Catholic views of animals

peter, you said,
"We are waiting for Christ's final coming in judgment of the nations. His kingdom is already here, just spiritually in the hearts and lives of believers (Ephesians 1:3, 9,10). One day we will see the physical reality of it."

whoa, whoa....wait a sec here.... so we ARE waiting for something here. i was just about to send you a post a bout more molehills out of mountains etc... but then you ADMIT here that we are waiting for something. so...that means ALL of jesus' prophesies WERE NOT fulfilled for the generation of people he was talking to.

are you trying to be a "partial preterist" here? sounds awfully picky-and-choosy of you.

"If you are not willing to read it then you are not fairly weighing the evidence?"

One small point - this is not "evidence." The only evidence you have is the bible, all theology is nothing but opinion based on interpretation of the bible. And there's no end of that!

As Bertrand Russel said, "The bible is known for many things - clarity is not among them".

when this times out, how 'bout here?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/janet_edwards/2010/06/loving_our_afghan_neighbor.html

Hi Walter (June 25, 2010 2:12 PM),

WALTER: "i asked, "so, seriously, you think this and ALL the rest of john's apocalyptic visions were fulfilled in and around 70 ad...when the temple was destroyed? that's it. and we're not waiting for anything?"

We are waiting for Christ's final coming in judgment of the nations. His kingdom is already here, just spiritually in the hearts and lives of believers (Ephesians 1:3, 9,10). One day we will see the physical reality of it.

WALTER: "if you say "metaphorically fulfilled" then why can't you say genesis 1 and the "creation week" is metaphorical? or even the FLOOD!"

Because of the language of Genesis. It is an historical narrative. The theme throughout the Bible is pointing to an actual historical beginning as attested to by Jesus's words, just as the end of the age is pointing to a time that is near or soon to come upon the generation Jesus is talking to, a Jewish generation as made clear in Matthew 10 and throughout the entire NT.

In Matthew 10 He calls His disciples together, gives them authority and instructions on what to do,

"These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritians. [Why because He came first to His own (John 1:11-12) and judgment comes first on His own people.] Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. [And we see from the text, the Book of Acts and other Scripture that this is precisely what they do and when Paul is converted we see also the Gentiles included in the message of grace.] ....Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. As you enter the home, give it your greeting. If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. [And this is precisely what we see recorded in the Book of Acts and other epistles.]

PART 2

Matthew 10 continued,

If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gamorah on the day of judgment than for that town. [Again this speaks of soon coming judgment to a particular people - the Jews that these disciples are witnessing to at that time in history - a judgment that is on the house of Israel and is spoken of repeatedly in the OT by the prophets for their sin and disobedience.]...Be on your guard against men: they will hand you over to the local councils and fog you in their synagogues. On My account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them AND to the Gentiles [pay attention Pam for the Gentiles are included also]. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. [This is precisely what we see happening in the Book of Acts where they are taken before councils, kings and leaders.] Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. [Sounds like a troublesome time in store for them, and exactly what happen, as historical records indicate.] All men will hate you because of Me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. [End of what Walter. I don't know how many times I have asked you this question without a reply. Do you think you can answer it for me?] When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, YOU WILL NOT FINISH GOING THROUGH THE CITIES OF ISRAEL BEFORE THE SON OF MAN COMES....AFTER JESUS HAD FINISHED INSTRUCTING HIS TWELVE DICIPLES, He went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee." (See Matthew 10 and 11:1)

So who do you think Jesus was addressing? Notice that a lot of the same language here is used in Matthew 24. Notice the judgment language which is directed to the house of Israel, not the Gentiles. Notice the reference to reference to the end (vs. 22) and the coming of the Son of Man, a tern used both in Daniel and Matthew.

How do you interpret these passages Walter. Do they not speak of an impending, soon to be judgment Walter? Is He not speaking to the twelve disciples and warning them of times of trouble and tribulation that is soon to come upon them and the house of Israel (vs.5,6,11,14-16, esp.23)

So what does the Bible teach Walter concerning the end of the age?

Walter, June 25, 2010 PM,

WALTER: "peter,
it's funny because you say we're influenced by "18th-century theologians" or whatever, but apparently "preterism" dates only to the 16th century! true?"

No, not true, maybe the term, but if you read the link I provided you will see that many of the early church fathers put forth the position. Start reading from the point I recommended in my previous post under Irenaeus of Lyons and see if you still find criticism for the Preterist position originating in the 16th century. If you are not willing to read it then you are not fairly weighing the evidence?

"Irenaeus is considered one of the most important of the early Church fathers. He was born around 140A.D. in Asia Minor and in his early years was acquainted with Polycarp, the martyr from Smyrna, who was a disciple of the apostle John." p. 23 of 'Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith.'

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/kgbj.pdf

The question is what does the Bible teach? From 'Before Jerusalem Fell' on page 15 of the pdf,

QUOTE: "In a quest for “relevance,” commentators of the historicist and futurist schools seem to forget that John addressed Revelation to real, historical
churches (1:9) about pressing and dire problems that he and they faced in the first century ( and chapters 2-3)” p.15

QUOTE: "Berkhof’s helpful study, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, teaches that hermeneutics "is properly accomplished only by the readers’ transposing themselves into the time and spirit of the author.” Mickelsen’s widely used Interpreting the Bible notes: “Simply stated, the task of interpreters of the bible is to find out the meaning of a statement (command, question) for the author and for the first hearers or readers, and thereupon to transmit that meaning to modern readers.” Needless to say, removing the setting of the book twenty or more centuries into the future is not conducive to a correct apprehension of its interpretation.” P.15

That is an important point to consider. Yes the Scriptures are still useful and instructive to us today for they point us to Christ and His finished work on behalf of those who believe, but to try and relate all first century writings into the news headline of today is going too far.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

who do you think is the earliest "preterest"? any of those "early church fathers"?

I don't know. I remember reading William Webster's "Holy Scripture, The Writings of the Early Church Father's Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura' which set me to reading some of the manuscripts and seeing their explanations of some of the figurative language, but that well was over five years ago.

Shouldn't we be looking for another home? Seems like this one is due for closure...

Hi Walter (June 25, 2010 1:55 PM),

WALTER: "peter,
any idea why no historian mentioned any of that crazy stuff with the 7-headed, 10-horned dragon?"

You are talking any secular historian I presume, for you don't see the Bible as an historic artifact depicting God's actual dealings with an historic people, or the early church fathers as being significant?

We don't have all the literature from that age so you are speculating as to whether or not it was mentioned and by whom.

WALTER: "or how 'bout rev9! i think it says "2/3 of mankind dies" or something like that? all this happened when the temple was destroyed?!?!"

Verse 15?

http://www.youtube.com/jcr4runner#g/c/C31A25E0CE0A1DC5

Gentry explains it better than I can.

Along those lines, you should read 'Before Jerusalem Fell' online at this web address,

http://www.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/kgbj.pdf

PART 2

WALTER: "i'll quote from your niv, but the king james sounds so much better...

Revelation 9:1 Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth...."

I think I got this from Gary Demar in one of his online articles but I forgot to bookmark the reference at the time,
"The heavens and stars are often symbols for rulers, either ecclesiastical or
civil (see Judges 5:20; Isa. 13:10 [speaking in judgment in vs 9]; Rev. 12:4).
b. It’s used this way in Matthew 24:29: “But immediately after the
tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not
give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the
heavens will be shaken” (see Gen. 37:9–10). This is a reference to the
dissolution of the government—civil and ecclesiastical—of Israel in the
first century in the period leading up to and including the destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70."

WALTER quoting the Bible: "3 Then out of the smoke locusts came upon the earth. And to them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power....7 The shape of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle. On their heads were crowns of something like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. 8 They had hair like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9 And they had breastplates like breastplates of iron,...10 They had tails like scorpions, and there were stings in their tails...15 So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind.16 Now the number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them. 17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision: those who sat on them had breastplates of fiery red, hyacinth blue, and sulfur yellow; and the heads of the horses were like the heads of lions; and out of their mouths came fire, smoke, and brimstone. 18 By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed—by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths....
20 But the rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues...."

The key is to understand the symbolic language.

WALTER: "200,000,000 horsemen.... interestingly look at this chart. world population at that time was about 250,000,000! pretty spooky, huh? now THAT's some scientific evidence that it already happened..."

Again, do you think that these people had a concept for 200,000,000 people or do you think that it represented such a mass that the number was unimaginable?

PART 3

WALTER: i'll have to read on...i forget..but i'm pretty sure MORE people die as "revelation" plays out."

1.1 million Jews alone died. That is a lot of people and as to what percentage of the Jews of that time I don't know. Maybe you can give me some of the figures from the censuses that took place in that part of the world during that time?

WALTER: "so, seriously, you think this and ALL the rest of john's apocalyptic visions were fulfilled in and around 70 ad...when the temple was destroyed? that's it. and we're not waiting for anything?"

Mostly. Ken Gentry lays down the argument splendidly in 'Before Jerusalem Fell'. I suggest you read the external evidence before you or Pam criticize Preterism as being a recent invention by the church (within the last 400 years or so). Even with your agenda I think you would do well to read it, starting with "Part 2, The External Evidence, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons" and stop at Part 3, The Internal Evidence, then proceeding with the "Internal Evidence" also.

Daniel (12:4) is specifically told to seal the words of the scrolls until the time of the end. The end of what? Can you answer that in the context of the Book of Daniel? May I again suggest the Old Covenant?

a. “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written
for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor.
10:11).
b. “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many
portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son,
whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the
world” (Heb. 1:1–2).
c. “The end of all things has come near; therefore, be of sound judgment and
sober spirit for the purpose of prayer” (1 Pet. 4:7).

Also, in Revelation we see the scrolls being opened and the words are told John, "Do not seal up the words of the prophesy of this book, because the TIME IS NEAR." Rev. 22:10. Just previous to this we are told by the text that 'these things must soon take place' (vs 6), that 'Behold [He] is coming soon! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophesy in this book." (vs 7). Then we are given the blessing and warnings (Rev 22:12-21). It is all in the context of 'soon'.

WALTER: "all that stuff about 7-headed dragons coming out of the sea, and so forth? that all happened already?!"

Are you taking this literally or symbolically? Is the language not obviously symbolic?

Give me a verse and we can look at it. If you want to make specific reference then provide the verse and we'll dissect it in its context and see what other Scriptures tie in with it.

The 'abomination of desolation' language spoken of by Jesus in reference to Daniel's vision and answer to prayer [see Daniel 9:20-27] is also used in Revelation. From these passages we can gather certain facts since they stem from Daniel's prophesy and they all tie in together. If you can't see this then we need to look at the passages and point out some of the exegesis - what the passage actually says and what it does not say and what we can learn from it/them (2 Timothy 3:16).

If you take King Neb's, King Belshazzar's or Daniel's dreams/visions you see all kinds of animal imagery. You see visions that symbolize world empires and descriptions that symbolize some aspects of each of the world kingdoms or empires.

"Four great beasts, each different from the others, came up out of the sea. The first was LIKE a lion and it had the wings of an eagle...And there before me was a second beast, which looked LIKE a bear....After that I looked, and there before me was another beast, one that looked LIKE a leopard....After that, in my VISION at night I looked and there before me was a fourth beast - terrifying and frightening and very powerful..." (Daniel 7:3,4,5,6,7)

As you can see, animal and other imagery is used throughout. The reason we know it is figurative language is that the beast in the vision is said to be like something else.

The statue made of four minerals, gold, silver, bronze and iron also symbolizing the same four different kingdoms or empires, two of which are explained elsewhere in the text as to who they were, for Scripture interprets Scripture. Babylon represents the gold, silver, the Medes and Persians, bronze, the Greeks and iron or iron mixed with clay, the Romans, We are not told of these last two. They are the logical implications from the text, since all four empires effect the Jewish nation and people - Israel.

WALTER: "sheesh, you'd think someone, maybe the selectively-referenced josephus whould have mentioned that. there were plenty of other first-century historian besides josephus too. no one mentioned all these crazy events/visions from revelation? weird...."

Sure, there were other first century historians, but Josephus was involved in this part of the world. He had a bird's eye view. He watched Jerusalem under siege and its destruction. He probably didn't understand the apocalyptic literature of Revelation for he wasn't a Christian. Plus not all literature from this period survived. This is some of what we have.

Hi Walter,

WALTER: "peter,
so you think the ENTIRE new testament was written before 70 ad?"

Yes.

Hi Walter, Pam,

I'll check in later today. I first have to watch the soccer game between Spain and Portugal.

oops...sorry. i meant to include this link with this post about revelation9:

-----------------
200,000,000 horsemen.... interestingly look at this chart. world population at that time was about 250,000,000! pretty spooky, huh? now THAT's some scientific evidence that it already happened...

http://www.sustainablescale.org/areasofconcern/Population/PopulationandScale/QuickFacts.aspx

i'll have to read on...i forget..but i'm pretty sure MORE people die as "revelation" plays out.

so, seriously, you think this and ALL the rest of john's apocalyptic visions were fulfilled in and around 70 ad...when the temple was destroyed? that's it. and we're not waiting for anything?

Posted by: walter-in-fallschurch | June 25, 2010 1:55 PM
--------------------

"Oh ye of little faith, how can you doubt these things? You have the creator's word for it."

wait...but baal (or was it vishnu?) told an ancient guy from my culture something else about the ultimate nature of the cosmos...or something....how do i know which is true?

"i mention this more to show how ignorant the ancient biblical authors (and readers) were about cosmology.

But Walter, Walter, the bible was inspired by God, himself. It is his word, don'tcha know?

How could he be wrong about these things, when he's the one who made it all?

He's the one who knows that there are unicorns, and that bats are birds, and that rabbits chew their cuds, and that the mustard seed is the smallest seed of all (not even close), and that there are fiery feathered flying serpents, and dragons, and cockatrices,and four-legged fowl, and four-legged insects, and that you can breed spotted and striped goats by having them look at spotted or striped poles while mating.

Oh ye of little faith, how can you doubt these things? You have the creator's word for it.

peter,
so, seriously, please answer my questions below about the dating of revelation, whether that's ALL happened...including this:

from rev12:
"3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.

i mention this more to show how ignorant the ancient biblical authors (and readers) were about cosmology. remember, before modern science everyone thought stars were little tiny jewel-like things bedecking our dome (possibly for signs and seasons...).

now, you can say "swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to earth" is metaphorical - but that's only because NOW, after modern science, you know that didn't and can't actually happen. but, there's nothing in the text that tells you that's supposed to be metaphorical.

from rev14:
"1Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads."

144,000! it's not 200,000,000, but still, that's a lot of people - especially for first-century jerusalem. nobody mentioned this?!?! there are many, many first-century historians who mentioned many things more mundane than this!

rev16:
"3The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead man, and every living thing in the sea died."

"every living thing"...sounds like the flood, no?

more rev16:

"...No earthquake like it has ever occurred since man has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake. 19The great city split into three parts...Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found. 21From the sky huge hailstones of about a hundred pounds each fell upon men. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible."

hahahaha

rev20:
"1And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven, having the key to the Abyss and holding in his hand a great chain. 2He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. 3He threw him into the Abyss, and locked and sealed it over him, to keep him from deceiving the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After that, he must be set free for a short time."

so, this all happened in 70 AD? in and around jerusalem?

btw, i talked to my literal fundamentalist pastor today and he thinks 95 AD for revelation.

and, how old is preterism?

Walter says:
"...which is easily the most indefensible story in the bible."

Not that it's a very high bar...

i said, "or even the FLOOD!"

...which is easily the most indefensible story in the bible.

i asked, "so, seriously, you think this and ALL the rest of john's apocalyptic visions were fulfilled in and around 70 ad...when the temple was destroyed? that's it. and we're not waiting for anything?"

if you say "metaphorically fulfilled" then why can't you say genesis 1 and the "creation week" is metaphorical? or even the FLOOD!

peter,
it's funny because you say we're influenced by "18th-century theologians" or whatever, but apparently "preterism" dates only to the 16th century! true?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

who do you think is the earliest "preterest"? any of those "early church fathers"?

i think you just like it because is sounds like "peterist". ;-)

peter,
any idea why no historian mentioned any of that crazy stuff with the 7-headed, 10-horned dragon?

or how 'bout rev9! i think it says "2/3 of mankind dies" or something like that? all this happened when the temple was destroyed?!?!

i'll quote from your niv, but the king james sounds so much better...
--------------------------
Revelation 9:
1 Then the fifth angel sounded: And I saw a star fallen from heaven to the earth.... 3 Then out of the smoke locusts came upon the earth. And to them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power....7 The shape of the locusts was like horses prepared for battle. On their heads were crowns of something like gold, and their faces were like the faces of men. 8 They had hair like women’s hair, and their teeth were like lions’ teeth. 9 And they had breastplates like breastplates of iron,...10 They had tails like scorpions, and there were stings in their tails...15 So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind.16 Now the number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred million; I heard the number of them. 17 And thus I saw the horses in the vision: those who sat on them had breastplates of fiery red, hyacinth blue, and sulfur yellow; and the heads of the horses were like the heads of lions; and out of their mouths came fire, smoke, and brimstone. 18 By these three plagues a third of mankind was killed—by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which came out of their mouths....
20 But the rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues...."
-------------------------

200,000,000 horsemen.... interestingly look at this chart. world population at that time was about 250,000,000! pretty spooky, huh? now THAT's some scientific evidence that it already happened...

i'll have to read on...i forget..but i'm pretty sure MORE people die as "revelation" plays out.

so, seriously, you think this and ALL the rest of john's apocalyptic visions were fulfilled in and around 70 ad...when the temple was destroyed? that's it. and we're not waiting for anything?

peter,
so you think the ENTIRE new testament was written before 70 ad?

Hi Pam,

PH: "Include the Gentiles against the express wishes of Jesus??????"

See Matthew 10:3 and 15:4.

You have your blinders on. Take the gospels in their entirety and see what they say.

Again you have to understand that Jesus came to His own (John 1:11), to bring the good news of the kingdom and eternal salvation to His own before He judged their sins, but also for all mankind (John 1:12; 3:16). He came during the time of the fourth kingdom as spoken of by Daniel the prophet. The rest of the context of Matt. 10 is interesting, especially such verses as 22 and 23.

Because of the very hardness of the Jews (they were not willing to hear His message, just as you aren't) the gospel came to the Gentiles, as promised in the OT and as Jesus Himself makes reference to on a number of occasions and through various parables and quotes throughout the gospels, of which I'm not going to reference now because it is late and I have to arise at 5:30am.

Hi WAlter,

WALTER: "not sure what you mean by "excluding paul"."

If you follow her context she is attributing everything to Paul's fanaticism in include the Gentiles in the gospel message, so I excluded Paul and just used a few of Jesus' teachings to show the contrary, that it was not just Paul that taught these things, but the whole of Scripture, old and new. We are just scratching the surface again.

PAM: "Paul, his fanaticism, and his drive to include gentiles (against the express wishes of Jesus, BTW) is part of the reason for the spread, the other part is that it was something new – a religion that told people that their god loved and cared about them, as opposed to the usual demanding and punitive gods (including the God of the OT), and that promised them that they didn’t really have to die. This was quite appealing. Evidence of resurrection? There is none." End of quote.

PART 2

WALTER: "anyway, you say we "mutilate and misinterpret" the bible, but really, we're just reading it plainly. i totally agree with pam's great line about turning a "mountain into a molehill" - now that's funny."

I'm sure you don't all the time, just like I don't, unless the language expresses plain language. "A thousand years is like a day" is not the same as saying a thousand years is a day. You understand this, so why does Matthew 24 all of a sudden become the whole world inclusive, instead of the world known at that time or the world known to the Jews at the time that Jesus is speaking, since it is obvious that He is speaking in judgment to them, if you take the passages plainly?

Take the same event as described by Luke and compare them. For instance, "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, YOU will know that its desolation is near. Then let those in Judea flee to the mountains....For THIS is a time of punishment in fulfillment OF ALL THAT HAS BEEN WRITTEN...There will be great distress in THE LAND and wrath against THIS PEOPLE.They will fall by the SWORD and will be taken prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the time of the Gentiles are fulfilled (see Rev. 11:2, 3 with Daniel 7:25; 12:11-13."

What 'land,' what 'people?'

Notice that the Dispensationalist wants to interpret passages like this as future and concerning the whole world and notice that they don't take weaponry such as swords literally as the passage suggests. If you are going to take this passage literally, would you not take the meaning of a sword to be a sword? Notice it is a time of judgments and punishment. Notice that Jesus refers the reader to Daniel 9:24-27, which is a time of Jacob's trouble. See Daniel 9:10-14 if you want to understand the judgment, for they never repented. Notice in verse 24 that "'Seventy sevens' are decreed for YOUR PEOPLE and YOUR HOLY CITY to finish transgressions, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophesy and to anoint the most holy." (see also Matthew 24:15 that ties in with these very verses in Daniel - the abomination)

Notice that in Daniel 12 he is told to seal up the words of this scroll until the time of the end when knowledge will increase. That knowledge was increased when the scrolls were opened in the revelation that was given to John in Revelation.

WALTER: "varves anyone?"

Not ready, sorry. I need to gather ammo.

man, sorry about your losing parts 1, 2 and 3.... man, i'd have been cursing imaginary god had that happened to me....

as to when revelation was written, you said,
"Before 70AD. Nothing about the destruction of the Temple is mentioned as of having happened. As a matter of fact, John is told to measure the Temple (Rev. 11:1)."

riiight...so all of revelation already happened?! all that stuff about 7-headed dragons coming out of the sea, and so forth? that all happened already?! sheesh, you'd think someone, maybe the selectively-referenced josephus whould have mentioned that. there were plenty of other first-century historian besides josephus too. no one mentioned all these crazy events/visions from revelation? weird....

Hi Walter, Pam,

WALTER: "peter,
i think i asked you this earlier: when do you think revelation was written?"

Before 70AD. Nothing about the destruction of the Temple is mentioned as of having happened. As a matter of fact, John is told to measure the Temple (Rev. 11:1). BTW, the same language in chapter 11 is used in Matthew 24 and in Daniel. It helps to understand these passages also, since they give a clearer understanding of what is going on.

Again, Revelation appears to be a time of judgment on Israel, for the most part.

Pam, I just destroyed my three other parts in response to your last post Pam. That is about two hours of work down the drain. I'll have to work on that with my next break. I'm getting behind in responding and I'm working this weekend.

I want to show you from the link that you provided that the other positions do not treat Matthew 24 literally either. They don't take the context as literal, especially the Dispensational view that treats 'the time is near, at hand, this generation, what must shortly take place, when you see,' etc,. That is something that the Preterist does, as well as the passages of wars and rumors of wars, persecution, famines, but not the more figurative phrases and verses, that in other places in the Bible speak of vision and judgment like 'coming in the clouds.'

Since I lost my whole argument to carelessness I will have to reconstruct it when I get more time. Sorry.

PART 4
LINK QUOTE: "To all Preterists, the Olivet Discourse is not about the coming of our Lord but about the destruction of Jerusalem. Revelation was not written in 95 AD but much earlier according to Full and Partial Preterists."

And they give good evidence for their position too.

LINK QUOTE: "Partial Preterists do believe in a Second Coming, resurrection of believers (but not in the Rapture), and Judgment Seat of Christ. They do not believe in a literal Millennium, Battle of Armageddon, literal antichrist, or a role for national Israel. Prominent Partial Preterists include Gary DeMar, R.C. Sproul, Ken Gentry, and "The Bible Answerman", Hank Hanegraaff."

Where do you see the term 'rapture' used? Where does the idea come from? Why do you think it is what the Bible teaches, that is Pam, if you support this author's critique?

In interpreting the Bible we must understand what the Bible teaches. If you don't do that you don't get the Author's intended meaning.

I can go on with the article but what is the point since you are not in the least familiar with the four positions.

Here are the three other main positions for you, rebutted by the Preterist viewpoint.

http://www.forerunner.com/eschatology/eschatology.html

peter,
i think i asked you this earlier: when do you think revelation was written?

peter, you said,
"I could go on and on, both from OT and NT passages, excluding Paul, but the point is again that you mutilate and misinterpret what Jesus and the Bible reveals."

not sure what you mean by "excluding paul".

anyway, you say we "mutilate and misinterpret" the bible, but really, we're just reading it plainly. i totally agree with pam's great line about turning a "mountain into a molehill" - now that's funny.

varves anyone?

PH: "Include the Gentiles against the express wishes of Jesus??????"

See Matthew 10:3 and 15:4.

Hi Pam,

PAM: "LOL, Peter - no, I don't read 19th Century theologians. I don't read theologians at all. Monumental waste of time, IMO."

It helps in understanding how a view originates, and you have a liberal theological view of the Bible, Jesus, miracles, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, etc.

Please open the link and scroll down to the video presentation for a brief introduction of 10 myths perpetrated by this liberal worldview,

http://www.forerunner.com/realjesus/realjesus.html

Each section has a different video, including on the dating of the NT,

http://www.forerunner.com/realjesus/myth2.html

I can see that you, Pam, do not have a clear and good understanding of the Bible in many of your comments, including this follow up from my comment here,

PH: ”Then you ask yourself the reason for the spread of Christianity. What is the evidence that someone actually rose from the dead? What is the evidence that transformed these peoples lives?”

PAM: "Paul, his fanaticism, and his drive to include gentiles (against the express wishes of Jesus, BTW) is part of the reason for the spread, the other part is that it was something new – a religion that told people that their god loved and cared about them, as opposed to the usual demanding and punitive gods (including the God of the OT), and that promised them that they didn’t really have to die. This was quite appealing. Evidence of resurrection? There is none."

Include the Gentles against the express wishes of Jesus??????

"He came to His own, but His own did not receive Him. Yet to ALL who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God..." (John 1:11, 12)

"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and earth has been(past tense) given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of ALL NATIONS,...'" (Matthew 28:18-19a)

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to My voice [Something you, Pam, fail to do], and they shall be one flock." (John 10:16)

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message." (John 17:20)

I could go on and on, both from OT and NT passages, excluding Paul, but the point is again that you mutilate and misinterpret what Jesus and the Bible reveals.

test

Hi Pam,

PAM: "LOL, Peter - no, I don't read 19th Century theologians. I don't read theologians at all. Monumental waste of time, IMO."

It helps in understanding how a view originates, and you have a liberal theological view of the Bible, Jesus, miracles, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, etc.

Please open the link and scroll down to the video presentation for a brief introduction of 10 myths perpetrated by this liberal worldview,

http://www.forerunner.com/realjesus/realjesus.html

Each section has a different video, including on the dating of the NT,

http://www.forerunner.com/realjesus/myth2.html

I can see that you, Pam, do not have a clear and good understanding of the Bible in many of your comments, including this follow up from my comment here,

PH: ”Then you ask yourself the reason for the spread of Christianity. What is the evidence that someone actually rose from the dead? What is the evidence that transformed these peoples lives?”

PAM: "Paul, his fanaticism, and his drive to include gentiles (against the express wishes of Jesus, BTW) is part of the reason for the spread, the other part is that it was something new – a religion that told people that their god loved and cared about them, as opposed to the usual demanding and punitive gods (including the God of the OT), and that promised them that they didn’t really have to die. This was quite appealing. Evidence of resurrection? There is none."

Include the Gentles against the express wishes of Jesus??????

"He came to His own, but His own did not receive Him. Yet to ALL who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God..." (John 1:11, 12)

"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and earth has been(past tense) given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of ALL NATIONS,...'" (Matthew 28:18-19a)

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to My voice [Something you, Pam, fail to do], and they shall be one flock." (John 10:16)

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message." (John 17:20)

I could go on and on, both from OT and NT passages, excluding Paul, but the point is again that you mutilate and misinterpret what Jesus and the Bible reveals.

Hi Pam,

PAM: "LOL, Peter - no, I don't read 19th Century theologians. I don't read theologians at all. Monumental waste of time, IMO."

It helps in understanding how a view originates, and you have a liberal theological view of the Bible, Jesus, miracles, the Virgin birth, the Resurrection, etc.

Please open the link and scroll down to the video presentation for a brief introduction of 10 myths perpetrated by this liberal worldview,

http://www.forerunner.com/realjesus/realjesus.html

Each section has a different video, including on the dating of the NT,

http://www.forerunner.com/realjesus/myth2.html

I can see that you, Pam, do not have a clear and good understanding of the Bible in many of your comments, including this follow up from my comment here,

PH: ”Then you ask yourself the reason for the spread of Christianity. What is the evidence that someone actually rose from the dead? What is the evidence that transformed these peoples lives?”

PAM: "Paul, his fanaticism, and his drive to include gentiles (against the express wishes of Jesus, BTW) is part of the reason for the spread, the other part is that it was something new – a religion that told people that their god loved and cared about them, as opposed to the usual demanding and punitive gods (including the God of the OT), and that promised them that they didn’t really have to die. This was quite appealing. Evidence of resurrection? There is none."

Include the Gentles against the express wishes of Jesus??????

"He came to His own, but His own did not receive Him. Yet to ALL who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God..." (John 1:11, 12)

"Then Jesus came to them and said, 'All authority in heaven and earth has been(past tense) given to Me. Therefore go and make disciples of ALL NATIONS,...'" (Matthew 28:18-19a)

"I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to My voice [Something you, Pam, fail to do], and they shall be one flock." (John 10:16)

"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in Me through their message." (John 17:20)

I could go on and on, both from OT and NT passages, excluding Paul, but the point is again that you mutilate and misinterpret what Jesus and the Bible reveals.

Well, congratulations, Peter - with this you have truly succeeded in making the bible completely irrelevant. You've made a mountain into a molehill.

The seige and partial destruction of one city and a building within it fulfill all that dire apocalyptic rhetoric?? The "judgement" just applies to the killing of a few Jews?

That wouldn't even be worth a BFD from Joe Biden.

Clearly, if this is the case, your God really was just the God of the Jews, and everyone else had their own, just as the OT constantly implies (or says outright).

Lakes were full of dead bodies? Jeeze, Peter, that's what every battlefield looked like after the fighting. They aren't pretty.

And this is God's Kingdom, that we're living in right now? Pardon me if I can't see the difference.

If I were religious, I would agree with this woman:

http://therefinersfire.org/preterism.htm

But you're so busy making every word of the bible true, including all of the predictions of eminent second comings, that you're taking out all the power and glory stuff.

You're always telling me that I make the Big Bang into the Big Whimper (not true - I just corrected your calling it an explosion - it was technically an expansion), but you're certainly turning the bible into the biggest whimper of them all.

PS. You'll find that Bible prophesy is so intricately woven together the more you consider most of these prophesies as past events and investigate the fall of Jerusalem as happening in the first century, and as you relate this to other historical sources from the time.

Scripture does indeed interpret Scripture!

Hi Pam, Walter,

PAM: "My "evidence to the contrary" is that war and plagues didn't wipe out almost everyone..."

Who is the everyone spoken of? It is the Jewish world of Jesus' day, the people of Israel? We can go into this when you provide your answer.

Again Ken Gentry gives a good explanation in his article here,

https://www.kennethgentry.com/catalog/apocalypse.htm

You really need to read this article in its entirety before you go making pathetic statements about no such wars or plagues wiping out nearly everyone and also consider the context of Matthew and the related passages in Luke and Mark and whom Jesus was addressing and pronouncing judgment on. You also need to include passages John sees and explains in the Book of Revelation in your evaluation?
(see Rev. 16, esp. vs 21, in which Ken expands upon in the article below),

Part 2

"Quick samples of the utility of Josephus' record to the preterist position are intriguing. Regarding the blood flow to the "horses' bridles," Josephus' comments on the battle scenes during the Jewish War are enlightening. At one point a naval battle produced a "lake all bloody, and full of dead bodies" (Wars 3:10:9). Later he reported that "the whole of the country through which they had fled was filled with slaughter, and Jordan could not be passed over, by reason of the dead bodies that were in it, but because the lake Asphaltitis was also full of dead bodies" (Wars 4-7:6). Surely such carnage and bloodshed are suggested by John's imagery.

The prophecy of the talent weight hailstones has found a similar fulfillment in the siege of Jerusalem, according to the preterist. Josephus states of the catapults of the Roman tenth legion: "the stones that were cast, were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further.... As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was a white color" (Wars 5:6:3). These stones not only had the weight required by John, but were the same color as hail." End of quote.

So here you have an historian, from a source other than the Bible, describing a time of great trouble and distress upon his own people, the Jews, during the time of the Romans, just before the fall of Jerusalem. Coincidence?

The earth the Jews knew, the entire world they knew at that time, which was ruled by the fourth kingdom in Daniels visions, the Romans, was having the gospel preached in it just before this great trouble happened on the Temple and city. The Jews were going through wars and rumors of wars and their sacrificial system of works righteousness was about to be put an end to.

It seems funny to me that the only argument against God's supernatural prophesy that you can come up with, the evidence that opposes it, is that the Book of Daniel and most of the NT books were written after the fact of the destruction of the Temple and city. My conjecture is that it is a weak argument, unsupported by large volumes of evidence to the contrary. Please show your sources that support your evidence and we will investigate to see if indeed they are largely from the 19th century liberal crowd.

Hi Pam,

It seems that you have been busy in response to my posts. Where to begin?

PAM: "My "evidence to the contrary" is that war and plagues didn't wipe out almost everyone, the stars are still out there, the moon still reflects sunlight, no one has seen Jesus return (with or without trumpets and clouds), and nobody reported people being lifted from the fields into the sky."

Concerning the phrase 'coming on the clouds,' please listen to this as an explanation,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmATWkT1nGA&NR=1

Actually you would do well to listen to the whole series (25 segments) for it is obvious that neither you nor Walter understand why Christians are misrepresenting the Olivet Discourse or Revelation by offering a Dispensational view.

Here is a debate between Gary Demar and Thomas Ice in which the two sides are represented,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3WrtZ_H7OU&feature=related

I think you will see that it becomes much clearer when you put things in their proper perspective - the light bulb is turned on.

hi mschmalz,
peter, pam and i have been having this discussion since LAST YEAR...! these threads "time out" after 2 weeks, so we've been forced to jump from thread to thread since then....feel free to jump in.

thanks for considering our topic "broadly related".... as far as humans having "dominion" over animals, i wish genesis had said something like "please take care of the earth and all its animals - it's on them that your life depends."

"PAM: "i don't think that really qualifies as an answer. "...the workings of the spirit..." "...the relationship and meaning..." huh? how's that a test? what's the test here?"
[Peter]: Your ignoring the rest of my reply on the internal and external evidence."

You're answering the wrong person, here. Walter wrote the first paragraph above, not me - the lack of caps should be a clue.

But he's right, even with the rest of your reply considered. That doesn't constitute anything like a scientific test of the premise that it is the word of God.

Even if we were to stipulate that there is plenty of outside evidence to corroborate the stories in the bible (there isn't), that would not speak to the truth of your premise at all. It would just prove that the human writers got it right.

And I notice that you didn't answer the part about what you would accept as falsification. That's an important part of any scientific premise.

Also, the proof has to satisfy anyone who cares to repeat the test - not just Christians who "feel it."

FIVE

PH: ”It has no certain knowledge, for it presumes from a relative point of view. It has no ultimate meaning for life and morals. It is what the individual or society makes it. And without meaning or purpose there is nothing to look forward to. When you are dead nothing matters. Why make it matter now? Why do you do that when you have such a bleak future? Just live the hedonistic lifestyle.”

My knowledge is far more “certain” than yours. And there is plenty of meaning for morals. Life matters. I don’t see the future as “bleak” just because there’s an end to it. I can’t think of anything much bleaker than living for all eternity. Monumental bore. What do you do after the first 5 million years? And do you see atheists living the “hedonistic” lifestyle? I think we live pretty much like you do, except we don’t waste our time going to church. Well, excepting Walter, that is. :^)

PH: ”How do you get better or best from a relativistic standpoint? Who sets the ultimate standard to measure it by? These are questions that leave you (the atheist/the naturalist/the materialist) hopelessly lost and looking for answers that fail to satisfy.”

Asked and answered so many times! Do I have to go into the lifestyles of social animals again? I’m not lost at all.

FOUR

PH: ”You come from the position that ‘in the beginning energy and matter’ and cannot make sense of why or how energy and matter could organize into laws and information and order.”

Not so. For one thing, it doesn’t “organize into laws.” Matter and energy have properties. When an element loses or gains an electron, it becomes another element. “Law” is something we humans use to characterize these properties.

PH: ”They [Adam and Eve] worked from a relativistic position just like you are doing. And from such a position you have no justification for morals/ethics. It is just a matter of might makes right, and, outside of Christ, that is all the world has to work on.”

Peter, you know from many past conversations, that this simply isn’t true. You know my “justification” for morals and ethics, and you know where I believe they came from.

PH: ”Finally, any world-view, of which you too hold one Pam, to be worth its weight must answer three to four important questions. 1)Why are we here? 2)How do you know these things? 3)What difference does it make? 4)What happens when I die?”

I disagree that a worldview has to answer these questions. But here’s how mine does:
1) No special reason – just because it worked for our ancestors. 2) Tons, and tons, and reams and mountains of evidence. 3) None, ultimately. But on a local level, it makes plenty to me, and hopefully to at least some of those around me. 4) You decompose into the elements that you were made of.

PH: ”Your world-view fails on all three or four accounts. It has nothing but speculation of why or how we got here.”

Yours is much more speculative that mine. Were you there to witness it? Every primitive people has its creation myths. Each one as nutty as the next. Read them sometime.

Hi Pam,

PETER: For the Christian it is testable by the workings of the Spirit in his life and by the relationship and meaning life in Christ has.

PAM: "i don't think that really qualifies as an answer. "...the workings of the spirit..." "...the relationship and meaning..." huh? how's that a test? what's the test here?"

Your ignoring the rest of my reply on the internal and external evidence. But it is testable for the Christian in that we have a relationship with Christ through the Holy Spirit. And we have a knowledge of God that we know is true for God is not a relativist or a liar.

This relationship was prophesied about in the OT (Jer. 24:7) and brought to fruition in Christ Jesus (John 10:14).

THREE

PH: ”It's not much different from investigating the claims of evolution. You rely on evidence that you were not privy to witness.”

It’s hugely different. There is actual evidence. And every time there’s a new discovery that allows another kind of test (such as DNA), it corroborates and reinforces the previous evidence. One doesn’t have to actually witness (via eyesight) every change in an animal’s form or function – we have the fossils, and much more. You don’t have one single corroboration of the supernatural stuff outside of the bible itself.

PH: ”The difference being that evolution cannot make sense of why something exists rather than nothing, how it could come about in the first place. You offer many theories and conjectures, but the evidence is not provable.”

The evidence is factual – it doesn’t require proof. It’s used to prove the hypothesis. And you seem to assume that “nothing” is the default situation. Who says so? Why should “nothing” be any more likely than “something”?

PH: ”You say that your evidence supports your conclusions, but even your wizards admit to their presuppositions. For instance, Jerry Coyne says,”

‘What we really want to see is geographically separated populations turning into new species. THIS IS NO EASY TASK. First of all, speciation in organisms other than bacteria is unusually slow - much slower than the splitting of languages. My colleague Allen Orr and I calculated that, starting with one ancestor, it takes roughly between 100,000 and five million years to evolve two reproductively isolated descendants...’ p 178, The Reason Why Evolution is True.

So? He says it’s not easy, he doesn’t say it’s impossible. And in fact, the fossil evidence shows us precisely this.

TWO

PH: ”I'm thinking about it [varves and piloerectors], although I think my explanation from before is sufficient since you assume that these layers represent a constantly fixed interval, that nothing in the past might have sped up or altered the frequency of such layering. You assume that the present is the key to the past, but why?”

Because the layers of varves have different colors depending on whether they were laid down in the warm season (spring, summer), or the cold one (fall, winter). There are known reasons for this color change. This is also true of other things that have annual layers, such as corals, trees, and ice cores. How would you speed this up? If deposition were faster, it would just result in thicker layers, not in more of them. You do know what constitutes a year, and how it affects seasons, right?

PH: ”It claims to be the word of God. You test it by its contents and by history (and for those who are Christian by the experience of God in our lives).”

Sorry, Peter, this doesn’t constitute a scientific test. “Experience” of God is anecdotal at best, and can be brought on by the belief itself – the power of suggestion – much like the placebo effect. You would have to show that the lives of Christians are measurably better than those of non-Christians – that they behave better, and/or are protected from disaster – something of that sort. This you manifestly cannot do.

PH: ”The internal test is the Bible itself and what it says. Does it internally hold together? Did these people and places exist and did these events take place. Are the witnesses reliable in things that can be verified?”

Fine, as far as it goes, but none of the supernatural parts are independently verifiable. And only some of the people and places are. You recognize, I suppose, that there’s plenty of historical fiction out there – I’ve read Gone With the Wind, for instance. It mentions many actual places and people, like Atlanta, and General Lee, but it’s pure fiction.

PH: ”Then you ask yourself the reason for the spread of Christianity. What is the evidence that someone actually rose from the dead? What is the evidence that transformed these peoples lives?”

Paul, his fanaticism, and his drive to include gentiles (against the express wishes of Jesus, BTW) is part of the reason for the spread, the other part is that it was something new – a religion that told people that their god loved and cared about them, as opposed to the usual demanding and punitive gods (including the God of the OT), and that promised them that they didn’t really have to die. This was quite appealing. Evidence of resurrection? There is none.

PH: ”Whether you read them or not your worldview is influenced by them. What you espouse I've heard from liberal theology, such as the denial of Jesus' existance, the virgin birth or the resurrection. These ideas were made popular by the German theologians in the 19th century.”

Coulda fooled me. I came to my conclusions entirely on my own. And BTW, I don’t deny the existence of Jesus. I just don’t believe that he did any magic tricks, or rose from the dead – nor that he was the son of God, or God himself, or whatever.

PH: ”First of all you have it wrong with your assessment of whom Jesus was speaking about in your other post. I hope to follow up on that next.”

Ummm…you asked me whom he was speaking to, not about.

PH: ”Jesus is relating on what would happen to that generation when He speaks of wars and rumors of wars, something that is verifiable by history in that during the time period there were wars and rumors of wars, right up to the destruction of the Temple and city. These wars and plagues wiped out most of the people living in Jerusalem during this period. I'll present the evidence for you when I do some more homework on the exact sources that note these things. But Paul makes the very point that I'm making on the judgment of the Jews,”

Yeah, yeah, wars and rumors and destruction of the temple. We know. But he talked about so much more. And he said “all these things” would come to pass. They didn’t.

PH: ”As for the coming in the clouds, I've explained that before. I can make just as reasonable argument for the expression 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light' as to the meaning from similar verses in the OT. I'm going to bed however.

And for the people being lifted skyward from the fields? To the extent that you can come up with arguments for all of this, you are just makin’ stuff up.

Thanks to everyone for taking my piece seriously enough to comment on it or to use it as a springboard for talking about different, but broadly related issues.

Mat

PAM: Oh, and Peter, when I asked you to give me a testable and falsiable supernatural premise, you gave me "The Bible as the Word of God."

How is that testable or falsifiable? What would you accept as evidence that it's false, and how would you test it for that evidence

PETER: For the Christian it is testable by the workings of the Spirit in his life and by the relationship and meaning life in Christ has.

i don't think that really qualifies as an answer. "...the workings of the spirit..." "...the relationship and meaning..." huh? how's that a test? what's the test here?

Hi Pam,

PAM: "I meant to reply to this:

PH: ”No you are. Where is your evidence to the contrary? Some 19th century liberal theologian, centuries removed?”

PAM :LOL, Peter - no, I don't read 19th Century theologians. I don't read theologians at all. Monumental waste of time, IMO."

Whether you read them or not your worldview is influenced by them. What you espouse I've heard from liberal theology, such as the denial of Jesus' existance, the virgin birth or the resurrection. These ideas were made popular by the German theologians in the 19th century.

Part 2

PAM: "My "evidence to the contrary" is that war and plagues didn't wipe out almost everyone, the stars are still out there, the moon still reflects sunlight, no one has seen Jesus return (with or without trumpets and clouds), and nobody reported people being lifted from the fields into the sky."

First of all you have it wrong with your assessment of whom Jesus was speaking about in your other post. I hope to follow up on that next.

He came to His own (John 1:11-12), the house of Israel, the Jews. In Matthew 24 He is relating to the disciples the judgment that would happen to these Scribes and Pharisees and to His own people for rejecting Him and for their disobedience to God. He makes mention of an OT passage in Daniel 9:26-27 (Matthew 24:15); a passage in context that speaks of Daniel's people and 'your holy city' - Israel and Jerusalem.

Jesus is relating on what would happen to that generation when He speaks of wars and rumors of wars, something that is verifiable by history in that during the time period there were wars and rumors of wars, right up to the destruction of the Temple and city. These wars and plagues wiped out most of the people living in Jerusalem during this period. I'll present the evidence for you when I do some more homework on the exact sources that note these things. But Paul makes the very point that I'm making on the judgment of the Jews,

"For you, brothers, became imitators of God's church in Judea, which are in Jesus Christ: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out [as Jesus had said would happen - Matthew 24:9-11]. They displeased God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at least." (1 Thess. 2:14-16)

2 Thessalonians 2 carries the thoughts on further. There had to be a Temple for the 'man of lawlessness' to set himself up in the Temple. The Temple was destroyed in 70AD and history tells us that someone did commit sacrilege in the Temple.

As for the coming in the clouds, I've explained that before. I can make just as reasonable argument for the expression 'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light' as to the meaning from similar verses in the OT. I'm going to bed however.

PAM: "What world do you live in?"

The same world in which you do, if by 'world' you mean the physical planet. A different world if you mean my philosophical outlook on life.

Hi Pam ,Walter,

I'm in between visiting with my sister so this will be brief.

PAM: "Yup, varves, and those piloerector muscles. Still waiting for Peter's explanation of both."

I'm thinking about it, although I think my explanation from before is sufficient since you assume that these layers represent a constantly fixed interval, that nothing in the past might have sped up or altered the frequency of such layering. You assume that the present is the key to the past, but why?

PAM: "Oh, and Peter, when I asked you to give me a testable and falsifiable supernatural premise, you gave me "The Bible as the Word of God."

It claims to be the word of God. You test it by its contents and by history (and for those who are Christian by the experience of God in our lives).

The internal test is the Bible itself and what it says. Does it internally hold together? Did these people and places exist and did these events take place. Are the witnesses reliable in things that can be verified?

From the external evidence you compare it to secular records of the times and from the more reliable documents see if these people, places, events are similar.

Then you ask yourself the reason for the spread of Christianity. What is the evidence that someone actually rose from the dead? What is the evidence that transformed these peoples lives?

It's not much different from investigating the claims of evolution. You rely on evidence that you were not privy to witness. The difference being that evolution cannot make sense of why something exists rather than nothing, how it could come about in the first place. You offer many theories and conjectures, but the evidence is not provable. You say that your evidence supports your conclusions, but even your wizards admit to their presuppositions. For instance, Jerry Coyne says,

"What we really want to see is geographically separated populations turning into new species. THIS IS NO EASY TASK. First of all, speciation in organisms other than bacteria is unusually slow - much slower than the splitting of languages. My colleague Allen Orr and I calculated that, starting with one ancestor, it takes roughly between 100,000 and five million years to evolve two reproductively isolated descendants..." p 178, The Reason Why Evolution is True.

Part 2

Yes, this is what they presuppose happened. They admit that the process is too slow to witness, so they read into the evidence what they have already concluded should be. It takes great faith, as much as you want to object to me using this word. It is a philosophy of life. It is not something that can be witnessed as happening for the process takes longer than our human lives are long, or for that matter any human life in recorded history.

You come from the position that "in the beginning energy and matter" and cannot make sense of why or how energy and matter could organize into laws and information and order. You look at it and say it must have been this way because it is. That is because your presuppositions do not allow God. You have not experienced His transforming grace. You have not trusted in the Savior, your intellect has got in the way - the same way that it did with Adam and Eve in the garden. They worked from a relativistic position just like you are doing. And from such a position you have no justification for morals/ethics. It is just a matter of might makes right, and, outside of Christ, that is all the world has to work on.

Finally, any world-view, of which you too hold one Pam, to be worth its weight must answer three to four important questions. 1)Why are we here? 2)How do you know these things? 3)What difference does it make? 4)What happens when I die?

Your world-view fails on all three or four accounts. It has nothing but speculation of why or how we got here. It has no certain knowledge, for it presumes from a relative point of view. It has no ultimate meaning for life and morals. It is what the individual or society makes it. And without meaning or purpose there is nothing to look forward to. When you are dead nothing matters. Why make it matter now? Why do you do that when you have such a bleak future? Just live the hedonistic lifestyle.

How do you get better or best from a relativistic standpoint? Who sets the ultimate standard to measure it by? These are questions that leave you (the atheist/the naturalist/the materialist) hopelessly lost and looking for answers that fail to satisfy.

Part 3

PAM: "How is that testable or falsifiable? What would you accept as evidence that it's false, and how would you test it for that evidence?"

For the Christian it is testable by the workings of the Spirit in his life and by the relationship and meaning life in Christ has. We take God at His word as the highest authority there is and that faith brings us into relationship with God in Christ. It is the working of God in our lives.

You, on the other hand either elevated yourself to that position of authority, or you have some guru such as Darwin or Dawkin's to fill the void. Your source of truth and knowledge is always relative, always uncertain, always changeable, as is evolutionary science. You are always waiting for the nail, that piece of evidence, that will seal the Christian in his coffin forever. It won't happen for Christ is risen and we have risen in life in Him.

Yup, varves, and those piloerector muscles. Still waiting for Peter's explanation of both.

Oh, and Peter, when I asked you to give me a testable and falsiable supernatural premise, you gave me "The Bible as the Word of God."

How is that testable or falsifiable? What would you accept as evidence that it's false, and how would you test it for that evidence?

our old thread:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/shmully_hecht/2010/06/we_are_the_caretakers_of_the_universe.html

pretty funny, pam, that peter thinks we're influenced by 19th century theologians! LOL...

so...how 'bout them varves?!

Continuing discussion with Peter and Walter:

I see that I inadvertently cut off the end of my post of June 17, 8:02 PM.

I meant to reply to this:

PH: ”No you are. Where is your evidence to the contrary? Some 19th century liberal theologian, centuries removed?”

LOL, Peter - no, I don't read 19th Century theologians. I don't read theologians at all. Monumental waste of time, IMO.

My "evidence to the contrary" is that war and plagues didn't wipe out almost everyone, the stars are still out there, the moon still reflects sunlight, no one has seen Jesus return (with or without trumpets and clouds), and nobody reported people being lifted from the fields into the sky.

What world do you live in?

I have taken care of many a sick animal in my lifetime, I have had many pets...or furry family members. I do think they have souls, they have to......they show love, they show affection, they do everything we do, procreate, have eyes, noses, eat and defecate. Nothing different. they show concern too when something is wrong, they will save you or warn you of something happening. They alert you to noise, they remind you of their need for love. They as well as any living thing on this planet has the ability to show somekind of response to love and caring. They DO HAVE SOULS.

Thank you for the educational article and for mentioning us, Catholic Concern for Animals.
Yes, animals have souls and God put them in our care to be their stewards ('to have dominion over') when we all lived in harmony before sin entered the world. We have twisted the meaning of dominion to mean that animals are ours to use (and abuse) for us for food, entertainment, experimentation, clothing, etc., when in fact God created His creatures for Himself, to give Him glory. We have strayed over the centuries into believing the lie that they belong to us, for our use. Col 1.15-17 clearly states this.
It is sad to read about the nuns and priests concerning eating meat with no regard (and lack of love) to people. 1 Cor 10.31-32 states: So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. Do not cause anyone to stumble,...".
We will be held accountable someday to the Creator, we say we love, for every creature as Hebrews 4:13 states.
And there are only a fraction of people who spend unnecessary clothing, etc. on their pets, when we should be looking at the bigger picture of the billions of God's creatures who suffer in factory farms for our lust for their flesh and products. God dealt with the Israelites who were greedy for meat, by death (see Numbers 11:31-35.
A non-Christian wrote a book while she attended a Catholic college. She is a medical doctor who is interested in theology. Her name is Dr. Holly Roberts and the book is "Vegetarian Christian Saints", which is encouraging.
We have strayed from God's heart of compassion for His animals.
Jan
Catholic Concern for Animals-USA
We have some repenting to do?

This is why I prefer Buddhism to Christianity. Buddhism holds that animals and humans have the same essential inner nature, and both have the possibility of attaining to enlightenment.