Are religions different or same? Yes.

peter,
just quickly reading through your replies to pam. you said,
"There is evidence from other historical sources of that time period that confirms people places and events in history that are spoken of in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. These other sources confirms that the writers were accurate in this information."

huh?!?!? are you talking about the fact that historians write about "rome" and "jerusalem" and "babylon"? puleeze...by that standard we'd have to think any historical novel is true. dickens wrote about "london" - and sure enough, we have other writer who confirm the existence on london in the 1800s...so i guess that mean david copperfield is a true story?

sure some of the banal references in the bible have been confirmed (some have NOT been, and in fact have been shown to have NOT existed at the time the biblke claims they did - see for instance, joshua's cities which he divides up for the jews in "1400 bc" or so...), but none of the "good stuff" - like the flood, the exodus, joshua's magic day, solomon's empire and jesus' resurrection have not....

Hi Pam,

I lost the last part of my response to you. Here is what I have.

PAM: "I accept the bible as evidence. It is, however, only hearsay evidence, which is not acceptable in any court of law."

hear·say n.
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

On both these counts the Bible qualifies as something more than hearsay. First of all, much of the information contained on the pages of Scripture is verifiable, such as people, places and events in history.

Second, many of the witnesses are first hand witnesses to Jesus Christ and His resurrection. They testify to the facts of Jesus and His resurrection, as having seen both first hand. Since they are accurate on their accounts of historical information concerning other people, places and events why do you want to discredit them on their accounts of Jesus?

"That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched - this we proclaim concerning the word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us...." (John 1:1-2)

"We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty." (2 Peter 1:16)

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, that He
was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to the Twelve. After that, He appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. The He appeared to James, then all the apostles, and last of all He appeared to me as to one abnormally born." (1 Corinthians 15:3-8)

So here are first hand eyewitness claims.

PART 1
Then you have secondary witnesses, such as Luke, who makes the claim that these accounts he is relaying are from the first hand witnesses.

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

If that is not enough of a testimony, the OT prophets and God's word itself testifies to the fulfillment of these things and to Jesus Christ.

Then there is the testimony of Jesus Christ. He says,

"You have sent to John and he has testified tot he truth. Not that I accept human testimony; but I mention it that you may be saved....I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given Me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent Me. And the Father who who sent Me has Himself testified concerning Me. You have never heard His voice nor seen His form, nor does His word dwell in you, FOR YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THE ONE HE SENT. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you posses eternal life. These are the Scriptures THAT TESTIFY ABOUT ME, yet you refuse to come to Me to have life." (John 5:31, 33-34, 36-40)

So the Scriptures themselves are an eyewitness concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.

"He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Christ have to suffer these things and then enter glory?' And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He explained to them what was said in the Scriptures concerning Him....Everything must be fulfilled that is written about Me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms..." (Luke 24:25-27; 44b)

PART 2
PH: ”At least you have now admitted to it being hearsay evidence. That was a hard point to extract! That is a step further than you would previously admit to! The point in contention then is the credibility of the witnesses.”

PAM: "No, Peter, it wasn’t hard to extract, nor a point that I wouldn’t previously admit to. I have said this before – the bible is the only evidence you have, and it’s nothing but hearsay."

Wrong on both counts Pam. There is evidence from other historical sources of that time period that confirms people places and events in history that are spoken of in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. These other sources confirms that the writers were accurate in this information.

PAM: "There is no way to corroborate or to fact-check it. It is evidence, but it is very poor evidence."

Rubbish. There are all kinds of evidence to fact check it. What are your sources that say it is hearsay and unreliable? I bet most of them come from 19th century higher critiques. Is the best you can do 18 centuries removed?

PAM: "If a trial were to be held using common rules of jurisprudence, you would have NO evidence, because yours would be inadmissible."

On the grounds of eyewitness evidence alone the Bible has credible witnesses. On the grounds of its historical facts of people places and events there is a witness. On the grounds of the Lord Jesus Christ revealed in almost every page of the OT there is a witness. On the grounds that it claims to be the highest court of appeal available there is a witness. On the grounds of the apostles and early Christians there is an witness, and the facts that these and many other early Christians risked their lives for these truths are a grand testimony to its accuracy and trustworthiness.

You have more than five hundred people claiming to have seen the risen Christ and no documentation to refute it from the same time period.

To distill and render invalid the claims of these first disciples all the Jewish or Roman authorities would have to do is produce a body. That would have squashed any claims that Jesus had risen from the dead. It would have crushed the spread of Christianity. No, history is silent on this account and instead you have the disciples suffering excruciating deaths for this fact of His resurrection, as well as thousands of people after them.

PART 2
PAM: "There is good evidence and there is worthless evidence. Eye-witness testimony from a junkie high on crack would be allowed in court, although it couldn’t be expected to carry much weight. Your evidence would be disallowed."

Not according to Simon Greenleaf, who wrote the standards for eyewitness evidence, eyewitness evidence that is still used in the courts of your land.

PH: ”There is also the testimony of Jesus Christ that is weightier than mans.”

PAM: "Only if you believe that there was a Jesus,"

Are you suggesting that there was no one called Jesus to whom the New Testament Scriptures give account???

PAM: "that he was the son of God, that there is a God for him to be the son of, and that his words were actually spoken and correctly reported by the human author who could not have had them by anything other than – you guessed it! - hearsay!"

The alternative to God is you or some other fallible, relative, subjective person as your final authority. Knowledge is impossible without a mind to conceive it and to think that your mind and your senses are the mind and senses that confirms truthfulness, is something that just blows my mind away.

Your belief that the natural universe is self-explanatory and at one time there was no self to explain it is something that blows away my mind.

Your belief that at one time there was no ideal or standard or grounds of judgment for truth or goodness blows away my mind.

How does one go about knowing anything unless there is a perfect universal standard, or form (Platonian argument) that is objective in its existence that we can measure something by or compare it to? A subjective standard is always changing.

How do you get roundness or goodness unless there is a perfect objective roundness or goodness that exists as the standard or ideal for roundness or goodness? If the object of knowledge is constantly changing, as in the case of your perceived opinion of goodness then goodness is nothing more than that - an opinion. As such there is no goodness to it, just your preference. You can't have goodness without a mind to perceive it and you cannot imagine goodness without having a fixed ideal. Since we both disagree on what that fixed ideal is all you can argue for is your subjective opinion.

PART 3
I argue for the necessity of the only thing that can be fixed and objective - God. Without His revelation it doesn't matter and as Ravi Zacharius once quoted Steve Turner's 'Creed' I leave you with these thoughts,

"We believe that man is essentially good. It is only his behavior that lets him down. This is the fault of society. Society is the fault of conditioning. Conditioning is the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter. We believe that there is no absolute truth except the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejecting of creeds, and the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky, and when you hear

State of Emergency! Sniper Kills Ten! Troops on Rampage! Whites go Looting! Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker."
Can Man Live Without God. p.43, 44.

PAM: "Since the object of the exercise is to determine whether or not there is such a thing as “God,” it hardly makes sense to begin by giving extra weight to the words of his “son.” Do you really not see the failure of logic here?"

First off, God is not a thing, God is Persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Second, unless God then nothing else, for the impossibility of the contrary. There is more to the universe than material and energy. Energy does not produce logic, mind does. Matter does not produce thinking beings, mind does. Thinking and logic are not physical things so the universe has to be more than matter and energy. If you want to say otherwise, show me how. Give me an example of either matter producing mind or energy producing logic, and don't beg the question by saying that it must be this way because it is.

PH: ”And if you want to go this way, so is any ancient historical evidence hearsay, if you want to class it as such. Do you believe there was a man called Julius Caesar? How about Napoleon or Alexander the Great?”

PAM: "No, Peter. For figures accepted as historical rather than mythological or legendary, we have many matching accounts by dispassionate (key word) contemporary writers, and in many cases, writings of the figure him/herself."

Who wrote these accounts, say for Alexander the Great, and how reliable are they? How many original manuscripts do you have concerning Alexander, or how many copies? If you want to judge all ancient literature as reliable but the Bible, then use the same standards that you use for the Bible and we'll compare reliability.

"Hi Pam, I'll answer as soon as I get a spare minute."

Take your time, Peter, I certainly took mine. :)

And I still have some of yours to answer.

Hi Pam, I'll answer as soon as I get a spare minute.

Continuing,

WALTER: "you parse the definition of "all" and "earth".... why can't you be so reasonable (i.e. comport your interpretation with reality) about the words in noah's flood? why does "all" and "earth" have to mean "global flood"?"

Because the Author's meaning does not warrant anything but a global flood. At the time of Noah all those who were not on the ark received judgment. But Jesus is telling the Jews that the abomination that causes desolation is a judgment specifically on the Jews.

As for the distinction between the words 'land' and 'earth', as I mentioned before, in Revelation 1:7 we see that the verse can be translated to mean land, for earth and land can have the same meaning, and when you look at Zechariah 12:10, the exact passage being quoted, and its surrounding context, you see that it refers to the land, the specific land of Israel. And who were those who pierced Jesus, both mentioned in Revelation 1:7 and Zechariah 12:10? They both speak of people mourning and a there are a host of other similarities between these two passages and between the Matthew and Luke passages.

WALTER: "and, you say,
"Where in Scripture is the 'end of the world' phraseology used? It speaks of 'end of the age' various times in relation to the Jewish age and then the 'age to come'. Where does it use end of the world?"

WALTER: "mt24 - the verse in question (you keep bringing up daniel and revelation and god knows what else to confuse the issue...) says, "heaven and EARTH WILL PASS AWAY"

Heaven and earth will pass away but Jesus' words will never pass away shows the eternality of His word. It is more sure than anything. It is fixed and true.

And the reason I keep bringing up Daniel and a host of other passages is that these prophesies were related and Jesus is telling of their fulfillment in the Matthew context. He specifically refers to the prophet Daniel to inform the reader.

"...spoken of through the prophet Daniel - LET THE READER UNDERSTAND - then let those who are in Judea flee..." Matthew 24:15-16.

Scripture gives a valid reason for linking these two passages together.

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "peter,
i'll get back to you soon...but basically, you're reading way too much into mt24."

Actually not Walter, if you go by the principle that God's word interprets itself. The danger of each person having a different interpretation is that each person can make it mean whatever they want to. But, in order for God to communicate, He would have to provide us with very certain and specific meanings. You must find the Author's meaning in order to correctly understand what He is saying. If you want to find the correct interpretation you need to understand where Scripture is related to Scripture and where it is not.

Do you see where the passages of Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are related?

Comparison of the great distress in Luke and Matthew
Luke 21:20-24
Mat 24:15-22

Luke 21:20 "When you see JERUSALEM being surrounded by armies, you will know that its DESOLATION is near."

Matthew 24:15 "So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes DESOLATION,' spoken of through the prophet DANIEL--let the reader understand--

Luke 21:21 "Then let those who are in JUDEA FLEE TO THE MOUNTAINS, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of PUNISHMENT IN FULFILLMENT OF ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN."

Matthew 24:16 "then let those who are in JUDEA FLEE TO THE MOUNTAINS. {17} Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. {18} Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak.

Luke 21:23 "How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers!"

Matthew 24:19 "How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! {20} Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.
There will be GREAT DISTRESS IN THE LAND and WRATH AGAINST THIS PEOPLE. {24} They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. {21} For then there will be great distress, UNEQUALED from the beginning of the world until now--and NEVER TO BE EQUALED AGAIN. {22} If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened."

Do you see the connection Walter? These two accounts are related and they both refer to the prophet Daniel and the time of abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel.

FOUR

PH: ”God gave these people visions and dreams as a tool for predictive events in the future. We know that Daniel speaks of four world powers that actually were historically. Two were observed during his lifetime. He speaks in his dreams and visions of judgment on his people for their sins and a time when their religious system would come tumbling down, just as the four empires or kingdoms did. He speaks of again a later time when the temple and city would suffer unheard of destruction. Again this is fulfilled after the 'seventy sevens that have been decreed for his people. If you want to call it coincidence fine, but this is evidence to the integrity of Scripture. These things actually came to pass.”

No, Peter, I don’t want to call it coincidence. I want to call it “written down after the fact,” which is true of the entire bible.

ME: If you're a religious fanatic, you will tend to dream about God and Jesus more often than will the non-obsessed, but that doesn't mean that they are (he is?) speaking to you.

PH: ”All Scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training.”

PROVE IT. Just saying it over and over doesn’t make it so.

PH: ”The point is to train yourself to rightly interpret it for there is a correct interpretation…“

Train yourself??? What, with your fallible human logic??

THREE

ME: You call my position "opinion," and so it is. But unlike yours, it's based on actual, solid, demonstrable, irrefutable evidence.

PH: "All evidence is refutable. It depends on whose opinion it is based on. The Bible has a claim that goes beyond the opinion of fallible man, if in fact it is true."

tr.v. re•fut•ed, re•fut•ing, re•futes
1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

I was referring to definition one. Clearly you’re going for two. I’ll stick by my assertion. Opinion has nothing to do with the evidence. And again, using the bible to prove itself, proves nothing. What we are arguing about is whether it is true or not. You can’t just say that it is and expect me to roll over.

ME: Evidence that would be, and has been, accepted in a court of law. Evidence that you can see with your own eyes.

PH: ”What evidence is that??? Are we still talking about the Bible or is this on another topic? Are you branching off into your evolutionary hypothesis now or are we still on the same theme?”

Same theme. History versus mythology. Applies, of course, to evidence of evolution, as well.

ME: Today, we recognize that dreams are pretty fanciful, and have only tenuous connections with reality.

PH: ”You recognize that. I recognize that when God gives a vision or dream it is for the purpose of His glory and revelation.”

PROVE that that is where it comes from. This is the point of the exercise.

TWO

ME: All of its authors are dead, so can't be deposed, and none were actual witnesses to anything that they wrote about. Very poor evidence, indeed.

PH: ”You can say that of any historical evidence that spans over one hundred or so years.”

The first part, maybe, but not the second.

PH: ”How can you not be a witness to something YOU wrote about? If you wrote it you would have to witness it.”

Huh??? Are you kidding? I can do my research and write a perfectly good book about the Peloponnesian War. I’d have to credit my sources, but I don’t have to invent time travel to do it.

PH: ”Now it is recorded in the early church fathers writing that Luke was a disciple of Paul and Mark of Peter. They were privy to first hand information from these two.”

Oh, BS, Peter. No one – repeat – NO ONE in the early church knew who the writers of the gospels were. They speculated. Ultimately, they assigned them names.

PH: ”Paul is actually claiming to be an apostle sent from God.”

Yeah, yeah, and I can take you down to the local looney ward and show you people claiming to be Napoleon and Joan of Arc. Your point is…?

PH: ”You take as evidence things related to you by others all the time. When you take someones opinion of a text, it is your duty to investigate and see if what is said is backed by the text and where possible by other supporting evidence. This is what the Berean's were commended for by Paul in Acts 17:11. I think we do a great disservice to God's word when we believe anything someone tells us about it, rather than hearing it from the Author first.”

LOL. So I should only believe it if I hear it from God himself, eh? Well, I’m waiting, but so far – crickets.

Playing catch-up...

ME: I accept the bible as evidence. It is, however, only hearsay evidence, which is not acceptable in any court of law.

PH: ”At least you have now admitted to it being hearsay evidence. That was a hard point to extract! That is a step further than you would previously admit to! The point in contention then is the credibility of the witnesses.”

No, Peter, it wasn’t hard to extract, nor a point that I wouldn’t previously admit to. I have said this before – the bible is the only evidence you have, and it’s nothing but hearsay. There is no way to corroborate or to fact-check it. It is evidence, but it is very poor evidence.

If a trial were to be held using common rules of jurisprudence, you would have NO evidence, because yours would be inadmissible. There is good evidence and there is worthless evidence. Eye-witness testimony from a junkie high on crack would be allowed in court, although it couldn’t be expected to carry much weight. Your evidence would be disallowed.

PH: ”There is also the testimony of Jesus Christ that is weightier than mans.”

Only if you believe that there was a Jesus, that he was the son of God, that there is a God for him to be the son of, and that his words were actually spoken and correctly reported by the human author who could not have had them by anything other than – you guessed it! - hearsay!

Since the object of the exercise is to determine whether or not there is such a thing as “God,” it hardly makes sense to begin by giving extra weight to the words of his “son.” Do you really not see the failure of logic here?

PH: ”And if you want to go this way, so is any ancient historical evidence hearsay, if you want to class it as such. Do you believe there was a man called Julius Caesar? How about Napoleon or Alexander the Great?”

No, Peter. For figures accepted as historical rather than mythological or legendary, we have many matching accounts by dispassionate (key word) contemporary writers, and in many cases, writings of the figure him/herself.

Jesus’s existence was attested to by NO contemporaneous writers. None. Nor do we have a single word written by him.

But that’s not all. Those historical figures may have led unusually eventful and productive lives, but no one claims that any of them ever stood physics on its head. As Carl Sagan said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” And there is none for Jesus’s miracles. None. Not one person who supposedly saw them thought them worthy of writing about.

The upshot is, that while I may believe someone who says that George Washington was born in Virginia, I’m not going to believe someone who says he was born of a virgin.

peter,
i'll get back to you soon...but basically, you're reading way too much into mt24. for instance, you parse the definition of "all" and "earth".... why can't you be so reasonable (i.e. comport your interpretation with reality) about the words in noah's flood? why does "all" and "earth" have to mean "global flood"?

and, you say,
"Where in Scripture is the 'end of the world' phraseology used? It speaks of 'end of the age' various times in relation to the Jewish age and then the 'age to come'. Where does it use end of the world?"

mt24 - the verse in question (you keep bringing up daniel and revelation and god knows what else to confuse the issue...) says, "heaven and EARTH WILL PASS AWAY".

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "all religions are different in that they make different claims about god. they're all the same in that they're all false....."

Walter my friend, you make the statement as if with absolute certainty and authority. You are not saying they seem to be, but they are. Surely only an absolute, omniscient being can state such things, yet you do so? Do you know enough about all religions to make this claim? Do you know enough about God to make this claim?

Again, I would contend that as a naturalist you are trying to reduce everything to the physical or material reality, all the while using something that is not physical, yet just as real - logic. Go figure. And all the while you are doing this you are basing your assumptions on the vast knowledge of your own being as the final reference point. Do you not thing that is a bit boastful?

Why are you that final reference?

Hi Walter,

I'll be with you sometime this weekend. It has been a busy week and tomorrow is the same. But here is what I have so far.

PART 1a
From July 13, 2010 6:58 AM July 13, 2010 6:58 AM,

Thanks for your point form!

ME: "What does 'coming on the clouds' mean?"

WALTER: "as far as "clouds" there didn't have to be actual clouds, though it would have been a good effect. i think i think "matthew" thought jesus would return, (possibly in some miraculous physical form accompanied by trumpets, but that's not important) in judgement, yes of jews, AND everybody. and then everyone would be sent to either heaven or hell and "live" there eternally..."end" of story. i guess no more babies would be born after that...?"

Well, I'm glad you see that 'coming on the clouds' does not necessarily have to be taken literally, and in fact there are problems when taking this verse literally, as I explained in a previous post recently. Much of Matthew 24 can however be taken literally, as explained in previous passages of Scripture (which has a habit of interpreting itself). For instance, consider the Matthew 10 or 11 contexts and how it fits into the Matthew 24:1-27 context. But the language changes to figurative after this. Besides, clouds in Scripture often refer to judgment when the context is considered.

PART 1b

WALTER: "i'm not hung up on whether it was jesus came physically, but i do think that's what the ancients expected...”

The question is what ‘coming on the clouds’ means, not what the ancients expected? We are looking for the Author’s intent, not what the ancients would read into the Scripture. So whether He came spiritually or physically does make a difference in the way the verses are interpreted.

WALTER: “ mainly i think jesus told his generation that it ALL was supposed to happen to them."

I agree, the Jews.

Please notice that in Daniel 7:13, that one like the son of man, COMING WITH THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN’ ‘approaches the Ancient of Days’ and is led into His presence. This is a scene IN HEAVEN. Here ‘He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worship Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and His kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.’ (Daniel 7:13-14) I would contend that Matthew 24:30 sign is the same sign as spoken of by Daniel.

Now notice that when you turn to the Book of Revelation, in chapters 4 and 5 we see a heavenly scene in which the Lamb of God takes the scroll and open its seals (Daniel 12:4), and we have the same kind of wording used in Rev. 5:9-10 as used in Daniel 7. These are people from every tribe and language and nation of men. Notice that here is where Jesus is given the dominion and power and sovereign authority (Rev. 5:12-13) also spoken of in Daniel 7:14. And notice that this all comes about during the time of the fourth kingdom – when it is judged and when the reign of Jesus was established, after the destruction of the OT covenant and judgment on the Jews.

PART 2

We also know from history that during the time of Nero Christian’s from all over the known world were persecuted by the Romans and put to death. In heaven these Martyrs see the Son of Man whom was pierced.

What a partial Preterist would argue for, some say convincingly, is that Jesus did come back at that time in history in the sense that His kingdom was established with the fall of the Temple and city, spiritually in the lives of believers. To this day His kingdom grows just as His parables illustrated it would to fill the whole earth.

Daniel 2:44-45 says ‘at the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people.’ (In other words, it is the final kingdom spoken of by Daniel, a kingdom that never ends) These kings spoken of by Daniel are from the fourth kingdom, the Roman Empire. Daniel 2:35 says, ‘…But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.’ So the kingdom (the rock) starts out small and grows to fill the whole earth (the mountain).

Jesus illustrates the kingdom of God in various parables, such as the parables of the mustard seed (Mark 4:30-32; Luke 13:18-19; Matthew 13:31-32). It starts out small, like in Daniel, but grows to encompass the whole world.

"And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached to the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." (Matthew 24:14)

The end of the Jewish age of Temple worship and the old covenant system, for in fact this happened in 70 A.D.?

From a total or fully Pretrist position 'all the nations' could refer to the tumultuous times as recorded by history during the times of Nero and the break up of the Roman Empire after Nero. At this time the gospel reached every known (to the Jews) part of the earth. This fourth great empire, spoken of in Daniel seemed to be in danger of a complete breaking apart during this time period.

Some theologians contend that Revelation is a book that John wrote in regard to this time period, the same time period spoken of in Matthew, Mark and Luke.
Please read pages 127-130 of 'Before Jerusalem Fell' in regard to the use of the words 'tribes' and 'lands' verses ‘nations’ and ‘earth.’ I provided the link earlier on one of the previous two forums.

PART 3

ME: "I think you need to do some exegetics and explain why you feel that His coming in Matthew 24:1-35 was not in judgment of Israel and the old covenant. Lay down your case in point form if you wouldn't mind."

WALTER: "1. i agree...it was in judgement of jews."

Do you see the destruction of the Temple as being like no other catastrophic event that could happen to the Jews?

WALTER: "2. there's really no "break" in mt24. there's no reason to say 1-35, then 36-end. but if anything, i would put any "break" btwn verse28 and 29."

Do you think the gospel writers used chapter and verse as distinctions, or are these something later inserted?

WALTER: "3. however long it was supposed to be btwn the destruction of the temple and the judgement of the world,”

World or land?

WALTER: “it was ALL supposed to happen - the temple AND the whole world - to "this" generation". below, the text says "those days" - "those days" is the destruction of the temple. "immediately after", means...well..."right after" (the temple is destroyed). "all nations" means "everybody". the destruction of the temple was supposed to be the beginning of the end of the world. everybody lives happily/unhappily ever after in heaven/hell...no more babies...stasis."

Where in Scripture is the 'end of the world' phraseology used? It speaks of 'end of the age' various times in relation to the Jewish age and then the 'age to come'. Where does it use end of the world?

PART 4

WALTER: "from mt24:
29"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.'[c]"

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn....."

WALTER: “he says ALL NATIONS - that means everybody, not just jews.

This is a distinction that I will make below.

WALTER: "also, notice how later (verses 37-39) "matthew" uses the analogy of the flood - this judgement is for everyone. there's no fleeing for the hills like with the destruction of jerusalem. when the "son of man" came back, he was coming for everyone."

Revelation 1:7 says, “Look, He is coming with the clouds [clouds of judgment???], and EVERY EYE will SEE Him, even those who PIERCED Him; and all the peoples of the EARTH will mourn because of Him. So shall it be! Amen.”

Again, Ken Gentry makes a good point that ‘all the peoples of the earth’ in Revelation 1:7 could also be translated as ‘all the peoples of the LAND’ [Judea], not the final judgment of all. That ‘all men’ shall see Him is taken from the prophet Zechariah 12:10-14, which also speaks of Him being pierces and the distinction ‘all’ is in the context of the LAND. Did you get that?

Those who pierced Him were His own people, those He came for. They SAW His power in the judgments He brought upon then, just as Zechariah describes. Equating seeing and understanding is something the Bible uses in other passages, such as John 12:40 or Ephesians 1:18 or Luke 24:31. Are you sure Walter that Jesus is not using this passage in this way?

To be continued.

dang....pam, peter, did i lose you?

all religions are different in that they make different claims about god. they're all the same in that they're all false.....

hi pam and peter. here's our old thread:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/janet_edwards/2010/06/loving_our_afghan_neighbor.html