What had happen' was.....

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Commenting On "This Generation" - Mark 8:38;9:1; Matthew 24:34

I've been in discussion with a regular commenter on John W. Loftus' blog named Shane. We have been going back and forth on a post Loftus did regarding how do we know our worldviews are right or wrong. You can read the original posts and comments here. I wrote a response to that post here and you can read the exchange there. I challenged Shane to go to scripture and really check to see if there is an unambiguous interpretation. He has brought up two scriptures.

Mark 8:38-9:1 (New International Version)

³⁸If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels."

Mark 9

¹And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power."

And

Matthew 24:34 (New International Version)

³⁴I tell you the truth, this generation^[a] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Footnotes:

Matthew 24:34 Or race

Shane believes that both scriptures are talking about Jesus' second coming and would say that it shows that Jesus could not be a prophet or what we claim because Jesus did not return during the lifetime of those who heard Jesus make the prophecy in person. It's interesting to me that Shane thinks that Jesus is talking about the same thing in both passages although they are two different contexts at two different times.

I appreciate District Superintendent Harvey Burnett chiming in on the text for Mark. I agree with him. His answer is in the comments section for the post on my blog again found here. The only thing I would add to what his said is don't use the New Living Translation for exegesis. It's a paraphrase not a real translation. "generation" in Mark 9:1 does not mean the same things as Matthew 24:34. Elder Burnett did such a great job I see no reason to add to his explanation for why Jesus was not saying that the the Kingdom would be manifested physically in the lifetime of his first disciples.

Instead, let's turn our focus to the the context of Matthew 24. Verse 34 is in context of Jesus answering a question of his disciples. Jesus issued a prophecy in verse 2. Look at verses 1 and 2.

¹Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. ²"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

In verse 3, the disciples wanted to know two things: when would the temple be destroyed and when would his coming be and the end of the age?

³As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

Verse 4-34 is Jesus answering the question. Here is where things get interesting. Historically there has been 3 interpretations and one of them is Shane's that Jesus is talking about the end of the world. The other ones make more sense,.Either Jesus is talking about a real historical event - the destruction of the temple - that would happen in the lifetime of those present, or the disciples were asking about the end of the world and the temple destruction. It is my opinion that verse 34 is talking about the destruction of the temple when Jesus says "these things". So here is the question. Was Herod's temple destroyed during the the lifetime of those present when this prophecy was given? Yes. This prophecy cold be dated towards the end of Jesus' earthly ministry just before he was crucified and resurrected. - say 30 AD. The Jews rebelled against Rome and the Romans didn't take kindly to that in 70 AD. They destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. The Jews ceased to exist as a political nation until 1948 AD! This fact is well attested in history - Roman history and in Josephus. Because the destruction was never mentioned anywhere else other than in this context (Olivet Discourse), some people think that the entire New Testament should be dated before 70 AD.

I already know what the counter argument is so let me raise it myself. How can we say that Jesus is right about no stone being left one on top of another if the "Wailing Wall" is still here today? Simple. The Wailing Wall is part of the huge platform that was built to give the builders a level surface on which to build the temple in a remarkable, almost unreproducible feat of ancient engineering. When Jesus spoke this prophecy he wasn't referring to the platform, he was talking to the buildings that had stood on top of the platform. Jesus was probably standing on that platform when he said this. Therefore Jesus was right....validating Himself as prophet, king, and Lord because had He been wrong than everything else He ever said is suspect. It's just following the evidence where it leads. Jesus was not saying that there were those listening to him at that moment who would see his second coming, he was saying that they would live to see the destruction of the temple.

Now the thing to remember is that not everyone agrees with me that Matthew 24 points to any future fulfillment as well as to 70 AD. I was in an online written debate with my friend Mike Felker who believes that all of Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD and is not talking about the second coming at all. I disagree, but there are many people who would agree with them. I believe Jesus was talking about 60 AD and events beyond the time we now live. You can read that debate by going to the last post at http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2010/02/apologetic-front-my-last-response-to.html and in that post is links to all the other posts. The interesting thing is that the answer to this question is not essential doctrine. What I mean by that is you can either endorse my interpretation or Mike's and still be orthodox. It's not a salvation issue. That's not saying that it's not important. I mean I would like to know which viewpoint is right but that is how I see it now. The truth is all we have to do is wait and we will see which one is right when Jesus returns. If Mike is right, Shane is wrong while Mike and I still go to heaven and live lives used of God.. If I'm right, Shane is wrong while Mike and I still go to heaven and live lives used of God.With Elder Burnett's assist on the texts form Mark, it is obvious to see that Shane misinterpreted the scripture. Either way the Bible is right.

Secrets of Iron Man’s New Suits | Underwire | Wired.com

The blog has been heavy lately. Time for some fun. I love articles like this one. Just how feasible is Iron Man's armor? How did they figure out how to make it work for a person to actually wear it? How did they switch from practical effects to computer generated ones. This article answers many of these.

Secrets of Iron Man’s New Suits | Underwire | Wired.com

Philosophical Zombies?

Okay, this strip made me laugh. I hope it's a complete joke because if anyone is really teaching this as an answer to the problem of suffering they need help. I don't think mental health professionals can help...might take a full-blown exorcism. It's amazing every time atheists resort to telling Christians that we believe in zombies because it shows that they know nothing of the Bible or about zombies.

The Bible most definitely gives answers for why we have evil and suffering. It doesn't matter if you don't like the answer because it's not subjective. Bad things do happen to "good" people. You can do everything you can to be good and do good and yet at times life falls apart...to say nothing of the consequences of our own personal sins. This is just the way it is. You want better?

7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet."[b] 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.

11For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death. 12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin. - Romans 7:7-25

2008-12-21.png (PNG Image, 500x700 pixels) - Scaled (94%)

Apologetics 315: William Lane Craig debates John Shook - Does God Exist? MP3 Audio

Here is a debate from a couple of years ago between William Lane Craig and John Shook. They are debating the existence of God.

Apologetics 315: William Lane Craig debates John Shook - Does God Exist? MP3 Audio

The video is at this link: William Lane Craig debates John Shook in Canada, 2008

This debate was one of the best debates I've ever heard Dr. William Lane Craig debate in. It wasn't because Dr. Shook had good or new arguments supporting Atheism. Shook however is a good debater and provided a challenge. Shook had some really silly stuff but he had a home-filled advantage.

And here is Dr Craig commenting on the debate in an interview.

I liked hearing Dr W. L. Craig's take on the debate. I learned a lot from this exchange.

Monday, May 10, 2010

President Obama Slams Video Games, Blogs, iPads - G4tv.com

President Obama has said:

"With iPods and iPads; Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation," Obama said. "All of this is not only putting new pressures on you. It is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy," he added.

Obama also said an education can help people make sense of the different viewpoints and voices "clamoring for attention on blogs, on cable, on talk radio."

I found this quote from G4TV. It strikes me as disingenuous because it was the very same information pipes that lead to his election. I agree that these things can be a distraction but any tool can be if it is misused. We can't let others think for us. We must analyze and critique the information we consume. We should throw away the crap and cleave to what is good.

Read more: http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/704566/President-Obama-Slams-Video-Games-Blogs-iPads.html?utm_source=g4tv&utm_medium=rssfeeds&utm_campaign=TheFeed#ixzz0naXLe0I3

President Obama Slams Video Games, Blogs, iPads - G4tv.com

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Ancient Christian Art: Quoting Out of Context part 4

Here is part 4

The Greek Septuagint the Holy Spirit's favorite Translation and Quote Mining.

To realize how big a problem these issues are have you not considered why apologist James White is slowly backing away in subtle ways from the issue of rather the Bible is inerrant?

Please see my full article here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/01/james-white-backs-away-from-biblical.html

Any how this is a rather interesting quote from apologist James White

“Consider the example of the New Testament. Did the New Testament writers display a modernistic view the validity and transmission of the Old Testament text?”

Well James that would be hard to ascertain considering that you quoted from N.T Wright in a recent debate with Shabir Allay here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-jesus-die-as-willing-sacrifice.html that we don't even know who the New Testament writers are and it doesn't matter!

So how are you going to ascertain the view of someone you don't even know? Is FBI scale forensics really necessary for the common person to have faith in the word of God?

I'm confused is he saying that Dr. James R. white does nto agree that the New Testament writers are known to us? I read the king James Only Controversy and therein Dr. White said no such thing but the opposite. You don't know Muhammad. You don't know what he was like when he was happy. Or when he was sad. You can't say you know him or any of the men that memorized and/or transcribed the Qur'an. By your thinking...how do you know you can trust them?

“Or did they recognize that God had preserved the text in such a way that they could quote from the Greek Septuagint (the text known to their target audience) and still identify this translation as the Word of God?Surely, their use of the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament raises all sorts of challenging, difficult questions.”

I'm gonna assume that this quote is also from Dr. White.

I'll give one example to show just how difficult and challenging the questions raise can be. (Matthew 21:1-11)

¹When they drew near Jerusalem and came to Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples,

saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her.³Untie them and bring them here to me.

And if anyone should say anything to you, reply, 'The master has need of them.' Then he will send themat once."

⁴This happened so that what had been spoken through the prophet might be fulfilled:

"Say to daughter Zion, 'Behold, your king comes to you, meek and riding on an ass, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'"

The disciples went and did as Jesus had ordered them.

⁵They brought the ass and the colt and laid their cloaks over them, and he sat upon them.

⁶The very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and strewed them on the road.

The crowds preceding him and those following kept crying out and saying: "Hosanna ⁷to the Son of David; blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord; hosanna in the highest."

And when he entered Jerusalem the whole city was shaken ⁸and asked, "Who is this?"

And the crowds replied, "This is Jesus the prophet, ⁹from Nazareth in Galilee."

Once again Matthew was quote mining and this time it was disastrous. It is disastrous on several accounts. Who ever wrote the gospel of Matthew misunderstood the original Hebrew text. Instead the Greek Septuagint was relied upon resulting in the mistaken belief that the so called “prophecy” was about Jesus riding upon two donkeys!

Again look what Christian scholars have had to say about the matter.

⁴[4-5] The prophet: this fulfillment citation is actually composed of two distinct Old Testament texts,Isaiah 62:11(Say to daughter Zion) and Zechariah 9:9. The ass and the colt are the same animal in the prophecy, mentioned twice in different ways, the common Hebrew literary device of poetic parallelism. That Matthew takes them as two is one of the reasons why some scholars think that he was a Gentile rather than a Jewish Christian who would presumably not make that mistake (see Introduction).

⁵[7] Upon them: upon the two animals; an awkward picture resulting from Matthew's misunderstanding of the prophecy.

The source is from: (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew28.htm)

What misunderstanding? Are we to believe that his misunderstanding is divinely inspired? Did the Holy Spirit inspire this misunderstanding?

No problem here. Jesus was riding the colt and the colt's mother walked ahead leading the colt. This was standard in that day for a colt that had never been ridden. Matthew was not wrong. The Septuagint is not wrong. The Hebrew is not wrong.

Not only that but did Jesus really say the following:

“Jesus sent two disciples,

saying to them, "Go into the village opposite you, and immediately you will find an ass tethered, and a colt with her.³Untie them and bring them here to me.”

Since it is shown that Matthew (or whom ever wrote this) made such a huge error do Christians really expect us Muslims to believe that the above conversation really took place? Is not literary imagination at work here?

I've just shown that Matthew is not wrong. And anyone including Muslims should believe the text.

Since this is an obvious case of a person (Matthew?) quote mining and making a huge mistake in the process it makes one wonder. How many other instances are words put in the mouth of Jesus?

Did Jesus really say the following? (Matthew 28:19-20)

¹¹Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19: Go, therefore, ¹²and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
20: teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you ¹³And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

On what consistent basis do we accept that Matthew makes a mistake in one area of his 'inspired' Gospel but is completely trustworthy in other areas?

This why Biblical inerrancy is important. If any part is wrong we should throw the whole thing out. However you have failed to demonstrate error.

Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your king [a] comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
even a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zechariah 9:9)

Conclusion: You have seen me quote the Bible and quote from Christian scholars to prove my point. I have not used Muslim scholars who quote Christian sources and than selectively pick and choose.

The whole of the Christian faith rest upon the craft of Christians who have mastered the art of quote mining the Old Testament to give Christianity a feel of legitimacy and air of freshness to it.

Nice try. But those are not errors.

The whole of the Christian faith rest upon literary imagination and oral traditions which have no chains of transmission in them. The fact that these problems rest with in the most ancient Greek text the Christians possess is also further evidence that there is no escaping any of the points raised.

Most of the so called 'prophecies' that Christians like to talk about were not even prophecies in their original context to begin with. This whole idea of a 'double application fulfillment is also a ruse invented by Christian apologist who can see the problems presented above.

I have answer each of the points you have raised without using "double application". Do you have anymore? There are hundreds of prophecies in the Old Testament. I'm more than willing to one-by-one if you are.

As apologist James White has told Christians time and time again and I quote,

“if you’re asking the gospels to be an MP3 recording than your using a very unrealistic example of what should be there.” Source:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/did-jesus-die-as-willing-sacrifice.html

As we all know the only thing you would expect from an Mp3 recording is the exact recording of what you recorded. However, as we have seen Christianity is the product of ingenious minds who were masters of their craft.

The edifice of Christianity stands or falls upon the art of quote mining.

An attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort itsintended meaning

I agree with the Quote from Dr. White, but I don't understand how you get from him saying that the the New Testament was never meant to be a record on the same level as a an digital recording to accusing the New Testament writers of being spin doctor??!! How does the at work? Do you really think that is what Dr. White was saying? Having listening to him on this subject in context many times I can tell you he doesn't mean that at all.

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Ancient Christian Art: Quoting Out of Context

Islam and Christianity A Common Word: An Ancient Christian Art: Quoting Out of Context pt 3

Here is part 3 of my request to thegrandverbalizer's post on "quote mining".

(Matthew 2:23)“He shall be called a Nazorean”.

23
¹²He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, "He shall be called a Nazorean."

Again a person can search their Bible from Genesis to Malachi until the day of judgment and you will find no such thing.

Again people will say Matthew says it was 'spoken' or 'said' not written. This argument does not work because this is the way that Matthew (or whomever) style of writing is. Next one is so amazing about a prophecy spoken or said that may not have ever been spoken or said. Again you just have to take it at face value which makes me all the more inspired to write my own Gospel as well.

More amazing is that it was supposed to be spoken through the prophet(s) plural. Yet we have not one shred of evidence either through the written or oral traditions about any such thing.

Again what does the foot note #12 say from the quote above? This is what the Christians say,

¹²[23] Nazareth . . . he shall be called a Nazorean: the tradition of Jesus' residence in Nazareth was firmly established, and Matthew sees it as being in accordance with the fore announced plan of God. The town of Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, and no such prophecy can be found there.The vague expression "through the prophets" may be due to Matthew's seeing a connection between Nazareth and certain texts in which there are words with a remote similarity to the name of that town. Some such Old Testament texts are Isaiah 11:1where the Davidic king of the future is called "a bud" (neser) that shall blossom from the roots of Jesse, and Judges 13:5, 7 where Samson, the future deliverer of Israel from the Philistines, is called one who shall be consecrated (a nazir) to God.

Source taken from (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew2.htm)

This is even worse than quote mining because here we have someone quoting something we have absolutely no proof of.

I agree trying to monkey around with history is a poor explanation. One that just say that that Matthew was quoting an oral tradition just does not work. This i sn't an example of quote mining because there is no statement like this in the Old Testament. I like this explanation better:

It seems, then, that Matthew was not at all "mistaken" in this Old Testament reference, although he was certainly not exegeting Isaiah. He was identifying the obscure Galilean town of Nazareth in which Jesus grew up with the OT reference to a netzer God would raise up to bring justice and righteousness and peace to His people. In other words, this was the means Matthew used to identify Jesus, even as a child returning to an obscure town in remote Galilee ("can any good thing come from Nazareth?" -John 1:47), as the "King" from the line of David whom God had finally raised up to restore His people.

It is no coincidence that it is Matthew more than the other Gospels in which the idea of the Kingdom of God and the reign of God through His King finds particular prominence. This is Matthew’s way of confessing Jesus to be the Messiah (the Christ)! But he is not doing it historically, or geographically, as we so often assume, nor is he simply connecting predictive prophecy with its later fulfillment. He is doing it theologically, by using the similarity in sound between a word in Hebrew and a word in Aramaic, as he is (probably) writing in Greek! He is not interpreting Isaiah directly; He is bearing witness to Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the Branch!

Nazareth and The Branch Matthew 2:23 and Interpretation of the Old Testament

To give you another example that proves that the idea of a double application fulfillment is bogus but simply that Matthew (if that is who it was) made factual errors in the text that cannot and should be attributed to the Holy Spirit.

Where is the example?

Now a very adept Christian could turn around and say well doesn't your Qur'an do the exact same thing? It quote mines from the previous revelations and you accept this as true?

First I want to say that I am not aware of any place the Qur'an ever quotes the previous scriptures ad verbatim. What this comes down to is a presupposition by both the Muslim and the Christian that their respective text or revelation is true. However as we will see in this next context you have Matthew again quote mining and this time making a huge flaw when doing so.

The Greek Septuagint the Holy Spirit's favorite Translation and Quote Mining.