As many of you hopefully recall, I have repeatedly stated that "peace"(in quotes, deliberately) will ultimately come to the Middle East through a deal brokered by the Papacy which will involve the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple(here's one such example http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...90&#entry371116 ...you might have to scroll down a little to read it). Although the articles that follow are certainly NOT "earth shaking", they might be considered a little "ground breaking". I have ABSOLUTELY NO INTENTION of arguing with any of you over what I'm about to post. It's merely an FYI and then I'll disappear again back into the woodwork(so to speak) until the time comes that I feel the need to post additional articles along these lines. Farewell until then.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/131257
[Moderator: Verbatim copy of article deleted.]
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_...ea/pope_mideast
[Moderator: Verbatim copy of article deleted.]
rpenner: Thank you for neither deleting the thread nor the links. Although I realize that what I've posted isn't really related to the topics of either Creation or Evolution, it is related to our lives on this planet. Once again, thank you for allowing it to remain. Farewell.
Thanks. Interesting articles.
Derek: The following article is almost a year old, but it documents some of the preparations being made for a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1214726180915
There have already been other preparations...if you're interested in reading about any of them, then I'll post links to some other articles when I return from my business trip this Saturday. Take care.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1214726180915
There have already been other preparations...if you're interested in reading about any of them, then I'll post links to some other articles when I return from my business trip this Saturday. Take care.
QUOTE
Although the articles that follow are certainly NOT "earth shaking", they might be considered a little "ground breaking".
Sorry, I don't have any links, just the newspaper in my lap.
What is the will of the curia... if this pope doesn't live long?
It would seem that things could go in so many directions that prophecy is in fact scientific theory. The papacy and treaty idea{seven years was it} sounds dumb, doesn't it? At one time, it might of have been a beast power with an admiral as a pope... but today? I just heard recently they were thinking about women to be part of the Swiss guard.
Modernity seems so overwhelming that the Jews are going back to a holy of holies? So it is written... so it will be![ /end my best science fiction voice]
MrB.
Re: the subtitle,
Will it be German on German?? Germany is in a deep recession... watch out!
QUOTE (newguy+May 11 2009, 06:42 PM)
Derek: The following article is almost a year old, but it documents some of the preparations being made for a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1214726180915
There have already been other preparations...if you're interested in reading about any of them, then I'll post links to some other articles when I return from my business trip this Saturday. Take care.
There are also Jews that say that this Isreal is a false Isreal and should be destroyed so that God can bring about the True Isreal.
The temple mount is already in Isreali controlled territory, but Jews are not allowed to go there. (or at least to parts of it.)
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1214726180915
There have already been other preparations...if you're interested in reading about any of them, then I'll post links to some other articles when I return from my business trip this Saturday. Take care.
There are also Jews that say that this Isreal is a false Isreal and should be destroyed so that God can bring about the True Isreal.
The temple mount is already in Isreali controlled territory, but Jews are not allowed to go there. (or at least to parts of it.)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
There are also Jews that say that this Isreal is a false Isreal and should be destroyed so that God can bring about the True Isreal.
buttershug: Could you be more specific as to who these Jews are? Perhaps provide a link so I can be sure as to the identity of the exact group of Jews of which you speak? I'll check back later for your clarification. Thanks.
buttershug: Could you be more specific as to who these Jews are? Perhaps provide a link so I can be sure as to the identity of the exact group of Jews of which you speak? I'll check back later for your clarification. Thanks.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+)
It would seem that things could go in so many directions that prophecy is in fact scientific theory. The papacy and treaty idea{seven years was it} sounds dumb, doesn't it? At one time, it might of have been a beast power with an admiral as a pope... but today? I just heard recently they were thinking about women to be part of the Swiss guard.
MisterBelfry: Depending on how this thread develops(if it develops at all), I might be a lot more thorough in predicting how things will ultimately play out in the Middle East. I've already dropped enough hints here and there in the past, but I'll possibly be willing to elaborate more thoroughly in this particular thread. We'll see...
MisterBelfry: Depending on how this thread develops(if it develops at all), I might be a lot more thorough in predicting how things will ultimately play out in the Middle East. I've already dropped enough hints here and there in the past, but I'll possibly be willing to elaborate more thoroughly in this particular thread. We'll see...
How long is a generation?
I've heard it was considered to be 40 years. (well untill Isreal was 40 years old.)
And I've been told that it's when the last person who was alive when Isreal was created dies.
I've heard it was considered to be 40 years. (well untill Isreal was 40 years old.)
And I've been told that it's when the last person who was alive when Isreal was created dies.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 18 2009, 04:10 PM)
How long is a generation?
I've heard it was considered to be 40 years. (well untill Isreal was 40 years old.)
And I've been told that it's when the last person who was alive when Isreal was created dies.
Could you clarify your point? Israel (correct spelling) was established in 1948?
I've heard it was considered to be 40 years. (well untill Isreal was 40 years old.)
And I've been told that it's when the last person who was alive when Isreal was created dies.
Could you clarify your point? Israel (correct spelling) was established in 1948?
I am curious as to where you get these bible prophesies. Would you care to be a bit more specific as to what they are and where you get this info?
I grew up hearing that prophecy, the one where when they rebuild the temple it will be the end of days. They know it too don't they? Is it humans trying to make these prophecies come true?
QUOTE
I grew up hearing that prophecy, the one where when they rebuild the temple it will be the end of days.
This is a belief among several fundamentalist Christian sects.
QUOTE (Derek1148+May 18 2009, 04:15 PM)
Could you clarify your point? Israel (correct spelling) was established in 1948?
My understanding is the prophesies are to come true within a generation of the founding of modern Israel. (and I thought that whole e before i except when it's the other way around was bad enough.)
Or the countdown starts within a generation.
And IIRC it's not so much the rebuilding of the temple as it is fully practising their faith which requires the temple be rebuilt.
It's been a while since I read The Terminal Generation, I might still have my copy around somewhere.
My understanding is the prophesies are to come true within a generation of the founding of modern Israel. (and I thought that whole e before i except when it's the other way around was bad enough.)
Or the countdown starts within a generation.
And IIRC it's not so much the rebuilding of the temple as it is fully practising their faith which requires the temple be rebuilt.
It's been a while since I read The Terminal Generation, I might still have my copy around somewhere.
QUOTE (newguy+May 18 2009, 02:04 PM)
QUOTE (buttershug+)
There are also Jews that say that this Isreal is a false Isreal and should be destroyed so that God can bring about the True Isreal.
buttershug: Could you be more specific as to who these Jews are? Perhaps provide a link so I can be sure as to the identity of the exact group of Jews of which you speak? I'll check back later for your clarification. Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satmar
is one group.
I got over a half milllion hits when I googled non-zionist jews without quotes.
and still got 15,000 hits when I tried with quotes.
buttershug: Could you be more specific as to who these Jews are? Perhaps provide a link so I can be sure as to the identity of the exact group of Jews of which you speak? I'll check back later for your clarification. Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satmar
is one group.
QUOTE
Before World War II all Hasidic rabbis, (including Rabbi Joel's father, Rabbi Chananyah Yom Tov Lipa), as well as many prominent non-Hasidic Orthodox leaders, believed that God had promised to return the Jewish people to the Land of Israel by means of the actions of the Jewish Messiah, and that any activity on behalf of the Jews themselves to create or instigate this redemption would be punished.
I got over a half milllion hits when I googled non-zionist jews without quotes.
and still got 15,000 hits when I tried with quotes.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 18 2009, 07:28 PM)
My understanding is the prophesies are to come true within a generation of the founding of modern Israel. (and I thought that whole e before i except when it's the other way around was bad enough.)
Or the countdown starts within a generation.
And IIRC it's not so much the rebuilding of the temple as it is fully practising their faith which requires the temple be rebuilt.
It's been a while since I read The Terminal Generation, I might still have my copy around somewhere.
I have heard many theories as to the length of time Revelation is to be fulfilled. The most prevalent is from start to finish is seven years. There are signs that are supposed to signal the start of the Tribulation. The most popular is the Rapture of the church starts the Tribulation. Anyone can guess why this one is most popular because after the church has caused the mess we are in they get off scot-free while we down here are left with the mess. The next is mid-tribulation rapture. These people believe that everyone goes threw the first three and a half years then the church is raptured in time to escape the worst part of the Tribulation known as the Great Tribulation. Then finally there is the After rapture set that believes everyone goes threw the whole thing. This is the smallest group.
There is also disagreements as to how long the Tribulation lasts. Of course the most popular being the seven year Tribulation. There are some that place the Tribulation as a 70 years long Tribulation. These base it on the book of Daniel based on the 70 weeks of Daniel. Each week equals one year. This group of believers are a much smaller group than the first group. They start the Tribulation with one or the other things. 1, 1945 The zero year when after the fall of Nazi Germany Europe was put back under Roman Law, thus starting the new revived Roman Empire. 2, 1948 The founding of the state of Israel. The smallest group sets the Tribulation starting with the death of John on Patmos around 86 AD. This group says it is been going on from then and is still going on now. "Armageddon has been in effect. Go get a late pass." They base this on the fact that Daniel says 70 7's are given unto you. This is a symbolic number meaning the years are long and large. The days are shortened compared to normal time (Epochs) to 2,000 plus years. This is a very brief over view of the many theological beliefs out there. It is in no way complete since pastors write volumes on this stuff.
Empress Palpatine
Good point. How much of Revelation is self fulfilling prophecy. Carl Sagan in "Cosmos" reminds us of how man can make it appear as if something is being fulfilled by our response to certain events. Sagan tells the story of the leader of the Aztecs. He sees a comet that the astrologers did not predict so the leader becomes gloomy and does not prepare to fight Cortez. By flipping out over the comets appearance the leader of the Aztecs sets their own doom in motion. This could have been avoided had the Aztec leader thought like a rational scientist and simply prepared his troops for battle. The Aztecs far out numbered the Spaniards to such a degree even with the Spanish superior weapons, the Aztecs could have still won.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqSKWzHwsd8&feature=fvsr
Or the countdown starts within a generation.
And IIRC it's not so much the rebuilding of the temple as it is fully practising their faith which requires the temple be rebuilt.
It's been a while since I read The Terminal Generation, I might still have my copy around somewhere.
I have heard many theories as to the length of time Revelation is to be fulfilled. The most prevalent is from start to finish is seven years. There are signs that are supposed to signal the start of the Tribulation. The most popular is the Rapture of the church starts the Tribulation. Anyone can guess why this one is most popular because after the church has caused the mess we are in they get off scot-free while we down here are left with the mess. The next is mid-tribulation rapture. These people believe that everyone goes threw the first three and a half years then the church is raptured in time to escape the worst part of the Tribulation known as the Great Tribulation. Then finally there is the After rapture set that believes everyone goes threw the whole thing. This is the smallest group.
There is also disagreements as to how long the Tribulation lasts. Of course the most popular being the seven year Tribulation. There are some that place the Tribulation as a 70 years long Tribulation. These base it on the book of Daniel based on the 70 weeks of Daniel. Each week equals one year. This group of believers are a much smaller group than the first group. They start the Tribulation with one or the other things. 1, 1945 The zero year when after the fall of Nazi Germany Europe was put back under Roman Law, thus starting the new revived Roman Empire. 2, 1948 The founding of the state of Israel. The smallest group sets the Tribulation starting with the death of John on Patmos around 86 AD. This group says it is been going on from then and is still going on now. "Armageddon has been in effect. Go get a late pass." They base this on the fact that Daniel says 70 7's are given unto you. This is a symbolic number meaning the years are long and large. The days are shortened compared to normal time (Epochs) to 2,000 plus years. This is a very brief over view of the many theological beliefs out there. It is in no way complete since pastors write volumes on this stuff.
Empress Palpatine
Good point. How much of Revelation is self fulfilling prophecy. Carl Sagan in "Cosmos" reminds us of how man can make it appear as if something is being fulfilled by our response to certain events. Sagan tells the story of the leader of the Aztecs. He sees a comet that the astrologers did not predict so the leader becomes gloomy and does not prepare to fight Cortez. By flipping out over the comets appearance the leader of the Aztecs sets their own doom in motion. This could have been avoided had the Aztec leader thought like a rational scientist and simply prepared his troops for battle. The Aztecs far out numbered the Spaniards to such a degree even with the Spanish superior weapons, the Aztecs could have still won.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqSKWzHwsd8&feature=fvsr
Hmmm.... I take it that there are not a lot of historians here (I imagine there must be a few though). While physics is a hobby, history is my forte. Seeing that the middle ages is my specialty, Revelations is quite often a subject I encounter since it was so very popular during that time period.
Also... it's crap.
1. The book of Revelations was most likely not written by the apostle John. The Apostle John (assuming that it was indeed him who wrote the gospel of John) wrote in perfect Greek while the John that wrote Revelations did not. Revelations is full of grammatical mistakes and is stylistically very different from the Gospel of John.
2. Many church fathers did not consider it to be cannon, St Jerome specifically who wrote the original Vulgate and was a considerable scholar. Thomas Jefferson considered it to be the ravings of a madman.
3. Very little overt numerology is found in the gospels, while Revelations is full of it. It was beloved in the Middle Ages where Rhetoric and symbols were the main theocratic tools, but it is unlikely that the apostles would have made such use of it.
Basically, Revelations was likely written by a man who wished to be associated with John the apostle and wanted to effect reform in the Church. Much like the writings of Nostradamus, the text is symbolic and vague enough that almost any event can be associated with it.
Not to be mistaken for actual prophecy, assuming such exists at all.
Also... it's crap.
1. The book of Revelations was most likely not written by the apostle John. The Apostle John (assuming that it was indeed him who wrote the gospel of John) wrote in perfect Greek while the John that wrote Revelations did not. Revelations is full of grammatical mistakes and is stylistically very different from the Gospel of John.
2. Many church fathers did not consider it to be cannon, St Jerome specifically who wrote the original Vulgate and was a considerable scholar. Thomas Jefferson considered it to be the ravings of a madman.
3. Very little overt numerology is found in the gospels, while Revelations is full of it. It was beloved in the Middle Ages where Rhetoric and symbols were the main theocratic tools, but it is unlikely that the apostles would have made such use of it.
Basically, Revelations was likely written by a man who wished to be associated with John the apostle and wanted to effect reform in the Church. Much like the writings of Nostradamus, the text is symbolic and vague enough that almost any event can be associated with it.
Not to be mistaken for actual prophecy, assuming such exists at all.
There is a lot in Revelation which is Kabbalistic. The Kabbalah was the secret oral tradition of the Jews.
They edited a lot out of the Bible...like the Gnostic gospels.
They edited a lot out of the Bible...like the Gnostic gospels.
I agree. Kabbalistic influence is also often found in Apocalyptic writings from BC to AD. It is quite possible that the John who wrote Revelations had much of this in mind when he wrote it.... or he was on drugs, either one. 
About the time of tribulations...
It's fairly clear, both from this text and from the more original version, that Christ intended it to mean his own current generation.
Did we sleep through it?
About the time of tribulations...
QUOTE
Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 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. At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
It's fairly clear, both from this text and from the more original version, that Christ intended it to mean his own current generation.
Did we sleep through it?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 18 2009, 10:54 PM)
I agree. Kabbalistic influence is also often found in Apocalyptic writings from BC to AD. It is quite possible that the John who wrote Revelations had much of this in mind when he wrote it.... or he was on drugs, either one.
About the time of tribulations...
It's fairly clear, both from this text and from the more original version, that Christ intended it to mean his own current generation.
Did we sleep through it?
Have you heard of project Blue Beam? There's a few explanations around, if you google it. Don't know exactly what to make of it but it wouldn't surpise me if certain sects attempted to manufacture a second coming. Is it really possible with todays technology?
The only get out clause I can see for the line "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened", is that it is referring to the generation that begins to experience what he is describing.
About the time of tribulations...
It's fairly clear, both from this text and from the more original version, that Christ intended it to mean his own current generation.
Did we sleep through it?
Have you heard of project Blue Beam? There's a few explanations around, if you google it. Don't know exactly what to make of it but it wouldn't surpise me if certain sects attempted to manufacture a second coming. Is it really possible with todays technology?
The only get out clause I can see for the line "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened", is that it is referring to the generation that begins to experience what he is describing.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
There are also Jews that say that this Isreal is a false Isreal and should be destroyed so that God can bring about the True Isreal.
QUOTE (newguy+)
buttershug: Could you be more specific as to who these Jews are? Perhaps provide a link so I can be sure as to the identity of the exact group of Jews of which you speak? I'll check back later for your clarification. Thanks.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satmar
is one group.
buttershug: Thanks for clarifying your comments. It's NOT that I didn't already know that such groups existed, it's just that I was wondering if you had a specific group in mind. By way of reminder(for some), I posted the following nearly two years ago:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...60&#entry230775
In the second half of this post, you'll see some clear reasons why certain Jews are opposed to Zionism.
is one group.
buttershug: Thanks for clarifying your comments. It's NOT that I didn't already know that such groups existed, it's just that I was wondering if you had a specific group in mind. By way of reminder(for some), I posted the following nearly two years ago:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...60&#entry230775
In the second half of this post, you'll see some clear reasons why certain Jews are opposed to Zionism.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
How long is a generation?
I've heard it was considered to be 40 years. (well untill Isreal was 40 years old.)
And I've been told that it's when the last person who was alive when Isreal was created dies.
I've heard it was considered to be 40 years. (well untill Isreal was 40 years old.)
And I've been told that it's when the last person who was alive when Isreal was created dies.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
It's fairly clear, both from this text and from the more original version, that Christ intended it to mean his own current generation.
Did we sleep through it?
Did we sleep through it?
QUOTE (TobyNotToby+)
The only get out clause I can see for the line "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened", is that it is referring to the generation that begins to experience what he is describing.
buttershug/Rob/TNT: The question of "What constitutes a generation?" was already addressed by me nearly 3 1/2 years ago. You can find the info here:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...870&#entry45623
Rob, the only thing that is "fairly clear" in your post is that you omitted large chunks of the actual dialogue between Jesus and His disciples. Why would you do that? I can offer a guess...
TobyNotToby, your "out" is quite plausible, but it is NOT the only plausible explanation. If you read the link that I provided, then hopefully you understand what I mean. Take care.
buttershug/Rob/TNT: The question of "What constitutes a generation?" was already addressed by me nearly 3 1/2 years ago. You can find the info here:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...870&#entry45623
Rob, the only thing that is "fairly clear" in your post is that you omitted large chunks of the actual dialogue between Jesus and His disciples. Why would you do that? I can offer a guess...
TobyNotToby, your "out" is quite plausible, but it is NOT the only plausible explanation. If you read the link that I provided, then hopefully you understand what I mean. Take care.
QUOTE (EmpressPalpatine+)
I grew up hearing that prophecy, the one where when they rebuild the temple it will be the end of days. They know it too don't they? Is it humans trying to make these prophecies come true?
EmpressPalpatine: Of course, there are "humans trying to make these prophecies come true". Problem is that these "humans" haven't a clue as to the real implications of such fulfilled prophecies. For example, in reference to the sub-title of this thread, "the woman", who is Israel, will suffer tribulation greater than has ever been seen before since the beginning of time. This means that it will make the Holocaust look like child's play. If anyone truly understood this, then why would they(especially the Jews) seek to bring about it's fulfillment? Additionally, "the beast", Papal Rome, doesn't exactly fare too well as a result of their involvement. Unless, of course, one sees the lake of fire as a heated swimming pool of sorts. When I have more time, I'll attempt to differentiate between what is ACTUALLY prophesied within the pages of the Bible and what is WIDELY BELIEVED in contrast to the actual prophecies. Should I be successful in my quest, then I trust that you'll at least realize how much these misunderstood prophecies affect the policies of such places as the USA and Israel. Until then...
EmpressPalpatine: Of course, there are "humans trying to make these prophecies come true". Problem is that these "humans" haven't a clue as to the real implications of such fulfilled prophecies. For example, in reference to the sub-title of this thread, "the woman", who is Israel, will suffer tribulation greater than has ever been seen before since the beginning of time. This means that it will make the Holocaust look like child's play. If anyone truly understood this, then why would they(especially the Jews) seek to bring about it's fulfillment? Additionally, "the beast", Papal Rome, doesn't exactly fare too well as a result of their involvement. Unless, of course, one sees the lake of fire as a heated swimming pool of sorts. When I have more time, I'll attempt to differentiate between what is ACTUALLY prophesied within the pages of the Bible and what is WIDELY BELIEVED in contrast to the actual prophecies. Should I be successful in my quest, then I trust that you'll at least realize how much these misunderstood prophecies affect the policies of such places as the USA and Israel. Until then...
The problem with your entire discourse, the one you link to, is that it is entirely devoid of any substance. You make point after point without any actual basis. Just because you state that generation meant "generation of evil", does not mean that this is what was meant, either by Jesus nor by the writers of the Gospel.
If I say... "The author of that play is a fool"... there are many many ways you could interpret that. Fool could mean the medieval concept of a fool... he who speaks the truth without fear of reprisal... play could mean a number of things.. including the idea that the play was just a game for the author... etc. However, it is not likely considering the content and most probable meaning.
It's empty rhetoric and not the same as understanding.
I omitted the rest since it was not required for the point I was making. Oh.. wait.. maybe I am a descendant of Cain and I am just trying to confuse people.. whooooo....
If I say... "The author of that play is a fool"... there are many many ways you could interpret that. Fool could mean the medieval concept of a fool... he who speaks the truth without fear of reprisal... play could mean a number of things.. including the idea that the play was just a game for the author... etc. However, it is not likely considering the content and most probable meaning.
It's empty rhetoric and not the same as understanding.
QUOTE
Rob, the only thing that is "fairly clear" in your post is that you omitted large chunks of the actual dialogue between Jesus and His disciples. Why would you do that? I can offer a guess...
I omitted the rest since it was not required for the point I was making. Oh.. wait.. maybe I am a descendant of Cain and I am just trying to confuse people.. whooooo....
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
The problem with your entire discourse, the one you link to, is that it is entirely devoid of any substance. You make point after point without any actual basis. Just because you state that generation meant "generation of evil", does not mean that this is what was meant, either by Jesus nor by the writers of the Gospel.
If I say... "The author of that play is a fool"... there are many many ways you could interpret that. Fool could mean the medieval concept of a fool... he who speaks the truth without fear of reprisal... play could mean a number of things.. including the idea that the play was just a game for the author... etc. However, it is not likely considering the content and most probable meaning.
It's empty rhetoric and not the same as understanding.
Rob: For starters, that "entire discourse" was NOT actually MY discourse. Although I usually answer for myself in regard to Biblical matters, at that particular time I was too busy to do so, so I linked to someone else's explanation in regards to that topic. Having said that, it is YOU who make the mistake of assuming that one valid application of the word that is translated as "generation" in scripture automatically applies to every situation. We can address the use of this particular word more fully if you so desire. In the meantime...
If I say... "The author of that play is a fool"... there are many many ways you could interpret that. Fool could mean the medieval concept of a fool... he who speaks the truth without fear of reprisal... play could mean a number of things.. including the idea that the play was just a game for the author... etc. However, it is not likely considering the content and most probable meaning.
It's empty rhetoric and not the same as understanding.
Rob: For starters, that "entire discourse" was NOT actually MY discourse. Although I usually answer for myself in regard to Biblical matters, at that particular time I was too busy to do so, so I linked to someone else's explanation in regards to that topic. Having said that, it is YOU who make the mistake of assuming that one valid application of the word that is translated as "generation" in scripture automatically applies to every situation. We can address the use of this particular word more fully if you so desire. In the meantime...
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
I omitted the rest since it was not required for the point I was making.
Baloney. The "point that you were making" is as follows:
Baloney. The "point that you were making" is as follows:
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
It's fairly clear, both from this text and from the more original version, that Christ intended it to mean his own current generation.
It's only "fairly clear" to those who deliberately omit verses that don't line up with their faulty conclusions and who are ignorant concerning some of the things that they included in their truncated "quote". For example, let's add one of the verses that you deliberately omitted:
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)..."(Matthew 24:14-15)
Like it or not(apparently "not"), the United States is part of "all the world" and part of "all nations". Tell me/us, Rob, how exactly that particular "generation" was to preach to the United States before it was even "discovered"? Additionally, since you apparently have no clue whatsoever what Jesus was referencing in regards to Daniel's prophecy regarding "the abomination of desolation", your timeline is off by a LARGE MARGIN. There are many other references within Jesus' discourse from Matthew 24 that disprove your theory as well. If need be, I'll also comment on some of them.
It's only "fairly clear" to those who deliberately omit verses that don't line up with their faulty conclusions and who are ignorant concerning some of the things that they included in their truncated "quote". For example, let's add one of the verses that you deliberately omitted:
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)..."(Matthew 24:14-15)
Like it or not(apparently "not"), the United States is part of "all the world" and part of "all nations". Tell me/us, Rob, how exactly that particular "generation" was to preach to the United States before it was even "discovered"? Additionally, since you apparently have no clue whatsoever what Jesus was referencing in regards to Daniel's prophecy regarding "the abomination of desolation", your timeline is off by a LARGE MARGIN. There are many other references within Jesus' discourse from Matthew 24 that disprove your theory as well. If need be, I'll also comment on some of them.
The Bible and prophecy are important for one reason: the effect on politicians:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30814527/
It was a motive behind the Iraq War.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30814527/
It was a motive behind the Iraq War.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 18 2009, 10:22 PM)
Hmmm.... I take it that there are not a lot of historians here (I imagine there must be a few though). While physics is a hobby, history is my forte. Seeing that the middle ages is my specialty, Revelations is quite often a subject I encounter since it was so very popular during that time period.
Also... it's crap.
RobDegraves
You know your Middle ages well good. I would like to ask you a question than. Do you remember in the "Cosmos" series called Heaven and Hell where Carl Sagan tells the story of how some Canterbury Monks saw a comet hit the moon. This happened in 1172.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP62oQCaLTs&feature=related
My question is how did these religious people respond? There are references in Revelation of the moon turning black as sackcloth. Did these people freak? Today we are used to scientific explanations and take catastrophes as explainable acts of nature. We no longer see floods, earth quakes, tornadoes or hurricanes as acts of God. Comets make their trip into our solar system and we joyfully grab our telescope to have a look. Meteorites are watched with excitement. Eclipses are forecast more accurate than the weather. In short we are very calm about things that seemed mysterious back then. In the story told by Sagan you get the idea these Monks were as calm as any scientist. People were killed as witches back then. The middle ages were not also called the dark ages for nothing so many of them must have thought they were in the end of days.
Also... it's crap.
RobDegraves
You know your Middle ages well good. I would like to ask you a question than. Do you remember in the "Cosmos" series called Heaven and Hell where Carl Sagan tells the story of how some Canterbury Monks saw a comet hit the moon. This happened in 1172.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP62oQCaLTs&feature=related
My question is how did these religious people respond? There are references in Revelation of the moon turning black as sackcloth. Did these people freak? Today we are used to scientific explanations and take catastrophes as explainable acts of nature. We no longer see floods, earth quakes, tornadoes or hurricanes as acts of God. Comets make their trip into our solar system and we joyfully grab our telescope to have a look. Meteorites are watched with excitement. Eclipses are forecast more accurate than the weather. In short we are very calm about things that seemed mysterious back then. In the story told by Sagan you get the idea these Monks were as calm as any scientist. People were killed as witches back then. The middle ages were not also called the dark ages for nothing so many of them must have thought they were in the end of days.
I have come to like the balance that one must have in reading the "tea leaves" as it were. I bolded something that looked new to me. Could this be men on mars or men\women on the moon... you get the idea?
MrB.
MrB.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
I am curious as to where you get these bible prophesies. Would you care to be a bit more specific as to what they are and where you get this info?
My understanding is the prophesies are to come true within a generation of the founding of modern Israel. (and I thought that whole e before i except when it's the other way around was bad enough.)
MARK
CHAPTER 13
1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:
6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
7 And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.
13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:
16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.
17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.
19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.
(KJV)
...any activity on behalf of the Jews themselves to create or instigate this redemption would be punished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satmar
frontline: apocalypse!: readings: forcing the end...FORCING THE END: Why do a Pentecostal cattle breeder from Mississippi and an
Orthodox .... Where was the red heifer to come from? "That was the question we
...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...gs/forcing.html - 62k - Cached - Similar pages
frontline: apocalypse!: readings
Why do a Pentecostal cattle breeder from Mississippi and an Orthodox rabbi from Jerusalem believe that a red heifer can change the world? ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...lypse/readings/ - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
MIRACULOUS BIRTH OF A RED HEIFER THAT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR RITUAL ...The Ultra-Orthodox Jew sees the birth of the Red Heifer as a sign of the soon
..... Testament Old Testament Pentecostal prophecy protestant rapture religion
...
http://cuttingedge.org/n1067.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
A Red Heifer, or Not? Rabbi Wonders - The New York Times
Jun 14, 1997 ... The bigger problem, Rabbi Shore said, was that a true red heifer ... that a Mississippi cattle rancher and Pentecostal preacher, Clyde Lott, ...
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/14/world/a-...bi-wonders.html - 48k - Cached - Similar pages
The Red Heifer Has the Last Laugh - tribe.net This doctrine pervades Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, and other charismatic churches, .... Finding a red heifer is one precondition to building the Temple.
World Events in the light of prophecy One person in six is Roman Catholic, and those of Pentecostal persuasion are ...
"The birth of a red heifer in Israel is being hailed by religious Jews as ...
http://www.abcog.org/nh/watch.htm - 38k - Cached - Similar pages
QUOTE (Buttershug+)
My understanding is the prophesies are to come true within a generation of the founding of modern Israel. (and I thought that whole e before i except when it's the other way around was bad enough.)
MARK
CHAPTER 13
1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately,
4 Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?
5 And Jesus answering them began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive you:
6 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
7 And when ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars, be ye not troubled: for such things must needs be; but the end shall not be yet.
8 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be earthquakes in divers places, and there shall be famines and troubles: these are the beginnings of sorrows.
9 But take heed to yourselves: for they shall deliver you up to councils; and in the synagogues ye shall be beaten: and ye shall be brought before rulers and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them.
10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.
11 But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
12 Now the brother shall betray the brother to death, and the father the son; and children shall rise up against their parents, and shall cause them to be put to death.
13 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains:
15 And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house:
16 And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment.
17 But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
18 And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter.
19 For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be.
20 And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.
21 And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; or, lo, he is there; believe him not:
22 For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect.
23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.
33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.
34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.
35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:
36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.
37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.
(KJV)
QUOTE (provided by Buttershug+)
...any activity on behalf of the Jews themselves to create or instigate this redemption would be punished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satmar
frontline: apocalypse!: readings: forcing the end...FORCING THE END: Why do a Pentecostal cattle breeder from Mississippi and an
Orthodox .... Where was the red heifer to come from? "That was the question we
...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...gs/forcing.html - 62k - Cached - Similar pages
frontline: apocalypse!: readings
Why do a Pentecostal cattle breeder from Mississippi and an Orthodox rabbi from Jerusalem believe that a red heifer can change the world? ...
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...lypse/readings/ - 15k - Cached - Similar pages
MIRACULOUS BIRTH OF A RED HEIFER THAT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR RITUAL ...The Ultra-Orthodox Jew sees the birth of the Red Heifer as a sign of the soon
..... Testament Old Testament Pentecostal prophecy protestant rapture religion
...
http://cuttingedge.org/n1067.html - 44k - Cached - Similar pages
A Red Heifer, or Not? Rabbi Wonders - The New York Times
Jun 14, 1997 ... The bigger problem, Rabbi Shore said, was that a true red heifer ... that a Mississippi cattle rancher and Pentecostal preacher, Clyde Lott, ...
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/06/14/world/a-...bi-wonders.html - 48k - Cached - Similar pages
The Red Heifer Has the Last Laugh - tribe.net This doctrine pervades Assemblies of God, Pentecostal, and other charismatic churches, .... Finding a red heifer is one precondition to building the Temple.
World Events in the light of prophecy One person in six is Roman Catholic, and those of Pentecostal persuasion are ...
"The birth of a red heifer in Israel is being hailed by religious Jews as ...
http://www.abcog.org/nh/watch.htm - 38k - Cached - Similar pages
Newguy...
Since you insist...
No... I don't think it applies to every situation, I think it applies to that specific situation.
No... I don't think it applies to every situation, I think it applies to that specific situation.
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)..."(Matthew 24:14-15)
Like it or not(apparently "not"), the United States is part of "all the world" and part of "all nations". Tell me/us, Rob, how exactly that particular "generation" was to preach to the United States before it was even "discovered"?
Ahem... the United states were not discovered, they were created. They did not exist in the time of Christ so there was no requirement to preach there. By your interpretation, the end of times can only come when every possible nation that exists or will exist in the possible future will have been preached to. Therefore... it will never happen since new nations are constantly being formed.
Seriously though... there are no prophecies in the bible that have ever been shown to be true prior to the event actually occurring. Much like Nostradamus, many people have looked at current events just past and said "Hey, that was predicted by so and so" by simply interpreting the words to fit.
You can keep on dancing with words... but it's not the future you are seeing, it's just your own ego.
Horta
It's quite a good question... I will try to answer as best I can (it's quite late here right now).
To begin with, you have to remember that there is no such thing as a dark age everywhere. The dark ages are largely held to have been between AD 400 and AD 1000.. or so. However, if you lived in Constantinople at the time, you would have lived in an age that seemed quite civilized in comparison with Western Europe.
Another big feature is the dichotomy present in the Church between religion and science. Since the Church had taken it on as their duty to preserve knowledge, this presented them with a lot of internal conflicts and varying levels of reactions to such a phenomena. Many in the Church prized learning a great deal. Aristotle, Plato, etc. were nearly venerated. However, such authors had also been pagans. This brought many to feel that such learning should never see the light of day and that only the Bible should be read, since all wisdom could be found there. Despite this, the Church maintained observatories, funded research and, of course, copied down ancient authors with meticulous care.
Therefore, the reaction you would have gotten would vary greatly depending on where you were, who you were with and at what time period exactly. There is no one single answer.
Since you insist...
QUOTE
Having said that, it is YOU who make the mistake of assuming that one valid application of the word that is translated as "generation" in scripture automatically applies to every situation.
No... I don't think it applies to every situation, I think it applies to that specific situation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Having said that, it is YOU who make the mistake of assuming that one valid application of the word that is translated as "generation" in scripture automatically applies to every situation. |
No... I don't think it applies to every situation, I think it applies to that specific situation.
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come. When ye therefore see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)..."(Matthew 24:14-15)
Like it or not(apparently "not"), the United States is part of "all the world" and part of "all nations". Tell me/us, Rob, how exactly that particular "generation" was to preach to the United States before it was even "discovered"?
Ahem... the United states were not discovered, they were created. They did not exist in the time of Christ so there was no requirement to preach there. By your interpretation, the end of times can only come when every possible nation that exists or will exist in the possible future will have been preached to. Therefore... it will never happen since new nations are constantly being formed.
Seriously though... there are no prophecies in the bible that have ever been shown to be true prior to the event actually occurring. Much like Nostradamus, many people have looked at current events just past and said "Hey, that was predicted by so and so" by simply interpreting the words to fit.
You can keep on dancing with words... but it's not the future you are seeing, it's just your own ego.
Horta
It's quite a good question... I will try to answer as best I can (it's quite late here right now).
To begin with, you have to remember that there is no such thing as a dark age everywhere. The dark ages are largely held to have been between AD 400 and AD 1000.. or so. However, if you lived in Constantinople at the time, you would have lived in an age that seemed quite civilized in comparison with Western Europe.
Another big feature is the dichotomy present in the Church between religion and science. Since the Church had taken it on as their duty to preserve knowledge, this presented them with a lot of internal conflicts and varying levels of reactions to such a phenomena. Many in the Church prized learning a great deal. Aristotle, Plato, etc. were nearly venerated. However, such authors had also been pagans. This brought many to feel that such learning should never see the light of day and that only the Bible should be read, since all wisdom could be found there. Despite this, the Church maintained observatories, funded research and, of course, copied down ancient authors with meticulous care.
Therefore, the reaction you would have gotten would vary greatly depending on where you were, who you were with and at what time period exactly. There is no one single answer.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+)
I grew up hearing that prophecy, the one where when they rebuild the temple it will be the end of days. They know it too don't they? Is it humans trying to make these prophecies come true?
I did too. I don't know how far one can trace the red heifer formula for a zionist goal of cleansing whatever. The formula for holy water can be found somewhere in the front of the Bible. Most Jews living there now, I thought, have become secular. But as we are finding out with AIG, it only takes a handful to make a mess.
QUOTE (MARK 13+)
2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
Another thing I don't remember hearing in Sunday School: the western wailing wall has to come down. And here would be an example where prophecy is dual. The type of fulfillment and the anti-type of fulfillment, iow, the real THING.
Nonetheless, war is hell at any time! So, for the civilians, you better be ready to move (if the pope or emissaries like(s) to come over and visit a little too often).
MrB.
Remember the tabernacle; a fixed temple site doesn't have to hold the holy place where an abomination could take place.
&
Remember Cohen...Ezekiel...and the Sons of Zadok...
[[Link to Showtopic= 21860.]]
"the priestly order of Cohanim has a common genetic marker..."
Nonetheless, war is hell at any time! So, for the civilians, you better be ready to move (if the pope or emissaries like(s) to come over and visit a little too often).
MrB.
Remember the tabernacle; a fixed temple site doesn't have to hold the holy place where an abomination could take place.
&
Remember Cohen...Ezekiel...and the Sons of Zadok...
[[Link to Showtopic= 21860.]]
"the priestly order of Cohanim has a common genetic marker..."
QUOTE (newguy+)
EmpressPalpatine: Of course, there are "humans trying to make these prophecies come true". Problem is that these "humans" haven't a clue as to the real implications of such fulfilled prophecies. For example, in reference to the sub-title of this thread, "the woman", who is Israel, will suffer tribulation greater than has ever been seen before since the beginning of time. This means that it will make the Holocaust look like child's play. If anyone truly understood this, then why would they(especially the Jews) seek to bring about it's fulfillment? Additionally, "the beast", Papal Rome, doesn't exactly fare too well as a result of their involvement. Unless, of course, one sees the lake of fire as a heated swimming pool of sorts. When I have more time, I'll attempt to differentiate between what is ACTUALLY prophesied within the pages of the Bible and what is WIDELY BELIEVED in contrast to the actual prophecies. Should I be successful in my quest, then I trust that you'll at least realize how much these misunderstood prophecies affect the policies of such places as the USA and Israel. Until then...
QUOTE (EmpressPalpatine+)
The Bible and prophecy are important for one reason: the effect on politicians:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30814527/
It was a motive behind the Iraq War.
EmpressPalpatine: First of all, thank you very much(sincerely) for posting that link. Although I'm usually up to date on news stories that are in any way related to the Bible(or, in this case, the MISUSE of the Bible), I missed this one. Whether you realize it or not, you've only proven my point. The policies of such places as the USA and Israel ARE GREATLY INFLUENCED by what is contained within the pages of scripture. Problem is that verses are being twisted and, sad to say, wholeheartedly embraced by multitudes within APOSTATE "Christianity"(in quotes, deliberately). FAR FROM FULFILLING CHRIST'S DESIRES, these participants are actually FULFILLING THE DESIRES OF THE ANTICHRIST. When I have more time, I will explain this more fully. Unfortunately for me(some of you may consider it a stroke of good luck), this thread took off at a very bad time for me. I've got to leave this afternoon for an extended business trip and I realistically won't be able to post anything of any length for at least the next two weeks. Hopefully, when I have the time, others will still be around to read what I have to write. Until then...
MrB.
Re: the subtitle,
Will it be German on German??
Well, there you go... I see the two women{chapters 12 vs. 17} differently, just as I interpret the white horses differently in the Apocalypse.
"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin(1991) relates the story where in 1980, a general shocked the public of Israel, that the second revolt in the second century against Rome was foolhardy. Galilee and its people did not participate in the revolt and a century later was free to compose the Mishna. The former center of Jewish life in Judea was no more!
So, in my opinion, one holocaust is enough. The days will be cut short and hopefully the destruction limited to a certain geographical region.
MrB.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30814527/
It was a motive behind the Iraq War.
EmpressPalpatine: First of all, thank you very much(sincerely) for posting that link. Although I'm usually up to date on news stories that are in any way related to the Bible(or, in this case, the MISUSE of the Bible), I missed this one. Whether you realize it or not, you've only proven my point. The policies of such places as the USA and Israel ARE GREATLY INFLUENCED by what is contained within the pages of scripture. Problem is that verses are being twisted and, sad to say, wholeheartedly embraced by multitudes within APOSTATE "Christianity"(in quotes, deliberately). FAR FROM FULFILLING CHRIST'S DESIRES, these participants are actually FULFILLING THE DESIRES OF THE ANTICHRIST. When I have more time, I will explain this more fully. Unfortunately for me(some of you may consider it a stroke of good luck), this thread took off at a very bad time for me. I've got to leave this afternoon for an extended business trip and I realistically won't be able to post anything of any length for at least the next two weeks. Hopefully, when I have the time, others will still be around to read what I have to write. Until then...
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Ahem... the United states were not discovered, they were created. They did not exist in the time of Christ so there was no requirement to preach there. By your interpretation, the end of times can only come when every possible nation that exists or will exist in the possible future will have been preached to. Therefore... it will never happen since new nations are constantly being formed.
Seriously though... there are no prophecies in the bible that have ever been shown to be true prior to the event actually occurring. Much like Nostradamus, many people have looked at current events just past and said "Hey, that was predicted by so and so" by simply interpreting the words to fit.
You can keep on dancing with words... but it's not the future you are seeing, it's just your own ego.
RobDegraves: No need to clear your throat...I deliberately put the word "discovered" within quotes because I anticipated your objection to my usage of that particular word. Whether "discovered" or "created" or any such descriptor, there are many(myself included) who recognize a prophetic utterance within the pages of scripture that foretold of the USA's involvement in the latter days. By way of introduction:
"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."(Revelation 13:11-18)
As I said, what follows is merely an introduction. In prophecy, a "beast" is a "king and his kingdom". When I have more time, I'll gladly cite scriptures that clearly state this, so that you can know that this is NOT merely my own interpretation. Within the pages of scripture, especially within the pages of Daniel and Revelation, there is also a distinct TIMELINE for these "beasts" or "kings and their kingdoms". This specific "beast" or kingdom "came up out of the earth" or was "discovered" or "created" at a specific time(there are indicators within this text which historically help us to understand the TIMELINE involved). This "beast" was/is depicted as looking "like a lamb"(claimed to be Christian), whilst actually "speaking like a dragon"(it's actually Satanic). This "beast" or kingdom works alongside another "beast" or kingdom(Papal Rome) that preceded it. Without going into the specifics of it right now(I'll gladly break down this passage that I cited more fully in the future), I'll plainly foretell(what you claim cannot be done) how things will ultimately play out in the Middle East...
1. "The woman", ISRAEL, will ultimately enter into an agreement with Papal Rome or "ride the beast" which will result in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Temple sacrifices will be restored for 3 1/2 years and then "the abomination that causeth desolation" will be set up or the Pope(whoever he is at that time) will declare himself to be God from within the temple. If the Pope's "godhood" seems far-fetched to you, then I'll gladly enlighten you as to what catholic theology has to say in regards to the Pope(the very word means "Papa" or "Father"...catholic theology, I'll cite it, if need be, basically likens the Pope to God in the flesh)...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none
Pope
O.E. papa, from M.L. papa "bishop, pope" (in classical L., "tutor"), from Gk. papas "patriarch, bishop," originally "father." Applied to bishops of Asia Minor and taken as a title by the Bishop of Alexandria c.250. In Western Church, applied especially to the Bishop of Rome since the time of Leo the Great (440-461) and claimed exclusively by them from 1073. Popemobile, his car, is from 1979. Papal, papacy, later acquisitions in Eng., preserve the original vowel. Popery (1534) was a hostile coinage of the Reformation.
...and I'll gladly link you to some images which show the type of homage that the Pope already receives across the globe.
2. The first "beast"(I'm simply referring to the "beast" which precedes the "beast" which is known commonly as the False Prophet...there are other "beasts" or kingdoms which came before it), Papal Rome, will continue in its quest for "peace"(in quotes, deliberately) in the Middle East, especially in Jerusalem. Since, Biblically speaking, Jesus Christ will one day rule from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem as the prophesied "son of David", the Antichrist(who will be a Pope) greatly desires to sit in this seat himself and will actually do so for a short period of time. This is the "ABOMINATION which causeth desolation" or the final affront from a Christ-hating "natural"(there is an "Israel of God" which consists of both Jews and Gentiles who genuinely belong to Jesus Christ) Israel which will ultimately lead to "desolation" or to the battle of Armageddon.
3. The second "beast", the USA, will continue to "make fire come down from heaven" or will continue to make war against "natural" Israel's enemies to bring about this so-called "peace" in the Middle East.
NONE OF THESE THREE PARTICIPANTS, "natural" Israel, the Papacy or the so-called "Evangelical" USA are doing God's will. They are, however, fulfilling prophecy(only not in the way that they imagine) which will ultimately lead to THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. That's all that I have time for right now. I will return when I'm able to(most likely not for at least two weeks). Farewell for now...
Seriously though... there are no prophecies in the bible that have ever been shown to be true prior to the event actually occurring. Much like Nostradamus, many people have looked at current events just past and said "Hey, that was predicted by so and so" by simply interpreting the words to fit.
You can keep on dancing with words... but it's not the future you are seeing, it's just your own ego.
RobDegraves: No need to clear your throat...I deliberately put the word "discovered" within quotes because I anticipated your objection to my usage of that particular word. Whether "discovered" or "created" or any such descriptor, there are many(myself included) who recognize a prophetic utterance within the pages of scripture that foretold of the USA's involvement in the latter days. By way of introduction:
"And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."(Revelation 13:11-18)
As I said, what follows is merely an introduction. In prophecy, a "beast" is a "king and his kingdom". When I have more time, I'll gladly cite scriptures that clearly state this, so that you can know that this is NOT merely my own interpretation. Within the pages of scripture, especially within the pages of Daniel and Revelation, there is also a distinct TIMELINE for these "beasts" or "kings and their kingdoms". This specific "beast" or kingdom "came up out of the earth" or was "discovered" or "created" at a specific time(there are indicators within this text which historically help us to understand the TIMELINE involved). This "beast" was/is depicted as looking "like a lamb"(claimed to be Christian), whilst actually "speaking like a dragon"(it's actually Satanic). This "beast" or kingdom works alongside another "beast" or kingdom(Papal Rome) that preceded it. Without going into the specifics of it right now(I'll gladly break down this passage that I cited more fully in the future), I'll plainly foretell(what you claim cannot be done) how things will ultimately play out in the Middle East...
1. "The woman", ISRAEL, will ultimately enter into an agreement with Papal Rome or "ride the beast" which will result in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. Temple sacrifices will be restored for 3 1/2 years and then "the abomination that causeth desolation" will be set up or the Pope(whoever he is at that time) will declare himself to be God from within the temple. If the Pope's "godhood" seems far-fetched to you, then I'll gladly enlighten you as to what catholic theology has to say in regards to the Pope(the very word means "Papa" or "Father"...catholic theology, I'll cite it, if need be, basically likens the Pope to God in the flesh)...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none
Pope
O.E. papa, from M.L. papa "bishop, pope" (in classical L., "tutor"), from Gk. papas "patriarch, bishop," originally "father." Applied to bishops of Asia Minor and taken as a title by the Bishop of Alexandria c.250. In Western Church, applied especially to the Bishop of Rome since the time of Leo the Great (440-461) and claimed exclusively by them from 1073. Popemobile, his car, is from 1979. Papal, papacy, later acquisitions in Eng., preserve the original vowel. Popery (1534) was a hostile coinage of the Reformation.
...and I'll gladly link you to some images which show the type of homage that the Pope already receives across the globe.
2. The first "beast"(I'm simply referring to the "beast" which precedes the "beast" which is known commonly as the False Prophet...there are other "beasts" or kingdoms which came before it), Papal Rome, will continue in its quest for "peace"(in quotes, deliberately) in the Middle East, especially in Jerusalem. Since, Biblically speaking, Jesus Christ will one day rule from a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem as the prophesied "son of David", the Antichrist(who will be a Pope) greatly desires to sit in this seat himself and will actually do so for a short period of time. This is the "ABOMINATION which causeth desolation" or the final affront from a Christ-hating "natural"(there is an "Israel of God" which consists of both Jews and Gentiles who genuinely belong to Jesus Christ) Israel which will ultimately lead to "desolation" or to the battle of Armageddon.
3. The second "beast", the USA, will continue to "make fire come down from heaven" or will continue to make war against "natural" Israel's enemies to bring about this so-called "peace" in the Middle East.
NONE OF THESE THREE PARTICIPANTS, "natural" Israel, the Papacy or the so-called "Evangelical" USA are doing God's will. They are, however, fulfilling prophecy(only not in the way that they imagine) which will ultimately lead to THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. That's all that I have time for right now. I will return when I'm able to(most likely not for at least two weeks). Farewell for now...
QUOTE (DocFairy+)
eeeeeeeek
DocFairy:
What happened?
Did you see a mouse?
Gotta run...
DocFairy:
What happened?
Did you see a mouse?
Gotta run...
QUOTE
MrB.
Re: the subtitle,
Will it be German on German??
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
MrB. Re: the subtitle, Will it be German on German?? For example, in reference to the sub-title of this thread, "the woman", who is Israel, ... Additionally, "the beast", Papal Rome, doesn't exactly fare too well as a result of their involvement. |
Well, there you go... I see the two women{chapters 12 vs. 17} differently, just as I interpret the white horses differently in the Apocalypse.
"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Rabbi Joseph Telushkin(1991) relates the story where in 1980, a general shocked the public of Israel, that the second revolt in the second century against Rome was foolhardy. Galilee and its people did not participate in the revolt and a century later was free to compose the Mishna. The former center of Jewish life in Judea was no more!
So, in my opinion, one holocaust is enough. The days will be cut short and hopefully the destruction limited to a certain geographical region.
MrB.
MisterBelfry: I'm still waiting for my wife to get ready(Any day now...any day now...), so I'll quickly respond to something that you've written.
I believe the terms are faith and morals.
"The exact formula for the papal infallibility is given by the First
Vatican Council in the following terms (Constit. Pastor aeternus,
cap. iv.); " we teach ...
these definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable in themselves, and not in consequence of the consent of the Church.""
This last part caught my attention.
Doing my own research, I found this rather clever passage:
2"In his recent book, Latin America Between the Eagle and the Bear (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962), mainly a collection of his articles over the past few years, he states the following about the Monroe Doctrine: I only know two things about the Monroe Doctrine: one that no American I have met knows what it is: the other is that no American I have met will consent to its being tampered with. That being so, I conclude that the Monroe Doctrine is not a doctrine but a dogma, for such are the two features by which you can tell a dogma. But when I look closer into it, I find that it is not one dogma but two, to wit: the dogma of the infallibility of the American President and the dogma of the immaculate conception of American foreign policy. (74)
Note the symbolism. I think Newguy, when and if he comes back, and me(and if I'm still able) will disagree on the "goodness" of the Eagle!!
>>> David Koresh was never the pope, <<<
David Koresh may never have legally been David Koresh.
A. David Koresh
B. 1871
These are two different research projects for you idiots and non-idiots alike.
MrB.
MjolnirPants is correct that infallibilibty does not have to lead to the pope "publicly declare himself to be god incarnate." My point is that the stage is surely set for this to eventually happen. Moral courage could stop the nonsense but a lot of previous popes have acted like unbelievers... so why not declare yourself God? The refrain "God is dead" may have played...
in American Pie.
http://www.schlatter.org/ampie.htm
C. vicar of christ; It is afterall Christ Jesus who ends up throwing the pope in the "garbage pit" and the general "she" rides along with the powers that be in Italy give no recourse of return. The RCC is dead! At long last... "Mother Mary comes to me."
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+)
Well, there you go... I see the two women{chapters 12 vs. 17} differently...
In this instance, you are correct. Revelation chapter 12 and Revelation chapter 17 are speaking about two different women. Let's briefly examine the first "woman"(I'll expound on this more when I return from my trip):
"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."(Revelation 12:1-17)
In case you're not already aware of this fact, there are two totally different "Israels" spoken of in scripture. One is what I call the "natural" Israel, or those of "natural" Israeli descent. The other is what is known as "the Israel of God"(Galatians 6:16) in scripture, which is comprised of both Jewish and Gentile believers in/followers of Jesus Christ. This first "woman" falls into the second category as she "keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus Christ". This "woman" will be protected during the 3 1/2 years, 1260 days(a Biblical year is 360 days) or "the time, and times, and half a time"(once again, 3 12 years...see Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32, 7:25 to understand what "a time" is). In fact, these are those of whom Jesus was referring in Matthew 24 when He said:
"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:) Then let which be in Judea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."(Matthew 24:15-22)
These "shortened days" are the same exact 1260 days(3 1/2 years) and "a time, and times, and half a time"(3 1/2 years) that are spoken of elsewhere in scripture(see also the "forty and two months", which is 3 1/2 years, spoken of in Revelation 11:2). When the Antichrist declares himself to be God in the rebuilt temple, Satan will come down, having great wrath, because he knows that he has but a short time(3 1/2 years). It is during this time of Satan's unabated wrath that there will be a time of tribulation like never before seen since the beginning of the world.
Conversely, the "woman" spoken of in Revelation chapter 17, who, by the way, is the "woman" whom I referenced in my sub-title of this thread, is representative of what I call "natural" Israel or the Jews in Israel who will make their final affront against Christ by actually entering into a covenant with the Antichrist. Here is but a brief description of this "woman" from Revelation chapter 17:
"And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns."(Revelation 17:1-7)
In stark contrast to "the Israel of God"(the other "woman", if you will) who faithfully keeps the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, this blasphemous WHORE is drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus Christ.
Anyhow, it appears that my wife is finally ready, so I've got to go. I'll gladly continue along this line of dialogue when I eventually return(a good two weeks from now or more). Until then...
In this instance, you are correct. Revelation chapter 12 and Revelation chapter 17 are speaking about two different women. Let's briefly examine the first "woman"(I'll expound on this more when I return from my trip):
"And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ."(Revelation 12:1-17)
In case you're not already aware of this fact, there are two totally different "Israels" spoken of in scripture. One is what I call the "natural" Israel, or those of "natural" Israeli descent. The other is what is known as "the Israel of God"(Galatians 6:16) in scripture, which is comprised of both Jewish and Gentile believers in/followers of Jesus Christ. This first "woman" falls into the second category as she "keeps the commandments of God and has the testimony of Jesus Christ". This "woman" will be protected during the 3 1/2 years, 1260 days(a Biblical year is 360 days) or "the time, and times, and half a time"(once again, 3 12 years...see Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, 32, 7:25 to understand what "a time" is). In fact, these are those of whom Jesus was referring in Matthew 24 when He said:
"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:) Then let which be in Judea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."(Matthew 24:15-22)
These "shortened days" are the same exact 1260 days(3 1/2 years) and "a time, and times, and half a time"(3 1/2 years) that are spoken of elsewhere in scripture(see also the "forty and two months", which is 3 1/2 years, spoken of in Revelation 11:2). When the Antichrist declares himself to be God in the rebuilt temple, Satan will come down, having great wrath, because he knows that he has but a short time(3 1/2 years). It is during this time of Satan's unabated wrath that there will be a time of tribulation like never before seen since the beginning of the world.
Conversely, the "woman" spoken of in Revelation chapter 17, who, by the way, is the "woman" whom I referenced in my sub-title of this thread, is representative of what I call "natural" Israel or the Jews in Israel who will make their final affront against Christ by actually entering into a covenant with the Antichrist. Here is but a brief description of this "woman" from Revelation chapter 17:
"And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns."(Revelation 17:1-7)
In stark contrast to "the Israel of God"(the other "woman", if you will) who faithfully keeps the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, this blasphemous WHORE is drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus Christ.
Anyhow, it appears that my wife is finally ready, so I've got to go. I'll gladly continue along this line of dialogue when I eventually return(a good two weeks from now or more). Until then...
OK.. here is where I call pure BS.
NO
What I want to see is any prophecy contained in the bible where anyone prophesied something before it happened and where it came true.
Everyone does prophesies.
Psychics
Religious nuts
New agers
Etc.
Every culture has prophesies and they all prophesy something different. Why would Christianity be more correct than the others?
It's probably the most popular hobby in the world. Sadly it's also the most inaccurate of all endeavors. Occasionally someone gets something right by pure guess work and everyone freaks out and thinks it's a true power of prophesy. No.. it's just a lucky guess.
There is no such thing as prophesy and I can prove it.
Few of the prophesies in the bible are specific enough to qualify as genuine prophesies. Those that are tend to have been written after the fact.
Here is a fun fact for you.
The earliest surviving texts of the Gospels date from the 4th century. Anything before that is only bits and scraps. However, it is generally acknowledged by most historians that the earliest gospel, that of Mark and generally the one most likely original, is from around the year AD 70.
The same year as the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
So... how did they know the temple was going to be destroyed?
It had already happened. The best kind of prophesy.
QUOTE
'll plainly foretell(what you claim cannot be done) how things will ultimately play out in the Middle East...
NO
What I want to see is any prophecy contained in the bible where anyone prophesied something before it happened and where it came true.
Everyone does prophesies.
Psychics
Religious nuts
New agers
Etc.
Every culture has prophesies and they all prophesy something different. Why would Christianity be more correct than the others?
It's probably the most popular hobby in the world. Sadly it's also the most inaccurate of all endeavors. Occasionally someone gets something right by pure guess work and everyone freaks out and thinks it's a true power of prophesy. No.. it's just a lucky guess.
There is no such thing as prophesy and I can prove it.
Few of the prophesies in the bible are specific enough to qualify as genuine prophesies. Those that are tend to have been written after the fact.
Here is a fun fact for you.
The earliest surviving texts of the Gospels date from the 4th century. Anything before that is only bits and scraps. However, it is generally acknowledged by most historians that the earliest gospel, that of Mark and generally the one most likely original, is from around the year AD 70.
The same year as the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
So... how did they know the temple was going to be destroyed?
It had already happened. The best kind of prophesy.
I saw an interview with the editor of The Old Farmer's Almanac.
He said "Predicting the weather is easy... the hard part is getting it right.".
He said "Predicting the weather is easy... the hard part is getting it right.".
QUOTE (newguy+May 19 2009, 06:37 AM)
the Pope(whoever he is at that time) will declare himself to be God from within the temple.
And then he'll be removed from office for heresy, and a new pope who isn't delusional will take his place.
If anyone thinks that a person delusional enough to proclaim himself to be God incarnate is capable of working his way through the catholic priesthood to the point of being appointed the pope....
Well, there's more than one delusional person involved in this discussion.
And then he'll be removed from office for heresy, and a new pope who isn't delusional will take his place.
If anyone thinks that a person delusional enough to proclaim himself to be God incarnate is capable of working his way through the catholic priesthood to the point of being appointed the pope....
Well, there's more than one delusional person involved in this discussion.
QUOTE
And then he'll be removed from office for heresy, and a new pope who isn't delusional will take his place.
If anyone thinks that a person delusional enough to proclaim himself to be God incarnate is capable of working his way through the catholic priesthood to the point of being appointed the pope....
If anyone thinks that a person delusional enough to proclaim himself to be God incarnate is capable of working his way through the catholic priesthood to the point of being appointed the pope....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And then he'll be removed from office for heresy, and a new pope who isn't delusional will take his place. If anyone thinks that a person delusional enough to proclaim himself to be God incarnate is capable of working his way through the catholic priesthood to the point of being appointed the pope.... Few of the prophesies in the bible are specific enough to qualify |
Are you people for real?
For the non-idiots on this forum who can actually do some research:
A. David Koresh
B. 1871
MrB.
I had to check B. myself...
"You may be interested to know that as an official doctrine this was first enunciated by Pope Gregory about the year 1000. His motive, clearly known, was to avoid having the church lose financial assets to the wives and family of the priests. Lets put it more directly: it was cheaper for the church if priests did not marry. This was the real life origin of the doctrine that now this Pope has pronounced "infallible"."
http://www.blavatsky.net/features/vane/van...theologians.htm
B. 1869 would work as well...Remember idiots, if you have lost your other friends, Jesus still loves you and Google will always be your friend.
For the non-idiots on this forum who can actually do some research:
A. David Koresh
B. 1871
MrB.
I had to check B. myself...
"You may be interested to know that as an official doctrine this was first enunciated by Pope Gregory about the year 1000. His motive, clearly known, was to avoid having the church lose financial assets to the wives and family of the priests. Lets put it more directly: it was cheaper for the church if priests did not marry. This was the real life origin of the doctrine that now this Pope has pronounced "infallible"."
http://www.blavatsky.net/features/vane/van...theologians.htm
B. 1869 would work as well...Remember idiots, if you have lost your other friends, Jesus still loves you and Google will always be your friend.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+May 20 2009, 12:40 AM)
Are you people for real?
For the non-idiots on this forum who can actually do some research:
A. David Koresh
B. 1871
MrB.
I had to check B. myself...
"You may be interested to know that as an official doctrine this was first enunciated by Pope Gregory about the year 1000. His motive, clearly known, was to avoid having the church lose financial assets to the wives and family of the priests. Lets put it more directly: it was cheaper for the church if priests did not marry. This was the real life origin of the doctrine that now this Pope has pronounced "infallible"."
http://www.blavatsky.net/features/vane/van...theologians.htm
B. 1869 would work as well...Remember idiots, if you have lost your other friends, Jesus still loves you and Google will always be your friend.
ROFLMAO
Jesus H. Christ are you stupid!!!
David Koresh was never the pope, you complete dumbass!!! Nor does the doctrine of the pope's infallibility adopted by the church in any way imply that the pope would publicly declare himself to be god incarnate.
Jesus H. Christ again, but you're so stupid it's hilarious!
EDIT: ROFLMAO Even after posting and knowing that you're incredibly stupid, it's still hilarious that you think David Koresh was ever the pope!!!
For the non-idiots on this forum who can actually do some research:
A. David Koresh
B. 1871
MrB.
I had to check B. myself...
"You may be interested to know that as an official doctrine this was first enunciated by Pope Gregory about the year 1000. His motive, clearly known, was to avoid having the church lose financial assets to the wives and family of the priests. Lets put it more directly: it was cheaper for the church if priests did not marry. This was the real life origin of the doctrine that now this Pope has pronounced "infallible"."
http://www.blavatsky.net/features/vane/van...theologians.htm
B. 1869 would work as well...Remember idiots, if you have lost your other friends, Jesus still loves you and Google will always be your friend.
ROFLMAO
Jesus H. Christ are you stupid!!!
David Koresh was never the pope, you complete dumbass!!! Nor does the doctrine of the pope's infallibility adopted by the church in any way imply that the pope would publicly declare himself to be god incarnate.
Jesus H. Christ again, but you're so stupid it's hilarious!
EDIT: ROFLMAO Even after posting and knowing that you're incredibly stupid, it's still hilarious that you think David Koresh was ever the pope!!!
It's not just stupid.. it's actually quite bizarre and also nicely ironic.
The Pope is assumed to talk to God.... therefore the Pope is infallible. That is the theory, not that the Pope is God. For that matter, the Papal infallibility clause has only to do with pronouncements of dogma. This does not mean then that the Pope is infallible in other areas... only in matters of dogma specifically.
On top of that, you mix two different policies that have little to do with each other... the Papal infallibility and the rule that priests cannot marry.
The ironic part is where you said ..
You might want to do some actual research yourself.
The Pope is assumed to talk to God.... therefore the Pope is infallible. That is the theory, not that the Pope is God. For that matter, the Papal infallibility clause has only to do with pronouncements of dogma. This does not mean then that the Pope is infallible in other areas... only in matters of dogma specifically.
On top of that, you mix two different policies that have little to do with each other... the Papal infallibility and the rule that priests cannot marry.
The ironic part is where you said ..
QUOTE
For the non-idiots on this forum who can actually do some research:
You might want to do some actual research yourself.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 20 2009, 11:59 AM)
It's not just stupid.. it's actually quite bizarre and also nicely ironic.
The Pope is assumed to talk to God.... therefore the Pope is infallible. That is the theory, not that the Pope is God. For that matter, the Papal infallibility clause has only to do with pronouncements of dogma. This does not mean then that the Pope is infallible in other areas... only in matters of dogma specifically.
On top of that, you mix two different policies that have little to do with each other... the Papal infallibility and the rule that priests cannot marry.
The ironic part is where you said ..
You might want to do some actual research yourself.
But let's not forget: Belfry thinks David Koresh was the pope.
I just can't get over that!
The Pope is assumed to talk to God.... therefore the Pope is infallible. That is the theory, not that the Pope is God. For that matter, the Papal infallibility clause has only to do with pronouncements of dogma. This does not mean then that the Pope is infallible in other areas... only in matters of dogma specifically.
On top of that, you mix two different policies that have little to do with each other... the Papal infallibility and the rule that priests cannot marry.
The ironic part is where you said ..
You might want to do some actual research yourself.
But let's not forget: Belfry thinks David Koresh was the pope.
I just can't get over that!
QUOTE
This does not mean then that the Pope is infallible in other areas... only in matters of dogma specifically.
On top of that, you mix two different policies that have little to do with each other... the Papal infallibility and the rule that priests cannot marry.
On top of that, you mix two different policies that have little to do with each other... the Papal infallibility and the rule that priests cannot marry.
I believe the terms are faith and morals.
"The exact formula for the papal infallibility is given by the First
Vatican Council in the following terms (Constit. Pastor aeternus,
cap. iv.); " we teach ...
these definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable in themselves, and not in consequence of the consent of the Church.""
This last part caught my attention.
Doing my own research, I found this rather clever passage:
2"In his recent book, Latin America Between the Eagle and the Bear (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962), mainly a collection of his articles over the past few years, he states the following about the Monroe Doctrine: I only know two things about the Monroe Doctrine: one that no American I have met knows what it is: the other is that no American I have met will consent to its being tampered with. That being so, I conclude that the Monroe Doctrine is not a doctrine but a dogma, for such are the two features by which you can tell a dogma. But when I look closer into it, I find that it is not one dogma but two, to wit: the dogma of the infallibility of the American President and the dogma of the immaculate conception of American foreign policy. (74)
Note the symbolism. I think Newguy, when and if he comes back, and me(and if I'm still able) will disagree on the "goodness" of the Eagle!!
>>> David Koresh was never the pope, <<<
David Koresh may never have legally been David Koresh.
A. David Koresh
B. 1871
These are two different research projects for you idiots and non-idiots alike.
MrB.
MjolnirPants is correct that infallibilibty does not have to lead to the pope "publicly declare himself to be god incarnate." My point is that the stage is surely set for this to eventually happen. Moral courage could stop the nonsense but a lot of previous popes have acted like unbelievers... so why not declare yourself God? The refrain "God is dead" may have played...
in American Pie.
http://www.schlatter.org/ampie.htm
C. vicar of christ; It is afterall Christ Jesus who ends up throwing the pope in the "garbage pit" and the general "she" rides along with the powers that be in Italy give no recourse of return. The RCC is dead! At long last... "Mother Mary comes to me."
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 20 2009, 06:42 PM)
But let's not forget: Belfry thinks David Koresh was the pope.
I just can't get over that!
But don't you make the mistake of thinking that American Catholics are typical Catholics.
I've even heard of a group called Catholics for Choice. That would only be possible with American Catholics. there is a very old word that means Catholics for choice. It's Protestant.
And the Church promotes the Pope as God's emmissary. How could they argue if one said he was in direct contact with God and was acting with God's "power of attorny"? He would basically be claiming to be God but the church would think that's great not that he needs to be kicked out.
I just can't get over that!
But don't you make the mistake of thinking that American Catholics are typical Catholics.
I've even heard of a group called Catholics for Choice. That would only be possible with American Catholics. there is a very old word that means Catholics for choice. It's Protestant.
And the Church promotes the Pope as God's emmissary. How could they argue if one said he was in direct contact with God and was acting with God's "power of attorny"? He would basically be claiming to be God but the church would think that's great not that he needs to be kicked out.
This is pretty darn silly.
If that was the case, the stage has been set for nearly a millennium, when it was discussed by Theodore Abū Qurrah in the 9th century.
There has been some pretty crazy popes over the years, and so far none of them has tried to say they were God incarnate because...
1. No one would go along with it.
2. It would accomplish no other purpose than to damage the Church, therefore not being conducive to the Pope's aims... assuming he's not a raving loonie at that point.
If that was the case, the stage has been set for nearly a millennium, when it was discussed by Theodore Abū Qurrah in the 9th century.
There has been some pretty crazy popes over the years, and so far none of them has tried to say they were God incarnate because...
1. No one would go along with it.
2. It would accomplish no other purpose than to damage the Church, therefore not being conducive to the Pope's aims... assuming he's not a raving loonie at that point.
And the Church promotes the Pope as God's emmissary. How could they argue if one said he was in direct contact with God and was acting with God's "power of attorny"?
He already does that. However, there are specific rules as to what can and cannot be said to be infallible.... and infallibility does not apply to the Pope personally, nor has it ever.
The Pope could no more legally declare himself God than I could.
BTW.... you folks keep on going about bible prophecy but none of you has ever risen to my challenge of showing me any bible prophecy that has ever been shown to be true prior to the event predicted.
If you can't ... bible prophecy obviously means little.
Horta
It's quite a good question... I will try to answer as best I can (it's quite late here right now).
To begin with, you have to remember that there is no such thing as a dark age everywhere. The dark ages are largely held to have been between AD 400 and AD 1000.. or so. However, if you lived in Constantinople at the time, you would have lived in an age that seemed quite civilized in comparison with Western Europe.
Another big feature is the dichotomy present in the Church between religion and science. Since the Church had taken it on as their duty to preserve knowledge, this presented them with a lot of internal conflicts and varying levels of reactions to such a phenomena. Many in the Church prized learning a great deal. Aristotle, Plato, etc. were nearly venerated. However, such authors had also been pagans. This brought many to feel that such learning should never see the light of day and that only the Bible should be read, since all wisdom could be found there. Despite this, the Church maintained observatories, funded research and, of course, copied down ancient authors with meticulous care.
Therefore, the reaction you would have gotten would vary greatly depending on where you were, who you were with and at what time period exactly. There is no one single answer.
RobDegraves
Thank you for answering me. I never knew that. I thought the Dark ages went from 1100 or so to the Renaissance period which is in the 1500 or so. I always associated the dark ages with things like the Inquisition. Sounds like there were some very progressive people next to the real knuckle draggers. Sounds like today's America. We have our Brian Greene's next to the real Bible thumpers.
QUOTE
MjolnirPants is correct that infallibilibty does not have to lead to the pope "publicly declare himself to be god incarnate." My point is that the stage is surely set for this to eventually happen
If that was the case, the stage has been set for nearly a millennium, when it was discussed by Theodore Abū Qurrah in the 9th century.
There has been some pretty crazy popes over the years, and so far none of them has tried to say they were God incarnate because...
1. No one would go along with it.
2. It would accomplish no other purpose than to damage the Church, therefore not being conducive to the Pope's aims... assuming he's not a raving loonie at that point.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| MjolnirPants is correct that infallibilibty does not have to lead to the pope "publicly declare himself to be god incarnate." My point is that the stage is surely set for this to eventually happen |
If that was the case, the stage has been set for nearly a millennium, when it was discussed by Theodore Abū Qurrah in the 9th century.
There has been some pretty crazy popes over the years, and so far none of them has tried to say they were God incarnate because...
1. No one would go along with it.
2. It would accomplish no other purpose than to damage the Church, therefore not being conducive to the Pope's aims... assuming he's not a raving loonie at that point.
And the Church promotes the Pope as God's emmissary. How could they argue if one said he was in direct contact with God and was acting with God's "power of attorny"?
He already does that. However, there are specific rules as to what can and cannot be said to be infallible.... and infallibility does not apply to the Pope personally, nor has it ever.
The Pope could no more legally declare himself God than I could.
BTW.... you folks keep on going about bible prophecy but none of you has ever risen to my challenge of showing me any bible prophecy that has ever been shown to be true prior to the event predicted.
If you can't ... bible prophecy obviously means little.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 19 2009, 06:14 AM)
Horta
It's quite a good question... I will try to answer as best I can (it's quite late here right now).
To begin with, you have to remember that there is no such thing as a dark age everywhere. The dark ages are largely held to have been between AD 400 and AD 1000.. or so. However, if you lived in Constantinople at the time, you would have lived in an age that seemed quite civilized in comparison with Western Europe.
Another big feature is the dichotomy present in the Church between religion and science. Since the Church had taken it on as their duty to preserve knowledge, this presented them with a lot of internal conflicts and varying levels of reactions to such a phenomena. Many in the Church prized learning a great deal. Aristotle, Plato, etc. were nearly venerated. However, such authors had also been pagans. This brought many to feel that such learning should never see the light of day and that only the Bible should be read, since all wisdom could be found there. Despite this, the Church maintained observatories, funded research and, of course, copied down ancient authors with meticulous care.
Therefore, the reaction you would have gotten would vary greatly depending on where you were, who you were with and at what time period exactly. There is no one single answer.
RobDegraves
Thank you for answering me. I never knew that. I thought the Dark ages went from 1100 or so to the Renaissance period which is in the 1500 or so. I always associated the dark ages with things like the Inquisition. Sounds like there were some very progressive people next to the real knuckle draggers. Sounds like today's America. We have our Brian Greene's next to the real Bible thumpers.
>>> I thought the Dark ages went from 1100 or so to the Renaissance <<<
I don't know that any serious historian uses the "dark ages" anymore.
But when I thinkof it, I go from 400-1400 as a nod to the true millenium promised. Alfred Crosby(1997) writes, "Westerners believed in the Bible, wherein it was said that God "hast ordered all things by measure and number and weight" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:20), but , as of 1200 or so, were paying little deliberate or deliberative attention to the concept of reality as quantifiable."
In my Catholic Bible, it is the end of verse 21. But it is old, it looks like verse seven had been shortened from the more modern versions I have. The Protestants were a few centuries yet to be.
Leviticus 19:35-37
35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.
36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.
37 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.
(KJV)
The Protestants and the Holy Roman Empire appear to peak on the horizon from 1400. "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" - This woman that rides the scarlet colored beast had children!
Whereas true Israel had one child. Isn't the Vaticanus one of the seven hills?
Revelation 17:
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
(KJV) At this point in the 1520s... three are fallen, the one is IS the king of Italy, the other is not yet known(but probably spinning his wheels somewhere in Europe alive today) but seems to have a very shrewd military mind.
MrB.
I don't know that any serious historian uses the "dark ages" anymore.
But when I thinkof it, I go from 400-1400 as a nod to the true millenium promised. Alfred Crosby(1997) writes, "Westerners believed in the Bible, wherein it was said that God "hast ordered all things by measure and number and weight" (Wisdom of Solomon 11:20), but , as of 1200 or so, were paying little deliberate or deliberative attention to the concept of reality as quantifiable."
In my Catholic Bible, it is the end of verse 21. But it is old, it looks like verse seven had been shortened from the more modern versions I have. The Protestants were a few centuries yet to be.
Leviticus 19:35-37
35 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteyard, in weight, or in measure.
36 Just balances, just weights, a just ephah, and a just hin, shall ye have: I am the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt.
37 Therefore shall ye observe all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: I am the LORD.
(KJV)
The Protestants and the Holy Roman Empire appear to peak on the horizon from 1400. "MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH" - This woman that rides the scarlet colored beast had children!
Whereas true Israel had one child. Isn't the Vaticanus one of the seven hills?
Revelation 17:
10 And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.
(KJV) At this point in the 1520s... three are fallen, the one is IS the king of Italy, the other is not yet known(but probably spinning his wheels somewhere in Europe alive today) but seems to have a very shrewd military mind.
MrB.
QUOTE (newguy+)
...the Pope(whoever he is at that time) will declare himself to be God from within the temple.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
And then he'll be removed from office for heresy, and a new pope who isn't delusional will take his place.
If anyone thinks that a person delusional enough to proclaim himself to be God incarnate is capable of working his way through the catholic priesthood to the point of being appointed the pope....
Well, there's more than one delusional person involved in this discussion.
MjolnirPants: I don't have much time, so I'll briefly address what you've written. As I trust you're already aware, there have been millions/billions(?) of people who have already believed/professed to believe that "God incarnate" has come before. With this being the case(and it is the case), I'm somewhat surprised by your comments. I understand that you're specifically speaking of a Pope working his way through the catholic priesthood, but I never suggested(nor does the Bible) that this proclamation would occur during the stages you describe. From my understanding of scripture, it will be 3 1/2 years AFTER Israel's temple has been rebuilt as the result of a covenant brokered by the Papacy that such a proclamation will be made from inside of the aforementioned temple. This "natural" occurence coincides with the "spiritual" occurence of Satan being cast down to earth. Since the antichrist(which I've plainly stated will be a Pope) is far from being "God incarnate", but more effectively "Satan incarnate", Satan's "casting down" and the Pope's "lifting up" will perfectly coincide with each other. I hope that clarifies the timeline of which I speak.
I'd also like to briefly comment on the aspect of "delusion", since you made reference to it in your post.
"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."(II Thessalonians 2:8-12)
"Strong delusion", which includes "all power and signs and lying wonders" will be prevalent during the timeframe which I'm discussing. As one who used to travel extensively in so-called "Christian circles", I've seen how easily people(especially those who have already rejected the truth) will lay hold on ANY "power, sign or wonder" as if it is coming from "God". Why then should I expect the times of which I speak to be any different?
I have more to say, but I'm having quite a time typing. I'm using my wife's laptop from my hotel room and my 22-month-old son removed about half the keys from the keyboard. I will be making a "pit stop" at home this evening/tomorrow, so I'll probably post more then from my desktop. Until then...
RobDegraves: I'll do my best to answer your post during my aforementioned "pit stop"
P.S. MjolnirPants: After a second reading of your comments, you may very well have already understood the timeline of which I speak. If/since such is the case, then I'll address some more variables when I have the time. Thanks and I apologize for my possible/probable misread of your comments the first time around.
If anyone thinks that a person delusional enough to proclaim himself to be God incarnate is capable of working his way through the catholic priesthood to the point of being appointed the pope....
Well, there's more than one delusional person involved in this discussion.
MjolnirPants: I don't have much time, so I'll briefly address what you've written. As I trust you're already aware, there have been millions/billions(?) of people who have already believed/professed to believe that "God incarnate" has come before. With this being the case(and it is the case), I'm somewhat surprised by your comments. I understand that you're specifically speaking of a Pope working his way through the catholic priesthood, but I never suggested(nor does the Bible) that this proclamation would occur during the stages you describe. From my understanding of scripture, it will be 3 1/2 years AFTER Israel's temple has been rebuilt as the result of a covenant brokered by the Papacy that such a proclamation will be made from inside of the aforementioned temple. This "natural" occurence coincides with the "spiritual" occurence of Satan being cast down to earth. Since the antichrist(which I've plainly stated will be a Pope) is far from being "God incarnate", but more effectively "Satan incarnate", Satan's "casting down" and the Pope's "lifting up" will perfectly coincide with each other. I hope that clarifies the timeline of which I speak.
I'd also like to briefly comment on the aspect of "delusion", since you made reference to it in your post.
"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."(II Thessalonians 2:8-12)
"Strong delusion", which includes "all power and signs and lying wonders" will be prevalent during the timeframe which I'm discussing. As one who used to travel extensively in so-called "Christian circles", I've seen how easily people(especially those who have already rejected the truth) will lay hold on ANY "power, sign or wonder" as if it is coming from "God". Why then should I expect the times of which I speak to be any different?
I have more to say, but I'm having quite a time typing. I'm using my wife's laptop from my hotel room and my 22-month-old son removed about half the keys from the keyboard. I will be making a "pit stop" at home this evening/tomorrow, so I'll probably post more then from my desktop. Until then...
RobDegraves: I'll do my best to answer your post during my aforementioned "pit stop"
P.S. MjolnirPants: After a second reading of your comments, you may very well have already understood the timeline of which I speak. If/since such is the case, then I'll address some more variables when I have the time. Thanks and I apologize for my possible/probable misread of your comments the first time around.
Horta and Mister Belfry
The term "Dark Ages" is indeed rarely used in scholarly works by historians but we do tend to use it in casual conversation because it's so very popular. A bit like talking about Vikings, which again is a very incorrect term but popular.
Again you have to remember that situations were very different as you change areas or time period and that all these are wide generalities.
The "Dark Ages", nowadays usually called the Early Middle Ages, are typically used to refer to a period where there was little in the way of centralized government in Western Europe. From about 400 AD to about 1000 AD, most of Western Europe was ruled by local lords... Barons, Knights, Dukes, etc. and submitted to almost constant invasion by various Germanic groups. There was a king but his power was very disputable. In addition, people tended to not think of themselves as French, or German, or even British... but rather identified by the region they were from... Burgundian, Briton, Provencal, Saxon, etc.
This situation brought about a period of almost constant warfare throughout Western Europe. No one cared about national issues, all that mattered was local Lords trying to increase their power by grabbing their neighbor's lands. This made any kind of learning or science nigh impossible. If you had a book, someone would likely kill you for it. Better to have a sword and learn to fight... or farm and endure.
The change started in about the 11th century, again a wide oversimplification, where the various invading groups had finally settled down. Populations rose significantly and various rulers started to emerge with overall control rather than temporary. A big change was brought about by the Crusades, which brought the West in contact with the East in a big way and not only introduced new ideas and knowledge, but also exported much of the internal fighting to other parts of the world.
This is a very simplified version btw... a real overview would be more complex.
Newguy
I await with anticipation where you will show me biblical prophesies that have been proven true before the fact.
If you can't, then they don't mean much do they.
The term "Dark Ages" is indeed rarely used in scholarly works by historians but we do tend to use it in casual conversation because it's so very popular. A bit like talking about Vikings, which again is a very incorrect term but popular.
Again you have to remember that situations were very different as you change areas or time period and that all these are wide generalities.
The "Dark Ages", nowadays usually called the Early Middle Ages, are typically used to refer to a period where there was little in the way of centralized government in Western Europe. From about 400 AD to about 1000 AD, most of Western Europe was ruled by local lords... Barons, Knights, Dukes, etc. and submitted to almost constant invasion by various Germanic groups. There was a king but his power was very disputable. In addition, people tended to not think of themselves as French, or German, or even British... but rather identified by the region they were from... Burgundian, Briton, Provencal, Saxon, etc.
This situation brought about a period of almost constant warfare throughout Western Europe. No one cared about national issues, all that mattered was local Lords trying to increase their power by grabbing their neighbor's lands. This made any kind of learning or science nigh impossible. If you had a book, someone would likely kill you for it. Better to have a sword and learn to fight... or farm and endure.
The change started in about the 11th century, again a wide oversimplification, where the various invading groups had finally settled down. Populations rose significantly and various rulers started to emerge with overall control rather than temporary. A big change was brought about by the Crusades, which brought the West in contact with the East in a big way and not only introduced new ideas and knowledge, but also exported much of the internal fighting to other parts of the world.
This is a very simplified version btw... a real overview would be more complex.
Newguy
I await with anticipation where you will show me biblical prophesies that have been proven true before the fact.
If you can't, then they don't mean much do they.
QUOTE (newguy+May 24 2009, 08:31 AM)
MjolnirPants: I don't have much time, so I'll briefly address what you've written. As I trust you're already aware, there have been millions/billions(?) of people who have already believed/professed to believe that "God incarnate" has come before. With this being the case(and it is the case), I'm somewhat surprised by your comments.
And those people are, to a man, either delusional or attempting to capitalize on others' delusions.
The pope would have had to spend decades in the church hierarchy, engaging in theological, philosophical and practical discussions of a wide variety of subjects. This would tend to preclude any delusional individual.
You must also be aware of catholic dogma, specifically regarding the divinity and sanctity of God. To claim to be God is a highly heretical act, by any mainstream christian interpretation. Therefore, there would be no significant portion of the catholic population willing to believe such a pronouncement, and no motivation for a non-delusional pope to declare himself to be God.
The idea of people proclaiming themselves to be God incarnate does not surprise me. It has happened before, it will happen again. But the pope is in a unique position which would weed out those who would do so more effectively than any other position I can think of.
Let me quote you again:
"the Pope(whoever he is at that time) will declare himself to be God from within the temple."
You specifically claimed the person who would make this declaration to be the then-current pope. That would necessitate him working his way through the catholic priesthood.
Let me quote you again:
"the Pope(whoever he is at that time) will declare himself to be God from within the temple."
You specifically claimed the person who would make this declaration to be the then-current pope. That would necessitate him working his way through the catholic priesthood.
From my understanding of scripture, it will be 3 1/2 years AFTER Israel's temple has been rebuilt as the result of a covenant brokered by the Papacy that such a proclamation will be made from inside of the aforementioned temple.
You still have yet to demonstrate the accuracy of any biblical prophecies, so any argument made which is based upon any interpretation of them is inherently flawed.
If there ever is an Antichrist (which I highly, highly, highly doubt) then I would tend to agree with you on that one.
If there ever is an Antichrist (which I highly, highly, highly doubt) then I would tend to agree with you on that one.
is far from being "God incarnate", but more effectively "Satan incarnate", Satan's "casting down" and the Pope's "lifting up" will perfectly coincide with each other. I hope that clarifies the timeline of which I speak.
It is not your timeline that I take issue with. It is the idea that anyone capable of achieving the position of Roman Catholic Pope would ever proclaim himself to be God that I find ridiculous, regardless of the timeline.
Quoting scripture to me will accomplish absolutely nothing unless you're trying to convince me that a certain claim, statement or implication is made in scriptures.
Quoting scripture to me will accomplish absolutely nothing unless you're trying to convince me that a certain claim, statement or implication is made in scriptures.
P.S. MjolnirPants: After a second reading of your comments, you may very well have already understood the timeline of which I speak. If/since such is the case, then I'll address some more variables when I have the time. Thanks and I apologize for my possible/probable misread of your comments the first time around.
I am fairly familiar with the timeline of the christian end times, however it's not on this matter that I'm disagreeing with you.
And those people are, to a man, either delusional or attempting to capitalize on others' delusions.
The pope would have had to spend decades in the church hierarchy, engaging in theological, philosophical and practical discussions of a wide variety of subjects. This would tend to preclude any delusional individual.
You must also be aware of catholic dogma, specifically regarding the divinity and sanctity of God. To claim to be God is a highly heretical act, by any mainstream christian interpretation. Therefore, there would be no significant portion of the catholic population willing to believe such a pronouncement, and no motivation for a non-delusional pope to declare himself to be God.
The idea of people proclaiming themselves to be God incarnate does not surprise me. It has happened before, it will happen again. But the pope is in a unique position which would weed out those who would do so more effectively than any other position I can think of.
QUOTE
I understand that you're specifically speaking of a Pope working his way through the catholic priesthood, but I never suggested(nor does the Bible) that this proclamation would occur during the stages you describe.
Let me quote you again:
"the Pope(whoever he is at that time) will declare himself to be God from within the temple."
You specifically claimed the person who would make this declaration to be the then-current pope. That would necessitate him working his way through the catholic priesthood.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I understand that you're specifically speaking of a Pope working his way through the catholic priesthood, but I never suggested(nor does the Bible) that this proclamation would occur during the stages you describe. |
Let me quote you again:
"the Pope(whoever he is at that time) will declare himself to be God from within the temple."
You specifically claimed the person who would make this declaration to be the then-current pope. That would necessitate him working his way through the catholic priesthood.
From my understanding of scripture, it will be 3 1/2 years AFTER Israel's temple has been rebuilt as the result of a covenant brokered by the Papacy that such a proclamation will be made from inside of the aforementioned temple.
You still have yet to demonstrate the accuracy of any biblical prophecies, so any argument made which is based upon any interpretation of them is inherently flawed.
QUOTE
This "natural" occurence coincides with the "spiritual" occurence of Satan being cast down to earth. Since the antichrist(which I've plainly stated will be a Pope)
If there ever is an Antichrist (which I highly, highly, highly doubt) then I would tend to agree with you on that one.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This "natural" occurence coincides with the "spiritual" occurence of Satan being cast down to earth. Since the antichrist(which I've plainly stated will be a Pope) |
If there ever is an Antichrist (which I highly, highly, highly doubt) then I would tend to agree with you on that one.
is far from being "God incarnate", but more effectively "Satan incarnate", Satan's "casting down" and the Pope's "lifting up" will perfectly coincide with each other. I hope that clarifies the timeline of which I speak.
It is not your timeline that I take issue with. It is the idea that anyone capable of achieving the position of Roman Catholic Pope would ever proclaim himself to be God that I find ridiculous, regardless of the timeline.
QUOTE
I'd also like to briefly comment on the aspect of "delusion", since you made reference to it in your post.
Quoting scripture to me will accomplish absolutely nothing unless you're trying to convince me that a certain claim, statement or implication is made in scriptures.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'd also like to briefly comment on the aspect of "delusion", since you made reference to it in your post. |
Quoting scripture to me will accomplish absolutely nothing unless you're trying to convince me that a certain claim, statement or implication is made in scriptures.
P.S. MjolnirPants: After a second reading of your comments, you may very well have already understood the timeline of which I speak. If/since such is the case, then I'll address some more variables when I have the time. Thanks and I apologize for my possible/probable misread of your comments the first time around.
I am fairly familiar with the timeline of the christian end times, however it's not on this matter that I'm disagreeing with you.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
A bit like talking about Vikings, which again is a very incorrect term but popular.
I'm not sure I follow you here: The 'dark ages' is a common term for a period in European history, but not all of those times were 'dark', so historians tend not to use the term.
But 'viking' is a valid term whose only inconsistency stems from the improper sense in which we use it. It's a bit like calling a professional Snow Skier a 'Skiing,' or calling a professional swimmer a 'swimming.' A more proper term would be 'vikinger' (I've anglicized the spelling). Additionally, Scandinavian and European historians still use the term "viking," as in "The Viking Age," or "A viking longship."
The rest of your post is quite good, I just didn't get the comparison here. Were you perhaps referring to the use of the word "viking" to describe the varangians?
I'm not sure I follow you here: The 'dark ages' is a common term for a period in European history, but not all of those times were 'dark', so historians tend not to use the term.
But 'viking' is a valid term whose only inconsistency stems from the improper sense in which we use it. It's a bit like calling a professional Snow Skier a 'Skiing,' or calling a professional swimmer a 'swimming.' A more proper term would be 'vikinger' (I've anglicized the spelling). Additionally, Scandinavian and European historians still use the term "viking," as in "The Viking Age," or "A viking longship."
The rest of your post is quite good, I just didn't get the comparison here. Were you perhaps referring to the use of the word "viking" to describe the varangians?
I was in fact referring to the exact point you just made.
Viking was an activity... going vikingr... to join you in anglicizing the word. It specifically referred to a raid or expedition. It is often used to described all the Norse of that period and is almost never used by historians in academic works other than in those specific instances.
However, it is a popular term so I often use it so that my audience know what I am talking about without a long explanation. In history books meant mostly for a general audience, the word is also quite useful to describe the time period where the various Norse groups exploded across the world, raiding, trading and ... well.. vikinging.
Viking was an activity... going vikingr... to join you in anglicizing the word. It specifically referred to a raid or expedition. It is often used to described all the Norse of that period and is almost never used by historians in academic works other than in those specific instances.
However, it is a popular term so I often use it so that my audience know what I am talking about without a long explanation. In history books meant mostly for a general audience, the word is also quite useful to describe the time period where the various Norse groups exploded across the world, raiding, trading and ... well.. vikinging.
QUOTE (newguy+)
MjolnirPants: I don't have much time, so I'll briefly address what you've written. As I trust you're already aware, there have been millions/billions(?) of people who have already believed/professed to believe that "God incarnate" has come before. With this being the case(and it is the case), I'm somewhat surprised by your comments.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
And those people are, to a man, either delusional or attempting to capitalize on others' delusions.
MjolnirPants: I just want to make sure that I'm understanding your comment before I further address it. In my example, I was primarily(other situations would qualify) referring to those who believe/profess to believe that Jesus Christ was/is God incarnate. Are we speaking about the same group of individuals? If we are, then is it safe to assume that you're claiming that all individuals who hold to this belief are either delusional or attempting to capitalize on others' delusions? I'm not making a big deal out of your comments...I just want to make sure that I'm understanding you properly before proceeding. Thanks for any further clarification.
MjolnirPants: I just want to make sure that I'm understanding your comment before I further address it. In my example, I was primarily(other situations would qualify) referring to those who believe/profess to believe that Jesus Christ was/is God incarnate. Are we speaking about the same group of individuals? If we are, then is it safe to assume that you're claiming that all individuals who hold to this belief are either delusional or attempting to capitalize on others' delusions? I'm not making a big deal out of your comments...I just want to make sure that I'm understanding you properly before proceeding. Thanks for any further clarification.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
OK.. here is where I call pure BS.
QUOTE (newguy+)
I'll plainly foretell(what you claim cannot be done) how things will ultimately play out in the Middle East...
NO
What I want to see is any prophecy contained in the bible where anyone prophesied something before it happened and where it came true.
Everyone does prophesies.
Psychics
Religious nuts
New agers
Etc.
Every culture has prophesies and they all prophesy something different. Why would Christianity be more correct than the others?
It's probably the most popular hobby in the world. Sadly it's also the most inaccurate of all endeavors. Occasionally someone gets something right by pure guess work and everyone freaks out and thinks it's a true power of prophesy. No.. it's just a lucky guess.
There is no such thing as prophesy and I can prove it.
Few of the prophesies in the bible are specific enough to qualify as genuine prophesies. Those that are tend to have been written after the fact.
Here is a fun fact for you.
The earliest surviving texts of the Gospels date from the 4th century. Anything before that is only bits and scraps. However, it is generally acknowledged by most historians that the earliest gospel, that of Mark and generally the one most likely original, is from around the year AD 70.
The same year as the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
So... how did they know the temple was going to be destroyed?
It had already happened. The best kind of prophesy.
RobDegraves: I could list past prophecies, but I'm already aware of the controversies surrounding their time of writing, so why bother? It seems much better to me to foretell, with the Bible as my backdrop, FUTURE EVENTS...this is exactly what I'm doing, whether you realize it or not. In case you're genuinely not familiar with my modus operandi, I feel ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to convince any of you of anything. Instead, my desire is always to "plant" or "water"...only God Himself can give the increase. REGARDING THE FUTURE, I've plainly stated, numerous times, what you can expect to see in regards to the Middle East/Jerusalem/The Papacy/The United States. You(individually or collectively) are certainly free to critique/criticize/mock/deride/whatever every single word that I type, if you so desire. Quite frankly, your response AT THIS TIME is rather inconsequential to me. My participation in this thread is PRIMARILY intended to accurately describe what the Bible predicts concerning the last days. Whether you're aware of it or not, or whether you care about it or not, MUCH of what "mainstream Christianity" professes concerning "the last days" is in direct opposition to the scriptures. Although every word that I type may indeed fall upon deaf ears, as long as I have an "open door", I'll care enough for my fellow man to at least inform him of what is ACTUALLY contained within the pages of scripture. In other words, I'm simply after UNDERSTANDING...not necessarily AGREEMENT. As I said, you're free to respond how ever you see fit. Take care.
NO
What I want to see is any prophecy contained in the bible where anyone prophesied something before it happened and where it came true.
Everyone does prophesies.
Psychics
Religious nuts
New agers
Etc.
Every culture has prophesies and they all prophesy something different. Why would Christianity be more correct than the others?
It's probably the most popular hobby in the world. Sadly it's also the most inaccurate of all endeavors. Occasionally someone gets something right by pure guess work and everyone freaks out and thinks it's a true power of prophesy. No.. it's just a lucky guess.
There is no such thing as prophesy and I can prove it.
Few of the prophesies in the bible are specific enough to qualify as genuine prophesies. Those that are tend to have been written after the fact.
Here is a fun fact for you.
The earliest surviving texts of the Gospels date from the 4th century. Anything before that is only bits and scraps. However, it is generally acknowledged by most historians that the earliest gospel, that of Mark and generally the one most likely original, is from around the year AD 70.
The same year as the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem.
So... how did they know the temple was going to be destroyed?
It had already happened. The best kind of prophesy.
RobDegraves: I could list past prophecies, but I'm already aware of the controversies surrounding their time of writing, so why bother? It seems much better to me to foretell, with the Bible as my backdrop, FUTURE EVENTS...this is exactly what I'm doing, whether you realize it or not. In case you're genuinely not familiar with my modus operandi, I feel ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to convince any of you of anything. Instead, my desire is always to "plant" or "water"...only God Himself can give the increase. REGARDING THE FUTURE, I've plainly stated, numerous times, what you can expect to see in regards to the Middle East/Jerusalem/The Papacy/The United States. You(individually or collectively) are certainly free to critique/criticize/mock/deride/whatever every single word that I type, if you so desire. Quite frankly, your response AT THIS TIME is rather inconsequential to me. My participation in this thread is PRIMARILY intended to accurately describe what the Bible predicts concerning the last days. Whether you're aware of it or not, or whether you care about it or not, MUCH of what "mainstream Christianity" professes concerning "the last days" is in direct opposition to the scriptures. Although every word that I type may indeed fall upon deaf ears, as long as I have an "open door", I'll care enough for my fellow man to at least inform him of what is ACTUALLY contained within the pages of scripture. In other words, I'm simply after UNDERSTANDING...not necessarily AGREEMENT. As I said, you're free to respond how ever you see fit. Take care.
I understand Hamlet.
Doesn't make it true.
When do you think Israel will allow Jews full access to the Temple Mount?
They control it already.
Doesn't make it true.
When do you think Israel will allow Jews full access to the Temple Mount?
They control it already.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I understand Hamlet.
Doesn't make it true.
buttershug: Yes, and...? What exactly is your problem, anyway? Did I say that understanding Biblical prophecies concerning the last days AUTOMATICALLY makes them true? Of course, I did not. Seems to me that if you're going to test the accuracy of predictions/prophecies, then the logical thing to do would be to actually UNDERSTAND the predictions/prophecies themselves FIRST. That is all that I seek to accomplish here. Time will tell whether or not the predictions/prophecies are true.
Doesn't make it true.
buttershug: Yes, and...? What exactly is your problem, anyway? Did I say that understanding Biblical prophecies concerning the last days AUTOMATICALLY makes them true? Of course, I did not. Seems to me that if you're going to test the accuracy of predictions/prophecies, then the logical thing to do would be to actually UNDERSTAND the predictions/prophecies themselves FIRST. That is all that I seek to accomplish here. Time will tell whether or not the predictions/prophecies are true.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
When do you think Israel will allow Jews full access to the Temple Mount?
They control it already.
Although they control it, there is the sticky issue of the Dome of the Rock that stands where the rebuilt temple would need to stand. Anyhow, on this particular thread, although I will answer as many questions as I possibly can, I plan on "leading" in this particular "dance". In other words, rather than get sidetracked with too many things, I hope to, once again, explain exactly who constitutes being "a Jew", Biblically speaking, and exactly to whom the Bible declares that the land of Israel actually belongs. Alongside of this, I also plan to, once again, document how much of the politics of places such as the United States of America and Israel are controlled by a misinterpretation of what the scriptures actually teach. In other words, I hope to exonerate God/Jesus from much of what is supposedly carried out in Their Names(for those few who might be fair minded on this forum). Tall task, but I'm up to it.
They control it already.
Although they control it, there is the sticky issue of the Dome of the Rock that stands where the rebuilt temple would need to stand. Anyhow, on this particular thread, although I will answer as many questions as I possibly can, I plan on "leading" in this particular "dance". In other words, rather than get sidetracked with too many things, I hope to, once again, explain exactly who constitutes being "a Jew", Biblically speaking, and exactly to whom the Bible declares that the land of Israel actually belongs. Alongside of this, I also plan to, once again, document how much of the politics of places such as the United States of America and Israel are controlled by a misinterpretation of what the scriptures actually teach. In other words, I hope to exonerate God/Jesus from much of what is supposedly carried out in Their Names(for those few who might be fair minded on this forum). Tall task, but I'm up to it.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+May 24 2009, 02:48 PM)
I was in fact referring to the exact point you just made.
Viking was an activity... going vikingr... to join you in anglicizing the word. It specifically referred to a raid or expedition. It is often used to described all the Norse of that period and is almost never used by historians in academic works other than in those specific instances.
However, it is a popular term so I often use it so that my audience know what I am talking about without a long explanation. In history books meant mostly for a general audience, the word is also quite useful to describe the time period where the various Norse groups exploded across the world, raiding, trading and ... well.. vikinging.
Not to be pedantic (Well, OK, this is purely to be pedantic) but the 'vikingr' (non anglicized spelling) were those who went viking, and 'viking' was the activity engaged in by the vikingr. The root word was vik, which referred to a stream or creek or bay (up which the viking longships were notoriously able to sail).
Wikipedia - Viking Etymology
But now I understand what your point was: The vast majority of Scandinavians were not vikingr, and the culture and religion were not exclusive to the vikingr, but to all of the Scandinavian population. Modern usages sees the word 'viking' being used to refer to the entire culture and anything associated with that culture, when that is not factually accurate, and that is a perfect analogy to the use of dark ages (or at least as perfect as anything can be).
Viking was an activity... going vikingr... to join you in anglicizing the word. It specifically referred to a raid or expedition. It is often used to described all the Norse of that period and is almost never used by historians in academic works other than in those specific instances.
However, it is a popular term so I often use it so that my audience know what I am talking about without a long explanation. In history books meant mostly for a general audience, the word is also quite useful to describe the time period where the various Norse groups exploded across the world, raiding, trading and ... well.. vikinging.
Not to be pedantic (Well, OK, this is purely to be pedantic) but the 'vikingr' (non anglicized spelling) were those who went viking, and 'viking' was the activity engaged in by the vikingr. The root word was vik, which referred to a stream or creek or bay (up which the viking longships were notoriously able to sail).
Wikipedia - Viking Etymology
But now I understand what your point was: The vast majority of Scandinavians were not vikingr, and the culture and religion were not exclusive to the vikingr, but to all of the Scandinavian population. Modern usages sees the word 'viking' being used to refer to the entire culture and anything associated with that culture, when that is not factually accurate, and that is a perfect analogy to the use of dark ages (or at least as perfect as anything can be).
QUOTE (newguy+)
I just want to make sure that I'm understanding your comment before I further address it. In my example, I was primarily(other situations would qualify) referring to those who believe/profess to believe that Jesus Christ was/is God incarnate. Are we speaking about the same group of individuals?
When I say 'Christians', I am referring to those who hold Jesus to be either the embodiment of God on earth, or the last and most important prophet in the Abrahamic tradition.
No. Well, not exactly, anyways. Most Christians consider Jesus to have been a special case. I am referring to individuals in the modern period.
No. Well, not exactly, anyways. Most Christians consider Jesus to have been a special case. I am referring to individuals in the modern period.
I'm not making a big deal out of your comments...I just want to make sure that I'm understanding you properly before proceeding. Thanks for any further clarification.
My point is that no-one delusional enough to think of himself as the physical manifestation of God is likely enough to ascend through the Catholic hierarchy to the point of being chosen as a Pope to give the possibility any serious consideration.
Since a non-delusional person might also make such a proclamation in order to take advantage of those who would believe it, I also addresses and dismissed the possibility that a pope would publicly lie about believing himself to be God incarnate.
The odds of any pope declaring himself to be God as so astronomically low that I consider any suggestion of it to be pretty ridiculous.
When I say 'Christians', I am referring to those who hold Jesus to be either the embodiment of God on earth, or the last and most important prophet in the Abrahamic tradition.
QUOTE
If we are, then is it safe to assume that you're claiming that all individuals who hold to this belief are either delusional or attempting to capitalize on others' delusions?
No. Well, not exactly, anyways. Most Christians consider Jesus to have been a special case. I am referring to individuals in the modern period.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If we are, then is it safe to assume that you're claiming that all individuals who hold to this belief are either delusional or attempting to capitalize on others' delusions? |
No. Well, not exactly, anyways. Most Christians consider Jesus to have been a special case. I am referring to individuals in the modern period.
I'm not making a big deal out of your comments...I just want to make sure that I'm understanding you properly before proceeding. Thanks for any further clarification.
My point is that no-one delusional enough to think of himself as the physical manifestation of God is likely enough to ascend through the Catholic hierarchy to the point of being chosen as a Pope to give the possibility any serious consideration.
Since a non-delusional person might also make such a proclamation in order to take advantage of those who would believe it, I also addresses and dismissed the possibility that a pope would publicly lie about believing himself to be God incarnate.
The odds of any pope declaring himself to be God as so astronomically low that I consider any suggestion of it to be pretty ridiculous.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
The odds of any pope declaring himself to be God as so astronomically low that I consider any suggestion of it to be pretty ridiculous.
MjolnirPants: Thanks for all of your clarifications. Although I'll probably comment on some of your other statements later, I wanted to quickly comment on this one. Actually, in a sense, I'm very glad that you hold to this position. Since you seem to consider the odds of this happening "astronomically low", I trust that it could potentially have a greater impact upon you when it comes to pass. I'll talk to you more later...
MjolnirPants: Thanks for all of your clarifications. Although I'll probably comment on some of your other statements later, I wanted to quickly comment on this one. Actually, in a sense, I'm very glad that you hold to this position. Since you seem to consider the odds of this happening "astronomically low", I trust that it could potentially have a greater impact upon you when it comes to pass. I'll talk to you more later...
QUOTE (newguy+May 24 2009, 07:01 PM)
MjolnirPants: Thanks for all of your clarifications. Although I'll probably comment on some of your other statements later, I wanted to quickly comment on this one. Actually, in a sense, I'm very glad that you hold to this position. Since you seem to consider the odds of this happening "astronomically low", I trust that it could potentially have a greater impact upon you when it comes to pass. I'll talk to you more later...
I should point out that I (and anyone else who unambiguously embraces logic, reason and rationality) also find your unshakable belief in these predictions to be equally ridiculous.
I should point out that I (and anyone else who unambiguously embraces logic, reason and rationality) also find your unshakable belief in these predictions to be equally ridiculous.
QUOTE (newguy+May 25 2009, 12:01 AM)
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
The odds of any pope declaring himself to be God as so astronomically low that I consider any suggestion of it to be pretty ridiculous.
MjolnirPants: Thanks for all of your clarifications. Although I'll probably comment on some of your other statements later, I wanted to quickly comment on this one. Actually, in a sense, I'm very glad that you hold to this position. Since you seem to consider the odds of this happening "astronomically low", I trust that it could potentially have a greater impact upon you when it comes to pass. I'll talk to you more later...
Does the Pope have to declare himself God, or how close to that would it have to be?
What if he said God had given him "power of attorney"? (not that exactly but the papal equivalent.
Although if he did that I'm sure world wide there would be more than a few perturbed. Because they would be thinking, "didn't he have it before?"
Do you think it will be this Pope or the next one.
This Pope is second last on St. Malachy's list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
MjolnirPants: Thanks for all of your clarifications. Although I'll probably comment on some of your other statements later, I wanted to quickly comment on this one. Actually, in a sense, I'm very glad that you hold to this position. Since you seem to consider the odds of this happening "astronomically low", I trust that it could potentially have a greater impact upon you when it comes to pass. I'll talk to you more later...
Does the Pope have to declare himself God, or how close to that would it have to be?
What if he said God had given him "power of attorney"? (not that exactly but the papal equivalent.
Although if he did that I'm sure world wide there would be more than a few perturbed. Because they would be thinking, "didn't he have it before?"
Do you think it will be this Pope or the next one.
This Pope is second last on St. Malachy's list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
I should point out that I (and anyone else who unambiguously embraces logic, reason and rationality) also find your unshakable belief in these predictions to be equally ridiculous.
MjolnirPants: Really? What's so "ridiculous" about the following:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type...oq=temple+mount
If you take the time to watch this YouTube clip, then you'll at least see some documentation that the cornerstones for the third Jewish temple have already been cut. In fact, just a few days ago, on May 21st, 2009, the Temple Mount Faithful people were planning on transporting a 13 ton cornerstone throughout the Jerusalem Day parade. Here's an excerpt:
The marchers will be led by a truck carrying the holy cornerstone for the Third Temple. The cornerstone, weighing 13 tons, will be carried on the back of the truck, underneath a chuppah, and decorated with Israeli flags, the Star of David and Temple flags. Silver trumpets reconstructed for future worship in the Third Temple will be blown throughout the march.
On the way to the Temple Mount, the marchers will stop in front of the United States Consulate. Here they will present whatever the G‑d of Israel puts onto their hearts as a stance against the growing pressure from US President Barack Obama. They will warn him about his desire to divide the Land of Israel in order to establish a foreign, terror-filled Arab state inside the sovereign Land of Israel. (This land was given by G‑d to the Jewish people alone in an eternal covenant.) The marchers will also warn him concerning his pressure to stop Jewish settlement of the Land and to remove the settlements in Judea and Samaria. They will call out to President Obama: "Take your hands off the Land of the G‑d and the people of Israel!" They will warn him of the divine judgment from G‑d as prophesied by the Prophet Joel: "For behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down in the valley of Jehosophat, and will enter into judgment with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and have divided up my land" (Joel 4:2).
You can read the entire article here:
http://www.templemountfaithful.org/Events/...alemDay2009.htm
Also, if you bother to watch the YouTube clip that I provided, you'll also see documentation of how some of the vessels needed to restart Temple sacrifices have already been made. There's plenty of other documentation available, if you or anyone else are interested in seeing it.
Additionally, the last two Popes have made historic visits to Jerusalem, have they not? Well, I have much more to say later...that ought to hold you over for a while. Take care.
MjolnirPants: Really? What's so "ridiculous" about the following:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type...oq=temple+mount
If you take the time to watch this YouTube clip, then you'll at least see some documentation that the cornerstones for the third Jewish temple have already been cut. In fact, just a few days ago, on May 21st, 2009, the Temple Mount Faithful people were planning on transporting a 13 ton cornerstone throughout the Jerusalem Day parade. Here's an excerpt:
The marchers will be led by a truck carrying the holy cornerstone for the Third Temple. The cornerstone, weighing 13 tons, will be carried on the back of the truck, underneath a chuppah, and decorated with Israeli flags, the Star of David and Temple flags. Silver trumpets reconstructed for future worship in the Third Temple will be blown throughout the march.
On the way to the Temple Mount, the marchers will stop in front of the United States Consulate. Here they will present whatever the G‑d of Israel puts onto their hearts as a stance against the growing pressure from US President Barack Obama. They will warn him about his desire to divide the Land of Israel in order to establish a foreign, terror-filled Arab state inside the sovereign Land of Israel. (This land was given by G‑d to the Jewish people alone in an eternal covenant.) The marchers will also warn him concerning his pressure to stop Jewish settlement of the Land and to remove the settlements in Judea and Samaria. They will call out to President Obama: "Take your hands off the Land of the G‑d and the people of Israel!" They will warn him of the divine judgment from G‑d as prophesied by the Prophet Joel: "For behold, in those days, and in that time, when I shall bring back the captivity of Judah and Jerusalem, I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down in the valley of Jehosophat, and will enter into judgment with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and have divided up my land" (Joel 4:2).
You can read the entire article here:
http://www.templemountfaithful.org/Events/...alemDay2009.htm
Also, if you bother to watch the YouTube clip that I provided, you'll also see documentation of how some of the vessels needed to restart Temple sacrifices have already been made. There's plenty of other documentation available, if you or anyone else are interested in seeing it.
Additionally, the last two Popes have made historic visits to Jerusalem, have they not? Well, I have much more to say later...that ought to hold you over for a while. Take care.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Does the Pope have to declare himself God, or how close to that would it have to be?
What if he said God had given him "power of attorney"? (not that exactly but the papal equivalent.
Although if he did that I'm sure world wide there would be more than a few perturbed. Because they would be thinking, "didn't he have it before?"
buttershug: As I've plainly stated before, the literal fulfillment of the antichrist will come in the form of a Pope. I'll give you a little Biblical background that ought to answer your question as to exactly whom the Pope will claim to be.
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."(Matthew 1:1)
That, my friend, is the very first verse of the New Testament and it refers to Jesus Christ as both the "son of David" and the "son of Abraham". As the "son of David", Jesus Christ was promised to have an everlasting kingdom and to sit on the throne of David forever. As the "son" or "seed of Abraham", Jesus Christ was promised to inherit "the promised land" or the land of Israel at His second coming. There are also prophecies, such as the one that follows, that foretell of the Lord reigning over the earth from a temple(the temple was known as the house of the LORD) in Jerusalem:
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."(Isaiah 2:2-4)
Since the CHRIST is promised to reign from David's throne in a temple in Jerusalem, the ANTICHRIST covets this seat of power and will actually hold it for a very short period of time. The Papacy already made a push for Jerusalem in the past(Crusades, anyone?) and they will make another push for it some time soon. This time, however, they will come as ambassadors of "peace"(in quotes, deliberately) and this time they will suceed in their quest, albeit for a short period of time. Anyhow, the CHRIST or the MESSIAH certainly holds the idea of Divinity in the minds of many. The Pope will most definitely claim to be Divine. In essence, what I'm saying is this:
Whereas Christ is the embodiment of God, the antichrist will basically be the embodiment of Satan. As such, Satan is really the one who desires to be worshipped AS GOD. I'm leaving myself NO loopholes.
No.. it's a take off of the name Mjolnir Pants. Mjolnir was a hammer.
I await your answer to my challenge. I already know the outcome... maybe I am a prophet too.
What if he said God had given him "power of attorney"? (not that exactly but the papal equivalent.
Although if he did that I'm sure world wide there would be more than a few perturbed. Because they would be thinking, "didn't he have it before?"
buttershug: As I've plainly stated before, the literal fulfillment of the antichrist will come in the form of a Pope. I'll give you a little Biblical background that ought to answer your question as to exactly whom the Pope will claim to be.
"The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."(Matthew 1:1)
That, my friend, is the very first verse of the New Testament and it refers to Jesus Christ as both the "son of David" and the "son of Abraham". As the "son of David", Jesus Christ was promised to have an everlasting kingdom and to sit on the throne of David forever. As the "son" or "seed of Abraham", Jesus Christ was promised to inherit "the promised land" or the land of Israel at His second coming. There are also prophecies, such as the one that follows, that foretell of the Lord reigning over the earth from a temple(the temple was known as the house of the LORD) in Jerusalem:
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."(Isaiah 2:2-4)
Since the CHRIST is promised to reign from David's throne in a temple in Jerusalem, the ANTICHRIST covets this seat of power and will actually hold it for a very short period of time. The Papacy already made a push for Jerusalem in the past(Crusades, anyone?) and they will make another push for it some time soon. This time, however, they will come as ambassadors of "peace"(in quotes, deliberately) and this time they will suceed in their quest, albeit for a short period of time. Anyhow, the CHRIST or the MESSIAH certainly holds the idea of Divinity in the minds of many. The Pope will most definitely claim to be Divine. In essence, what I'm saying is this:
Whereas Christ is the embodiment of God, the antichrist will basically be the embodiment of Satan. As such, Satan is really the one who desires to be worshipped AS GOD. I'm leaving myself NO loopholes.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Do you think it will be this Pope or the next one.
This Pope is second last on St. Malachy's list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
I'm quite familiar with Malachy's prophecy. When this last Pope got elected, it seems that was all that I heard about on the news. Do I think it will be this Pope? No, I do not. It will be whichever Pope actually brokers the "peace" agreement with Israel that results in the rebuilding of their temple. Could it be the next Pope? With the way that things are accelerating, it's a possibility.
P.S. I might as well "suggest" the following. It would seem to me that the antichrist would need to be a natural born Jew. If such is indeed the case(and I personally believe that it is), then I would be on the lookout for a Jewish Pope. That ought to decrease MjolnirPant's odds quite a bit...
P.P.S. Actually, there was a Jewish born cardinal who was the second favorite to become Pope in the last Papal election. His name was(he's now deceased) Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger. You can read about his death in August of 2007 here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/o...icle2223596.ece
Good night.
This Pope is second last on St. Malachy's list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
I'm quite familiar with Malachy's prophecy. When this last Pope got elected, it seems that was all that I heard about on the news. Do I think it will be this Pope? No, I do not. It will be whichever Pope actually brokers the "peace" agreement with Israel that results in the rebuilding of their temple. Could it be the next Pope? With the way that things are accelerating, it's a possibility.
P.S. I might as well "suggest" the following. It would seem to me that the antichrist would need to be a natural born Jew. If such is indeed the case(and I personally believe that it is), then I would be on the lookout for a Jewish Pope. That ought to decrease MjolnirPant's odds quite a bit...
P.P.S. Actually, there was a Jewish born cardinal who was the second favorite to become Pope in the last Papal election. His name was(he's now deceased) Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger. You can read about his death in August of 2007 here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/o...icle2223596.ece
Good night.
Hey Newguy
I take it then that you refuse to answer my challenge?
In that case, all that you have to say is nothing but wind and your own ego talking.
I take it then that you refuse to answer my challenge?
In that case, all that you have to say is nothing but wind and your own ego talking.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
In that case, all that you have to say is nothing but wind and your own ego talking.
RobDegraves: We'll see about that, won't we? Good night.
RobDegraves: We'll see about that, won't we? Good night.
QUOTE (newguy+May 25 2009, 02:13 AM)
Whereas Christ is the embodiment of God, the antichrist will basically be the embodiment of Satan. As such, Satan is really the one who desires to be worshipped AS GOD. I'm leaving myself NO loopholes.
Actually it's hammertrousers that I'm disagreeing with.
I was just wondering what would have to be to make the prophesy true.
I just remembered on a Papal visit to Toronto, I heard they used mainly non-Catholic police for security because it was felt they would be too in awe of his Holiness.
If a Pope declared himself God I think worldwide more Catholics would say "see, told ya so" than want to throw him out.
Actually it's hammertrousers that I'm disagreeing with.
I was just wondering what would have to be to make the prophesy true.
I just remembered on a Papal visit to Toronto, I heard they used mainly non-Catholic police for security because it was felt they would be too in awe of his Holiness.
If a Pope declared himself God I think worldwide more Catholics would say "see, told ya so" than want to throw him out.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I just remembered on a Papal visit to Toronto, I heard they used mainly non-Catholic police for security because it was felt they would be too in awe of his Holiness.
buttershug: Here's a link to a short video clip of the Popemobile that they assembled for the Pope's visit to Toronto:
http://archives.cbc.ca/society/religion_sp...ity/clips/1179/
If you click where it says "Did you know?" above and to the right of the video clip, then you will see where it confirms what you stated about the non-Catholic police officers who were assigned to protect the Pope. Why the hell does the Pope need a bullet-proof Popemobile and police escorts? I thought he was supposed to be guaranteed eternal life? Seems like a chickensh*t to me. Oh, well. This time I'm really going to bed. Good night.
P.S. "Hammertrousers"??? I guess that was some sort of offtake of my use of the word "loopholes"???
buttershug: Here's a link to a short video clip of the Popemobile that they assembled for the Pope's visit to Toronto:
http://archives.cbc.ca/society/religion_sp...ity/clips/1179/
If you click where it says "Did you know?" above and to the right of the video clip, then you will see where it confirms what you stated about the non-Catholic police officers who were assigned to protect the Pope. Why the hell does the Pope need a bullet-proof Popemobile and police escorts? I thought he was supposed to be guaranteed eternal life? Seems like a chickensh*t to me. Oh, well. This time I'm really going to bed. Good night.
P.S. "Hammertrousers"??? I guess that was some sort of offtake of my use of the word "loopholes"???
QUOTE
P.S. "Hammertrousers"??? I guess that was some sort of offtake of my use of the word "loopholes"???
No.. it's a take off of the name Mjolnir Pants. Mjolnir was a hammer.
I await your answer to my challenge. I already know the outcome... maybe I am a prophet too.
QUOTE (newguy+May 24 2009, 08:34 PM)
MjolnirPants: Really? What's so "ridiculous" about the following:
Well, in answer to your question:
The whole idea, everyone involved, and you for apparently thinking that would effect my view of the matter in any way.
By a private religious group dedicated to seeing the temple rebuilt, an extremely controversial and unlikely occurrence.
By a private religious group dedicated to seeing the temple rebuilt, an extremely controversial and unlikely occurrence.
There's plenty of other documentation available, if you or anyone else are interested in seeing it.
Documentation that doesn't do a damn thing to support your claims. All it does is show that you're not unique in your views.
So have I. Does that make me God?
If so, then I command you to stop placing so much stock in a three-to-five-times translated, thousand times copies account of what scientifically and philosophically ignorant people may or may not have said, done and seen two to six thousand years ago, and start using the brain I gave you to think for yourself. Medamnit, I withheld all evidence of my existence so you humans would live like this life is the only one you got, and I gave you that damn book to help you maintain thoughtful and introspective lives, I didn't expect you to take everything in it literally, ya friggan mo's. I swear to Myself I'm gonna start another friggan flood if you don't shape up.
So have I. Does that make me God?
If so, then I command you to stop placing so much stock in a three-to-five-times translated, thousand times copies account of what scientifically and philosophically ignorant people may or may not have said, done and seen two to six thousand years ago, and start using the brain I gave you to think for yourself. Medamnit, I withheld all evidence of my existence so you humans would live like this life is the only one you got, and I gave you that damn book to help you maintain thoughtful and introspective lives, I didn't expect you to take everything in it literally, ya friggan mo's. I swear to Myself I'm gonna start another friggan flood if you don't shape up.
If a Pope declared himself God I think worldwide more Catholics would say "see, told ya so" than want to throw him out.
I've still got my money on most Catholics expressing outrage that such heretical views could be espoused by the supposed mouthpiece of God.
Well, in answer to your question:
The whole idea, everyone involved, and you for apparently thinking that would effect my view of the matter in any way.
QUOTE
If you take the time to watch this YouTube clip, then you'll at least see some documentation that the cornerstones for the third Jewish temple have already been cut.
By a private religious group dedicated to seeing the temple rebuilt, an extremely controversial and unlikely occurrence.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you take the time to watch this YouTube clip, then you'll at least see some documentation that the cornerstones for the third Jewish temple have already been cut. |
By a private religious group dedicated to seeing the temple rebuilt, an extremely controversial and unlikely occurrence.
There's plenty of other documentation available, if you or anyone else are interested in seeing it.
Documentation that doesn't do a damn thing to support your claims. All it does is show that you're not unique in your views.
QUOTE
Additionally, the last two Popes have made historic visits to Jerusalem, have they not?
So have I. Does that make me God?
If so, then I command you to stop placing so much stock in a three-to-five-times translated, thousand times copies account of what scientifically and philosophically ignorant people may or may not have said, done and seen two to six thousand years ago, and start using the brain I gave you to think for yourself. Medamnit, I withheld all evidence of my existence so you humans would live like this life is the only one you got, and I gave you that damn book to help you maintain thoughtful and introspective lives, I didn't expect you to take everything in it literally, ya friggan mo's. I swear to Myself I'm gonna start another friggan flood if you don't shape up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Additionally, the last two Popes have made historic visits to Jerusalem, have they not? |
So have I. Does that make me God?
If so, then I command you to stop placing so much stock in a three-to-five-times translated, thousand times copies account of what scientifically and philosophically ignorant people may or may not have said, done and seen two to six thousand years ago, and start using the brain I gave you to think for yourself. Medamnit, I withheld all evidence of my existence so you humans would live like this life is the only one you got, and I gave you that damn book to help you maintain thoughtful and introspective lives, I didn't expect you to take everything in it literally, ya friggan mo's. I swear to Myself I'm gonna start another friggan flood if you don't shape up.
If a Pope declared himself God I think worldwide more Catholics would say "see, told ya so" than want to throw him out.
I've still got my money on most Catholics expressing outrage that such heretical views could be espoused by the supposed mouthpiece of God.
QUOTE (newguy+)
P.S. "Hammertrousers"??? I guess that was some sort of offtake of my use of the word "loopholes"???
Sigh... In case you missed buttershug's last post...
Mjolnir: noun
The mythological hammer of Thor, used as a weapon against the Jotuns, heard as thunder by humans.
Also Known As: Thor's Hammer.
Pants: Synonymous with "trousers."
Therefore: Hammertrousers = MjolnirPants
Sigh... In case you missed buttershug's last post...
Mjolnir: noun
The mythological hammer of Thor, used as a weapon against the Jotuns, heard as thunder by humans.
Also Known As: Thor's Hammer.
Pants: Synonymous with "trousers."
Therefore: Hammertrousers = MjolnirPants
QUOTE (newguy+)
P.S. "Hammertrousers"??? I guess that was some sort of offtake of my use of the word "loopholes"???
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
No.. it's a take off of the name Mjolnir Pants. Mjolnir was a hammer.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Sigh... In case you missed buttershug's last post...
Mjolnir: noun
The mythological hammer of Thor, used as a weapon against the Jotuns, heard as thunder by humans.
Also Known As: Thor's Hammer.
Pants: Synonymous with "trousers."
Therefore: Hammertrousers = MjolnirPants
RobDegraves/MjolnirPants: LOL! Sorry, I missed that one. I probably should have gone to bed a little earlier than I did. Incidentally, "hammer trousers"(Google it) do actually exist. Anyhow, I never claimed to be infallible...maybe you both had me confused with the Pope?
Mjolnir: noun
The mythological hammer of Thor, used as a weapon against the Jotuns, heard as thunder by humans.
Also Known As: Thor's Hammer.
Pants: Synonymous with "trousers."
Therefore: Hammertrousers = MjolnirPants
RobDegraves/MjolnirPants: LOL! Sorry, I missed that one. I probably should have gone to bed a little earlier than I did. Incidentally, "hammer trousers"(Google it) do actually exist. Anyhow, I never claimed to be infallible...maybe you both had me confused with the Pope?
QUOTE (newguy+May 25 2009, 06:46 AM)
RobDegraves/MjolnirPants: LOL! Sorry, I missed that one. I probably should have gone to bed a little earlier than I did. Incidentally, "hammer trousers"(Google it) do actually exist. Anyhow, I never claimed to be infallible...maybe you both had me confused with the Pope?
It's not that big of a deal. I just figured the meaning of my name was common knowledge on this board.
It's not that big of a deal. I just figured the meaning of my name was common knowledge on this board.
>>> David Koresh may never have legally been David Koresh. <<<
I still don't know the answer to this. However last Sabbath, the name Howell did come back to me. It is a family name on my mother's side.
"Vernon" would have eluded my grasp for some time I fear. Vernon Howell had a son, interestingly named Cyrus. Cyrus is my answer to the challenge of RobDegraves, an ignoramus of prophecy. The former Shah of Iran saw himself as a Cyrus successor, I learned yesterday{i.e. Sunday} from Malachi, Martin.
>>> C. vicar of christ; <<<
Unlike, Cyrus above, Vicar of Christ is not the index of _The Jesuits_.
D. Black Pope; page 31------> Vicar of Christ, page 32-3, 219.
The love - hate relationship is rather interesting(as a subtext to ruling parties(yet to form as a party of ten(unless you count the WEU)))...
Revelation 17:16b-7 NIV
They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled.
This specific "beast" or kingdom "came up out of the earth" or was "discovered" or "created" at a specific time(there are indicators within this text which historically help us to understand the TIMELINE involved). This "beast" was/is depicted as looking "like a lamb"(claimed to be Christian),
Tell that do someone who has actually published a book*,
"In the first three decades after the Vatican Council, during the reign of Leo XIII, the ultramontanist Church waxed and grew strong. There was an impression of restoration; ecclesiastical Rome flourished with new academic and administrative institutions; Catholic missions penetrated to the farthest corners of the earth. There was a bracing sense of loyalty, obedience, fervor. The revival o the Christian philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, or at least a version of it, provided the perception of a bastion against modern ideas and a defense of papal authority. By the first decade of the twentieth century, however, the concept of the limits of papal inerrancy and primacy was becoming blurred. A legal and bureaucratic instrument had transformed the dogma into an ideology of papal power unprecedented in the long history of the Church of Rome."
E. Anti-Modernist Oath Lamentabili and Pascendi
MrB.
*or can actually prove...
UBI PETRUS, IBI ECCLESIA - Where Peter is, there is the Church.
- St. Ambrose - The Vicar of Christ idea seats him in Rome. Jerusalem is an extension too far.
Well... let's look at the actual ignoramus shall we.
Apart from the fact that you write much like someone muttering to himself without any care for comprehension, your answer to my challenge is pretty easily dismissed.
You are apparently talking about the prophesies concerning Cyrus The Great contained in the Book Of Isaiah. I won't bother going over the details but here are a few things you might not have noticed.
1. The prophecy concerning Cyrus occurs at chapter 45:1 in the Book.
2. There is a big difference between chapters 1 to 40 and the chapters 40 to 66.
3. In chapters 40 to 66, Isaiah's name is suddenly no longer mentioned as the author... at all.
4. There is a significant change in mood and style from 40 to 66. The first chapters prophecy doom and judgement, while the chapters after 40 speak of the exile as though it had already happened.
So... most historians consider chapters 40 to 66 to have been written a fairly long time after the first set.
Do you know how they knew that Cyrus would restore the Jews?
It had already happened. That's not prophecy, it's just memory.
I still don't know the answer to this. However last Sabbath, the name Howell did come back to me. It is a family name on my mother's side.
"Vernon" would have eluded my grasp for some time I fear. Vernon Howell had a son, interestingly named Cyrus. Cyrus is my answer to the challenge of RobDegraves, an ignoramus of prophecy. The former Shah of Iran saw himself as a Cyrus successor, I learned yesterday{i.e. Sunday} from Malachi, Martin.
>>> C. vicar of christ; <<<
Unlike, Cyrus above, Vicar of Christ is not the index of _The Jesuits_.
D. Black Pope; page 31------> Vicar of Christ, page 32-3, 219.
The love - hate relationship is rather interesting(as a subtext to ruling parties(yet to form as a party of ten(unless you count the WEU)))...
Revelation 17:16b-7 NIV
QUOTE
They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled. |
This specific "beast" or kingdom "came up out of the earth" or was "discovered" or "created" at a specific time(there are indicators within this text which historically help us to understand the TIMELINE involved). This "beast" was/is depicted as looking "like a lamb"(claimed to be Christian),
I don't get the connection.
Page 212{which helps date Martin's book twenty-two years ago}:
"We may find it hard in our world of two huge superpowers, the USA and the USSR, to imagine that far-off world of the 1700s. But the fulcrum of world wealth and power and culture lay within that ancient heartland of Christian Europe—precisely those areas domnated by 'the family of the brothers Bourbon'"
The USA, in my estimation, is one of the twelve stars in Revelation 12.
I don't see us attacking Iran. That possiblity was knocked out for now when no current weapons of mass destruction were found in neighbor Iraq. However, if the current president of Iran gets re-elected this year, all bets are off. Israel may not tell America what it is going to do.
MrB.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/comm/SatRev/NonConf1871.html
"If you begin to endow religious systems in the form of denominational schools you will be compelled on the ground of civil justice and political equality to endow Ultramontane Romanism, and even atheistical philosophy and no religions; and that in my judgment is an evil so great that it is suicidal for a State to offer them pecuniary support. Whence it follows that you ought to abandon the endowment of all denominational schools, so that on the one hand the State may take no damage from pernicious teaching, and on the other hand that the supporters of such teaching may not have just reason to complain of special disabilities."
Science is cursed and blessed to be the handmaiden of religion.
Page 212{which helps date Martin's book twenty-two years ago}:
"We may find it hard in our world of two huge superpowers, the USA and the USSR, to imagine that far-off world of the 1700s. But the fulcrum of world wealth and power and culture lay within that ancient heartland of Christian Europe—precisely those areas domnated by 'the family of the brothers Bourbon'"
The USA, in my estimation, is one of the twelve stars in Revelation 12.
I don't see us attacking Iran. That possiblity was knocked out for now when no current weapons of mass destruction were found in neighbor Iraq. However, if the current president of Iran gets re-elected this year, all bets are off. Israel may not tell America what it is going to do.
MrB.
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/comm/SatRev/NonConf1871.html
"If you begin to endow religious systems in the form of denominational schools you will be compelled on the ground of civil justice and political equality to endow Ultramontane Romanism, and even atheistical philosophy and no religions; and that in my judgment is an evil so great that it is suicidal for a State to offer them pecuniary support. Whence it follows that you ought to abandon the endowment of all denominational schools, so that on the one hand the State may take no damage from pernicious teaching, and on the other hand that the supporters of such teaching may not have just reason to complain of special disabilities."
Science is cursed and blessed to be the handmaiden of religion.
QUOTE
If that was the case, the stage has been set for nearly a millennium, when it was discussed by Theodore Abu Qurrah in the 9th century.
There has been some pretty crazy popes over the years, and so far none of them has tried to say they were God incarnate because...
There has been some pretty crazy popes over the years, and so far none of them has tried to say they were God incarnate because...
Tell that do someone who has actually published a book*,
"In the first three decades after the Vatican Council, during the reign of Leo XIII, the ultramontanist Church waxed and grew strong. There was an impression of restoration; ecclesiastical Rome flourished with new academic and administrative institutions; Catholic missions penetrated to the farthest corners of the earth. There was a bracing sense of loyalty, obedience, fervor. The revival o the Christian philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, or at least a version of it, provided the perception of a bastion against modern ideas and a defense of papal authority. By the first decade of the twentieth century, however, the concept of the limits of papal inerrancy and primacy was becoming blurred. A legal and bureaucratic instrument had transformed the dogma into an ideology of papal power unprecedented in the long history of the Church of Rome."
E. Anti-Modernist Oath Lamentabili and Pascendi
MrB.
*or can actually prove...
UBI PETRUS, IBI ECCLESIA - Where Peter is, there is the Church.
- St. Ambrose - The Vicar of Christ idea seats him in Rome. Jerusalem is an extension too far.
Results 1 - 3 of about 3 for "dogma into an ideology". (0.39 seconds)
Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII
A legal and bureaucratic instrument had transformed the dogma into an ideology
of papal power unprecedented in the long history of the Church of Rome. ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0140296271
So, to recap, A. seperate from the rest:
A. David Koresh
B. 1871 or the First Vatican Council & the horn that IS
C. Vicar of Christ
D. the Black Popes behind the White Popes
E. Anti-Modernist Oath in conjunction with the legal and bureaucratic instrument known as the Code of Canon Law as understood by John Cornwell in his 1999 work, isbnumber above.
Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII
A legal and bureaucratic instrument had transformed the dogma into an ideology
of papal power unprecedented in the long history of the Church of Rome. ...
books.google.com/books?isbn=0140296271
So, to recap, A. seperate from the rest:
A. David Koresh
B. 1871 or the First Vatican Council & the horn that IS
C. Vicar of Christ
D. the Black Popes behind the White Popes
E. Anti-Modernist Oath in conjunction with the legal and bureaucratic instrument known as the Code of Canon Law as understood by John Cornwell in his 1999 work, isbnumber above.
QUOTE
Cyrus is my answer to the challenge of RobDegraves, an ignoramus of prophecy.
Well... let's look at the actual ignoramus shall we.
Apart from the fact that you write much like someone muttering to himself without any care for comprehension, your answer to my challenge is pretty easily dismissed.
You are apparently talking about the prophesies concerning Cyrus The Great contained in the Book Of Isaiah. I won't bother going over the details but here are a few things you might not have noticed.
1. The prophecy concerning Cyrus occurs at chapter 45:1 in the Book.
2. There is a big difference between chapters 1 to 40 and the chapters 40 to 66.
3. In chapters 40 to 66, Isaiah's name is suddenly no longer mentioned as the author... at all.
4. There is a significant change in mood and style from 40 to 66. The first chapters prophecy doom and judgement, while the chapters after 40 speak of the exile as though it had already happened.
So... most historians consider chapters 40 to 66 to have been written a fairly long time after the first set.
Do you know how they knew that Cyrus would restore the Jews?
It had already happened. That's not prophecy, it's just memory.
>>> Well... let's look at the actual ignoramus shall we. <<<
Yes, we might have to have duelling experts on this. 
I have Edward J. Young (1907-68).
"...it is difficult to believe that a prophet with any understanding of the theocracy would address exiles in Babylon as Jerusalem, when the city was no longer the center of the theocracy. This would be a theocratical blunder of the first magnitude. Once the Temple had been destroyed and God's dwelling among men removed, the people could no longer appropriately be designated Jerusalem."
QUOTE
Jerusalem is an extension too far.
Yes, we might have to have duelling experts on this. I have Edward J. Young (1907-68).
"...it is difficult to believe that a prophet with any understanding of the theocracy would address exiles in Babylon as Jerusalem, when the city was no longer the center of the theocracy. This would be a theocratical blunder of the first magnitude. Once the Temple had been destroyed and God's dwelling among men removed, the people could no longer appropriately be designated Jerusalem."
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
You are apparently talking about the prophesies concerning Cyrus The Great contained in the Book Of Isaiah. I won't bother going over the details but here are a few things you might not have noticed.
1. The prophecy concerning Cyrus occurs at chapter 45:1 in the Book.
2. There is a big difference between chapters 1 to 40 and the chapters 40 to 66.
3. In chapters 40 to 66, Isaiah's name is suddenly no longer mentioned as the author... at all.
4. There is a significant change in mood and style from 40 to 66. The first chapters prophecy doom and judgement, while the chapters after 40 speak of the exile as though it had already happened.
So... most historians consider chapters 40 to 66 to have been written a fairly long time after the first set.
Do you know how they knew that Cyrus would restore the Jews?
It had already happened. That's not prophecy, it's just memory.
RobDegraves: Wishful thinking on your part.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_the_Boo..._Isaiah_written
Textual Evidence Re. Isaiah
Probably the first thing to note regarding those who would divide Isaiah into two parts is that it has no textual evidence whatsoever. No separate copies of Isaiah have been found written by different authors. The reason for the different styles is simply accounted for by the different themes of the relevant chapters.
Another reason for the splitting Isaiah up into two (some scholars even go to 3 or more) is that the presuppositions of the scholar do not include the possibility of predictive prophecy and so the prophetic section must have been written later after the prophecy has been fulfilled. Thus, as a number of such scholars readily admit, the result of their work is predetermined by their bias, even though they may state their results as being certain.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have effectively put an end to the arguments regarding the splitting up of Isaiah since in 100BC, over 500 years earlier than previous manuscript evidence, an entire Isaiah scroll was found - not split up in any way. However, the old presuppositional arguments first used in the 19th century still are used by some since it is too inconvenient to allow the Bible to be true and correct as written, even though the actual evidence points that way. Arguments which split up Isaiah are effectively arguments from silence, as well as arguments against the unanimous and actual evidence in favor of unity and the earlier date in the eighth century BC under the relevant Kings of Israel.
Presuppositional Arguments
One of the major reasons for placing the later section of Isaiah into a later period is a specific belief that predictive prophecy is impossible. Thus all of the predictions concerning Cyrus and the Babylonian captivity are placed into a later period, even though there is no indication in the text itself that this is necessary.
In fact, for this approach to be carried through consistently, it would have to be necessary to assert that when Isaiah was writing about the Messiah, Jesus Christ, in passages such as chapter 53, that this portion of Isaiah was therefore written in Jesus time. Such is of course preposterous.
Those who hold the deutero-Isaiah theory state that a period of one and a half centuries has been omitted and that the book recommenced then (obviously with a different author). One of the problems with this assertion is that the historical section which deals with Hezekiah particularly ends in the end of chapter 39. The rest of the book is predictive prophecy with no historical narratives whatever. It is not at all correct to suggest or assert that this is anything other than an assumption based on a presupposition as the text itself is clearly prophetic and not historical and contrasts sharply with the historical narrative that goes before.
There are no indications anywhere in the book of Isaiah that any long periods of time have been omitted. The preface in 1:1 indicates the Kings under which Isaiah prophesied. This gives a definite historical time-frame in which the book in its entirety would have been written. That the second portion of the book changes its focus from judgment to prophecy, especially comfort and consolation, says nothing about any necessity of postulating a later authorship.
Summary:
Isaiah's long ministry went from 740 to 680 BC and his prophecies were undoubtedly from this period. There is no valid reason to doubt the authenticity of the entire work, or even of any part of it, nor is there any valid evidence that it was written by more than one author.
Additionally, the writers of the New Testament certainly didn't share your viewpoint. For example:
"For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."(Matthew 3:3)
"Esaias" is Isaiah and Matthew QUOTED HIM from ISAIAH CHAPTER 40.
In case you don't believe that "Esaias" is Isaiah, here is another place where Matthew quoted him:
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."(Matthew 4:14-16)
Here, Matthew is quoting "Esais" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 9. Apparently, Matthew did NOT agree with your unsupported claim of two different authors of the book of Isaiah. Furthermore, Matthew said:
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses."(Matthew 8:17)
Here, Matthew quoted "Esaias" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 53.
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant whom I have chosen: my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice is the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."(Matthew 12:17-21)
Here, Matthew quoted "Esaias" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 42. Once again, to show that Matthew certainly did NOT hold to your unsupported two author theory:
"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."(Matthew 13:14-15)
Here, Matthew quoted "Esaias" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 6. There is no indication that Matthew saw these "Esaias'" as two different people. Enough of Matthew. Let's briefly take a look at Luke:
"And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him throughout all the region round about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."(Luke 4:14-21)
The place were this was written in the book of the prophet "Esias" is ISAIAH CHAPTER 61. Since Luke also authored the book of Acts, let's take a quick peek over there, shall we?
"And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read ws this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter: and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."(Acts 8:27-35)
The place of the scripture which he read of the prophet "Esaias" is ISAIAH CHAPTER 53. To show that Luke apparently did NOT agree with your unsupported two author theory:
"And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."(Acts 28:25-27)
Here, "Esaias" the prophet is quoted from ISAIAH CHAPTER 6. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to indicate that two different "Esaias'" are being spoken of. How about Paul? Did he agree with your unsupported theory?
"Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha."(Romans 9:27-29)
Here, Paul quotes "Esaias" twice...the first time from ISAIAH CHAPTER 10 and the second time from ISAIAH CHAPTER 1. Let's continue:
"But they have not obeyed the gospel, For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"(Romans 10:16)
Here, Paul quotes "Esaias" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 53. Once more:
"But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."(Romans 10:20-21)
Here, Paul quotes "Esaias" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 65. Apparently Paul did NOT hold to your unsupported two author theory either. Additionally, whereas you and others of your ilk desperately look for differences in literary style(what an IDIOTIC argument, by the way...are you suggesting that authors are limited to one style of writing?), you conveniently overlook OBVIOUS SIMILARITIES(if you'd remove your blinders, that is), such as the following:
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."(Isaiah 11:6-9)
"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."(Isaiah 65:25)
Well, that's enough for now. Hopefully that at least helped to remove that stupid smile(smiley) from off of your face. Unless, of course, we are to believe that Matthew, Luke and Paul were all in on the vast right-wing conspiracy, too? That's what you believe, isn't it? Anyhow, feel free to offer some actual documentation to support your theory. I, for one, will be waiting for it. Until then...
1. The prophecy concerning Cyrus occurs at chapter 45:1 in the Book.
2. There is a big difference between chapters 1 to 40 and the chapters 40 to 66.
3. In chapters 40 to 66, Isaiah's name is suddenly no longer mentioned as the author... at all.
4. There is a significant change in mood and style from 40 to 66. The first chapters prophecy doom and judgement, while the chapters after 40 speak of the exile as though it had already happened.
So... most historians consider chapters 40 to 66 to have been written a fairly long time after the first set.
Do you know how they knew that Cyrus would restore the Jews?
It had already happened. That's not prophecy, it's just memory.
RobDegraves: Wishful thinking on your part.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_the_Boo..._Isaiah_written
Textual Evidence Re. Isaiah
Probably the first thing to note regarding those who would divide Isaiah into two parts is that it has no textual evidence whatsoever. No separate copies of Isaiah have been found written by different authors. The reason for the different styles is simply accounted for by the different themes of the relevant chapters.
Another reason for the splitting Isaiah up into two (some scholars even go to 3 or more) is that the presuppositions of the scholar do not include the possibility of predictive prophecy and so the prophetic section must have been written later after the prophecy has been fulfilled. Thus, as a number of such scholars readily admit, the result of their work is predetermined by their bias, even though they may state their results as being certain.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have effectively put an end to the arguments regarding the splitting up of Isaiah since in 100BC, over 500 years earlier than previous manuscript evidence, an entire Isaiah scroll was found - not split up in any way. However, the old presuppositional arguments first used in the 19th century still are used by some since it is too inconvenient to allow the Bible to be true and correct as written, even though the actual evidence points that way. Arguments which split up Isaiah are effectively arguments from silence, as well as arguments against the unanimous and actual evidence in favor of unity and the earlier date in the eighth century BC under the relevant Kings of Israel.
Presuppositional Arguments
One of the major reasons for placing the later section of Isaiah into a later period is a specific belief that predictive prophecy is impossible. Thus all of the predictions concerning Cyrus and the Babylonian captivity are placed into a later period, even though there is no indication in the text itself that this is necessary.
In fact, for this approach to be carried through consistently, it would have to be necessary to assert that when Isaiah was writing about the Messiah, Jesus Christ, in passages such as chapter 53, that this portion of Isaiah was therefore written in Jesus time. Such is of course preposterous.
Those who hold the deutero-Isaiah theory state that a period of one and a half centuries has been omitted and that the book recommenced then (obviously with a different author). One of the problems with this assertion is that the historical section which deals with Hezekiah particularly ends in the end of chapter 39. The rest of the book is predictive prophecy with no historical narratives whatever. It is not at all correct to suggest or assert that this is anything other than an assumption based on a presupposition as the text itself is clearly prophetic and not historical and contrasts sharply with the historical narrative that goes before.
There are no indications anywhere in the book of Isaiah that any long periods of time have been omitted. The preface in 1:1 indicates the Kings under which Isaiah prophesied. This gives a definite historical time-frame in which the book in its entirety would have been written. That the second portion of the book changes its focus from judgment to prophecy, especially comfort and consolation, says nothing about any necessity of postulating a later authorship.
Summary:
Isaiah's long ministry went from 740 to 680 BC and his prophecies were undoubtedly from this period. There is no valid reason to doubt the authenticity of the entire work, or even of any part of it, nor is there any valid evidence that it was written by more than one author.
Additionally, the writers of the New Testament certainly didn't share your viewpoint. For example:
"For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."(Matthew 3:3)
"Esaias" is Isaiah and Matthew QUOTED HIM from ISAIAH CHAPTER 40.
In case you don't believe that "Esaias" is Isaiah, here is another place where Matthew quoted him:
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon, and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles: The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."(Matthew 4:14-16)
Here, Matthew is quoting "Esais" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 9. Apparently, Matthew did NOT agree with your unsupported claim of two different authors of the book of Isaiah. Furthermore, Matthew said:
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses."(Matthew 8:17)
Here, Matthew quoted "Esaias" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 53.
"That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant whom I have chosen: my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice is the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust."(Matthew 12:17-21)
Here, Matthew quoted "Esaias" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 42. Once again, to show that Matthew certainly did NOT hold to your unsupported two author theory:
"And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."(Matthew 13:14-15)
Here, Matthew quoted "Esaias" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 6. There is no indication that Matthew saw these "Esaias'" as two different people. Enough of Matthew. Let's briefly take a look at Luke:
"And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him throughout all the region round about. And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all. And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears."(Luke 4:14-21)
The place were this was written in the book of the prophet "Esias" is ISAIAH CHAPTER 61. Since Luke also authored the book of Acts, let's take a quick peek over there, shall we?
"And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read ws this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter: and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."(Acts 8:27-35)
The place of the scripture which he read of the prophet "Esaias" is ISAIAH CHAPTER 53. To show that Luke apparently did NOT agree with your unsupported two author theory:
"And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive: For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."(Acts 28:25-27)
Here, "Esaias" the prophet is quoted from ISAIAH CHAPTER 6. There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to indicate that two different "Esaias'" are being spoken of. How about Paul? Did he agree with your unsupported theory?
"Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha."(Romans 9:27-29)
Here, Paul quotes "Esaias" twice...the first time from ISAIAH CHAPTER 10 and the second time from ISAIAH CHAPTER 1. Let's continue:
"But they have not obeyed the gospel, For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?"(Romans 10:16)
Here, Paul quotes "Esaias" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 53. Once more:
"But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after me. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people."(Romans 10:20-21)
Here, Paul quotes "Esaias" from ISAIAH CHAPTER 65. Apparently Paul did NOT hold to your unsupported two author theory either. Additionally, whereas you and others of your ilk desperately look for differences in literary style(what an IDIOTIC argument, by the way...are you suggesting that authors are limited to one style of writing?), you conveniently overlook OBVIOUS SIMILARITIES(if you'd remove your blinders, that is), such as the following:
"The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice's den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea."(Isaiah 11:6-9)
"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD."(Isaiah 65:25)
Well, that's enough for now. Hopefully that at least helped to remove that stupid smile(smiley) from off of your face. Unless, of course, we are to believe that Matthew, Luke and Paul were all in on the vast right-wing conspiracy, too? That's what you believe, isn't it? Anyhow, feel free to offer some actual documentation to support your theory. I, for one, will be waiting for it. Until then...
Hmmm... I hate to tell you this Newguy but Wiki.answers is just opinion, it is not evidence nor a scholarly work. Actual historians, people who do this for a living, consider the chapters to have been written separately for the reasons I have shown. You have yet to invalidate any of those. Why is Isaiah not mentioned as an author after chapter 40? Why is the exile suddenly mentioned as though it had happened.
More importantly, do you have any proof that the texts were not written after the fact. If you don't... you have no reason to believe it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You don't even have ordinary proof.
Not only have you shown me no evidence of actual prophecy, you have shown me that you don't know how to conduct research.
Additionally...
I would like you to show me proof as to who wrote the New Testament. Only Mark has been shown to have been written close to the period where the apostles lived... around AD 70. The others were written after, some of the texts a few centuries after.
There are no actual documents prior to the 4th century, only bits and scraps.
Lastly...
I find it amusing that you go to the Old Testament for prophecy and then try to use the New Testament as proof. It's like trying to assert that Xenu really exists and going to Scientology texts as proof.
Try reading some actual history, learn how an actual scholarly work is done, and then come talk about prophecy.
Quoting opinions on the internet is not proof of anything except your own myopia.
MisterBelfy
I would like you to show me proof as to who wrote the New Testament. Only Mark has been shown to have been written close to the period where the apostles lived... around AD 70. The others were written after, some of the texts a few centuries after.
There are no actual documents prior to the 4th century, only bits and scraps.
Lastly...
I find it amusing that you go to the Old Testament for prophecy and then try to use the New Testament as proof. It's like trying to assert that Xenu really exists and going to Scientology texts as proof.
Try reading some actual history, learn how an actual scholarly work is done, and then come talk about prophecy.
Quoting opinions on the internet is not proof of anything except your own myopia.
MisterBelfy
Edward J. Young
Was a theologian and a minister... just a bit biased maybe? Not to mention that his argument is hardly cogent or significant.
More importantly, do you have any proof that the texts were not written after the fact. If you don't... you have no reason to believe it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You don't even have ordinary proof.
Not only have you shown me no evidence of actual prophecy, you have shown me that you don't know how to conduct research.
Additionally...
QUOTE
Additionally, the writers of the New Testament certainly didn't share your viewpoint. For example:
I would like you to show me proof as to who wrote the New Testament. Only Mark has been shown to have been written close to the period where the apostles lived... around AD 70. The others were written after, some of the texts a few centuries after.
There are no actual documents prior to the 4th century, only bits and scraps.
Lastly...
I find it amusing that you go to the Old Testament for prophecy and then try to use the New Testament as proof. It's like trying to assert that Xenu really exists and going to Scientology texts as proof.
Try reading some actual history, learn how an actual scholarly work is done, and then come talk about prophecy.
Quoting opinions on the internet is not proof of anything except your own myopia.
MisterBelfy
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Additionally, the writers of the New Testament certainly didn't share your viewpoint. For example: |
I would like you to show me proof as to who wrote the New Testament. Only Mark has been shown to have been written close to the period where the apostles lived... around AD 70. The others were written after, some of the texts a few centuries after.
There are no actual documents prior to the 4th century, only bits and scraps.
Lastly...
I find it amusing that you go to the Old Testament for prophecy and then try to use the New Testament as proof. It's like trying to assert that Xenu really exists and going to Scientology texts as proof.
Try reading some actual history, learn how an actual scholarly work is done, and then come talk about prophecy.
Quoting opinions on the internet is not proof of anything except your own myopia.
MisterBelfy
Edward J. Young
Was a theologian and a minister... just a bit biased maybe? Not to mention that his argument is hardly cogent or significant.
>>> John Cornwell in his 1999 work, isbnumber above <<<
Ignore that number, I don't know what google is up to++.
The book lists the ISBN:
0-670-88693-9.
MrB.
++unless it is the paperback edition.
Ignore that number, I don't know what google is up to++.
The book lists the ISBN:
0-670-88693-9.
MrB.
++unless it is the paperback edition.
>>> Only Mark has been shown to have been written close to the period where the apostles lived... around AD 70. <<<
>>> However, it is generally acknowledged by most historians that the earliest gospel, that of Mark and generally the one most likely original, is from around the year AD 70. <<<
I tried to give you hint;
>>> Page 212{which helps date Martin's book twenty-two years ago}: <<<
Historians have every right to break up tradition. Tradition says the first Gospel book in the New Testament is there because it was written first and in Aramaic. Time and tradition is even stronger for Isaiah to have authored(written, if you are going to take the whole story at face value) the whole book that bears his name.
However, it should be extraordinay evidence that challenges with an extraordinary claim. The Bible is extraordinary and historians cannot alter that fact.
History exists or doesn't exist and it is all some undivined hologram. -------->
Showtopic= 25268 & -------------->(its companion thread)
Showtopic= 25402
------April 07----->
"The evangelists had opportunities to know the facts such as we have not. The whole method of their training was such as to secure accuracy. They support each other. They have given us sketches of unparalleled beauty, vigor and power, and have portrayed for us a Person moving among men absolutely without sin-- a standing miracle.
If we cannot trust them for the facts, there is little hope of ever getting at the facts at all."
>>> However, it is generally acknowledged by most historians that the earliest gospel, that of Mark and generally the one most likely original, is from around the year AD 70. <<<
I tried to give you hint;
>>> Page 212{which helps date Martin's book twenty-two years ago}: <<<
Historians have every right to break up tradition. Tradition says the first Gospel book in the New Testament is there because it was written first and in Aramaic. Time and tradition is even stronger for Isaiah to have authored(written, if you are going to take the whole story at face value) the whole book that bears his name.
However, it should be extraordinay evidence that challenges with an extraordinary claim. The Bible is extraordinary and historians cannot alter that fact.
History exists or doesn't exist and it is all some undivined hologram. -------->
Showtopic= 25268 & -------------->(its companion thread)
Showtopic= 25402
------April 07----->
"The evangelists had opportunities to know the facts such as we have not. The whole method of their training was such as to secure accuracy. They support each other. They have given us sketches of unparalleled beauty, vigor and power, and have portrayed for us a Person moving among men absolutely without sin-- a standing miracle.
If we cannot trust them for the facts, there is little hope of ever getting at the facts at all."
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Hmmm... I hate to tell you this Newguy but Wiki.answers is just opinion, it is not evidence nor a scholarly work.
RobDegraves: That's pretty funny, coming from you. So far, all that YOU have provided is OPINION. How about some ACTUAL EVIDENCE? What are you afraid of? That I'll be able to convincingly refute whatever you present(unless you're all bluff)?
RobDegraves: That's pretty funny, coming from you. So far, all that YOU have provided is OPINION. How about some ACTUAL EVIDENCE? What are you afraid of? That I'll be able to convincingly refute whatever you present(unless you're all bluff)?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Actual historians, people who do this for a living, consider the chapters to have been written separately for the reasons I have shown.
Fine. Then show me/us some FACTS from these supposed historians. Unless, of course, that, once again, you're afraid that I'll be able to convincingly refute their claims. Come on...humor me with some so-called "evidence". Oh wait...that's right...we already have "the reasons you have shown". Let's quickly review them, shall we?
Fine. Then show me/us some FACTS from these supposed historians. Unless, of course, that, once again, you're afraid that I'll be able to convincingly refute their claims. Come on...humor me with some so-called "evidence". Oh wait...that's right...we already have "the reasons you have shown". Let's quickly review them, shall we?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
1. The prophecy concerning Cyrus occurs at chapter 45:1 in the Book.
Close, but no cigar. Actually, it begins in chapter 44:28.
"That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.'(Isaiah 44:28)
And?
Close, but no cigar. Actually, it begins in chapter 44:28.
"That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.'(Isaiah 44:28)
And?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
2. There is a big difference between chapters 1 to 40 and the chapters 40 to 66.
Says you. Here's your chance...show us SOME EVIDENCE of this "big difference". Come on...I'm waiting(as a cat waits for a canary to escape from its cage). I've already cited you one obvious similarity(to those who aren't as blind as a bat, that is). There are PLENTY MORE where that came from. Well, will you put up or shut up? Either way, I'll be content.
Says you. Here's your chance...show us SOME EVIDENCE of this "big difference". Come on...I'm waiting(as a cat waits for a canary to escape from its cage). I've already cited you one obvious similarity(to those who aren't as blind as a bat, that is). There are PLENTY MORE where that came from. Well, will you put up or shut up? Either way, I'll be content.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
3. In chapters 40 to 66, Isaiah's name is suddenly no longer mentioned as the author... at all.
Big deal. Isaiah's name isn't mentioned in chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 or 36 either. Fearing that you might be as skilled with numbers as you are at understanding the Bible, I'll inform you that ISAIAH'S NAME ISN'T MENTIONED AS THE AUTHOR IN 31 OF THE FIRST 39 CHAPTERS and yet you're perfectly willing to attribute those chapters to him. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain this to us or would you have me to explain it to the forum members for you? Additionally, GENIUS, your supposed second author's name doesn't appear anywhere in chapters 40 through 66. Why do you suppose that is? Don't trip over the bloody obvious, okay?
Big deal. Isaiah's name isn't mentioned in chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 or 36 either. Fearing that you might be as skilled with numbers as you are at understanding the Bible, I'll inform you that ISAIAH'S NAME ISN'T MENTIONED AS THE AUTHOR IN 31 OF THE FIRST 39 CHAPTERS and yet you're perfectly willing to attribute those chapters to him. Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain this to us or would you have me to explain it to the forum members for you? Additionally, GENIUS, your supposed second author's name doesn't appear anywhere in chapters 40 through 66. Why do you suppose that is? Don't trip over the bloody obvious, okay?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
4. There is a significant change in mood and style from 40 to 66. The first chapters prophecy doom and judgement, while the chapters after 40 speak of the exile as though it had already happened.
Once again, says you. Show us some of those "significant changes", won't you? I'll be waiting.
Once again, says you. Show us some of those "significant changes", won't you? I'll be waiting.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
More importantly, do you have any proof that the texts were not written after the fact. If you don't... you have no reason to believe it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You don't even have ordinary proof.
Do you have any proof that they were? That's YOUR CLAIM...now, let's see SOME EVIDENCE. I already told you that I'm aware of all the controversies(although it's very hard to get any of you to actually pony up with some evidence to support your claims) surrounding the timelines of scripture. FOR THIS VERY REASON, I've chosen to FORETELL OF EVENTS THAT HAVE YET TO HAPPEN, WITH THE BIBLE AS MY BACKDROP. This scares you, doesn't it? If you don't provide some of your great evidence soon, then I'll just ignore you and go back to my original course with this thread.
P.S. I ONLY mention the following as an FYI because David Koresh's name came up already, as did Cyrus' name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
Koresh was born as Vernon Wayne Howell in Houston, Texas, to a 14-year-old single mother, Bonnie Sue Clark.
Why did Vernon Wayne Howell change his name to David Koresh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
In 1985 Koresh traveled to Israel and it was there that he claimed he had a vision that he was the modern day Cyrus.
The Hebrew word that is translated as "Cyrus" in the passages we are discussing is "Koresh". Howell also believed that he was to father the Messiah...this is presumably why he chose the name "David", as the Messiah was to be "the son of David". Like I said, that was just an FYI.
Do you have any proof that they were? That's YOUR CLAIM...now, let's see SOME EVIDENCE. I already told you that I'm aware of all the controversies(although it's very hard to get any of you to actually pony up with some evidence to support your claims) surrounding the timelines of scripture. FOR THIS VERY REASON, I've chosen to FORETELL OF EVENTS THAT HAVE YET TO HAPPEN, WITH THE BIBLE AS MY BACKDROP. This scares you, doesn't it? If you don't provide some of your great evidence soon, then I'll just ignore you and go back to my original course with this thread.
P.S. I ONLY mention the following as an FYI because David Koresh's name came up already, as did Cyrus' name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
Koresh was born as Vernon Wayne Howell in Houston, Texas, to a 14-year-old single mother, Bonnie Sue Clark.
Why did Vernon Wayne Howell change his name to David Koresh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh
In 1985 Koresh traveled to Israel and it was there that he claimed he had a vision that he was the modern day Cyrus.
The Hebrew word that is translated as "Cyrus" in the passages we are discussing is "Koresh". Howell also believed that he was to father the Messiah...this is presumably why he chose the name "David", as the Messiah was to be "the son of David". Like I said, that was just an FYI.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 25 2009, 04:23 AM)
I've still got my money on most Catholics expressing outrage that such heretical views could be espoused by the supposed mouthpiece of God.
And I think you underestimate groupthink.
I think there will be enough Catholics crowing about how God has come to Earth in the form of their religious leader the majority won't say out loud that are not really believers.
And I think you underestimate groupthink.
I think there will be enough Catholics crowing about how God has come to Earth in the form of their religious leader the majority won't say out loud that are not really believers.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 27 2009, 08:32 PM)
And I think you underestimate groupthink.
No... I don't doubt he'll have plenty of supporters, both in the church hierarchy and in the lay constituency. I'm just putting more stock in the traditions of the church, and the voices of the cardinals and archbishops who'd call for his abdication.
I just cannot imagine even Catholics being deluded enough as a group for such a pope to garner support from more than 10-20% of the church.
And we've seen what happened before when a minority of the church opposed the majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
No... I don't doubt he'll have plenty of supporters, both in the church hierarchy and in the lay constituency. I'm just putting more stock in the traditions of the church, and the voices of the cardinals and archbishops who'd call for his abdication.
I just cannot imagine even Catholics being deluded enough as a group for such a pope to garner support from more than 10-20% of the church.
And we've seen what happened before when a minority of the church opposed the majority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years%27_War
QUOTE (newguy+May 27 2009, 07:51 PM)
Fine. Then show me/us some FACTS from these supposed historians. Unless, of course, that, once again, you're afraid that I'll be able to convincingly refute their claims. Come on...humor me with some so-called "evidence". Oh wait...that's right...we already have "the reasons you have shown". Let's quickly review them, shall we?
An Introduction to the Old Testament
An Introduction to the Old Testament
QUOTE (Page 160+)
In the long book of Isaiah, however, the actual words from the eighth-century prophet are judged by scholars to be relatively few; no critical scholar moreover, believes the book as a whole is authored by the eighth century prophet.
QUOTE (Page 161+)
In the critical consensus, it has long been held that the literature pertaining to Isaiah of the eighth century (then called "First Isaiah") is limited to Isaiah 1-39, because after chapter 39 there is an immense break -literary, historical and theological- before chapter 40.
AND:
Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction
Old Testament Prophetic Literature
Christopher K. Lensch, S.T.M.
Western Reformed Seminary (www.wrs.edu) ...
4. Authorship and unity of Isaiah
a. Some references for further study
—J.A. Alexander, Prophecies of Isaiah (1847)
—F. Delitzsch, “Isaiah,” Imperial Bible Dictionary, III, 158-171 (1886)
—G. L. Robinson, “Isaiah,” ISBE, III, 1495-1508 (1929)
—O.T. Allis, The Unity of Isaiah (1954)
—E. J. Young, Studies in Isaiah (1954); Introduction to the OT, pp. 202-11 (1958); Who Wrote Isaiah? (1958); and his commentary on Isaiah, III, App. I, “The Authorship of Isaiah,” pp. 538-49 (posthumous, 1972)
—Rachel Margalioth, The Indivisible Isaiah (1964)
—Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of OT Introduction, pp. 317-39
—R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the OT, pp. 764-95 [but calls “Cyrus” text a gloss, pp.794-95] (1969)
—Victor Buksbazen, The Prophet Isaiah (1971)
—J. Ridderbos, Isaiah (Bible Student’s Commentary; (1985)
b. History of critical discussion
Virtually all held to unity and genuineness of Isaiah until J. C. Doderlein, Esaias (1775), who suggested two parts, ch. 1-39 and ch. 40-66. This view spread through Germany.
Ernst F. K. Rosenmueller suggested that parts of ch. 1-39 are late also; e.g., ch. 13-14 (ca. 1800). An example of this approach—T. K. Cheyne, who denied ch. 12-13, 15-16, 23-27, 33 as being written by Isaiah (1888). Other scholars have noted that the similarities in both parts, instead of fragmenting the first part, actually argue for the book’s unity (e.g., Archer, pp. 332-33).
*
Bernard Duhm (1892) divided Isaiah into three parts: ch. 1-39, ch. 40-55 (“Deutero-Isaiah”), and ch. 56-66 (“Trito-Isaiah”). In general this view has been retained by critical scholars to this day.
This critical view was popularized in England and America by A. B. Davidson, and G. A. Smith (1904).
During these years many conservatives defended the unity of Isaiah (see list above). Some held a mediating position; e.g., Franz Delitzsch, Isaiah (1st ed. 1866, 4th ed. 1889); he preferred and argued for the unity of the book, but said the issue was unimportant: “If we only allow that the prophet really was a prophet, it is on no essential consequence to what age he belonged” (II, 138; but stronger in Imperial Bible Dictionary article “Isaiah”).
c. Critical Arguments for dividing Isaiah
—cf. S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the OT (1897), pp. 236-43
(1) Historical setting seems different in the second half:
Jerusalem ruined, 44:26; 58:12; 61:4; 63:18; 64:10-11
now suffering under Babylonians, 42:22, 25; 43:28 (marg.); 47:6; 52:5
return to Jerusalem is imminent, 40:2; 46:13; 48:20
warm concern for the captives, 40:21, 26, 28; 43:10; 48:8; 50:10-11; 51:6, 12-13; 58:3-14
(2) Literary style is different:
arguments in Driver, LOT 238-42
cf. Y. T. Radday, “Two Computerized Statistical-Linguistic Tests Concerning the Unity of Isaiah,” JBL 89 (Sep 1970) 319-24; Radday notes that pronominal suffixes on nouns occur much more frequently in ch. 40-66 than in ch. 1-35, and concludes that there were different authors but note comments of Archer (331-32) regarding Milton, Goethe, and Shakespeare
AND:
Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction
QUOTE (Page 314+)
Careful scholarship has identified three separate collections of oracles, and perhaps more, joined as one book. Each collection has it's own special style and references to dates and events that makes it's historical setting in life different form the other two parts. The first and most important grouping is from the great prophet Isaiah himself, found in chapters 1 through 39, and includes oracles and words that he spoke plus several later oracles, such as chapters 24 through 27.
A second major section is found in chapters 40-55. These chapters speak of Babylon rather than Assyria, and hope for a Persian liberator, Cyrus, to come and free Israel from exile. The author uses a distinctive style which mixes hymns of praise with courtroom lawsuits. Whoever this great genius was, he lived some two hundred years after the original Isaiah and carried the earlier message of trust in a holy God who loved Zion to a terrible new age of exile and total loss of Zion which Israel suffered under the Babylonians in 586 B.C.
Normally, you know your bible, newguy. But this time, you're utterly wrong. Rob is right, biblical scholars agree to a great degree that there is more than one author, and that the author of chapters 40-55 lived a few hundred years later.
A second major section is found in chapters 40-55. These chapters speak of Babylon rather than Assyria, and hope for a Persian liberator, Cyrus, to come and free Israel from exile. The author uses a distinctive style which mixes hymns of praise with courtroom lawsuits. Whoever this great genius was, he lived some two hundred years after the original Isaiah and carried the earlier message of trust in a holy God who loved Zion to a terrible new age of exile and total loss of Zion which Israel suffered under the Babylonians in 586 B.C.
Normally, you know your bible, newguy. But this time, you're utterly wrong. Rob is right, biblical scholars agree to a great degree that there is more than one author, and that the author of chapters 40-55 lived a few hundred years later.
Well Newguy... I would have presented evidence but Mjolnirpants beat me to it. Start with that and we can go on. I have lots more.... you have none.
You might also be a little confused as to the burden of evidence. You are the one who is making extraordinary claims to prophecy, not myself. You claim that Isaiah was a prophet but you advance no evidence of this other than the words of the Bible. This is a document written over centuries and of which no original documents survive and whose authorship is widely disputed.
It would be impossible even with the very best of arguments to say that the words of Isaiah as reported in the Bible were actually written by Isaiah at that time period and not after. Therefore, you cannot have any proof whatsoever.
Let's look at more recent events then. Can you show me any actually documented case of prophecy of being able to tell the future?
I await your proof.
You might also be a little confused as to the burden of evidence. You are the one who is making extraordinary claims to prophecy, not myself. You claim that Isaiah was a prophet but you advance no evidence of this other than the words of the Bible. This is a document written over centuries and of which no original documents survive and whose authorship is widely disputed.
It would be impossible even with the very best of arguments to say that the words of Isaiah as reported in the Bible were actually written by Isaiah at that time period and not after. Therefore, you cannot have any proof whatsoever.
Let's look at more recent events then. Can you show me any actually documented case of prophecy of being able to tell the future?
I await your proof.
Newguy and RobDegraves each have a POV.
Newguy's requires more faith, therfore Rob's is more solid, and reliable.
Newguy's requires more faith, therfore Rob's is more solid, and reliable.
Old Testament Prophetic Literature
Christopher K. Lensch, S.T.M.
Western Reformed Seminary (www.wrs.edu) ...
4. Authorship and unity of Isaiah
a. Some references for further study
—J.A. Alexander, Prophecies of Isaiah (1847)
—F. Delitzsch, “Isaiah,” Imperial Bible Dictionary, III, 158-171 (1886)
—G. L. Robinson, “Isaiah,” ISBE, III, 1495-1508 (1929)
—O.T. Allis, The Unity of Isaiah (1954)
—E. J. Young, Studies in Isaiah (1954); Introduction to the OT, pp. 202-11 (1958); Who Wrote Isaiah? (1958); and his commentary on Isaiah, III, App. I, “The Authorship of Isaiah,” pp. 538-49 (posthumous, 1972)
—Rachel Margalioth, The Indivisible Isaiah (1964)
—Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of OT Introduction, pp. 317-39
—R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the OT, pp. 764-95 [but calls “Cyrus” text a gloss, pp.794-95] (1969)
—Victor Buksbazen, The Prophet Isaiah (1971)
—J. Ridderbos, Isaiah (Bible Student’s Commentary; (1985)
b. History of critical discussion
Virtually all held to unity and genuineness of Isaiah until J. C. Doderlein, Esaias (1775), who suggested two parts, ch. 1-39 and ch. 40-66. This view spread through Germany.
Ernst F. K. Rosenmueller suggested that parts of ch. 1-39 are late also; e.g., ch. 13-14 (ca. 1800). An example of this approach—T. K. Cheyne, who denied ch. 12-13, 15-16, 23-27, 33 as being written by Isaiah (1888). Other scholars have noted that the similarities in both parts, instead of fragmenting the first part, actually argue for the book’s unity (e.g., Archer, pp. 332-33).
*
Bernard Duhm (1892) divided Isaiah into three parts: ch. 1-39, ch. 40-55 (“Deutero-Isaiah”), and ch. 56-66 (“Trito-Isaiah”). In general this view has been retained by critical scholars to this day.
This critical view was popularized in England and America by A. B. Davidson, and G. A. Smith (1904).
During these years many conservatives defended the unity of Isaiah (see list above). Some held a mediating position; e.g., Franz Delitzsch, Isaiah (1st ed. 1866, 4th ed. 1889); he preferred and argued for the unity of the book, but said the issue was unimportant: “If we only allow that the prophet really was a prophet, it is on no essential consequence to what age he belonged” (II, 138; but stronger in Imperial Bible Dictionary article “Isaiah”).
c. Critical Arguments for dividing Isaiah
—cf. S. R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the OT (1897), pp. 236-43
(1) Historical setting seems different in the second half:
Jerusalem ruined, 44:26; 58:12; 61:4; 63:18; 64:10-11
now suffering under Babylonians, 42:22, 25; 43:28 (marg.); 47:6; 52:5
return to Jerusalem is imminent, 40:2; 46:13; 48:20
warm concern for the captives, 40:21, 26, 28; 43:10; 48:8; 50:10-11; 51:6, 12-13; 58:3-14
(2) Literary style is different:
arguments in Driver, LOT 238-42
cf. Y. T. Radday, “Two Computerized Statistical-Linguistic Tests Concerning the Unity of Isaiah,” JBL 89 (Sep 1970) 319-24; Radday notes that pronominal suffixes on nouns occur much more frequently in ch. 40-66 than in ch. 1-35, and concludes that there were different authors but note comments of Archer (331-32) regarding Milton, Goethe, and Shakespeare
Computers {and their nifty progarms} have come a long way since 1970. What say they? By the way, Mr. Young did his own translation in his commentary —
Of the critics making the extraordinary claim against Isaiah of multiple authors\editors, who can say that? As I recall, Young says something about the critics within the talmud which surely dates before 1775.
MrB.
Of the critics making the extraordinary claim against Isaiah of multiple authors\editors, who can say that? As I recall, Young says something about the critics within the talmud which surely dates before 1775.
MrB.
MjolnirPants: First of all, I SINCERELY commend you for at least stepping up to the plate(as opposed to the coward, RobDegraves). Having said that, let's now look at what you've posted.
QUOTE (newguy speaking to RobDegraves+)
Fine. Then show me/us some FACTS from these supposed historians. Unless, of course, that, once again, you're afraid that I'll be able to convincingly refute their claims. Come on...humor me with some so-called "evidence". Oh wait...that's right...we already have "the reasons you have shown". Let's quickly review them, shall we?
QUOTE (MjolnirPants pinch-hitting for the cowardly RobDegraves+)
An Introduction to the Old Testament
In the long book of Isaiah, however, the actual words from the eighth-century prophet are judged by scholars to be relatively few; no critical scholar moreover, believes the book as a whole is authored by the eighth century prophet.
In the critical consensus, it has long been held that the literature pertaining to Isaiah of the eighth century (then called "First Isaiah") is limited to Isaiah 1-39, because after chapter 39 there is an immense break -literary, historical and theological- before chapter 40.
All that this shows is that a controversy exists(I've already plainly stated TWICE that I'm well aware of the controversy...WHERE'S THE BEEF?) in regards to the authorship of Isaiah. Only general criticisms, without any real substance, are given at this stage...supposed "literary, historical and theological breaks". Well, let's hear SOME SPECIFICS regarding these supposed "breaks". These are the supposed "FACTS" that I'm asking for..."FACTS" which I'll gladly refute.
QUOTE ((Page 160)+)
In the long book of Isaiah, however, the actual words from the eighth-century prophet are judged by scholars to be relatively few; no critical scholar moreover, believes the book as a whole is authored by the eighth century prophet.
QUOTE ((Page 161)+)
In the critical consensus, it has long been held that the literature pertaining to Isaiah of the eighth century (then called "First Isaiah") is limited to Isaiah 1-39, because after chapter 39 there is an immense break -literary, historical and theological- before chapter 40.
All that this shows is that a controversy exists(I've already plainly stated TWICE that I'm well aware of the controversy...WHERE'S THE BEEF?) in regards to the authorship of Isaiah. Only general criticisms, without any real substance, are given at this stage...supposed "literary, historical and theological breaks". Well, let's hear SOME SPECIFICS regarding these supposed "breaks". These are the supposed "FACTS" that I'm asking for..."FACTS" which I'll gladly refute.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants pinch-hitting for the cowardly RobDegraves+)
AND:
Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction
Careful scholarship has identified three separate collections of oracles, and perhaps more, joined as one book. Each collection has it's own special style and references to dates and events that makes it's historical setting in life different form the other two parts. The first and most important grouping is from the great prophet Isaiah himself, found in chapters 1 through 39, and includes oracles and words that he spoke plus several later oracles, such as chapters 24 through 27.
A second major section is found in chapters 40-55. These chapters speak of Babylon rather than Assyria, and hope for a Persian liberator, Cyrus, to come and free Israel from exile. The author uses a distinctive style which mixes hymns of praise with courtroom lawsuits. Whoever this great genius was, he lived some two hundred years after the original Isaiah and carried the earlier message of trust in a holy God who loved Zion to a terrible new age of exile and total loss of Zion which Israel suffered under the Babylonians in 586 B.C.
Normally, you know your bible, newguy. But this time, you're utterly wrong. Rob is right, biblical scholars agree to a great degree that there is more than one author, and that the author of chapters 40-55 lived a few hundred years later.
Ah, FINALLY! NOW, we're actually getting somewhere. In this quote, there is at least a hint of some of the supposed discrepancies contained within the book of Isaiah. Before I address the so-called discrepancies, allow me to comment briefly on this so-called "careful scholarship". Since you've linked to other's "criticism", I'll do the same:
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2266
Authorship
Critical positions
One of the most critically debated issues in Isaiah is the proposition that it may have been the work of more than a single author. Different proposals suggest that there have been two or three main authors (Original Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah), while alternative views suggest an additional number of minor authors or editors.Almost all scholars who believe that there are multiple authors recognize some sort of division at the end of chapter 39 and that subsequent portions were written by one or more additional authors, referred to collectively as Deutero-Isaiah. Supporters of the three author proposal see a further division at the end of chapter 55. For most of the twentieth century the three-author position was the most widely held; in the 1990s, more complex and carefully nuanced positions (such as that from Williamson, 1994) started to appear.The typical objections to single authorship of the book of Isaiah are as follows:
*Anonymity → That is to say that Isaiah’s name is suddenly not used from chapter 40-66.
*Style → There is a sudden change in the mood of the book from Isaiah after chapter 40.
*Historical Situation → The first portion of the book of Isaiah speaks of an impending judgment which will befall the wicked Israelites whereas the later portion of the book discusses God's mercy and restoration as though the exile were already a present reality.
*Supernaturalism → Critics often reject the unity of the work as such would require that the author had intimate knowledge of future events-- a possibility precluded by the naturalism under-girding much of higher criticism.
These and other considerations have led most modern critical scholars to conclude that the book of Isaiah, in its present form, is the result of an extensive editing process, in which the promises of God's salvation are re-interpreted and claimed for the Judean people through the history of their exile and return to the land of Judah.
Traditional position
Jews and Christians have traditionally understood the book to have one author, Isaiah himself. While quoting Isaiah, the gospel of John implies as much (). The ancient Jewish historian Josephus attributes both sections of the book of Isaiah to a single author.
Chaim Dov Rabinowitz (Daat Soferim Isaiah- Introduction) points to the statement in the Talmud (Bava Basra 15a) that the book of Isaiah was written by King Hezekiah and his assistants, which may have have lived long after Isaiah. In addition, since the book of Isaiah was a product of many authors (all drawing upon one oral tradition of Isaiah's prophecies) there would naturally be changes in style.
Ben Sira 48:27-28 implies that Isaiah prophesied the prophecy of Isaiah 44. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the complete book of Isaiah.
Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz (1872 - 1946) wrote that the question of the book's authorship doesn't affect Jewish understanding of the book. ["This question can be considered dispassionately. It touches no dogma, or any religious principle in Judaism; and, moreover, does not materially affect the understanding of the prophecies, or of the human conditions of the Jewish people that they have in view." -Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz]
That's a basic understanding of the differences between the two schools of thought. If you're willing to be blatantly honest/realistic, then you should understand/recognize/admit that the major issue surrounding this difference is the one that I highlighted in red:
*Supernaturalism → Critics often reject the unity of the work as such would require that the author had intimate knowledge of future events-- a possibility precluded by the naturalism under-girding much of higher criticism.
In other words, these so-called "careful scholars" ARE BIASED RIGHT FROM THE START. That may be(not an outright accusation...merely a suggestion) your definition of a "careful scholar", but it is certainly not mine. Anyhow, let's now briefly look at what some of this so-called "careful scholarship" has uncovered. From your quote:
Total rubbish. Once again, I ask: "Where's the beef?" Show me some "beef" and I'll devour it before you. Wait! Here's some supposed "beef":
Total rubbish. Once again, I ask: "Where's the beef?" Show me some "beef" and I'll devour it before you. Wait! Here's some supposed "beef":
A second major section is found in chapters 40-55. These chapters speak of Babylon rather than Assyria, and hope for a Persian liberator, Cyrus, to come and free Israel from exile.
Why do I feel like I just opened the bag of "food" that I picked up at Taco Bell's drive-thru only to find that I've been handed an empty taco shell? THAT is the "beef"?!? First of all, contrary to the author's erroneous claim, Babylon is ALSO spoken of in the first 39 chapters of Isaiah. Here is but one example:
"The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see. Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake the hand, that they may go into the gates of the nobles. I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness. The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle. They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land. Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty. Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt: And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames. Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land. Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. Behold, I wil stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah..."(Isaiah 13:1-19)
Oh your "god"(-damned, ignorant, so-called "careful scholars")!
Since these so-called "careful scholars" with their so-called "critical consensus" are more than willing to attribute Isaiah chapters 1 thru 39 to an EIGHT CENTURY PROPHET...
Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction
QUOTE ((Page 314)+)
Careful scholarship has identified three separate collections of oracles, and perhaps more, joined as one book. Each collection has it's own special style and references to dates and events that makes it's historical setting in life different form the other two parts. The first and most important grouping is from the great prophet Isaiah himself, found in chapters 1 through 39, and includes oracles and words that he spoke plus several later oracles, such as chapters 24 through 27.
A second major section is found in chapters 40-55. These chapters speak of Babylon rather than Assyria, and hope for a Persian liberator, Cyrus, to come and free Israel from exile. The author uses a distinctive style which mixes hymns of praise with courtroom lawsuits. Whoever this great genius was, he lived some two hundred years after the original Isaiah and carried the earlier message of trust in a holy God who loved Zion to a terrible new age of exile and total loss of Zion which Israel suffered under the Babylonians in 586 B.C.
Normally, you know your bible, newguy. But this time, you're utterly wrong. Rob is right, biblical scholars agree to a great degree that there is more than one author, and that the author of chapters 40-55 lived a few hundred years later.
Ah, FINALLY! NOW, we're actually getting somewhere. In this quote, there is at least a hint of some of the supposed discrepancies contained within the book of Isaiah. Before I address the so-called discrepancies, allow me to comment briefly on this so-called "careful scholarship". Since you've linked to other's "criticism", I'll do the same:
http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/2266
Authorship
Critical positions
One of the most critically debated issues in Isaiah is the proposition that it may have been the work of more than a single author. Different proposals suggest that there have been two or three main authors (Original Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah), while alternative views suggest an additional number of minor authors or editors.Almost all scholars who believe that there are multiple authors recognize some sort of division at the end of chapter 39 and that subsequent portions were written by one or more additional authors, referred to collectively as Deutero-Isaiah. Supporters of the three author proposal see a further division at the end of chapter 55. For most of the twentieth century the three-author position was the most widely held; in the 1990s, more complex and carefully nuanced positions (such as that from Williamson, 1994) started to appear.The typical objections to single authorship of the book of Isaiah are as follows:
*Anonymity → That is to say that Isaiah’s name is suddenly not used from chapter 40-66.
*Style → There is a sudden change in the mood of the book from Isaiah after chapter 40.
*Historical Situation → The first portion of the book of Isaiah speaks of an impending judgment which will befall the wicked Israelites whereas the later portion of the book discusses God's mercy and restoration as though the exile were already a present reality.
*Supernaturalism → Critics often reject the unity of the work as such would require that the author had intimate knowledge of future events-- a possibility precluded by the naturalism under-girding much of higher criticism.
These and other considerations have led most modern critical scholars to conclude that the book of Isaiah, in its present form, is the result of an extensive editing process, in which the promises of God's salvation are re-interpreted and claimed for the Judean people through the history of their exile and return to the land of Judah.
Traditional position
Jews and Christians have traditionally understood the book to have one author, Isaiah himself. While quoting Isaiah, the gospel of John implies as much (). The ancient Jewish historian Josephus attributes both sections of the book of Isaiah to a single author.
Chaim Dov Rabinowitz (Daat Soferim Isaiah- Introduction) points to the statement in the Talmud (Bava Basra 15a) that the book of Isaiah was written by King Hezekiah and his assistants, which may have have lived long after Isaiah. In addition, since the book of Isaiah was a product of many authors (all drawing upon one oral tradition of Isaiah's prophecies) there would naturally be changes in style.
Ben Sira 48:27-28 implies that Isaiah prophesied the prophecy of Isaiah 44. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the complete book of Isaiah.
Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz (1872 - 1946) wrote that the question of the book's authorship doesn't affect Jewish understanding of the book. ["This question can be considered dispassionately. It touches no dogma, or any religious principle in Judaism; and, moreover, does not materially affect the understanding of the prophecies, or of the human conditions of the Jewish people that they have in view." -Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz]
That's a basic understanding of the differences between the two schools of thought. If you're willing to be blatantly honest/realistic, then you should understand/recognize/admit that the major issue surrounding this difference is the one that I highlighted in red:
*Supernaturalism → Critics often reject the unity of the work as such would require that the author had intimate knowledge of future events-- a possibility precluded by the naturalism under-girding much of higher criticism.
In other words, these so-called "careful scholars" ARE BIASED RIGHT FROM THE START. That may be(not an outright accusation...merely a suggestion) your definition of a "careful scholar", but it is certainly not mine. Anyhow, let's now briefly look at what some of this so-called "careful scholarship" has uncovered. From your quote:
QUOTE
Each collection has it's own special style and references to dates and events that makes it's historical setting in life different form the other two parts.
Total rubbish. Once again, I ask: "Where's the beef?" Show me some "beef" and I'll devour it before you. Wait! Here's some supposed "beef":
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Each collection has it's own special style and references to dates and events that makes it's historical setting in life different form the other two parts. |
Total rubbish. Once again, I ask: "Where's the beef?" Show me some "beef" and I'll devour it before you. Wait! Here's some supposed "beef":
A second major section is found in chapters 40-55. These chapters speak of Babylon rather than Assyria, and hope for a Persian liberator, Cyrus, to come and free Israel from exile.
Why do I feel like I just opened the bag of "food" that I picked up at Taco Bell's drive-thru only to find that I've been handed an empty taco shell? THAT is the "beef"?!? First of all, contrary to the author's erroneous claim, Babylon is ALSO spoken of in the first 39 chapters of Isaiah. Here is but one example:
"The burden of Babylon, which Isaiah the son of Amoz did see. Lift ye up a banner upon the high mountain, exalt the voice unto them, shake the hand, that they may go into the gates of the nobles. I have commanded my sanctified ones, I have also called my mighty ones for mine anger, even them that rejoice in my highness. The noise of a multitude in the mountains, like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the LORD of hosts mustereth the host of the battle. They come from a far country, from the end of heaven, even the LORD, and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole land. Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty. Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt: And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames. Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it. For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible. I will make a man more precious than fine gold; even a man than the golden wedge of Ophir. Therefore I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place, in the wrath of the LORD of hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger. And it shall be as the chased roe, and as a sheep that no man taketh up: they shall every man turn to his own people, and flee every one into his own land. Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished. Behold, I wil stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and as for gold, they shall not delight in it. Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah..."(Isaiah 13:1-19)
Oh your "god"(-damned, ignorant, so-called "careful scholars")!
Since these so-called "careful scholars" with their so-called "critical consensus" are more than willing to attribute Isaiah chapters 1 thru 39 to an EIGHT CENTURY PROPHET...
QUOTE (YOUR first quote+)
In the critical consensus, it has long been held that the literature pertaining to Isaiah of the eighth century (then called "First Isaiah") is limited to Isaiah 1-39, because after chapter 39 there is an immense break -literary, historical and theological- before chapter 40
...then didn't Isaiah just prophesy of Babylon's eventual destruction at the hands of the Medes HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? Answer that for me, if you would be so kind. Additionally, I fail to see the supposed big deal about more emphasis being put upon Babylon(supposedly...Bablyon is frequently mentioned in the first 39 chapters of Isaiah...I only gave you one example) in the latter chapters of Isaiah. If you know anything about Jewish history, then you will recognize/admit that Israel was divided at that time into two kingdoms...a northern kingdom which consisted of 10 tribes and a southern kingdom which consisted of 2 tribes. Since the northern kingdom went into captivity FIRST at the hands of the Assyrians, why shouldn't we expect to see more emphasis on Assyria FIRST? Hmmm? Along these same lines, since the southern kingdom was part of the SECOND captivity at the hands of the Babylonians, why shouldn't we expect to see more emphasis on Babylon SECONDARILY? Hmmm? Feel free to answer these questions at your leisure. As always, I'll be waiting for a rational response(even though I hardly ever receive one from anybody on this forum in regards to Biblical matters). Like I said, I SINCERELY commend your efforts...but, up til now, they've fallen WAY short. I STILL "know my Bible"... Take care.
...then didn't Isaiah just prophesy of Babylon's eventual destruction at the hands of the Medes HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED? Answer that for me, if you would be so kind. Additionally, I fail to see the supposed big deal about more emphasis being put upon Babylon(supposedly...Bablyon is frequently mentioned in the first 39 chapters of Isaiah...I only gave you one example) in the latter chapters of Isaiah. If you know anything about Jewish history, then you will recognize/admit that Israel was divided at that time into two kingdoms...a northern kingdom which consisted of 10 tribes and a southern kingdom which consisted of 2 tribes. Since the northern kingdom went into captivity FIRST at the hands of the Assyrians, why shouldn't we expect to see more emphasis on Assyria FIRST? Hmmm? Along these same lines, since the southern kingdom was part of the SECOND captivity at the hands of the Babylonians, why shouldn't we expect to see more emphasis on Babylon SECONDARILY? Hmmm? Feel free to answer these questions at your leisure. As always, I'll be waiting for a rational response(even though I hardly ever receive one from anybody on this forum in regards to Biblical matters). Like I said, I SINCERELY commend your efforts...but, up til now, they've fallen WAY short. I STILL "know my Bible"... Take care.
QUOTE (newguy+May 28 2009, 12:31 PM)
I STILL "know my Bible"... Take care.
And there are still people that know the Illiad.
edit and my point is, what's your point.
And there are still people that know the Illiad.
edit and my point is, what's your point.
QUOTE (Quote provided by MisterBelfry+)
b. History of critical discussion
Virtually all held to unity and genuineness of Isaiah until J. C. Doderlein, Esaias (1775), who suggested two parts, ch. 1-39 and ch. 40-66. This view spread through Germany.
Ernst F. K. Rosenmueller suggested that parts of ch. 1-39 are late also; e.g., ch. 13-14 (ca. 1800). An example of this approach—T. K. Cheyne, who denied ch. 12-13, 15-16, 23-27, 33 as being written by Isaiah (1888). Other scholars have noted that the similarities in both parts, instead of fragmenting the first part, actually argue for the book’s unity (e.g., Archer, pp. 332-33).
*
Bernard Duhm (1892) divided Isaiah into three parts: ch. 1-39, ch. 40-55 (“Deutero-Isaiah”), and ch. 56-66 (“Trito-Isaiah”). In general this view has been retained by critical scholars to this day.
MjolnirPants: Even amongst the "dividers" there is a "division". Quite frankly, all those who readily admit/agree that Isaiah chapters 1 thru 39 were written by an 8th century prophet have shot THEMSELVES in the foot. Since these "scholars" hold to this position, then it is BLOODY OBVIOUS that an 8TH CENTURY PROPHET FORETOLD OF FUTURE EVENTS BEFORE THEY HAPPENED. Sorry to shout...I'm trying to awaken RobDegraves. At least, to his credit(even though he's wrong), Ernst F. K. Rosenmueller also denied that such chapters as Isaiah chapter 13(the one that I quoted from in my last post) were written by an 8th century prophet because of the BLOODY OBVIOUS(well, except to some on this forum and the so-called "careful scholars" and their "critical consensus") consequences of admitting that an 8th century prophet foretold of future events HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE THEY HAPPENED. Well, it's time for breakfast with my children(it will be my second breakfast of the day...I've already had RobDegraves for breakfast)...
Virtually all held to unity and genuineness of Isaiah until J. C. Doderlein, Esaias (1775), who suggested two parts, ch. 1-39 and ch. 40-66. This view spread through Germany.
Ernst F. K. Rosenmueller suggested that parts of ch. 1-39 are late also; e.g., ch. 13-14 (ca. 1800). An example of this approach—T. K. Cheyne, who denied ch. 12-13, 15-16, 23-27, 33 as being written by Isaiah (1888). Other scholars have noted that the similarities in both parts, instead of fragmenting the first part, actually argue for the book’s unity (e.g., Archer, pp. 332-33).
*
Bernard Duhm (1892) divided Isaiah into three parts: ch. 1-39, ch. 40-55 (“Deutero-Isaiah”), and ch. 56-66 (“Trito-Isaiah”). In general this view has been retained by critical scholars to this day.
MjolnirPants: Even amongst the "dividers" there is a "division". Quite frankly, all those who readily admit/agree that Isaiah chapters 1 thru 39 were written by an 8th century prophet have shot THEMSELVES in the foot. Since these "scholars" hold to this position, then it is BLOODY OBVIOUS that an 8TH CENTURY PROPHET FORETOLD OF FUTURE EVENTS BEFORE THEY HAPPENED. Sorry to shout...I'm trying to awaken RobDegraves. At least, to his credit(even though he's wrong), Ernst F. K. Rosenmueller also denied that such chapters as Isaiah chapter 13(the one that I quoted from in my last post) were written by an 8th century prophet because of the BLOODY OBVIOUS(well, except to some on this forum and the so-called "careful scholars" and their "critical consensus") consequences of admitting that an 8th century prophet foretold of future events HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE THEY HAPPENED. Well, it's time for breakfast with my children(it will be my second breakfast of the day...I've already had RobDegraves for breakfast)...
QUOTE (newguy+)
I STILL "know my Bible"... Take care.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
And there are still people that know the Illiad.
buttershug: As usual, you miss the point. For starters, I was responding to MjolnirPants, who said:
F. Mariolatry
buttershug: As usual, you miss the point. For starters, I was responding to MjolnirPants, who said:
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Normally, you know your bible, newguy. But this time, you're utterly wrong. Rob is right, biblical scholars agree to a great degree that there is more than one author, and that the author of chapters 40-55 lived a few hundred years later.
Secondly, it is RobDegraves who is "utterly wrong". On the one hand, he's willing to attribute the first 39 chapters of Isaiah to a prophet of the 8th century. On the other hand, he denies that the Bible contains any genuine prophecy. Sorry(not really), but he simply cannot have it both ways. According to HIS position, a position that is held by a majority of so-called "careful scholars" or "critical scholars", AN 8TH CENTURY PROPHET CLEARLY FORETOLD OF FUTURE EVENTS HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE THEY HAPPENED. Get's you, him and them(the so-called "careful scholars") "right there", doesn't it? Sorry(once again, not really), but I much prefer the company of my children to the company of complete and utter ignoramuses, no matter how loud-mouthed they may be. Later...
Secondly, it is RobDegraves who is "utterly wrong". On the one hand, he's willing to attribute the first 39 chapters of Isaiah to a prophet of the 8th century. On the other hand, he denies that the Bible contains any genuine prophecy. Sorry(not really), but he simply cannot have it both ways. According to HIS position, a position that is held by a majority of so-called "careful scholars" or "critical scholars", AN 8TH CENTURY PROPHET CLEARLY FORETOLD OF FUTURE EVENTS HUNDREDS OF YEARS BEFORE THEY HAPPENED. Get's you, him and them(the so-called "careful scholars") "right there", doesn't it? Sorry(once again, not really), but I much prefer the company of my children to the company of complete and utter ignoramuses, no matter how loud-mouthed they may be. Later...
More in line with the actual topic of this thread, I found this following article/commentary interesting:
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/gaza-dis...ation%E2%80%99/
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/gaza-dis...ation%E2%80%99/
QUOTE
No... I don't doubt he'll have plenty of supporters, both in the church hierarchy and in the lay constituency. I'm just putting more stock in the traditions of the church, and the voices of the cardinals and archbishops who'd call for his abdication.
I just cannot imagine even Catholics being deluded ...
Evidently, you don't have much of an imagination.I just cannot imagine even Catholics being deluded ...
F. Mariolatry
Hmmm... Newguy
1. Is there any reason that you are constantly insulting me now? Your posts have devolved into nothing more than one long ad hominem.
2. You still fail to grasp the concept of the burden of proof. You claim that Isaiah was a prophet.... this is an extraordinary claim since prophets are not normative. This means that you need to prove to us that it was Isaiah that wrote those chapters and at that time. Quite frankly you have failed to do so in a rather spectacular way.
3. Saying that most secular historians are biased against a supernatural event is hardly a cogent argument. Historians are biased against a supernatural event because it is an extraordinary claim and therefore requires extraordinary proof.... or at least it requires some proof. Not just a text that may or may not have been written before the fact.
4. I take it you haven't found anything more recent or more convincing to show proof of biblical ... or any other type of... prophecy?
5. Ad hominems and writing your arguments in caps do not make them more convincing, quite to the contrary. It really tends to show that you are clinging to your point for reasons that have nothing to do with reason.
1. Is there any reason that you are constantly insulting me now? Your posts have devolved into nothing more than one long ad hominem.
2. You still fail to grasp the concept of the burden of proof. You claim that Isaiah was a prophet.... this is an extraordinary claim since prophets are not normative. This means that you need to prove to us that it was Isaiah that wrote those chapters and at that time. Quite frankly you have failed to do so in a rather spectacular way.
3. Saying that most secular historians are biased against a supernatural event is hardly a cogent argument. Historians are biased against a supernatural event because it is an extraordinary claim and therefore requires extraordinary proof.... or at least it requires some proof. Not just a text that may or may not have been written before the fact.
4. I take it you haven't found anything more recent or more convincing to show proof of biblical ... or any other type of... prophecy?
5. Ad hominems and writing your arguments in caps do not make them more convincing, quite to the contrary. It really tends to show that you are clinging to your point for reasons that have nothing to do with reason.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
1. Is there any reason that you are constantly insulting me now? Your posts have devolved into nothing more than one long ad hominem.
RobDegraves: Actually, my posts are FILLED with refutations of your viewpoints. Bothers you, doesn't it? Hiding behind a smiley just won't cut it, especially since the laugh's on YOU.
RobDegraves: Actually, my posts are FILLED with refutations of your viewpoints. Bothers you, doesn't it? Hiding behind a smiley just won't cut it, especially since the laugh's on YOU.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
2. You still fail to grasp the concept of the burden of proof. You claim that Isaiah was a prophet.... this is an extraordinary claim since prophets are not normative. This means that you need to prove to us that it was Isaiah that wrote those chapters and at that time. Quite frankly you have failed to do so in a rather spectacular way.
I fully understand the concept...YOU are the one who runs from the burden of proving YOUR OWN assertions. Additionally, the topic of Isaiah was originally brought up by MisterBelfry and YOU...I merely entered into the fray to try to clear things up with actual FACTS.
I fully understand the concept...YOU are the one who runs from the burden of proving YOUR OWN assertions. Additionally, the topic of Isaiah was originally brought up by MisterBelfry and YOU...I merely entered into the fray to try to clear things up with actual FACTS.
QUOTE (MisterBelfry+)
Cyrus is my answer to the challenge of RobDegraves, an ignoramus of prophecy.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
Well... let's look at the actual ignoramus shall we.
Apart from the fact that you write much like someone muttering to himself without any care for comprehension, your answer to my challenge is pretty easily dismissed.
You are apparently talking about the prophesies concerning Cyrus The Great contained in the Book Of Isaiah. I won't bother going over the details but here are a few things you might not have noticed.
1. The prophecy concerning Cyrus occurs at chapter 45:1 in the Book.
2. There is a big difference between chapters 1 to 40 and the chapters 40 to 66.
3. In chapters 40 to 66, Isaiah's name is suddenly no longer mentioned as the author... at all.
4. There is a significant change in mood and style from 40 to 66. The first chapters prophecy doom and judgement, while the chapters after 40 speak of the exile as though it had already happened.
So... most historians consider chapters 40 to 66 to have been written a fairly long time after the first set.
Do you know how they knew that Cyrus would restore the Jews?
It had already happened. That's not prophecy, it's just memory.
Hopefully, that will suffice to remind you of how this conversation started and, hopefully, that will suffice to stop you from trying to rewrite forum history(afterall, you're already not faring too well with your attempted rewrites of Biblical history). Like it or not, YOUR so-called "historians", according to YOUR OWN TESTIMONY, believe that Isaiah chapters 1 thru 39 were penned by "the first Isaiah". Well, Oh great seeker of fulfilled Biblical prophecy, then from YOUR OWN HISTORIANS' mouths, Isaiah effectively foretold the future within the first 39 chapters of Isaiah. Tough pill to swallow, eh? In other words, you've refuted YOUR OWN POSITION with your so-called "evidence/proof". Way to go, Einstein. Finally, in regard to this point, far from "failing" to prove my end of the argument, I've totally trounced your position...with tremendous help from you. Listen, Rob, let me fill you in on a little secret which will hopefully save you from some further embarassment:
I've been around the block QUITE A FEW TIMES. Guys like you make me laugh. You're in WAY over your head. I deliberately waited for you to attack any prophetic claim, fully confident that you'd make an utter fool out of yourself. Well, whattayaknow...perhaps I'm somewhat of a prophet myself.
Apart from the fact that you write much like someone muttering to himself without any care for comprehension, your answer to my challenge is pretty easily dismissed.
You are apparently talking about the prophesies concerning Cyrus The Great contained in the Book Of Isaiah. I won't bother going over the details but here are a few things you might not have noticed.
1. The prophecy concerning Cyrus occurs at chapter 45:1 in the Book.
2. There is a big difference between chapters 1 to 40 and the chapters 40 to 66.
3. In chapters 40 to 66, Isaiah's name is suddenly no longer mentioned as the author... at all.
4. There is a significant change in mood and style from 40 to 66. The first chapters prophecy doom and judgement, while the chapters after 40 speak of the exile as though it had already happened.
So... most historians consider chapters 40 to 66 to have been written a fairly long time after the first set.
Do you know how they knew that Cyrus would restore the Jews?
It had already happened. That's not prophecy, it's just memory.
Hopefully, that will suffice to remind you of how this conversation started and, hopefully, that will suffice to stop you from trying to rewrite forum history(afterall, you're already not faring too well with your attempted rewrites of Biblical history). Like it or not, YOUR so-called "historians", according to YOUR OWN TESTIMONY, believe that Isaiah chapters 1 thru 39 were penned by "the first Isaiah". Well, Oh great seeker of fulfilled Biblical prophecy, then from YOUR OWN HISTORIANS' mouths, Isaiah effectively foretold the future within the first 39 chapters of Isaiah. Tough pill to swallow, eh? In other words, you've refuted YOUR OWN POSITION with your so-called "evidence/proof". Way to go, Einstein. Finally, in regard to this point, far from "failing" to prove my end of the argument, I've totally trounced your position...with tremendous help from you. Listen, Rob, let me fill you in on a little secret which will hopefully save you from some further embarassment:
I've been around the block QUITE A FEW TIMES. Guys like you make me laugh. You're in WAY over your head. I deliberately waited for you to attack any prophetic claim, fully confident that you'd make an utter fool out of yourself. Well, whattayaknow...perhaps I'm somewhat of a prophet myself.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
3. Saying that most secular historians are biased against a supernatural event is hardly a cogent argument. Historians are biased against a supernatural event because it is an extraordinary claim and therefore requires extraordinary proof.... or at least it requires some proof. Not just a text that may or may not have been written before the fact.
And yet more desperate grasping at straws because you have NOTHING of substance to add. Are you suggesting that SECULAR historians are NOT biased against supernatural events? In either case, who cares(certainly not me)? Secular or not, their argument fails in many places...if you get them to tell you what the actual argument is and not just some broad, evasive claim of literary differences and the such. Funny(not really), that YOU, of all people, should say "not just a text that may or may not have been written before the fact" when it is YOU who is looking for a text that was written before the fact. Is there some sort of factory that pumps out idiots like you and PuckSR(don't worry...he'll eventually show up)?
And yet more desperate grasping at straws because you have NOTHING of substance to add. Are you suggesting that SECULAR historians are NOT biased against supernatural events? In either case, who cares(certainly not me)? Secular or not, their argument fails in many places...if you get them to tell you what the actual argument is and not just some broad, evasive claim of literary differences and the such. Funny(not really), that YOU, of all people, should say "not just a text that may or may not have been written before the fact" when it is YOU who is looking for a text that was written before the fact. Is there some sort of factory that pumps out idiots like you and PuckSR(don't worry...he'll eventually show up)?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
4. I take it you haven't found anything more recent or more convincing to show proof of biblical ... or any other type of... prophecy?
Well, they say that "the third time is a charm"... Are you hard of hearing? I've already told you TWICE that I know of the so-called "controversies" surrounding Biblical timelines. Even if you desire to stick your own head in the sand, I'm also quite aware(I've been involved in discussions like this for over 20 years) of WHY many(if not all) of these so-called "controversies" exist. Anytime that the Bible accurately foretells of an event...here come the "scholars", doing their best to explain it away. FOR THIS VERY REASON(how many times must I tell you the same thing before it finally sinks in?), I have DELIBERATELY chosen to foretell of a future event myself, using the Bible as my backdrop.
Has a "peace" agreement been brokered between Israel and the Papacy which has resulted in a rebuilt Jewish temple and the reinstitution of temple sacrifices?
NO, IT HAS NOT!
I'm telling you PLAINLY that it will happen.
Has a Pope sat in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and declared himself to be God/Christ?
NO, HE HAS NOT!
I'm telling you PLAINLY that one will.
Comprende(might as well try Spanish...you apparently cannot understand plain old English)?
Well, they say that "the third time is a charm"... Are you hard of hearing? I've already told you TWICE that I know of the so-called "controversies" surrounding Biblical timelines. Even if you desire to stick your own head in the sand, I'm also quite aware(I've been involved in discussions like this for over 20 years) of WHY many(if not all) of these so-called "controversies" exist. Anytime that the Bible accurately foretells of an event...here come the "scholars", doing their best to explain it away. FOR THIS VERY REASON(how many times must I tell you the same thing before it finally sinks in?), I have DELIBERATELY chosen to foretell of a future event myself, using the Bible as my backdrop.
Has a "peace" agreement been brokered between Israel and the Papacy which has resulted in a rebuilt Jewish temple and the reinstitution of temple sacrifices?
NO, IT HAS NOT!
I'm telling you PLAINLY that it will happen.
Has a Pope sat in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and declared himself to be God/Christ?
NO, HE HAS NOT!
I'm telling you PLAINLY that one will.
Comprende(might as well try Spanish...you apparently cannot understand plain old English)?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
5. Ad hominems and writing your arguments in caps do not make them more convincing, quite to the contrary. It really tends to show that you are clinging to your point for reasons that have nothing to do with reason.
My use of capital letters is an attempt on my part to get willfully blind individuals like you to see more clearly. I've wasted enough time with you. It's rather obvious that you've got nothing to bring to the table. The rest of my time on this thread will be spent with less evasive people than yourself. Enjoy your life.
My use of capital letters is an attempt on my part to get willfully blind individuals like you to see more clearly. I've wasted enough time with you. It's rather obvious that you've got nothing to bring to the table. The rest of my time on this thread will be spent with less evasive people than yourself. Enjoy your life.
QUOTE (newguy+May 28 2009, 04:47 PM)
when it is YOU who is looking for a text that was written before the fact.
You should be the one looking for such a text. Such a text shows you could be right.
Without it, his POV requires less faith than does yours.
And the position requiring less faith is the more believable one.
You should be the one looking for such a text. Such a text shows you could be right.
Without it, his POV requires less faith than does yours.
And the position requiring less faith is the more believable one.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
You should be the one looking for such a text. Such a text shows you could be right.
Without it, his POV requires less faith than does yours.
And the position requiring less faith is the more believable one.
buttershug: Oh brother. Have you understood anything that I've written?
1. Rob agrees with his "historian" friends that Isaiah chapters 1 thru 39 were written by "the first Isaiah" in the 8th century...
2. Rob is claiming that no Biblical prophecy was penned before the actual event took place and is supposedly looking for evidence of one...
3. The first 39 chapters of Isaiah contain prophecies of events which came to pass hundreds of years later...
In other words, Rob has inadverantly disproven his own position...a position which claims that the future cannot accurately be predicted within the Biblical text. If you still don't get it, then enjoy the rest of your life, too.
Without it, his POV requires less faith than does yours.
And the position requiring less faith is the more believable one.
buttershug: Oh brother. Have you understood anything that I've written?
1. Rob agrees with his "historian" friends that Isaiah chapters 1 thru 39 were written by "the first Isaiah" in the 8th century...
2. Rob is claiming that no Biblical prophecy was penned before the actual event took place and is supposedly looking for evidence of one...
3. The first 39 chapters of Isaiah contain prophecies of events which came to pass hundreds of years later...
In other words, Rob has inadverantly disproven his own position...a position which claims that the future cannot accurately be predicted within the Biblical text. If you still don't get it, then enjoy the rest of your life, too.
It seems that you are not believable Newguy... let's see why shall we.
1. Ad hominems
I've been around the block QUITE A FEW TIMES. Guys like you make me laugh. You're in WAY over your head
Definition...
Definition...Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
2. Biased and blind assertions.
No. MrBelfry and you (since you chose to enter into that particular argument) are the ones who are claiming an extraordinary claim... ie that prophecy exists. I am making an ordinary claim which only requires ordinary support, such as is offered by just about every secular scholar in the matter.
No. MrBelfry and you (since you chose to enter into that particular argument) are the ones who are claiming an extraordinary claim... ie that prophecy exists. I am making an ordinary claim which only requires ordinary support, such as is offered by just about every secular scholar in the matter.
Like it or not, YOUR so-called "historians", according to YOUR OWN TESTIMONY, believe that Isaiah chapters 1 thru 39 were penned by "the first Isaiah". Well, Oh great seeker of fulfilled Biblical prophecy, then from YOUR OWN HISTORIANS' mouths, Isaiah effectively foretold the future within the first 39 chapters of Isaiah.
That is because chapters 1 to 39 are not considered examples of specific prophecy, therefore are not contentious nor germane to the point that was being made.
Obvious one would think.
This assertion is unproven. Just because you think their argument fails does not make it so. Show what argument and how it fails for which secular historian.
3. Contradiction
This assertion is unproven. Just because you think their argument fails does not make it so. Show what argument and how it fails for which secular historian.
3. Contradiction
Even if you desire to stick your own head in the sand
Contrasts with...
Obviously the head in the sand is not mine.
Lastly two observations....
Obviously the head in the sand is not mine.
Lastly two observations....
Has a "peace" agreement been brokered between Israel and the Papacy which has resulted in a rebuilt Jewish temple and the reinstitution of temple sacrifices?
NO, IT HAS NOT!
I'm telling you PLAINLY that it will happen.
Has a Pope sat in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and declared himself to be God/Christ?
NO, HE HAS NOT!
I'm telling you PLAINLY that one will.
Again these are just assertions. If such comes to pass, we can revisit the subject but the fact is that your assertions, at face value and at this time, are plainly ridiculous and based entirely on faith and on your interpretation of biblical prophesies. These do not make good debate... they just make for religious frenzy and yelling.... such as you seem to be reaching for.
Quite frankly your attitude in this is fairly typical of religious fanatics when their faith is brought to rational question. The beliefs may vary wildly but the attitude is remarkably similar.
Not real impressive so far.
1. Ad hominems
QUOTE
Bothers you, doesn't it? Hiding behind a smiley just won't cut it, especially since the laugh's on YOU.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Bothers you, doesn't it? Hiding behind a smiley just won't cut it, especially since the laugh's on YOU. |
I've been around the block QUITE A FEW TIMES. Guys like you make me laugh. You're in WAY over your head
QUOTE
Is there some sort of factory that pumps out idiots like you
Definition...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Is there some sort of factory that pumps out idiots like you |
Definition...Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
2. Biased and blind assertions.
QUOTE
I fully understand the concept...YOU are the one who runs from the burden of proving YOUR OWN assertions
No. MrBelfry and you (since you chose to enter into that particular argument) are the ones who are claiming an extraordinary claim... ie that prophecy exists. I am making an ordinary claim which only requires ordinary support, such as is offered by just about every secular scholar in the matter.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I fully understand the concept...YOU are the one who runs from the burden of proving YOUR OWN assertions |
No. MrBelfry and you (since you chose to enter into that particular argument) are the ones who are claiming an extraordinary claim... ie that prophecy exists. I am making an ordinary claim which only requires ordinary support, such as is offered by just about every secular scholar in the matter.
Like it or not, YOUR so-called "historians", according to YOUR OWN TESTIMONY, believe that Isaiah chapters 1 thru 39 were penned by "the first Isaiah". Well, Oh great seeker of fulfilled Biblical prophecy, then from YOUR OWN HISTORIANS' mouths, Isaiah effectively foretold the future within the first 39 chapters of Isaiah.
That is because chapters 1 to 39 are not considered examples of specific prophecy, therefore are not contentious nor germane to the point that was being made.
Obvious one would think.
QUOTE
Secular or not, their argument fails in many places...if you get them to tell you what the actual argument is and not just some broad, evasive claim of literary differences and the such.
This assertion is unproven. Just because you think their argument fails does not make it so. Show what argument and how it fails for which secular historian.
3. Contradiction
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Secular or not, their argument fails in many places...if you get them to tell you what the actual argument is and not just some broad, evasive claim of literary differences and the such. |
This assertion is unproven. Just because you think their argument fails does not make it so. Show what argument and how it fails for which secular historian.
3. Contradiction
Even if you desire to stick your own head in the sand
Contrasts with...
QUOTE
I've wasted enough time with you
Obviously the head in the sand is not mine.
Lastly two observations....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've wasted enough time with you |
Obviously the head in the sand is not mine.
Lastly two observations....
Has a "peace" agreement been brokered between Israel and the Papacy which has resulted in a rebuilt Jewish temple and the reinstitution of temple sacrifices?
NO, IT HAS NOT!
I'm telling you PLAINLY that it will happen.
Has a Pope sat in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and declared himself to be God/Christ?
NO, HE HAS NOT!
I'm telling you PLAINLY that one will.
Again these are just assertions. If such comes to pass, we can revisit the subject but the fact is that your assertions, at face value and at this time, are plainly ridiculous and based entirely on faith and on your interpretation of biblical prophesies. These do not make good debate... they just make for religious frenzy and yelling.... such as you seem to be reaching for.
Quite frankly your attitude in this is fairly typical of religious fanatics when their faith is brought to rational question. The beliefs may vary wildly but the attitude is remarkably similar.
Not real impressive so far.
QUOTE (newguy+May 28 2009, 07:31 AM)
MjolnirPants: First of all, I SINCERELY commend you for at least stepping up to the plate(as opposed to the coward, RobDegraves). Having said that, let's now look at what you've posted.
Your sources support mine and Rob's position. Thanks.
RobDegraves: Wishful thinking on your part.
Are you now claiming that you never said this? Where in this quote did you indicate that you were 'aware of the controversy?'
In fact, where in the source material you provided does it indicate any controversy over the theory of single authorship other than that between serious scholars and biblical (or talmudic) literalists? Even Jewish tradition seems to indicate multiple authors.
There is no controversy among serious scholars. Those who actually know what they're talking about agree that the book has multiple authors. You and a bunch of fundamentalists disagree. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would take the serious scholars' words over those of a bunch of fundies. The only question is whether it was two or three authors.
Additionally, as Rob has pointed out multiple times, it is up to you to provide proof of your assertions. You are asserting a positive (that the bible contains unambiguously fulfilled prophecies), and Rob is asserting a negative, that those prophecies are not as they seem. The burden of proof is entirely on you.
Finally, Rob was referring to a very specific 'prophecy'. He's done his job already. Find another supposed prophecy to make an example of.
Not even close. His assertions have so far been held up by the evidence. Yours have not.
And stop calling him cowardly, you immature little shite. Courage has nothing to do with anything that happens over the internet. Even if he was completely wrong, he could always resort to the fallacious tactics of shifting the burden of proof, asserting himself without basis and twisting other's words the way you're doing here.
If you think it takes any courage to debate any subject from any position on the internet, you're out of your friggan mind. This is just an immature temper tantrum on your part.
Not even close. His assertions have so far been held up by the evidence. Yours have not.
And stop calling him cowardly, you immature little shite. Courage has nothing to do with anything that happens over the internet. Even if he was completely wrong, he could always resort to the fallacious tactics of shifting the burden of proof, asserting himself without basis and twisting other's words the way you're doing here.
If you think it takes any courage to debate any subject from any position on the internet, you're out of your friggan mind. This is just an immature temper tantrum on your part.
Evidently, you don't have much of an imagination.
You're an idiot. Look through my posting history, dumbass. I write sci-fi and fantasy as a hobby, I've created, written and drawn underground comic books and I'm a musician and songwriter who's sold several songs. I've got more imagination in my pinky than you have in your whole body.
Your sources support mine and Rob's position. Thanks.
QUOTE
All that this shows is that a controversy exists(I've already plainly stated TWICE that I'm well aware of the controversy...WHERE'S THE BEEF?)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| All that this shows is that a controversy exists(I've already plainly stated TWICE that I'm well aware of the controversy...WHERE'S THE BEEF?) |
RobDegraves: Wishful thinking on your part.
Are you now claiming that you never said this? Where in this quote did you indicate that you were 'aware of the controversy?'
In fact, where in the source material you provided does it indicate any controversy over the theory of single authorship other than that between serious scholars and biblical (or talmudic) literalists? Even Jewish tradition seems to indicate multiple authors.
There is no controversy among serious scholars. Those who actually know what they're talking about agree that the book has multiple authors. You and a bunch of fundamentalists disagree. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would take the serious scholars' words over those of a bunch of fundies. The only question is whether it was two or three authors.
Additionally, as Rob has pointed out multiple times, it is up to you to provide proof of your assertions. You are asserting a positive (that the bible contains unambiguously fulfilled prophecies), and Rob is asserting a negative, that those prophecies are not as they seem. The burden of proof is entirely on you.
Finally, Rob was referring to a very specific 'prophecy'. He's done his job already. Find another supposed prophecy to make an example of.
QUOTE
Secondly, it is RobDegraves who is "utterly wrong".
Not even close. His assertions have so far been held up by the evidence. Yours have not.
And stop calling him cowardly, you immature little shite. Courage has nothing to do with anything that happens over the internet. Even if he was completely wrong, he could always resort to the fallacious tactics of shifting the burden of proof, asserting himself without basis and twisting other's words the way you're doing here.
If you think it takes any courage to debate any subject from any position on the internet, you're out of your friggan mind. This is just an immature temper tantrum on your part.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Secondly, it is RobDegraves who is "utterly wrong". |
Not even close. His assertions have so far been held up by the evidence. Yours have not.
And stop calling him cowardly, you immature little shite. Courage has nothing to do with anything that happens over the internet. Even if he was completely wrong, he could always resort to the fallacious tactics of shifting the burden of proof, asserting himself without basis and twisting other's words the way you're doing here.
If you think it takes any courage to debate any subject from any position on the internet, you're out of your friggan mind. This is just an immature temper tantrum on your part.
Evidently, you don't have much of an imagination.
You're an idiot. Look through my posting history, dumbass. I write sci-fi and fantasy as a hobby, I've created, written and drawn underground comic books and I'm a musician and songwriter who's sold several songs. I've got more imagination in my pinky than you have in your whole body.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
It seems that you are not believable Newguy... let's see why shall we.
1. Ad hominems
Definition...
Like it or not, I've not only found and exposed fault in your argument, but you've unintentionally defeated your own argument yourself. Sheer brilliance!
Like it or not, I've not only found and exposed fault in your argument, but you've unintentionally defeated your own argument yourself. Sheer brilliance!
No. MrBelfry and you (since you chose to enter into that particular argument) are the ones who are claiming an extraordinary claim... ie that prophecy exists. I am making an ordinary claim which only requires ordinary support, such as is offered by just about every secular scholar in the matter.
1. Ad hominems
Definition...
QUOTE
Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
Like it or not, I've not only found and exposed fault in your argument, but you've unintentionally defeated your own argument yourself. Sheer brilliance!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it. |
Like it or not, I've not only found and exposed fault in your argument, but you've unintentionally defeated your own argument yourself. Sheer brilliance!
No. MrBelfry and you (since you chose to enter into that particular argument) are the ones who are claiming an extraordinary claim... ie that prophecy exists. I am making an ordinary claim which only requires ordinary support, such as is offered by just about every secular scholar in the matter.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
That is because chapters 1 to 39 are not considered examples of specific prophecy, therefore are not contentious nor germane to the point that was being made.
Obvious one would think.
Seriously, dude...you're starting to scare me. Can't you even remember YOUR OWN WORDS from this very thread?
Obvious one would think.
Seriously, dude...you're starting to scare me. Can't you even remember YOUR OWN WORDS from this very thread?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+)
4. There is a significant change in mood and style from 40 to 66. The first chapters prophecy doom and judgement, while the chapters after 40 speak of the exile as though it had already happened.
YOU SAID that "the first chapters prophecy doom and judgment" and now it's "Obvious, one would think...that chapters 1 to 39 are not considered examples of specific prophecy and therefore are not contentious nor germane to the point that was being made"? Come again? I, in turn, cited one of these(there are others that I could have easily chosen instead) "prophesies of doom and judgment" that, according to both YOU and your secular historian friends, was penned by AN 8TH CENTURY PROPHET and that accurately came to pass HUNDREDS OF YEARS LATER. Twist all you'd like...those are the facts. Game over. You lose.
YOU SAID that "the first chapters prophecy doom and judgment" and now it's "Obvious, one would think...that chapters 1 to 39 are not considered examples of specific prophecy and therefore are not contentious nor germane to the point that was being made"? Come again? I, in turn, cited one of these(there are others that I could have easily chosen instead) "prophesies of doom and judgment" that, according to both YOU and your secular historian friends, was penned by AN 8TH CENTURY PROPHET and that accurately came to pass HUNDREDS OF YEARS LATER. Twist all you'd like...those are the facts. Game over. You lose.
lol... that was not even a real attempt at an argument.
Blind assertions do not prove your point. You have not found fault in my argument despite your belief that you did. All you did was insist that you found fault... that is not the same thing as actually finding fault.
Blind assertions do not prove your point. You have not found fault in my argument despite your belief that you did. All you did was insist that you found fault... that is not the same thing as actually finding fault.
YOU SAID that "the first chapters prophecy doom and judgment" and now it's "Obvious, one would think...that chapters 1 to 39 are not considered examples of specific prophecy and therefore are not contentious nor germane to the point that was being made"?
A prophecy of doom and judgment is not a specific prophecy but a general one, not to mention that it is a general one that is made by just about every "prophet" and lunatic from the dawn of time. It's not proof of prophecy... quite the opposite really. It could be argued that every single civilization has faced some sort of doom and judgment at some point in their history. That a "prophet" is able to say that doom will come at some point is not real prophecy, just common sense.
Sorry... since you are not the referee, you don't get to make that call.
QUOTE
Like it or not, I've not only found and exposed fault in your argument, but you've unintentionally defeated your own argument yourself. Sheer brilliance!
Blind assertions do not prove your point. You have not found fault in my argument despite your belief that you did. All you did was insist that you found fault... that is not the same thing as actually finding fault.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Like it or not, I've not only found and exposed fault in your argument, but you've unintentionally defeated your own argument yourself. Sheer brilliance! |
Blind assertions do not prove your point. You have not found fault in my argument despite your belief that you did. All you did was insist that you found fault... that is not the same thing as actually finding fault.
YOU SAID that "the first chapters prophecy doom and judgment" and now it's "Obvious, one would think...that chapters 1 to 39 are not considered examples of specific prophecy and therefore are not contentious nor germane to the point that was being made"?
A prophecy of doom and judgment is not a specific prophecy but a general one, not to mention that it is a general one that is made by just about every "prophet" and lunatic from the dawn of time. It's not proof of prophecy... quite the opposite really. It could be argued that every single civilization has faced some sort of doom and judgment at some point in their history. That a "prophet" is able to say that doom will come at some point is not real prophecy, just common sense.
QUOTE
Twist all you'd like...those are the facts. Game over. You lose.
Sorry... since you are not the referee, you don't get to make that call.
QUOTE (newguy+May 28 2009, 01:12 PM)
I, in turn, cited one of these(there are others that I could have easily chosen instead) "prophesies of doom and judgment" that, according to both YOU and your secular historian friends, was penned by AN 8TH CENTURY PROPHET and that accurately came to pass HUNDREDS OF YEARS LATER. Twist all you'd like...those are the facts. Game over. You lose.