not really care weather his disciples who were Jewish impregnated will agree or understand him.

To him that were human concerns!

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.

When concerned the wars, there is also a problem with that:

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 Amplified Bible translates this as:
For then there will be great tribulation (affliction, distress, and oppression) such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now--no, and never will be [again]
Matthew 24:21

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.

The wars and the reports of wars were on daily basis in the Roman empire. The Romans had to suppress many rebellious tribes that they were subjugating, thus that does not restrict the alleged prophecy to the time prior or after the fall of the Temple. As a matter of fact such reports were before and after the fall of the Temple and are nothing new to human history or to Roman empire.

Evidence of this is here: Matthew 24;16, 20
The audience is those living in Palestine, not those living in Norway or Brazil.

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.

The angels spoken of are “messengers,” human servants of God, like John the Baptist is called an “angelos,” an angel.

It’s referring to the apostles and servants of Christ bringing the children of God (as seen in the book of acts) from the ends of the heavens to the church of Christ. This was prophesied in Jeremiah, speaking of the new Exodus, greater than that of the exodus of Moses.

That might be so, but that is the only supposed supernatural event you can rationally downplay to a common human experience which can't be denounced or refuted. With doing so you admit that supernaturalism can't be proven.

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

During the destruction of the Temple neither the sun has fallen from the sky, nor the moon stopped giving it's light (although the moon does not have light on it self), nor the stars fallen to the earth.

You said:

I believe Christ did return in 70AD in the clouds of heaven. Everything Christ predicted in Matthew 24 happened in the time of 70AD.

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!


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

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 parable about the unknown hour and day as reported:

“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.
Matthew 24:42-44

Apart from the urgency that Jesus imply that the public should must be ready, obviously the tribulation described in Matthew 24 and 2 Peter 3 are of the same type and the later is relying on the previous, but the later is describing a destruction and new world.

I’m still here because Matthew 24 is not about the end of the world; it is about the end of the Jewish age (dispensation). The new dispensation has existed since this time to the present age. Nowhere does Matthew 24 say the world will end.

As shown above, the "full end of the eon" is implying the end of the world in a sense that God will establish the Kingdom of God.

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

There is not a shred of evidence that the above happened.

In fact, why would the destruction of the temple have anything to do with the end of the world? It doesn’t. It was the end of the Jewish Age—the Kingdom of God being taken from them.

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.



So in short, this are my problems with your defense. It may not be perfectly or eloquently explained, but hey I wrote it now out of the hand.

I wish you a nice day!