+
ON REASON AND FOOLISHNESS/1
[Or: The Seeds of Paine!]
.
/ Was Topic > Re: To Aaron. Moses verses Jesus / #8 /
/ Ngz: alt.bible, alt.religion.christian.biblestudy / 21Sept2000 /
.
"Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?" - 1Cor.1:20/NIV
.
>> textman answered: Dear RevP, some of the words are undoubtedly the
>> uninspired words of scribes inserted into the text in some feeble
>> attempt to improve upon the original uncorrupted texts; but even so,
>> the entire Christian tradition is firm upon the point that these
>> particular books are somehow divinely inspired. Therefore we are
>> not in error in referring to the Holy Bible as the Word of God.
.
> On 18Sept Rev Peter <[email protected]> replied:
> Pure speculation on your part. WE don't have any of these
> "uncorrupted" texts around; therefore you cannot prove
> there ever was any such thing.
.
textman answers: Dear RevP, if I hold an apple in my hand, is it "pure
speculation" to suppose that it probably came from an apple tree? In
the same way, we do not need to have the original autographs in hand
to know that (at one time) they did exist. And since these autographs
are the original source of all subsequent copies, they are (by
definition) uncorrupted (which is *not* the same as saying that
they were "perfect").
.
> The Bible is the Words of Man about YHWH, and later Jesus --
> that is all they are, nothing more. One can argue that it is
> a collection of opinions.
.
Why would anyone want to do that?
.
>>> Your incapacity to realize this only proves that you are
>>> essentially a sophist.
.
>> I don't think so, RevP. A sophist believes in nothing (except
>> perhaps money), and therefore plays with words solely for their
>> effect upon the listener. In other words, a sophist cares nothing
>> for the truth of things, and so is essentially a nihilist. It seems
>> to me, therefore, that a person without faith (such as yourself) is
>> far more likely to be a sophist than a person of faith.
.
> Sophists are human beings,
.
... faithless human beings,
.
> as such they are motivated by the same things which motivate
> human beings.
.
... which motivate faithless human beings.
.
> It is funny you mention money; for money is the driving force behind
> institutionalized religion, and institutionalized religion is ALWAYS
> built on a revealed religion.
.
Money is necessary for any institution (religious or otherwise),
but it certainly cannot be the driving force behind the practice
of true religion:
.
"Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to care
for orphans and widows in their misfortune and to keep yourself
unstained by the world." -- James 1:27/NETbible
.
> Faith is merely a word fanatics use so as to avoid the truth. Faith
> is the enenmy of Truth. I have Reason, which is infinitely superior
> to the faith of any xian.
.
"God has revealed these to us by the Spirit. For the Spirit searches
all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the
things of a man except the man's spirit within him? So too, no one
knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have not
received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so
that we may know the things that are freely given to us by God. And we
speak about these things, not with words taught us by human wisdom, but
in those taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual things to spiritual
people. The unbeliever does not receive the things of the Spirit of
God, for they are foolishness to him. And he cannot understand them,
because they are spiritually discerned. The one who is spiritual
discerns all things, yet he himself is understood by no one. "For who
has known the mind of the Lord, so as to advise him?" But we have the
mind of Christ." -- 1Cor.2:10-16/NETbible
.
>>> Try proving that the scribes who wrote these 'scriptures' were
>>> telling the truth.
.
>> The only people who require "proof" of the truth of scripture are
>> those who have already made up their minds that their is no truth
>> in the scriptures.
.
> Muslims make exactly the same claims for their scriptures, the
> Qur'an. No textman, I did not start off a skeptic. I started off a
> bible believing xian [much to my shame] and then one day I started to
> read what was ACTUALLY written on those "divine" pages and came to
> the conclusion that I had been deceived and deceived myself with this
> Jewish Iliad of false prophecies and inane teachings. There is no
> truth in Scriptures; of course it took me 30 years to figure it out.
.
Well, that's most interesting, Pete, because I *did* start out as
a skeptic and a rationalist. When I went to university, I studied
philosophy, sociology, and anthropology. And you know what I found
out? I found out that anthropology could not answer my questions about
humankind. And I found out that sociology hasn't got the first clue
why cultures and societies are the way they are. And I found out that
philosophy, for the most part, cannot answer the really important
questions either. For example: Socrates was of the opinion that
evil is basically the result of ignorance. But the 20th century has
demonstrated just how false that idea is. So much for reason! And
when I finally turned back to the Lord, he showed me the true source
of evil -> the human heart (cut off from God).
.
It took me a long time to realize that the teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church have nothing in common with the truth of the Word of
God, but I did not abandon the Lord because of the perversity and
corruption of those false churches that claim the Bible as their own.
The Word of God does not belong to the churches; it belongs only to
those who truly love the Lord, and are willing to place their faith,
not in false idols (such as priests, reason, inerrant paper-popes,
science and technology, "infallible" doctrines, etc etc), but rather
in He who loved us unto death!
.
>>>> Allow me then to try and shed some much needed light
>>>> upon this confusing matter.
.
>>> There is no confusion, it is a FACT that the bible
>>> is written by men;
.
>> By men, women, *and* the Spirit of Truth.
.
> Can you name a single woman who wrote a book in the Bible?
.
I don't know the name (or names) of the woman who collaborated with
the Spirit for her contribution to the scriptures, but I do know the
name of the book she wrote. It can be found in the Old Testament
portion, under the category of the Wisdom literature. It has several
names really, but the most common is 'The Song of Songs'; which is
erroneously attributed to Solomon. One brief glance at the text,
however, will easily show that no mere man (be he oh so inspired)
could *ever* have enough wisdom to write like that! Nuff Said ...
.
> As for your Spirit of Truth, that is merely a Peter Pan character
> with no foundation in reality.
.
Well, Rev, if truth has no foundation in reality, then none of our
Readers can in any way be obliged to consider this last statement
of yours to be true ... Right? :)
.
> Muslims and Mormons make similar claims.
.
You mean that people other than Christians are able to acknowledge
the reality of prophets and spirit and truth? ... Well! I am deeply
offended by *that*, sir ... NOT!
.
> Here is an interesting passage which disqualifies the
> word "truth" from the Bible:
.
> Jer. 8:8, "8 How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law [word] of
> the Lord is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes
> Has made it [scripture] into a lie."
.
Don't you just *love* Jeremiah? He's absolutely right, of course. The
priests and bible scholars and church historians and scribes have all
contributed enormous efforts and resources in confusing the wisdom
of the scriptures, in scattering the commands of the Lord, in laying
waste the truth of God, such that all the churches, and all their many
teachers and preachers of the law, no longer have any right to say that
"the word of the Lord is with us"! For they have bounded the Sacred
Text with chains of traditions, and collars of liturgy, and ropes of
ignorant assumptions, so that Christians today are simply unable to
see the Spirit of the Logos for all the noise and flak that sits
unbreachable between the eyes of the Reader and the seemingly clear
Text. So yes, there may be little spirit and truth in the confused
minds of the Readers, but this does not mean that there is no
spirit and truth in the Text itself!
.
> So much for the Spirit of Truth working with the Scribes.
> Jer.20:7, "O Lord, Thou hast deceived me and I was deceived;
> Thou hast overcome me and prevailed...."
.
Yet even so, some few scribes have sometimes managed to
peer through the fog.
.
> YHWH, the father of deception.
.
The Father of Lights only appears as such when self-deceivers project
their unknowing onto texts that are unable to defend themselves.
.
> Eze.14:9, "If a prophet is deceived and speaks a word, I, the Lord,
> have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand against
> him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."
.
A clear warning meant for *all* false prophets and teachers.
.
> YHWH, destroyer of Jesus.
.
The Father of Lights, who *will* move against the priests and
false teachers and ministers of the Word who deceive His People
... And is doing so even now!
.
> Ezek. 20: 25-26,"25 Wherefore I GAVE THEM also statutes that were not
> good, AND judgments whereby they should not live; 26 and I POLLUTED
> THEM in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire
> all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the
> end that they might know that I am the Lord."
.
In other words, the prophet can see the spiritual desolation that
exists among the churches that claim God as the source of their
own polluted statutes, judgments, customs, and traditions.
.
> Here bible god admits to instituting human sacrifice.
> YHWH, the human sacrifing god.
.
Your interpretation is not only false, but ridiculous as well.
.
>>> RevP: <snip> ... who could not even agree on the basics.
.
>> They all agree that God exists, and cares enough about humankind
>> to become personally involved with their lives. Accordingly, I'd
>> say that they *do* agree at least upon the basics.
.
> RevP: They cannot agree as to the God in question. Prior
> to Jeremiah, YHWH is nothing but a blood thirsty beast
> who delights in butchery of animals and people.
.
Never heard of the prophet Amos, have you?
.
> After Jeremiah he becomes a little more civilized.
.
But only a little ... :)
.
> IN Jesus' time, Judaism was divided into hostle sects each
> with their own idea of what YHWH was.
.
Spiritual growth is a slow and painful process, no doubt.
.
> To the Pharisees, YHWH was a zorostrian type god.
.
Seems to me that the Essenes (with their cosmic dualism of the forces
of Light and Darkness) were far more like the Zoroastrians than the
Pharisees (who are far more like unto Catholics).
.
>>>> Let us begin by recognizing that the Gospel of Matthew is a
>>>> deliberate revision of the original Gospel of Mark and Peter.
.
>>> RevP: Sophism.
.
>> Biblical science and scholarship.
.
> RevP: There is no such thing as biblical science, or biblical
> scholarship.
.
Oh really?
.
> In both cases, theologicans
.
"theologicans"? What's that? A word of your own devising?
.
> [highly trained sophists]
.
If theologicans = sophists then what do you need the word
'theologicans' for? Are you perhaps suggesting that theologian =
sophist? I thought I was talking about bible scholars ... Or we also
to suppose that bible-scholar = theologian = sophist?! ... Boy! You
sure do like to simplify things, don't you? ... Hey! You're not the
Master of the Universe by any chance, are you?
.
> approach the work ALREADY under the conviction that it is the
> word of God and must be figured out.
.
"figured out"? Sounds to me like you're talking about how a
rationalist approaches the Word of God -> ALREADY under the conviction
that it is *NOT* the Word of God and must therefore be figured out.
Hmmmmm ... Does this mean that rationalist = sophist? Naaaa, that
would be too easy! LOL
.
> That is a violation of the principles of Science and Scholarship.
.
Dear Rev Peter, *you* are a violation of the principles
of Science and Scholarship!
.
> A scientist and scholar approaches his work under the
> conviction that it is unknow.
.
Wut? "unknow"? Is this *another* word of your own devising? Wut?
There's just not enough words in the English language for you,
so you gots to make up some more?! Good grief!
.
> The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches,
.
As it * squats * in Christian churches maybe ... :)
.
> is the study of nothing;
.
Well then it ought to be easy enough for know-nothings to master!
.
> it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by
> no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it
> admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science,
> without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is
> founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it
> is therefore the study of nothing." -- Thomas Paine
.
Then why do universities and colleges give out degrees and diplomas
for the study of nothing? btw: All this is irrelevant since I was
talking about the biblical sciences (which study the Bible), *not*
the theological sciences as such. Or are we supposed to assume,
along with you (apparently), that Bible = nothing?!
.
> Science and Scholarship are based on REASON;
.
Actually, they're based on *faith* in the validity and consistency
of rational thinking and methods ... Neither of which can be
*proved*, btw.
.
> theology and its related fields are based on faith -- they lack
> the impartiality necessary to give them credibility.
.
So what? The Bible can be studied by people with faith, and by people
without faith. If those without faith fancy that their approach is
credible and valid *because* their lack of faith necessarily makes
them impartial, then they are the ones who are laboring under a
mass of self-deception and delusion!
.
>>> RevP: Try proving that the gospel according to Mark, was written by
>>> a man named Mark? There is no internal evidence to its authorship.
.
>> It's true that *most* of the evidence regarding authorship comes
>> from outside sources, but there are also a few hints and clues
>> within the text that suggest that the first gospel was a
>> collaborative effort by Mark and Peter.
.
> RevP: For example?
.
4X: The honest, vivid, and yet critical presentation of Peter and his
actions (4X: his dream of walking on the water) suggests that much of
the apostolic memories come straight from the fisherman himself.
.
- Please proceed to: ON REASON AND FOOLISHNESS/2 ... next up.
x
ON REASON AND FOOLISHNESS/2
>>>> textman wrote: If this is so,
.
>>> RevP replied: "IF", "if', IT IS NOT SO. You are making
>>> an assertion without any evidence.
.
>> The evidence that Mt used Mk is all there in the text of Mt.
.
> RevP: But that was not the original question. How do you know
> that the gospel of Mark was not authored by someone else?
.
I know that it was a collaborative effort, because that is the nature
of the early Greek scriptures. Paul's earliest epistles weren't written
*solely* by Paul alone. He had help in the creation and writing of
these first 'vehicles of the Word'. Silvanus and Sosthenes are but two
biblical authors who are nowhere recognized or acknowledged for their
essential contributions. So I guess what I'm saying is that Mk *was*
authored by someone else; namely Mark and Peter. Church history, church
tradition, AND the text of Mk *all together* agree that Mark and Peter
co-authored the first gospel. The probability, in other words, is
very high; and the only reason anyone would doubt it is in order to
demonstrate to the world that the doubter is a first-class *ass*!
.
> Even if Matthew used it as an outline; it still does not
> make Matthew or Mark true.
.
Well, there's no faulting your logic there, RevP. Everybody email
Pete ten brownie points right away!
.
>>> Can you prove that there was no previous gospels which have been
>>> lost to time? If not, than you cannot say that Mark's is the
>>> first gospel.
.
>> The "proof" that there were no gospels prior to Mk is the fact
>> that no physical evidence of such supposed documents exists. It is
>> unreasonable to first postulate the existence of something for which
>> there is no evidence, and then go on to claim that these alleged
>> documents were "lost to time". In this case Occam's Razor cuts
>> your throat.
.
> RevP: Then Jesus never existed. Apart from the bias mythology of the
> NT, there is zero contemporary evidence for this supposed miracle
> man. The evidence for Jesus is not more valid than the evidence for
> Heracles -- merely stories by superstitious people.
.
You could not possibly be more wrong. The evidence for Jesus'
existence not only includes the earliest Christian documents, but
everything behind them; not least of which was the Greco-Jewish
reform movement that eventually morphed into Christianity.
.
>>>> Let us see if this is indeed the case ...
>>>> <snip quote for brevity> -- Mk 9:1-7/NETbible
>>>> Well! ... It certainly looks to me like Jesus prophesied truly.
.
>>> RevP: Your explanation makes Jesus a fool; he talks about death,
>>> and six days later fulfills it. Let's look at the prophecy again,
>>> this time with Matthew's complete prophecy:
.
>>> Matt. 16;27-28, "27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the
>>> glory of His Father and His angels; and will recompense every man
>>> according to his deeds. 28 Truly I say to you, there are some of
>>> those who are standing here *who shall NOT taste death* until
>>> they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."
.
>>> What are the elements of this prophecy: 1) the second coming
>>> 2) the last judgement 3) rewards and punishments
>>> 4) Jesus' kingdom on earth *WHEN: before his apostles tasted
>>> death. Well textman, they're dead.
.
>> What is clear to me is that Matthew has added to Mark's prophecy
>> such that we end up with not one prophecy, but two: an end-times
>> prophecy (v.27) which is still on the way, and a short-term
>> prophecy (v.28) which was fulfilled at the Transfiguration.
.
> RevP: The text does not divide itself.
.
Huh?
.
> Too many prophecies involved the second coming prior to the end
> of time, and that the apostles would see it. Your transfigeration
> apolgetic does not cut it.
.
Works for me!
.
> For what was the prophecy? Here it is again: Mk.9:1, "Truly I tell
> you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until
> they see that the kingdom of God has come in power."
.
Right. So the Kingdom of God came with power and glory via the
Transfiguration. They saw it. They had not yet died. Wut? This
is too difficult a concept for you to grasp?
.
> There was NO kingdom of God at the transfiguration;
.
You have just demonstrated your colossal inability to read the text.
.
> nor at Penticost. Take this propehcy: Mark 14: 61-62, "61 ... Again
> the High Priest was questioning Him, and saying to him, 'are you the
> Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?' 62 And Jesus said, 'I am; and
> you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and
> coming with the clouds of heaven.'"
.
Sure sounds like an end-times prophecy. This shows that the early
Christians expected the 'Day of the Lord' to come 'any day now'. As
I recall, Paul and Silvanus had some trouble in Thessalonika just
because of this heightened expectation of the end of the world.
.
> Well the High Priest is dead; and never saw any such thing.
.
How do you know that he never saw any such thing? Are you all-knowing
and all-seeing now? ... The Day refused to hasten despite all the pleas
and prayers to the contrary, and *still* refuses to hasten even now ...
Or perhaps it *is* coming soon. No one knows that day or hour. But
perhaps the High Priest was granted, before his death, a small glimpse
of what that Day will look like ... ???
.
> Or this prophecy: Mt.10:23 "But whenever they persecute you in this
> city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish
> going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes."
.
Typical Matthean exaggeration there all right.
.
> This makes no sense except in the second coming frame.
.
Not necessarily. It could refer to something else in Jesus' ministry
(one would have to examine the surrounding text carefully for possible
clues as to the specific meaning or reference), or it could refer to
the events leading up to the crucifixion.
.
BTW: your snippet approach to biblical hermeneutics is *totally*
revolting; but then you know *that*, don't you, Rev?
.
> But the apostles and disciples could have make all the cities of
> Israel at the time in around a month. And Jesus never returned.
.
Since the Son of Man was already there, we could say that it is
your second-coming *assumption* that contains the flaw.
.
> Obviously Jesus was a messiah-wannabe, and like the Buddha, his
> followers made a god out of him.
.
Who's going to make a god out of you, Pete?
.
>> Moreover, all the elements of both prophecies (with the exception
>> of 'rewards and punishments' -> ie. the Matthean addition) were
>> fulfilled during the Transfiguration episode:
>> "glory of His Father" -> "His face shone like the sun,<
>> and his clothes became white as light." (Mt 17:2)
.
> RevP: Never happened.
.
Is that a *scientific* statement?
.
>> "His angels" -> "Then Moses and Elijah also appeared to them,
>> talking with him." (Mt 17:3)
.
> Moses and Elijah are not angels, they are men.
.
In the Tanakh, 'angels' are simply messengers. They do not appear as
androgynous creatures with wings and halos, but rather as ordinary (or
rather, *almost* ordinary) men. In other words, Moses and Elijah are
indeed angels; and no amount of feeble denials on your part will
change the plain meaning of simple words.
.
>> "some of those who are standing here" -> "Jesus took with him
>> Peter and James and John." (Mt 17:1)
.
>> "who will not taste death before they see" -> "And after six
>> days" (Mt 17:1)
.
> RevP: What a stupid thing to say on Jesus' part.
.
Hardly.
.
>> "Son of Man coming in his kingdom." -> "a bright cloud surrounded
>> them, and a voice from the cloud said, 'This is my one dear Son,
>> in whom I take great delight. Listen to him!'" (Mt 17:5)
.
> Never happened.
.
So sayeth the unbeliever.
.
>>>> Accordingly, by Moses' measurement, Jesus is, in fact, a
>>>> true prophet.
.
>>> RevP: You have demonstrated an example of sophism.
>>> Your apologetic makes jesus look like a fool.
.
>> That's your (uninformed) opinion. Naturally, I disagree with
>> your faithless and cynical conclusions.
.
> RevP: The REAL Messiah is the son of a ruling king in Israel, and
> comes but once. He is not some failed zealot who gets exectued after
> looking for a fight with Rome; and whose fanatical apostles elevate
> to godhood. Unlike you, my opinion is informed.
.
Really? And where is the source of your "facts" that lead you to
believe that Jesus was a "failed zealot"? ... And please don't
say it's the NT documents themselves that lead to this conclusion!
.
>>> In reality, Jesus promised to return, establish his kingdom,
>>> carry out the last judgement, and reward his faithful
>>> -- none of that was accomplished.
.
>> Your interpretation is both skewed and simplistic; based not
>> so much upon the texts as upon your biased reading of them.
>> Accordingly, a faithful reading of the passage shows us that
>> your conclusion that "none of that was accomplished" is not
>> only wrong, but also wrong-headed.
.
> RevP: None of it was accomplished.
.
All of it was accomplished ... according to the scriptures.
.
> IT is a fact that Jesus failed to fulfill a single messanic prophecy;
> of which there are less than 10. This piece-meal fulfillment is
> merely a xian apologetic invented by those who are intellectually
> dishonest and want to be taken at their word.
.
Resorting to insults now, Pete? Surely you don't expect True
Believers to take a false reverend at *his* word? That really
would be "intellectually dishonest".
.
> Jesus promised the second-coming, last-judgement, and final
> reward BEFORE his apostles died. THAT IS TEXTUALLY VALID.
.
Only to a simplistic and over-literal reading of the text that
completely ignores the full context of whatever prophetic snippet
you wish to abuse in order to justify your childish contempt of
the sacred scriptures ...
.
> You ignore the literal text because it exposes Jesus as a mistake,
> a false messiah, an antiMessiah.
.
But Pete, paying attention to the Text is what prophets do best!
.
>>> RevP: According to the measure of Moses; Jesus, is in fact,
>>> a false prophet.
.
>> According to the measure of Moses; Jesus is, in fact, a true prophet!
.
> RevP: Wrong. Let's look at what Moses wrote: Deut.18:21-22, "And you
> may say in your heart, 'How shall we know the word which the Lord God
> has not spoken?' 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if
> the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which
> the Lord has not spoken .
.
Sounds good to me.
.
> Jesus did not speak the truth. He promised the second-coming,
> last-judgement, and final rewards BEFORE his apostles died a
> natural death.
.
That is your false and distorting interpretation. It does violence
to the text, to the spirit of the text, and to the truth of the text.
Therefore your reading is *not* valid, and is in no way binding on
*any* Reader.
.
> Even if you split it, the prophecy cannot be split.
.
We already saw in Mark that the prophecy is unified. It is Matthew
who makes two prophecies out of it by adding the judgment bit. What's
the problem? Are you saying that Matthew cannot do what he obviously
did do? Or are you suggesting that he was wrong to do so?
.
> The central element of validity is that before the apostles died ALL
> that he promised would be fulfilled. IT WASN'T. The thing Jesus spoke
> had "not come about". Again, let's look at Matthew:
.
> Mt.16;27-28, "For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of
> His Father and His angels; and will recompense every man according
> to his deeds. 28 Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are
> standing here *who shall NOT taste death* until they see the Son of
> Man coming in his kingdom."
.
I'm looking. It hasn't changed since the last time I looked at it.
Neither has my understanding of it. Neither has your misunderstanding
of it. Do you imagine that if you repeat your lies often enough,
you'll somehow convince me of the alleged errors of my ways?
.
> The tasting death part is the central part of this prophecy.
.
LOL ... Sure it is!
.
> The prophecy is not split; and the apostles were to see jesus coming
> IN HIS KINGDOM -- transfiguration nor Penticost fit the prophecy.
> There was no kingdom at the transfiguration; neither at Penticost.
> Jesus is a false prophet.
.
Grow up, Pete.
.
>>> "The ignorance you observe is based on the mindless repetition of
>>> the LABEL put on that collection of books, i.e. that it is the
>>> "Word of God". Once you accepts that assertion as fact, you
>>> get involved in an endless effort to defend every word, every
>>> statement, every fable contained in those books." -- Libertarius
.
>> Since that is obviously not the case with the cyber-prophet, it
>> is apparent that Libertarius' observation applies only to Fundy
>> extremists who uphold the unbiblical dogma of inerrancy.
>> ... Nice try though.
.
> RevP: You are doing the same thing. Rather than admit the
> truth that these prophecies are false;
.
The prophecies regarding the Transfiguration are true precisely
because they point to that event. You seem to think that they point
to something else (and are *therefore* false), but the text in no way
warrants such a reading. Sorry Peter, but you're wrong about this one,
and that's the end of that. ... You did say that there were other
prophecies though. Why not bring them forth instead of beating a
dead horse? ... Perhaps you'll have better luck with them? :)
.
> you resort to apologetics.
.
No, actually I resort to a form of biblical exegesis that is based
upon paying attention to the text (something you seem unable to do),
and allowing the text to speak for itself. It is certainly *not* based
upon the prior assumption/conclusion that "Jesus is a false prophet".
.
Here's a good question for all goodly Bible students:
What's the difference between apologetics and exegesis?
.
> Essentially, you are attempting to defend the bible by
> cannibalizing those parts from it which PROVE Jesus to be a fraud.
.
Sorry, I just don't follow you. Your ranting appears to be
shading into the realm of the incoherent.
.
>>> -- peace, Rev Peter -- http://members.xoom.com/grgaud/
>>> "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common.
>>> Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the
>>> facts to fit their views ..." -- Dr. Who
.
>> Yes, and in this case, you're the one who's altering the facts to
>> fit your preconceived and biased views. Which only leaves us with
>> one remaining question: Are you very powerful or very stupid?
.
> RevP: The ONLY FACT is that Jesus promised to come in his kingdom
> and carry out the last Judgement before his apostles died. The one
> altering the facts is you textman. In case you still do not under-
> stand it: the fact remains that Jesus did not fulfill what was
> literally written about him. It is you trying to alter the literal
> word with sophism. -- peace, Rev Peter
.
You sure are a stubborn cuss, Petey. It would appear to be the
sole source of your very dubious charm ... :)
.
- just another fool for Christ - textmann ;>
.
P.S. "How long, O naive ones, will you love being simple-minded?
And scoffers delight themselves in scoffing? And fools hate
knowledge?" - Proverbs 1:22/NASB
x
textman
*