Total Posts:449|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

This generation? which generation did Christ

MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Much of this is pasted from another thread, but it makes a good stand alone question as it has been debated for centuries and still is uncertain.

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing. Since he was describing the signs of two different things that can only mean two generations.

First the pasted parts, from PGA's response to me in another thread, in italics.:

I think we should start a new thread before we entirely bugger this one up. What do you say Mad?


No Peter I twist nothing, I leave that to such as you. You could not hold the beliefs you do unless you did so. and ignored any scripture which disproves what you wish to believe, and there are more than enough of them as I have shown.

That is your contention yet Scripture proves you wrong repeatedly. You read your little old self and a foreign interpretation into it and ignore the direct meaning, audience, time frame and culture. 'This generation' becomes 'that generation', 'you' becomes MCB and the J. WobbleU's, the new chosen ones.

At no time do scriptures prove me wrong since I believe everything that scripture say, unlike you, who needs to modify it's meanings in places to support your doctrine.

I ignore nothing, in fact I include far more of what scripture says than you do.


What's worse is that you have to violate reason to support some of it.

It is exactly the contrary. It is you who does this. You make Scripture say what MCB wants it to say in all your grand (choke, choke), puff, puff wisdom.

No I say what scripture makes me say. I do not need to change it to support a doctrine of man. Despite your, and Annanicloe's, inability to divorce scripture from the human I follow only scripture, though I happily walk the same road as any others who do so.

As for the generation I take that literally as Christ said it, the generation which sees the sign.

Literally, no you don't. Where do you see that?

Matthew 24:33,34
(ASV)33 even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.

Jesus is here speaking to us as well as to those actually with him, unlike in the otehr instances when what he said could only apply to his literal listeners.

I see no other meaning in that than the one which says it is the generation which sees the signs.


If Jesus applies 'this generation' in the gospels to the generation that He came to every time what right do you have to interpret it differently. Where does Scripture say 'the generation that sees these signs'? I am going to list every occurrence of the phrase in the gospels.

Matthew 11:16

Matthew 12:41


Who is He addressing in context? I gave you a hint.

Matthew 12:42


Who? Which generation?

Matthew 12:45

Which generation?

Matthew 23:36

Which generation?

Matthew 24:34

Which generation?

Mark 8:12

Which?

Mark 8:38


Which?

Mark 13:30


Which?

Luke 7:31

Which?

Luke 11:29

Which?

Luke 11:30

Which?

Luke 11:31

Which?

Luke 11:32

Which?

Luke 11:50

Which?

Luke 11:51

Which?

Luke 17:25

Which?

Luke 21:32

Which?

Go ahead and show me. Tell me which generation in each instance. I want to watch you castrate yourself with your foolish interpretation.

Peter


The problem there is you are trying to make a phrase used in different settings and contexts mean exactly the same thing, which it cannot, and that is a classical example of twisting s scripture to fit a doctrine. Therefore not one of the scriptures you quote above fits this context without violating reason

In the case of Matthew 24, coming straight after discussing the importance of seeing the signs it can only refer to those seeing them. Any other meaning violates reason and language.

That is where your problem lies. You find a possible meaning which fits your doctrine and stick there. You do not question whether or not that meaning is actually the right one, or whether or not it violates reason and context.

The next problem is, which generation is meant, and since Jesus was describing signs denoting two different events it could easily be two different generations.

Certainly, some of those signs were not fulfilled in the 1st century, some only appear to be starting in recent times, possibly over the last 150 years or so, but have not yet developed to a level where they can be definitively recognisable.

Whilst it is true that the Jewish system of things was brought to an end in the 1st century, Satan's was not as is evidenced by events all around us.

Though there have been many tribulations, there was not one in the 1st century which could truly be said to be greater than any since, or even before.

So, whilst the generation he spoke to did indeed see the signs of the end of the Jewish system of things, they did to see the signs of the end of Satan's system of things, or as Daniel puts it the "times of the gentiles".

The sort of thing that betrays the inevitable inaccuracy of your understanding is this:

Matthew 24:21,22
ASV 21 for then shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved: but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened.

There is no way you can honestly say that the tribulation of the 1st century has not been surprised, both in severity or in scale, nor has there even yet been one which threatened all flesh, not just Jewish, nor even just human, but "all flesh".

In fact it is only really ow that it is beginning to sink in just how severe that tribulation is going to be, even for the faithful.

However we are well on the way to such a tribulation because, partly through the Satanically driven actions of men, we are assisting the destruction of our environment in so many different ways, threatening not just the existence of our fellow humans, but of plant and animal life also.

How bad will it get to be before God turns around and says "well if they can't see the signs now they never will"? which generation will that be?.

Jesus likened these times to the times of the flood.

Noah's building the Ark was a sign to all that something big was going to happen, and Noah probably spent much of his time explaining what. Eventually it started raining and people could no longer deny the coming events, but guess what? By then it was too late for them to get on board, the door was shut.

What was one reason many ignored what was coming? Peer pressure. They did not want to join in with someone who was being ridiculed by the majority. Sound familiar?

Are you going to stay outside the "Ark" until it is too late to get on board? Are you going to wait until the signs get too big to ignore any more?

I hope not, but I'm not holding my breath.
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 9:01:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Are you going to stay outside the "Ark" until it is too late to get on board? Are you going to wait until the signs get too big to ignore any more?

If by "ark," you're referring to the Watchtower Society, I don't know if that's such a safe bet considering how many times they've had to change the meaning of "this generation" because their expectations didn't come to fruition. I think it's safe to say they haven't got a clue what "this generation" means, and they're just making it up as they go along, trying desperately to maintain some degree of credibility in the process.

Besides that, if they are right in their belief that we have no immaterial soul that survives the death of the body and goes on to reanimate the body that rises in the resurrection and that the body that rises is not the same body as the one that died, then there's no hope for us anyway. The "ark" can't save us. There's no advantage whatsoever to becoming a Jehovah's Witness as far as avoiding catastrophe or having any hope for a future of peace and prosperity.

http://www.debate.org...

Also, the Watchtower Society has proved to be an incompetent "ark" in the past. Having once forbade organ transplants, then later being okay with them, they have actually put people's lives at risk because of their mistakes in interpreting the Bible. They continue to forbid blood transfusions now, but their reasoning is extremely shaky. It seems at the very least that they ought to allow that to be a matter of individual conscience (like Paul advocates in Romans 14), but instead, you can get kicked out of the "ark" by going against this rule.

So I think it's pure foolishness to trust in the "ark" of the Watchtower Society.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing.

That's an attempt to separate and isolate the claim in Matthew 24:34, from the claim in Matthew 16:28, in which he is more specific and tells his disciples that some of them will not taste of death until "all is fulfilled".

The pure fact of these claims is that they didn't happen. And when the last disciple died without Jesus returning, Christianity became exposed as a fraud (not that it was ever anything else). Of course, as with any other religion, those who subscribe to it will never admit that it failed.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/12/2014 1:20:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing. Since he was describing the signs of two different things that can only mean two generations.

Literally, no you don't. Where do you see that?

Matthew 24:33,34
(ASV)33 even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.

Jesus is here speaking to us as well as to those actually with him, unlike in the otehr instances when what he said could only apply to his literal listeners.

Speaking to them directly, us indirectly. The times are directed to them.

I see no other meaning in that than the one which says it is the generation which sees the signs.

Rubbish!

Thanks for starting a new thread! Okay, down to business.

First, you take the ye or you in Matthew 24:33-34 to mean the generation that sees these things. Jesus is addressing specific people, His disciples when He uses the words you/ye. They have come to Him with a three pronged question or three questions concerning what Jesus has just walked away from and pronounced judgment on - the temple. The temple was the heart of the Old Testament system of law. It was through the temple and priesthood that God gave them (OT Israel) a means of atoning for their sins as His holy people. The temple and the city of God - Jerusalem - were heaven and earth to this people. They were what their world revolved around in being right with God.

Jesus was telling His disciples that this OT system was going to disappear shortly, within their generation, thus He used the specific "this generation" to signify them, those He came to. If He wanted to signify another generation He could have used a word that would have been much clearer by saying "that generation." He didn't. You read the passage and you jump through hops to make it some future, far future that generation.

That is not what the passage says. And considering every time Jesus used the phrase "this generation" He is applying it to that 1st century people. Why would we think it any different here?

Here is the gist of my argument to audience relevance as being 1st century, not far future.

In Matthew 23 Jesus pronounces woes on the scribes and Pharisees, the teachers of the law. He tells them that they are witnesses against themselves, that they are guilty of shedding all the blood of the prophets (v 31) and that they are heaping up the measure of their sins to the fullest (v 32). He says to THEM that He is sending them more prophets, wise men and scribes and describes to THEM what THEY will do with those sent (v 34). He tells THEM that all the blood from Abel to Zechariah will come upon THEM. He says to THEM " I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation."
He tells THEM how unwilling they were to come to Him and He says that He is leaving THEIR HOUSE desolate (v 38).

Matthew 24 immediately connects back to chapter 23 for it says "24THEN Jesus went out and departed from the temple, and His disciples came up to show Him the buildings of the temple." He tells them concerning this desolation that not one stone of the temple (v 1) will be left upon itself, they will all be thrown down. The disciples come to Him privately and ask Him to tell THEM when these things will be (v 3). They want to know three specific things, 1) When will these things be? 2) What will be the sign of Your coming? 3) What will be the sign of the end of the age?
He tells THEM, " "Take heed that no one deceives YOU." (v 4) He tells THEM with this connecter "FOR many will come in My name." (v 5) He tells THEM that THEY "will hear of wars and rumors of wars" and not to be troubled. (v 6) He tells THEM all these things must come to pass "but the end is not yet." He gives THEM other signs, nations against nations, pestilence, famines and earthquakes and that these are the beginnings of sorrows (v 8). He tells THEM they will be delivered "up to tribulation and kill YOU, and YOU will be hated by all nations for My name"s sake." (v 10) He tells them many false prophet will arise up and the love of many will turn cold but those who endure to the end will be saved. (vs 10-11) He tells THEM the gospel will be preached in all the earth, then the end WILL come. (v 14) This is testified to in the NT in a number of verses. You can't read it into the distant future without doing harm to the Scriptures. Concerning the Great Tribulation He tells THEM "15 "Therefore when YOU see the "abomination of desolation," spoken of by Daniel the prophet" that THEY are to flee to the mountains. Luke 21:20 identifies the desolation as the time when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies. It is a time of the OT people. This is confirmed by many verses that follow Luke 21:20. It can be no other people. Jesus referred to the prophet Daniel and he too identifies this great tribulation as OT Israel. The wording is taken from Daniel in Matthew 24:21. "21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect"s sake those days will be shortened.

12 "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.


So this great tribulation that you build so much of your case upon is identified by Scripture as being a time of trouble for Daniels people (i.e. OT Israel) You continue to butcher text after text. A lot more can be said on this. "4 But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time"
It is the end of the OT time. "As soon as they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed. (v 9)..."Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time."

You want to make the end time a different time than what the Bible teaches because it does not mix with your theology where you take verses that speak of OT Israel and you apply them to yourself.

Back to Matthew 24. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect"s sake those days will be shortened. The elect, I believe, is a term used to describe the faithful remnant of OT Israel and the NT saints that God saved.
Again, in verse 23 and 24 Jesus bring up the subject of false prophets to these disciples.
23 "Then if anyone says to you, "Look, here is the Christ!" or "There!" do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
Notice He includes them in the elect.
Jesus then describes His coming.(vs 29-31) A lot more can be said of this but time and space is short. He tells THEM to learn the lesson of the fig tree and again, when THEY see all these things to know that His coming and the end of the age are near, right at the door. He tells them, just like He told the Scribes in Matthew 23:

34 Assuredly, I say to YOU, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.


Now justify your position from Scripture.

More later.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 2:58:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

So where is your reply to my last post? I have not had any notification.

Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 3:19:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Much of this is pasted from another thread, but it makes a good stand alone question as it has been debated for centuries and still is uncertain.

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing. Since he was describing the signs of two different things that can only mean two generations.

And as always, you reduce the phrase to totally meaningless. You have to, of course - and it scarcely bothers you.

Furthermore, He wasn't describing "the signs of two different things" at that point.

First the pasted parts, from PGA's response to me in another thread, in italics.

I think we should start a new thread before we entirely bugger this one up. What do you say Mad?

That is your contention yet Scripture proves you wrong repeatedly. You read your little old self and a foreign interpretation into it and ignore the direct meaning, audience, time frame and culture. 'This generation' becomes 'that generation', 'you' becomes MCB and the J. WobbleU's, the new chosen ones.

At no time do scriptures prove me wrong since I believe everything that scripture say, unlike you, who needs to modify it's meanings in places to support your doctrine.

You do just what he said you do. "This generation" becomes something totally different: it becomes "some yet-future generation". Nobody is "modifying" a meaning. We are taking it for just what it says.

I ignore nothing, in fact I include far more of what scripture says than you do.


No I say what scripture makes me say. I do not need to change it to support a doctrine of man. Despite your, and Annanicloe's, inability to divorce scripture from the human I follow only scripture, though I happily walk the same road as any others who do so.

The doctrines of the BotchTower ARE the doctrines of man.

As for the generation I take that literally as Christ said it, the generation which sees the sign.

Literally, no you don't. Where do you see that?

Matthew 24:33,34
(ASV)33 even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.

Jesus is here speaking to us as well as to those actually with him, unlike in the otehr instances when what he said could only apply to his literal listeners.

Speaking to us? Really? Looks to me like He was talking to THEM. Who is the "YE"? Did they see the signs?

I see no other meaning in that than the one which says it is the generation which sees the signs.

When Jesus said, "When YE see these things", your interpretation is that those to whom He was speaking lived and died without seeing much of anything?


If Jesus applies 'this generation' in the gospels to the generation that He came to every time what right do you have to interpret it differently. Where does Scripture say 'the generation that sees these signs'? I am going to list every occurrence of the phrase in the gospels.

Matthew 11:16

Matthew 12:41


Who is He addressing in context? I gave you a hint.

Matthew 12:42


Who? Which generation?

Matthew 12:45

Which generation?

Matthew 23:36

Which generation?

Matthew 24:34

Which generation?

Mark 8:12

Which?

Mark 8:38


Which?

Mark 13:30


Which?

Luke 7:31

Which?

Luke 11:29

Which?

Luke 11:30

Which?

Luke 11:31

Which?

Luke 11:32

Which?

Luke 11:50

Which?

Luke 11:51

Which?

Luke 17:25

Which?

Luke 21:32

Which?

Go ahead and show me. Tell me which generation in each instance. I want to watch you castrate yourself with your foolish interpretation.

Peter

The problem there is you are trying to make a phrase used in different settings and contexts mean exactly the same thing, which it cannot, and that is a classical example of twisting s scripture to fit a doctrine. Therefore not one of the scriptures you quote above fits this context without violating reason

LMAO. You are a freakin' joke, MadCornish.

In the case of Matthew 24, coming straight after discussing the importance of seeing the signs it can only refer to those seeing them. Any other meaning violates reason and language.

Why don't you go ahead and ADMIT that, according to your nonsense, "generation" or "this generation" refers to those living at the time - right then - in each and every instance except when it doesn't suit your speculative theories in Matt 24? What's so hard about going down that list for us?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 3:22:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
Much of this is pasted from another thread, but it makes a good stand alone question as it has been debated for centuries and still is uncertain.

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing. Since he was describing the signs of two different things that can only mean two generations.

First the pasted parts, from PGA's response to me in another thread, in italics.:

I think we should start a new thread before we entirely bugger this one up. What do you say Mad?


No Peter I twist nothing, I leave that to such as you. You could not hold the beliefs you do unless you did so. and ignored any scripture which disproves what you wish to believe, and there are more than enough of them as I have shown.

That is your contention yet Scripture proves you wrong repeatedly. You read your little old self and a foreign interpretation into it and ignore the direct meaning, audience, time frame and culture. 'This generation' becomes 'that generation', 'you' becomes MCB and the J. WobbleU's, the new chosen ones.

At no time do scriptures prove me wrong since I believe everything that scripture say, unlike you, who needs to modify it's meanings in places to support your doctrine.

I ignore nothing, in fact I include far more of what scripture says than you do.


What's worse is that you have to violate reason to support some of it.

It is exactly the contrary. It is you who does this. You make Scripture say what MCB wants it to say in all your grand (choke, choke), puff, puff wisdom.

No I say what scripture makes me say. I do not need to change it to support a doctrine of man. Despite your, and Annanicloe's, inability to divorce scripture from the human I follow only scripture, though I happily walk the same road as any others who do so.

As for the generation I take that literally as Christ said it, the generation which sees the sign.

Literally, no you don't. Where do you see that?

Matthew 24:33,34
(ASV)33 even so ye also, when ye see all these things, know ye that he is nigh, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished.

Jesus is here speaking to us as well as to those actually with him, unlike in the otehr instances when what he said could only apply to his literal listeners.

I see no other meaning in that than the one which says it is the generation which sees the signs.


If Jesus applies 'this generation' in the gospels to the generation that He came to every time what right do you have to interpret it differently. Where does Scripture say 'the generation that sees these signs'? I am going to list every occurrence of the phrase in the gospels.

Matthew 11:16

Matthew 12:41


Who is He addressing in context? I gave you a hint.

Matthew 12:42


Who? Which generation?

Matthew 12:45

Which generation?

Matthew 23:36

Which generation?

Matthew 24:34

Which generation?

Mark 8:12

Which?

Mark 8:38


Which?

Mark 13:30


Which?

Luke 7:31

Which?

Luke 11:29

Which?

Luke 11:30

Which?

Luke 11:31

Which?

Luke 11:32

Which?

Luke 11:50

Which?

Luke 11:51

Which?

Luke 17:25

Which?

Luke 21:32

Which?

Go ahead and show me. Tell me which generation in each instance. I want to watch you castrate yourself with your foolish interpretation.

Peter


The problem there is you are trying to make a phrase used in different settings and contexts mean exactly the same thing, which it cannot, and that is a classical example of twisting s scripture to fit a doctrine. Therefore not one of the scriptures you quote above fits this context without violating reason

In the case of Matthew 24, coming straight after discussing the importance of seeing the signs it can only refer to those seeing them. Any other meaning violates reason and language.

That is where your problem lies. You find a possible meaning which fits your doctrine and stick there. You do not question whether or not that meaning is actually the right one, or whether or not it violates reason and context.

The next problem is, which generation is meant, and since Jesus was describing signs denoting two different events it could easily be two different generations.

Certainly, some of those signs were not fulfilled in the 1st century, some only appear to be starting in recent times, possibly over the last 150 years or so, but have not yet developed to a level where they can be definitively recognisable.

Whilst it is true that the Jewish system of things was brought to an end in the 1st century, Satan's was not as is evidenced by events all around us.

Though there have been many tribulations, there was not one in the 1st century which could truly be said to be greater than any since, or even before.

So, whilst the generation he spoke to did indeed see the signs of the end of the Jewish system of things, they did to see the signs of the end of Satan's system of things, or as Daniel puts it the "times of the gentiles".

The sort of thing that betrays the inevitable inaccuracy of your understanding is this:

Matthew 24:21,22
ASV 21 for then shall be great tribulation, such as hath not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days had been shortened, no flesh would have been saved: but for the elects sake those days shall be shortened.

There is no way you can honestly say that the tribulation of the 1st century has not been surprised, both in severity or in scale, nor has there even yet been one which threatened all flesh, not just Jewish, nor even just human, but "all flesh".

We've repeatedly asked you describe for us another instance in which God's chosen people and His entire system, with all of its trimmings, was so utterly and completely abandoned by God, during the which people were forced to eat their own babies, endure thousands of crucifixions, and die of starvation - or be sold off into slavery. You've yet to furnish us with an example.

No, you prefer body counts.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 3:24:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 9:01:11 AM, philochristos wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Are you going to stay outside the "Ark" until it is too late to get on board? Are you going to wait until the signs get too big to ignore any more?

If by "ark," you're referring to the Watchtower Society, I don't know if that's such a safe bet considering how many times they've had to change the meaning of "this generation" because their expectations didn't come to fruition. I think it's safe to say they haven't got a clue what "this generation" means, and they're just making it up as they go along, trying desperately to maintain some degree of credibility in the process.

I think they've changed it about eight times. Sure, they just make stuff up as they go, sometimes for sensationalist purpose (to arouse interest) and other times to cover past nonsense.

The underlying little tap root from which all of their mistakes on "this generation" springs is their 1914 debacle to which they still hopelessly cling.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing.

That's an attempt to separate and isolate the claim in Matthew 24:34, from the claim in Matthew 16:28, in which he is more specific and tells his disciples that some of them will not taste of death until "all is fulfilled".

I agree. He actually speaks of Himself coming in the glory of the Father and His angels and that some of them would not die before they saw this and His kingdom in that very generation. And it happened as He said it would.

The pure fact of these claims is that they didn't happen.

Bertrand Russell was just one of many atheists to question why these things had not been fulfilled in the 1st century, and from what he was hearing Christians say he was right to question them, but the point is the biblical and historical evidence says that they have.

And when the last disciple died without Jesus returning, Christianity became exposed as a fraud (not that it was ever anything else). Of course, as with any other religion, those who subscribe to it will never admit that it failed.

This is where you are wrong. There is good reason to believe John was still alive when all that Jesus predicted of OT Israel came to pass in AD 70 with His coming.

MCB has just sloughed off demonstrating his view completely yet I believe I can very effectively demonstrated the view I hold as biblical and in a way that would refute your claims too.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

Rubbish. Matthew 5:17-18 as well as Hebrews 8:13, Luke 21:20-33 and Daniel 9:24-27 were all fulfilled. The Second Coming happened just as Jesus said it would.

How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing.

That's an attempt to separate and isolate the claim in Matthew 24:34, from the claim in Matthew 16:28, in which he is more specific and tells his disciples that some of them will not taste of death until "all is fulfilled".

I agree. He actually speaks of Himself coming in the glory of the Father and His angels and that some of them would not die before they saw this and His kingdom in that very generation. And it happened as He said it would.

The pure fact of these claims is that they didn't happen.

Bertrand Russell was just one of many atheists to question why these things had not been fulfilled in the 1st century, and from what he was hearing Christians say he was right to question them, but the point is the biblical and historical evidence says that they have.

And when the last disciple died without Jesus returning, Christianity became exposed as a fraud (not that it was ever anything else). Of course, as with any other religion, those who subscribe to it will never admit that it failed.

This is where you are wrong. There is good reason to believe John was still alive when all that Jesus predicted of OT Israel came to pass in AD 70 with His coming.

MCB has just sloughed off demonstrating his view completely yet I believe I can very effectively demonstrated the view I hold as biblical and in a way that would refute your claims too.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

Rubbish. Matthew 5:17-18 as well as Hebrews 8:13, Luke 21:20-33 and Daniel 9:24-27 were all fulfilled. The Second Coming happened just as Jesus said it would.

How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 5:52:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing.

That's an attempt to separate and isolate the claim in Matthew 24:34, from the claim in Matthew 16:28, in which he is more specific and tells his disciples that some of them will not taste of death until "all is fulfilled".

I agree. He actually speaks of Himself coming in the glory of the Father and His angels and that some of them would not die before they saw this and His kingdom in that very generation. And it happened as He said it would.

The pure fact of these claims is that they didn't happen.

Bertrand Russell was just one of many atheists to question why these things had not been fulfilled in the 1st century, and from what he was hearing Christians say he was right to question them, but the point is the biblical and historical evidence says that they have.

And when the last disciple died without Jesus returning, Christianity became exposed as a fraud (not that it was ever anything else). Of course, as with any other religion, those who subscribe to it will never admit that it failed.

This is where you are wrong. There is good reason to believe John was still alive when all that Jesus predicted of OT Israel came to pass in AD 70 with His coming.

MCB has just sloughed off demonstrating his view completely yet I believe I can very effectively demonstrated the view I hold as biblical and in a way that would refute your claims too.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

Rubbish. Matthew 5:17-18 as well as Hebrews 8:13, Luke 21:20-33 and Daniel 9:24-27 were all fulfilled. The Second Coming happened just as Jesus said it would.

How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

This should be interesting...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 7:07:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 5:52:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing.

That's an attempt to separate and isolate the claim in Matthew 24:34, from the claim in Matthew 16:28, in which he is more specific and tells his disciples that some of them will not taste of death until "all is fulfilled".

I agree. He actually speaks of Himself coming in the glory of the Father and His angels and that some of them would not die before they saw this and His kingdom in that very generation. And it happened as He said it would.

The pure fact of these claims is that they didn't happen.

Bertrand Russell was just one of many atheists to question why these things had not been fulfilled in the 1st century, and from what he was hearing Christians say he was right to question them, but the point is the biblical and historical evidence says that they have.

And when the last disciple died without Jesus returning, Christianity became exposed as a fraud (not that it was ever anything else). Of course, as with any other religion, those who subscribe to it will never admit that it failed.

This is where you are wrong. There is good reason to believe John was still alive when all that Jesus predicted of OT Israel came to pass in AD 70 with His coming.

MCB has just sloughed off demonstrating his view completely yet I believe I can very effectively demonstrated the view I hold as biblical and in a way that would refute your claims too.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

Rubbish. Matthew 5:17-18 as well as Hebrews 8:13, Luke 21:20-33 and Daniel 9:24-27 were all fulfilled. The Second Coming happened just as Jesus said it would.

How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

This should be interesting...

There are numerous "comings of the Lord" depicted in the Bible: most are "comings" in the form of judgment upon this people or that people, or this city or that city. Such is the case with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The statement, "Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works" asks the impossible. Jesus has not returned to do that, yet. That "coming" is a literal coming.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 10:13:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 7:07:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:52:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing.

That's an attempt to separate and isolate the claim in Matthew 24:34, from the claim in Matthew 16:28, in which he is more specific and tells his disciples that some of them will not taste of death until "all is fulfilled".

I agree. He actually speaks of Himself coming in the glory of the Father and His angels and that some of them would not die before they saw this and His kingdom in that very generation. And it happened as He said it would.

The pure fact of these claims is that they didn't happen.

Bertrand Russell was just one of many atheists to question why these things had not been fulfilled in the 1st century, and from what he was hearing Christians say he was right to question them, but the point is the biblical and historical evidence says that they have.

And when the last disciple died without Jesus returning, Christianity became exposed as a fraud (not that it was ever anything else). Of course, as with any other religion, those who subscribe to it will never admit that it failed.

This is where you are wrong. There is good reason to believe John was still alive when all that Jesus predicted of OT Israel came to pass in AD 70 with His coming.

MCB has just sloughed off demonstrating his view completely yet I believe I can very effectively demonstrated the view I hold as biblical and in a way that would refute your claims too.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

Rubbish. Matthew 5:17-18 as well as Hebrews 8:13, Luke 21:20-33 and Daniel 9:24-27 were all fulfilled. The Second Coming happened just as Jesus said it would.

How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

This should be interesting...

There are numerous "comings of the Lord" depicted in the Bible: most are "comings" in the form of judgment upon this people or that people, or this city or that city. Such is the case with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The statement, "Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works" asks the impossible. Jesus has not returned to do that, yet. That "coming" is a literal coming.

And was supposed to have happened before the death of all of the disciples.

Matthew 16:27-28

This is arguably, the most important prophecy in the entire Bible, and yet it failed. And it failed around 1,900-years ago. Yet Christianity has continued on as pure fraud, despite this catastrophic failure.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 10:27:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 10:13:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 7:07:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:52:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing.

That's an attempt to separate and isolate the claim in Matthew 24:34, from the claim in Matthew 16:28, in which he is more specific and tells his disciples that some of them will not taste of death until "all is fulfilled".

I agree. He actually speaks of Himself coming in the glory of the Father and His angels and that some of them would not die before they saw this and His kingdom in that very generation. And it happened as He said it would.

The pure fact of these claims is that they didn't happen.

Bertrand Russell was just one of many atheists to question why these things had not been fulfilled in the 1st century, and from what he was hearing Christians say he was right to question them, but the point is the biblical and historical evidence says that they have.

And when the last disciple died without Jesus returning, Christianity became exposed as a fraud (not that it was ever anything else). Of course, as with any other religion, those who subscribe to it will never admit that it failed.

This is where you are wrong. There is good reason to believe John was still alive when all that Jesus predicted of OT Israel came to pass in AD 70 with His coming.

MCB has just sloughed off demonstrating his view completely yet I believe I can very effectively demonstrated the view I hold as biblical and in a way that would refute your claims too.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

Rubbish. Matthew 5:17-18 as well as Hebrews 8:13, Luke 21:20-33 and Daniel 9:24-27 were all fulfilled. The Second Coming happened just as Jesus said it would.

How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

This should be interesting...

There are numerous "comings of the Lord" depicted in the Bible: most are "comings" in the form of judgment upon this people or that people, or this city or that city. Such is the case with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The statement, "Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works" asks the impossible. Jesus has not returned to do that, yet. That "coming" is a literal coming.

And was supposed to have happened before the death of all of the disciples.

Matthew 16:27-28

This is arguably, the most important prophecy in the entire Bible, and yet it failed. And it failed around 1,900-years ago. Yet Christianity has continued on as pure fraud, despite this catastrophic failure.

This?

"Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That already happened. His kingdom was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection. That's why Paul and John could say, "We are now in the kingdom of Jesus Christ."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 10:42:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 10:27:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:13:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 7:07:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:52:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing.

That's an attempt to separate and isolate the claim in Matthew 24:34, from the claim in Matthew 16:28, in which he is more specific and tells his disciples that some of them will not taste of death until "all is fulfilled".

I agree. He actually speaks of Himself coming in the glory of the Father and His angels and that some of them would not die before they saw this and His kingdom in that very generation. And it happened as He said it would.

The pure fact of these claims is that they didn't happen.

Bertrand Russell was just one of many atheists to question why these things had not been fulfilled in the 1st century, and from what he was hearing Christians say he was right to question them, but the point is the biblical and historical evidence says that they have.

And when the last disciple died without Jesus returning, Christianity became exposed as a fraud (not that it was ever anything else). Of course, as with any other religion, those who subscribe to it will never admit that it failed.

This is where you are wrong. There is good reason to believe John was still alive when all that Jesus predicted of OT Israel came to pass in AD 70 with His coming.

MCB has just sloughed off demonstrating his view completely yet I believe I can very effectively demonstrated the view I hold as biblical and in a way that would refute your claims too.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

Rubbish. Matthew 5:17-18 as well as Hebrews 8:13, Luke 21:20-33 and Daniel 9:24-27 were all fulfilled. The Second Coming happened just as Jesus said it would.

How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

This should be interesting...

There are numerous "comings of the Lord" depicted in the Bible: most are "comings" in the form of judgment upon this people or that people, or this city or that city. Such is the case with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The statement, "Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works" asks the impossible. Jesus has not returned to do that, yet. That "coming" is a literal coming.

And was supposed to have happened before the death of all of the disciples.

Matthew 16:27-28

This is arguably, the most important prophecy in the entire Bible, and yet it failed. And it failed around 1,900-years ago. Yet Christianity has continued on as pure fraud, despite this catastrophic failure.

This?

"Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That already happened. His kingdom was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection. That's why Paul and John could say, "We are now in the kingdom of Jesus Christ."

Why do Christians think they can just ignore parts of the Bible? It's like they think only they have access to the text. No Anna.... THIS!

- "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

It's all part of the same claim... the same prophecy... which failed!

This never happened. The disciples are all dead. Christianity is a fraud.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 10:49:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 10:42:50 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:27:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:13:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 7:07:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:52:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing.

That's an attempt to separate and isolate the claim in Matthew 24:34, from the claim in Matthew 16:28, in which he is more specific and tells his disciples that some of them will not taste of death until "all is fulfilled".

I agree. He actually speaks of Himself coming in the glory of the Father and His angels and that some of them would not die before they saw this and His kingdom in that very generation. And it happened as He said it would.

The pure fact of these claims is that they didn't happen.

Bertrand Russell was just one of many atheists to question why these things had not been fulfilled in the 1st century, and from what he was hearing Christians say he was right to question them, but the point is the biblical and historical evidence says that they have.

And when the last disciple died without Jesus returning, Christianity became exposed as a fraud (not that it was ever anything else). Of course, as with any other religion, those who subscribe to it will never admit that it failed.

This is where you are wrong. There is good reason to believe John was still alive when all that Jesus predicted of OT Israel came to pass in AD 70 with His coming.

MCB has just sloughed off demonstrating his view completely yet I believe I can very effectively demonstrated the view I hold as biblical and in a way that would refute your claims too.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

Rubbish. Matthew 5:17-18 as well as Hebrews 8:13, Luke 21:20-33 and Daniel 9:24-27 were all fulfilled. The Second Coming happened just as Jesus said it would.

How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

This should be interesting...

There are numerous "comings of the Lord" depicted in the Bible: most are "comings" in the form of judgment upon this people or that people, or this city or that city. Such is the case with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The statement, "Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works" asks the impossible. Jesus has not returned to do that, yet. That "coming" is a literal coming.

And was supposed to have happened before the death of all of the disciples.

Matthew 16:27-28

This is arguably, the most important prophecy in the entire Bible, and yet it failed. And it failed around 1,900-years ago. Yet Christianity has continued on as pure fraud, despite this catastrophic failure.

This?

"Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That already happened. His kingdom was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection. That's why Paul and John could say, "We are now in the kingdom of Jesus Christ."

Why do Christians think they can just ignore parts of the Bible? It's like they think only they have access to the text. No Anna.... THIS!

- "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

It's all part of the same claim... the same prophecy... which failed!

LMAO. So you've decided that Jesus taught that He would personally return to earth and at that time reward every man according to his deeds, and that such an event would happen in the lifetime of some of those to whom He was speaking? Is that it?

Well, some think that it occurred in AD 70, which actually makes decent sense. About all you could do in response to it is claim that "every man" was not rewarded/punished.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 10:57:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 10:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:42:50 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:27:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:13:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 7:07:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:52:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing.

That's an attempt to separate and isolate the claim in Matthew 24:34, from the claim in Matthew 16:28, in which he is more specific and tells his disciples that some of them will not taste of death until "all is fulfilled".

I agree. He actually speaks of Himself coming in the glory of the Father and His angels and that some of them would not die before they saw this and His kingdom in that very generation. And it happened as He said it would.

The pure fact of these claims is that they didn't happen.

Bertrand Russell was just one of many atheists to question why these things had not been fulfilled in the 1st century, and from what he was hearing Christians say he was right to question them, but the point is the biblical and historical evidence says that they have.

And when the last disciple died without Jesus returning, Christianity became exposed as a fraud (not that it was ever anything else). Of course, as with any other religion, those who subscribe to it will never admit that it failed.

This is where you are wrong. There is good reason to believe John was still alive when all that Jesus predicted of OT Israel came to pass in AD 70 with His coming.

MCB has just sloughed off demonstrating his view completely yet I believe I can very effectively demonstrated the view I hold as biblical and in a way that would refute your claims too.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

Rubbish. Matthew 5:17-18 as well as Hebrews 8:13, Luke 21:20-33 and Daniel 9:24-27 were all fulfilled. The Second Coming happened just as Jesus said it would.

How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

This should be interesting...

There are numerous "comings of the Lord" depicted in the Bible: most are "comings" in the form of judgment upon this people or that people, or this city or that city. Such is the case with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The statement, "Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works" asks the impossible. Jesus has not returned to do that, yet. That "coming" is a literal coming.

And was supposed to have happened before the death of all of the disciples.

Matthew 16:27-28

This is arguably, the most important prophecy in the entire Bible, and yet it failed. And it failed around 1,900-years ago. Yet Christianity has continued on as pure fraud, despite this catastrophic failure.

This?

"Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That already happened. His kingdom was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection. That's why Paul and John could say, "We are now in the kingdom of Jesus Christ."

Why do Christians think they can just ignore parts of the Bible? It's like they think only they have access to the text. No Anna.... THIS!

- "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

It's all part of the same claim... the same prophecy... which failed!

LMAO. So you've decided that Jesus taught that He would personally return to earth and at that time reward every man according to his deeds, and that such an event would happen in the lifetime of some of those to whom He was speaking? Is that it?

Well, isn't that AMAZING! You read the actual text, and then repeated what it says! Congratulations!
However, I never suggested that Jesus taught that. I don't believe Jesus ever existed. But the author of "Matthew" obviously made this claim, and the claim is right there in the scripture.

Well, some think that it occurred in AD 70, which actually makes decent sense. About all you could do in response to it is claim that "every man" was not rewarded/punished.
And yet the bulk of the Christian community insists that this coming of Jesus has not happened yet, and insist that it is still to happen, despite the fact that the Bible shows that it was already to have happened, and did not occur.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 11:03:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 10:57:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:49:43 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:42:50 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:27:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:13:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 7:07:36 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:52:03 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/12/2014 7:28:36 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

My viewpoint is that the generation Christ was referring to in Matthew 24 is simply the generation that sees the signs he was describing.

That's an attempt to separate and isolate the claim in Matthew 24:34, from the claim in Matthew 16:28, in which he is more specific and tells his disciples that some of them will not taste of death until "all is fulfilled".

I agree. He actually speaks of Himself coming in the glory of the Father and His angels and that some of them would not die before they saw this and His kingdom in that very generation. And it happened as He said it would.

The pure fact of these claims is that they didn't happen.

Bertrand Russell was just one of many atheists to question why these things had not been fulfilled in the 1st century, and from what he was hearing Christians say he was right to question them, but the point is the biblical and historical evidence says that they have.

And when the last disciple died without Jesus returning, Christianity became exposed as a fraud (not that it was ever anything else). Of course, as with any other religion, those who subscribe to it will never admit that it failed.

This is where you are wrong. There is good reason to believe John was still alive when all that Jesus predicted of OT Israel came to pass in AD 70 with His coming.

MCB has just sloughed off demonstrating his view completely yet I believe I can very effectively demonstrated the view I hold as biblical and in a way that would refute your claims too.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

Rubbish. Matthew 5:17-18 as well as Hebrews 8:13, Luke 21:20-33 and Daniel 9:24-27 were all fulfilled. The Second Coming happened just as Jesus said it would.

How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

This should be interesting...

There are numerous "comings of the Lord" depicted in the Bible: most are "comings" in the form of judgment upon this people or that people, or this city or that city. Such is the case with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The statement, "Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works" asks the impossible. Jesus has not returned to do that, yet. That "coming" is a literal coming.

And was supposed to have happened before the death of all of the disciples.

Matthew 16:27-28

This is arguably, the most important prophecy in the entire Bible, and yet it failed. And it failed around 1,900-years ago. Yet Christianity has continued on as pure fraud, despite this catastrophic failure.

This?

"Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That already happened. His kingdom was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection. That's why Paul and John could say, "We are now in the kingdom of Jesus Christ."

Why do Christians think they can just ignore parts of the Bible? It's like they think only they have access to the text. No Anna.... THIS!

- "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

It's all part of the same claim... the same prophecy... which failed!

LMAO. So you've decided that Jesus taught that He would personally return to earth and at that time reward every man according to his deeds, and that such an event would happen in the lifetime of some of those to whom He was speaking? Is that it?

Well, isn't that AMAZING! You read the actual text, and then repeated what it says! Congratulations!
However, I never suggested that Jesus taught that. I don't believe Jesus ever existed. But the author of "Matthew" obviously made this claim, and the claim is right there in the scripture.

Well, some think that it occurred in AD 70, which actually makes decent sense. About all you could do in response to it is claim that "every man" was not rewarded/punished.
And yet the bulk of the Christian community insists that this coming of Jesus has not happened yet, and insist that it is still to happen, despite the fact that the Bible shows that it was already to have happened, and did not occur.

Well, you have dated the book of Matthew (erroneously, but you did it anyhow) well after the writing of the book of Mark, which you dated to the AD 70ish period. So I guess you'll put Matthew around AD 80 or 90. If it was written in AD 85, then the overwhelming majority of any disciples Jesus had were already dead! Possibly by then all of them were dead.

So you thus have the author penning a prophesy which was known to have failed at the time he wrote it. Sound fishy? It does to me.

Why in the world would a fella write, in an effort to spread the "truth" of Christianity, that Jesus prophesied His own literal return within that generation, but 50-60 years later it hadn't happene
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2014 11:31:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 11:03:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:57:16 PM, Beastt wrote:

MCB has just sloughed off demonstrating his view completely yet I believe I can very effectively demonstrated the view I hold as biblical and in a way that would refute your claims too.

Mark 13:30
Matthew 16:28
Luke 21:32
Matthew 24:34

All say pretty much the same thing. And they all failed.

Rubbish. Matthew 5:17-18 as well as Hebrews 8:13, Luke 21:20-33 and Daniel 9:24-27 were all fulfilled. The Second Coming happened just as Jesus said it would.

How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

This should be interesting...

There are numerous "comings of the Lord" depicted in the Bible: most are "comings" in the form of judgment upon this people or that people, or this city or that city. Such is the case with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The statement, "Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works" asks the impossible. Jesus has not returned to do that, yet. That "coming" is a literal coming.

And was supposed to have happened before the death of all of the disciples.

Matthew 16:27-28

This is arguably, the most important prophecy in the entire Bible, and yet it failed. And it failed around 1,900-years ago. Yet Christianity has continued on as pure fraud, despite this catastrophic failure.

This?

"Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That already happened. His kingdom was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection. That's why Paul and John could say, "We are now in the kingdom of Jesus Christ."

Why do Christians think they can just ignore parts of the Bible? It's like they think only they have access to the text. No Anna.... THIS!

- "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

It's all part of the same claim... the same prophecy... which failed!

LMAO. So you've decided that Jesus taught that He would personally return to earth and at that time reward every man according to his deeds, and that such an event would happen in the lifetime of some of those to whom He was speaking? Is that it?

Well, isn't that AMAZING! You read the actual text, and then repeated what it says! Congratulations!
However, I never suggested that Jesus taught that. I don't believe Jesus ever existed. But the author of "Matthew" obviously made this claim, and the claim is right there in the scripture.

Well, some think that it occurred in AD 70, which actually makes decent sense. About all you could do in response to it is claim that "every man" was not rewarded/punished.
And yet the bulk of the Christian community insists that this coming of Jesus has not happened yet, and insist that it is still to happen, despite the fact that the Bible shows that it was already to have happened, and did not occur.

Well, you have dated the book of Matthew (erroneously, but you did it anyhow) well after the writing of the book of Mark, which you dated to the AD 70ish period.
Wrong Anna, "The Gospel of Matthew" contains over 600-verses which were simply paraphrased from "Mark". Therefore, "Mark" had to have been written first. And a great many scholars do agree that "Mark" is the oldest of the canonized gospels.

So I guess you'll put Matthew around AD 80 or 90. If it was written in AD 85, then the overwhelming majority of any disciples Jesus had were already dead! Possibly by then all of them were dead.
Give me the date that each disciple died. Of course we don't need the exact date, just the year or even the approximate year is fine.
Do you suppose, Anna, that the author of Matthew might not have been personally familiar with the fate of each disciple? Do you suppose perhaps that news didn't travel as quickly, or penetrate as fully as it does now?

So you thus have the author penning a prophesy which was known to have failed at the time he wrote it. Sound fishy? It does to me.
And yet, we see Christians even today, who read those verses and never stop to think about the fact that the disciples all died at least 1,900 years ago. But you expect that the author - who copied the bulk of his text - was aware of the fate of each and every disciple, and researched the claims in his work?

Why in the world would a fella write, in an effort to spread the
Why would anyone who claims their doctorate demonstrates impressive intellect, not be able to figure out that they can't rely on the character counter supplied with the silly, primitive little editor provided by this site? Even though you've been told numerous times that it's horribly inaccurate, you still seem to expect it to properly reflect how many characters you have left.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 12:18:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 11:31:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 11:03:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:57:16 PM, Beastt wrote:



How did they fail? Jesus came to that generation just like He said He would. As you can see to my last reply to MCB that if you pay attention to audience relevance they did not fail in the least. Who were the prophecies made to by Jesus?

If I say "I'll do it this week", you have no question as to what week I mean. If I say "I'll do it this year", you know which year "this year" is. But when Christians read "this generation", they do everything but accept the obvious, because that would show that Christianity is a fraud.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Peter

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

This should be interesting...

There are numerous "comings of the Lord" depicted in the Bible: most are "comings" in the form of judgment upon this people or that people, or this city or that city. Such is the case with the destruction of Jerusalem.

The statement, "Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works" asks the impossible. Jesus has not returned to do that, yet. That "coming" is a literal coming.

And was supposed to have happened before the death of all of the disciples.

Matthew 16:27-28

This is arguably, the most important prophecy in the entire Bible, and yet it failed. And it failed around 1,900-years ago. Yet Christianity has continued on as pure fraud, despite this catastrophic failure.

This?

"Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That already happened. His kingdom was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection. That's why Paul and John could say, "We are now in the kingdom of Jesus Christ."

Why do Christians think they can just ignore parts of the Bible? It's like they think only they have access to the text. No Anna.... THIS!

- "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

It's all part of the same claim... the same prophecy... which failed!

LMAO. So you've decided that Jesus taught that He would personally return to earth and at that time reward every man according to his deeds, and that such an event would happen in the lifetime of some of those to whom He was speaking? Is that it?

Well, isn't that AMAZING! You read the actual text, and then repeated what it says! Congratulations!
However, I never suggested that Jesus taught that. I don't believe Jesus ever existed. But the author of "Matthew" obviously made this claim, and the claim is right there in the scripture.

Well, some think that it occurred in AD 70, which actually makes decent sense. About all you could do in response to it is claim that "every man" was not rewarded/punished.
And yet the bulk of the Christian community insists that this coming of Jesus has not happened yet, and insist that it is still to happen, despite the fact that the Bible shows that it was already to have happened, and did not occur.

Well, you have dated the book of Matthew (erroneously, but you did it anyhow) well after the writing of the book of Mark, which you dated to the AD 70ish period.

Wrong Anna, "The Gospel of Matthew" contains over 600-verses which were simply paraphrased from "Mark". Therefore, "Mark" had to have been written first. And a great many scholars do agree that "Mark" is the oldest of the canonized gospels.

That's what I just said, ya dimwit - even though I do not agree with it.

I said, " you have dated the book of Matthew (erroneously, but you did it anyhow) well after the writing of the book of Mark"

You ingeniously replied, "Therefore, "Mark" had to have been written first. And a great many scholars do agree that "Mark" is the oldest of the canonized gospels."

So I guess you'll put Matthew around AD 80 or 90. If it was written in AD 85, then the overwhelming majority of any disciples Jesus had were already dead! Possibly by then all of them were dead.

Give me the date that each disciple died. Of course we don't need the exact date, just the year or even the approximate year is fine.

I thought you conceded that they are all dead.

Do you suppose, Anna, that the author of Matthew might not have been personally familiar with the fate of each disciple? Do you suppose perhaps that news didn't travel as quickly, or penetrate as fully as it does now?

Years passed just the same, Beastt - and you are erroneously placing the book some 60ish years after the time of Christ, then claiming that it contains a foolish anachronism.

So you thus have the author penning a prophesy which was known to have failed at the time he wrote it. Sound fishy? It does to me.

And yet, we see Christians even today, who read those verses and never stop to think about the fact that the disciples all died at least 1,900 years ago. But you expect that the author - who copied the bulk of his text - was aware of the fate of each and every disciple, and researched the claims in his work?

I give him credit for knowing that practically all of the "generation" to whom Jesus spoke would have died off over a 60-year period.

You didn't explain it. You can't. NOBODY would have incorporated a palpably false prophesy into a gospel account in order to lead people, to persuade people. Yet that's just what you claim.

You've claimed the author wasn't an eyewitness. No, he was a plagiarist. Not only that, he plagiarized in the AD 90's, or even afterwards. Then, lo and behold, the plagiarist includes a time-sensitive prophesy concerning which time had run out. Who can believe that story? You need to fix something about it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 2:48:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 12:18:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 11:31:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 11:03:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:57:16 PM, Beastt wrote:

And was supposed to have happened before the death of all of the disciples.

Matthew 16:27-28

This is arguably, the most important prophecy in the entire Bible, and yet it failed. And it failed around 1,900-years ago. Yet Christianity has continued on as pure fraud, despite this catastrophic failure.

This?

"Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That already happened. His kingdom was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection. That's why Paul and John could say, "We are now in the kingdom of Jesus Christ."

Why do Christians think they can just ignore parts of the Bible? It's like they think only they have access to the text. No Anna.... THIS!

- "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

It's all part of the same claim... the same prophecy... which failed!

LMAO. So you've decided that Jesus taught that He would personally return to earth and at that time reward every man according to his deeds, and that such an event would happen in the lifetime of some of those to whom He was speaking? Is that it?

Well, isn't that AMAZING! You read the actual text, and then repeated what it says! Congratulations!
However, I never suggested that Jesus taught that. I don't believe Jesus ever existed. But the author of "Matthew" obviously made this claim, and the claim is right there in the scripture.

Well, some think that it occurred in AD 70, which actually makes decent sense. About all you could do in response to it is claim that "every man" was not rewarded/punished.
And yet the bulk of the Christian community insists that this coming of Jesus has not happened yet, and insist that it is still to happen, despite the fact that the Bible shows that it was already to have happened, and did not occur.

Well, you have dated the book of Matthew (erroneously, but you did it anyhow) well after the writing of the book of Mark, which you dated to the AD 70ish period.

Wrong Anna, "The Gospel of Matthew" contains over 600-verses which were simply paraphrased from "Mark". Therefore, "Mark" had to have been written first. And a great many scholars do agree that "Mark" is the oldest of the canonized gospels.

That's what I just said, ya dimwit - even though I do not agree with it.
No, that's not what you said. But seeing a string of lies from you is nothing new.

I said, " you have dated the book of Matthew (erroneously, but you did it anyhow) well after the writing of the book of Mark"
And I explained that "Matthew" couldn't have been written before "Mark" and still contain over 600-verses which were plagiarized from "Mark". Apparently, chronological sequences are a bit above your intellectual capacity.

You ingeniously replied, "Therefore, "Mark" had to have been written first. And a great many scholars do agree that "Mark" is the oldest of the canonized gospels."
Which is both obvious, and true.

So I guess you'll put Matthew around AD 80 or 90. If it was written in AD 85, then the overwhelming majority of any disciples Jesus had were already dead! Possibly by then all of them were dead.
Yet it would be somewhat ridiculous to assume that the author of "Matthew" was maintaining a close watch on each of the disciples, and knew when each of them died.

Give me the date that each disciple died. Of course we don't need the exact date, just the year or even the approximate year is fine.

I thought you conceded that they are all dead.
So you admit that despite all of your reading on the history of Christianity, that you don't know when the majority of the disciples died. Yet somehow, you find it credible that Matthew not only researched all of the claims as he copied them, but was in a position to know the fate of each of the disciples. So what history didn't record (in most cases), you suggest that a non-witness from decades later, did know?

That makes no sense, Anna. Take a look at the "Gospel of Luke" as an example. It was written by a non-witness, and contains much of the same information from "Mark", yet obviously, the author didn't know when Jesus was supposed to have lived, when he died or when all of the disciples died. You can't seem to get your head out of the Christian fiction that the authors of the gospels were eye-witnesses, who knew Jesus, and knew the disciples. "Luke" comes right out and admits that such a depiction is completely untrue, and yet you still can't seem to grasp it. The author of "Luke" didn't know Jesus and he didn't know any of the disciples. The author of "Mark" doesn't seem to have known any of these people either, nor did the author of "Matthew". They were all simply writing stories which they strongly believed were true, just as you believe the stories are true, despite the fact that you don't know any of the characters.

Do you suppose, Anna, that the author of Matthew might not have been personally familiar with the fate of each disciple? Do you suppose perhaps that news didn't travel as quickly, or penetrate as fully as it does now?

Years passed just the same, Beastt - and you are erroneously placing the book some 60ish years after the time of Christ, then claiming that it contains a foolish anachronism.

So you thus have the author penning a prophesy which was known to have failed at the time he wrote it. Sound fishy? It does to me.

And yet, we see Christians even today, who read those verses and never stop to think about the fact that the disciples all died at least 1,900 years ago. But you expect that the author - who copied the bulk of his text - was aware of the fate of each and every disciple, and researched the claims in his work?

I give him credit for knowing that practically all of the "generation" to whom Jesus spoke would have died off over a 60-year period.
He was copying a story. That story didn't come with a calendar, Anna. Please pull your head out of the sands of Christian faith and try to gain a more rational view.

You didn't explain it. You can't. NOBODY would have incorporated a palpably false prophesy into a gospel account in order to lead people, to persuade people. Yet that's just what you claim.
I've explained this to you. There is no reason to expect that the author had any clue when Jesus died, or when the disciples died. They were following blind faith (just like you), and copying a story they believed was true. But they didn't have a calendar timeline to follow.

You've claimed the author wasn't an eyewitness. No, he was a plagiarist. Not only that, he plagiarized in the AD 90's, or even afterwards. Then, lo and behold, the plagiarist includes a time-sensitive prophesy concerning which time had run out. Who can believe that story? You need to fix something about it.
And as I've explained, we have no reason to believe that he would have known that the time had run out. He believed it by faith, not by research and evidence. It's a long-standing Christian tradition.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 5:24:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 2:48:32 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/19/2014 12:18:55 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 11:31:00 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 11:03:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/18/2014 10:57:16 PM, Beastt wrote:

And was supposed to have happened before the death of all of the disciples.

Matthew 16:27-28

This is arguably, the most important prophecy in the entire Bible, and yet it failed. And it failed around 1,900-years ago. Yet Christianity has continued on as pure fraud, despite this catastrophic failure.

This?

"Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

That already happened. His kingdom was set up on the first Pentecost after the resurrection. That's why Paul and John could say, "We are now in the kingdom of Jesus Christ."

Why do Christians think they can just ignore parts of the Bible? It's like they think only they have access to the text. No Anna.... THIS!

- "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."

It's all part of the same claim... the same prophecy... which failed!

LMAO. So you've decided that Jesus taught that He would personally return to earth and at that time reward every man according to his deeds, and that such an event would happen in the lifetime of some of those to whom He was speaking? Is that it?

Well, isn't that AMAZING! You read the actual text, and then repeated what it says! Congratulations!
However, I never suggested that Jesus taught that. I don't believe Jesus ever existed. But the author of "Matthew" obviously made this claim, and the claim is right there in the scripture.

Well, some think that it occurred in AD 70, which actually makes decent sense. About all you could do in response to it is claim that "every man" was not rewarded/punished.
And yet the bulk of the Christian community insists that this coming of Jesus has not happened yet, and insist that it is still to happen, despite the fact that the Bible shows that it was already to have happened, and did not occur.

Well, you have dated the book of Matthew (erroneously, but you did it anyhow) well after the writing of the book of Mark, which you dated to the AD 70ish period.

Wrong Anna, "The Gospel of Matthew" contains over 600-verses which were simply paraphrased from "Mark". Therefore, "Mark" had to have been written first. And a great many scholars do agree that "Mark" is the oldest of the canonized gospels.

That's what I just said, ya dimwit - even though I do not agree with it.
No, that's not what you said. But seeing a string of lies from you is nothing new.

I said, " you have dated the book of Matthew (erroneously, but you did it anyhow) well after the writing of the book of Mark"
And I explained that "Matthew" couldn't have been written before "Mark" and still contain over 600-verses which were plagiarized from "Mark". Apparently, chronological sequences are a bit above your intellectual capacity.

You ingeniously replied, "Therefore, "Mark" had to have been written first. And a great many scholars do agree that "Mark" is the oldest of the canonized gospels."
Which is both obvious, and true.

So I guess you'll put Matthew around AD 80 or 90. If it was written in AD 85, then the overwhelming majority of any disciples Jesus had were already dead! Possibly by then all of them were dead.
Yet it would be somewhat ridiculous to assume that the author of "Matthew" was maintaining a close watch on each of the disciples, and knew when each of them died.

Give me the date that each disciple died. Of course we don't need the exact date, just the year or even the approximate year is fine.

I thought you conceded that they are all dead.
So you admit that despite all of your reading on the history of Christianity, that you don't know when the majority of the disciples died. Yet somehow, you find it credible that Matthew not only researched all of the claims as he copied them, but was in a position to know the fate of each of the disciples. So what history didn't record (in most cases), you suggest that a non-witness from decades later, did know?

That makes no sense, Anna. Take a look at the "Gospel of Luke" as an example. It was written by a non-witness, and contains much of the same information from "Mark", yet obviously, the author didn't know when Jesus was supposed to have lived, when he died or when all of the disciples died. You can't seem to get your head out of the Christian fiction that the authors of the gospels were eye-witnesses, who knew Jesus, and knew the disciples. "Luke" comes right out and admits that such a depiction is completely untrue, and yet you still can't seem to grasp it. The author of "Luke" didn't know Jesus and he didn't know any of the disciples. The author of "Mark" doesn't seem to have known any of these people either, nor did the author of "Matthew". They were all simply writing stories which they strongly believed were true, just as you believe the stories are true, despite the fact that you don't know any of the characters.

Do you suppose, Anna, that the author of Matthew might not have been personally familiar with the fate of each disciple? Do you suppose perhaps that news didn't travel as quickly, or penetrate as fully as it does now?

Years passed just the same, Beastt - and you are erroneously placing the book some 60ish years after the time of Christ, then claiming that it contains a foolish anachronism.

So you thus have the author penning a prophesy which was known to have failed at the time he wrote it. Sound fishy? It does to me.

And yet, we see Christians even today, who read those verses and never stop to think about the fact that the disciples all died at least 1,900 years ago. But you expect that the author - who copied the bulk of his text - was aware of the fate of each and every disciple, and researched the claims in his work?

I give him credit for knowing that practically all of the "generation" to whom Jesus spoke would have died off over a 60-year period.
He was copying a story. That story didn't come with a calendar, Anna.

Ummm ... yes it did. They knew exactly when Jesus was supposedly crucified. They knew a "generation" was about forty years - not sixty. They knew that the "generation" to whom Christ spoke died out in AD 65-75. Yet you have 'em plagiarizing a story some 20 years after that - and not having enough sense to see that the whole she-bang failed! LMAO. YOU see it. I see it. Anyone can see it. But they DIDN'T see it, and thus duped a large percentage of mankind.

Who can believe your nonsense?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 4:11:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:e said it would.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

I'm caught up to the current post and the conversations you have had with Annanicole and the big production you made over Matthew 16:27-28 and rightly so, so I want to ask a question concerning it.

Jesus said:

" For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds."

1) How does the OT (since Jesus would be referring to the OT when speaking of the Father's coming) refer to God's comings in glory?

Do you ever see the Father once manifest in glory in a physical presence? No, His presence is always manifest by some other means, generally through the people He brings against His adversaries. This is how He displays His judgment and wrath. If you don't look at the nature of this comings in the OT you are going to mangle the text since Jesus specifically refers to coming in His Father's glory.

2) How did God come against Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, His Old Covenant people?

Moreover, the NT term "coming", "coming on the clouds", "coming in judgment", coming in His kingdom`` all refer to the Second Coming of Christ and throughout the NT we are told this coming is near, it is imminent, it is coming soon and it is a coming in judgment of both wrath and reward.

Jesus speaks primarily of two ages in speaking to this Old Covenant people He came to. The end, end of the age, time of the end, all speak about the end of this old covenant people. The terms 'that day', 'those days', 'the day', the day of His wrath' all refer to this old covenant people. Many prophesies in the OT speak of 'the last days'. It is to the people of the 1st century that Scripture makes it plain that these people are in fact living in 'the last days.'

Peter stands up at Pentecost and tells these Jews from every nation under heaven that they are witnessing the last days.

14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

17 "And it shall be in the last days," God says,
"That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams;
18 Even on My bondslaves, both men and women,
I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit
And they shall prophesy.
19 "And I will grant wonders in the sky above
And signs on the earth below,
Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke.
20 "The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come.
21 "And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words:..."

It is clear from the context to whom Peter is addressing and when, at Pentecost. This was recorded all before Peter was martyred since he transfers the information to Luke so it took place long before AD 70. Acts records the missionary journeys of Peter and Paul and the spread of the early church.

The letter to the Hebrew Christians also makes note of when the last days are.

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 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.

God spoke to OT Israel through prophets sent to them. The "fathers" referred to here is of the OT covenant people. Hebrews is a study and contrast of the two covenants. Therefore these last days refers to this specific people who did not exist in covenant form after AD 70. Everything of their world, their heaven and earth had disappeared in AD 70.

In Matthew 10 Jesus calls His twelve disciples aside and commissions them to go throughout Israel, proclaiming the gospel:

"Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons....23 "But whenever they persecute you in [t]one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.


Jesus came in judgment in AD 70.

Daniel makes it plain when the end will be and whose end regarding the Great Tribulation. It all concerns Daniel's people - OT Israel.

The Time of the End

12 "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.

It is not until the power of the holy people (i.e. the old covenant people) is destroyed that the end comes.

7 I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as ]they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.

13 But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

3) Again, how many ages did Jesus primarily speak of Beasst?

20 "But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

You would go against logic and many scholars to suggest that Luke 21:20-24 refers to anything other than the AD 70 destruction of OT Israel in light of it and Daniel 12 and 9:24-27

Jesus said that not one jot or title of the Old Covenant law and prophecies would pass until all is fulfilled (Matthew 5:17-18). Biblically I do not believe you can demonstrate otherwise.

Pe
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 6:12:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 4:11:21 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt wrote:e said it would.

It can be demonstrated logically that what Jesus said did come to pass within the time frame of the generation He addressed in the 1st century and you would be hard pressed to show otherwise. In fact, I believe it would show up your poor understanding of the Bible to back up your claims that these prophecies were not fulfilled and I don't think you are willing to go there.

So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

I'm caught up to the current post and the conversations you have had with Annanicole and the big production you made over Matthew 16:27-28 and rightly so, so I want to ask a question concerning it.

Jesus said:

" For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds."

1) How does the OT (since Jesus would be referring to the OT when speaking of the Father's coming) refer to God's comings in glory?

Do you ever see the Father once manifest in glory in a physical presence? No, His presence is always manifest by some other means, generally through the people He brings against His adversaries. This is how He displays His judgment and wrath. If you don't look at the nature of this comings in the OT you are going to mangle the text since Jesus specifically refers to coming in His Father's glory.

2) How did God come against Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, His Old Covenant people?

Moreover, the NT term "coming", "coming on the clouds", "coming in judgment", coming in His kingdom`` all refer to the Second Coming of Christ and throughout the NT we are told this coming is near, it is imminent, it is coming soon and it is a coming in judgment of both wrath and reward.

Jesus speaks primarily of two ages in speaking to this Old Covenant people He came to. The end, end of the age, time of the end, all speak about the end of this old covenant people. The terms 'that day', 'those days', 'the day', the day of His wrath' all refer to this old covenant people. Many prophesies in the OT speak of 'the last days'. It is to the people of the 1st century that Scripture makes it plain that these people are in fact living in 'the last days.'

Peter stands up at Pentecost and tells these Jews from every nation under heaven that they are witnessing the last days.

14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

17 "And it shall be in the last days," God says,
"That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams;
18 Even on My bondslaves, both men and women,
I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit
And they shall prophesy.
19 "And I will grant wonders in the sky above
And signs on the earth below,
Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke.
20 "The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come.
21 "And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words:..."

It is clear from the context to whom Peter is addressing and when, at Pentecost. This was recorded all before Peter was martyred since he transfers the information to Luke so it took place long before AD 70. Acts records the missionary journeys of Peter and Paul and the spread of the early church.

The letter to the Hebrew Christians also makes note of when the last days are.

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 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.

God spoke to OT Israel through prophets sent to them. The "fathers" referred to here is of the OT covenant people. Hebrews is a study and contrast of the two covenants. Therefore these last days refers to this specific people who did not exist in covenant form after AD 70. Everything of their world, their heaven and earth had disappeared in AD 70.

In Matthew 10 Jesus calls His twelve disciples aside and commissions them to go throughout Israel, proclaiming the gospel:

"Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons....23 "But whenever they persecute you in [t]one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.


Jesus came in judgment in AD 70.

Daniel makes it plain when the end will be and whose end regarding the Great Tribulation. It all concerns Daniel's people - OT Israel.

The Time of the End

12 "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.

It is not until the power of the holy people (i.e. the old covenant people) is destroyed that the end comes.

7 I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as ]they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.

13 But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

He is "going by" the speculations and ramblings of pre-millennialists, I would guess.

He also clings to a rather absurd theory concerning the dating/authorship of the Book of Matthew which places the date of composition well after anybody with half-a-brain could see that the prophesies contained therein had already failed, if his interpretation of them be correct.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 6:24:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 6:12:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/19/2014 4:11:21 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt


So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

I'm caught up to the current post and the conversations you have had with Annanicole and the big production you made over Matthew 16:27-28 and rightly so, so I want to ask a question concerning it.

Jesus said:

" For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds."

1) How does the OT (since Jesus would be referring to the OT when speaking of the Father's coming) refer to God's comings in glory?

Do you ever see the Father once manifest in glory in a physical presence? No, His presence is always manifest by some other means, generally through the people He brings against His adversaries. This is how He displays His judgment and wrath. If you don't look at the nature of this comings in the OT you are going to mangle the text since Jesus specifically refers to coming in His Father's glory.

2) How did God come against Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, His Old Covenant people?

Moreover, the NT term "coming", "coming on the clouds", "coming in judgment", coming in His kingdom`` all refer to the Second Coming of Christ and throughout the NT we are told this coming is near, it is imminent, it is coming soon and it is a coming in judgment of both wrath and reward.

Jesus speaks primarily of two ages in speaking to this Old Covenant people He came to. The end, end of the age, time of the end, all speak about the end of this old covenant people. The terms 'that day', 'those days', 'the day', the day of His wrath' all refer to this old covenant people. Many prophesies in the OT speak of 'the last days'. It is to the people of the 1st century that Scripture makes it plain that these people are in fact living in 'the last days.'

Peter stands up at Pentecost and tells these Jews from every nation under heaven that they are witnessing the last days.

14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

17 "And it shall be in the last days," God says,
"That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams;
18 Even on My bondslaves, both men and women,
I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit
And they shall prophesy.
19 "And I will grant wonders in the sky above
And signs on the earth below,
Blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke.
20 "The sun will be turned into darkness
And the moon into blood,
Before the great and glorious day of the Lord shall come.
21 "And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words:..."

It is clear from the context to whom Peter is addressing and when, at Pentecost. This was recorded all before Peter was martyred since he transfers the information to Luke so it took place long before AD 70. Acts records the missionary journeys of Peter and Paul and the spread of the early church.

The letter to the Hebrew Christians also makes note of when the last days are.

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 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.

God spoke to OT Israel through prophets sent to them. The "fathers" referred to here is of the OT covenant people. Hebrews is a study and contrast of the two covenants. Therefore these last days refers to this specific people who did not exist in covenant form after AD 70. Everything of their world, their heaven and earth had disappeared in AD 70.

In Matthew 10 Jesus calls His twelve disciples aside and commissions them to go throughout Israel, proclaiming the gospel:

"Do not go in the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter any city of the Samaritans; 6 but rather go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as you go, preach, saying, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons....23 "But whenever they persecute you in [t]one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.


Jesus came in judgment in AD 70.

Daniel makes it plain when the end will be and whose end regarding the Great Tribulation. It all concerns Daniel's people - OT Israel.

The Time of the End

12 "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.

It is not until the power of the holy people (i.e. the old covenant people) is destroyed that the end comes.

7 I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as ]they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.

13 But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

He is "going by" the speculations and ramblings of pre-millennialists, I would guess.

He also clings to a rather absurd theory concerning the dating/authorship of the Book of Matthew which places the date of composition well after anybody with half-a-brain could see that the prophesies contained therein had already failed, if his interpretation of them be correct.

Well, I understand that your hypothesis on the dating could only come from someone with half a brain. It's good to see that you understand that. But the reality here is that the "Gospel of Matthew" says what it says about the return of Jesus (that it would happen before the death of all of the disciples), and it's also true that the "Gospel of Matthew", contains 606 parallel verses to the verses in the "Gospel of Mark", which shows that "The Gospel of Mark" was written first.

And Christians simply CAN'T be honest about this. It would mean deconverting.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2014 6:54:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 6:24:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:12:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/19/2014 4:11:21 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt


So unless you are willing to defend your position you have established no such fact. All you have done is made a claim with empty words that cannot be show to be biblical or fact at all. There is nothing pure about your facts at all because what you say is not fact but fiction.

Please show me when Jesus returned and rewarded every man according to his works.

I'm caught up to the current post and the conversations you have had with Annanicole and the big production you made over Matthew 16:27-28 and rightly so, so I want to ask a question concerning it.

Jesus said:

" For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds."

1) How does the OT (since Jesus would be referring to the OT when speaking of the Father's coming) refer to God's comings in glory?

Do you ever see the Father once manifest in glory in a physical presence? No, His presence is always manifest by some other means, generally through the people He brings against His adversaries. This is how He displays His judgment and wrath. If you don't look at the nature of this comings in the OT you are going to mangle the text since Jesus specifically refers to coming in His Father's glory.

2) How did God come against Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, His Old Covenant people?

Moreover, the NT term "coming", "coming on the clouds", "coming in judgment", coming in His kingdom`` all refer to the Second Coming of Christ and throughout the NT we are told this coming is near, it is imminent, it is coming soon and it is a coming in judgment of both wrath and reward.

Jesus speaks primarily of two ages in speaking to this Old Covenant people He came to. The end, end of the age, time of the end, all speak about the end of this old covenant people. The terms 'that day', 'those days', 'the day', the day of His wrath' all refer to this old covenant people. Many prophesies in the OT speak of 'the last days'. It is to the people of the 1st century that Scripture makes it plain that these people are in fact living in 'the last days.'

Peter stands up at Pentecost and tells these Jews from every nation under heaven that they are witnessing the last days.

14 But Peter, taking his stand with the eleven, raised his voice and declared to them: "Men of Judea and all you who live in Jerusalem, let this be known to you and give heed to my words. 15 For these men are not drunk, as you suppose, for it is only the third hour of the day; 16 but this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel:

17 "And it shall be in the last days," God says,
"That I will pour forth of My Spirit on all mankind;
And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
And your young men shall see visions,
And your old men shall dream dreams;
18 Even on My bondslaves, both men and women,
I will in those days pour forth of My Spirit
And they shall prophesy.


22 "Men of Israel, listen to these words:..."

It is clear from the context to whom Peter is addressing and when, at Pentecost. This was recorded all before Peter was martyred since he transfers the information to Luke so it took place long before AD 70. Acts records the missionary journeys of Peter and Paul and the spread of the early church.

The letter to the Hebrew Christians also makes note of when the last days are.

1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 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.

God spoke to OT Israel through prophets sent to them. The "fathers" referred to here is of the OT covenant people. Hebrews is a study and contrast of the two covenants. Therefore these last days refers to this specific people who did not exist in covenant form after AD 70. Everything of their world, their heaven and earth had disappeared in AD 70.

In Matthew 10 Jesus calls His twelve disciples aside and commissions them to go throughout Israel, proclaiming the gospel:




Jesus came in judgment in AD 70.

Daniel makes it plain when the end will be and whose end regarding the Great Tribulation. It all concerns Daniel's people - OT Israel.

The Time of the End

12 "Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise. And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued.

It is not until the power of the holy people (i.e. the old covenant people) is destroyed that the end comes.

7 I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time; and as soon as ]they finish shattering the power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.

13 But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."

He is "going by" the speculations and ramblings of pre-millennialists, I would guess.

He also clings to a rather absurd theory concerning the dating/authorship of the Book of Matthew which places the date of composition well after anybody with half-a-brain could see that the prophesies contained therein had already failed, if his interpretation of them be correct.

Well, I understand that your hypothesis on the dating could only come from someone with half a brain.

.... then yours comes from someone with substantially less than half.

It's good to see that you understand that.

I certainly do. It would take an absolute f-o-o-l to make the following claims:

(1) A man can't take the books of Matthew and Mark and easily CALCULATE the time of the ministry/death of Christ with little effort. Yet you have to claim that the author didn't know it.

(2) The Book of Matthew was obviously written to encourage people to become Christians. Therefore, one good way to do it is to include a prophesy which had notably failed by the time you say the book was written! Can you top that one?

How dumb can ya get? Here we have atheists trying to claim that the book of Matthew was penned in AD 90, AD 100, AD 110 - some 60-80 years after Jesus spoke the prophesy. And, if you are correct, ANYBODY who read the book initially would have said, "Hey, wait a minute! This didn't happen!" In fact, anybody who WROTE the book at the time would said that.

Just goes to show the lengths to which you (and others) will go. You haven't explained it. You aren't gonna explain it. Why? Well, the number one reason is: you have no believable explanation, so all we can expect is another rant about plagiarism.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 12:31:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 6:54:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:24:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:12:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/19/2014 4:11:21 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt

He is "going by" the speculations and ramblings of pre-millennialists, I would guess.

I believe his problem is that he has been extremely influenced by radical German higher criticism and the form of ideas such as that of Edwin Johnson and people centuries removed from the events.

Modern scholarship lists a hypothetical source (Q) for the gospels that they can't produce. That is flimsy evidence to say the least.

He also clings to a rather absurd theory concerning the dating/authorship of the Book of Matthew which places the date of composition well after anybody with half-a-brain could see that the prophesies contained therein had already failed, if his interpretation of them be correct.

Well, I understand that your hypothesis on the dating could only come from someone with half a brain.

.... then yours comes from someone with substantially less than half.

It's good to see that you understand that.

I certainly do. It would take an absolute f-o-o-l to make the following claims:

(1) A man can't take the books of Matthew and Mark and easily CALCULATE the time of the ministry/death of Christ with little effort. Yet you have to claim that the author didn't know it.

(2) The Book of Matthew was obviously written to encourage people to become Christians. Therefore, one good way to do it is to include a prophesy which had notably failed by the time you say the book was written! Can you top that one?

How dumb can ya get? Here we have atheists trying to claim that the book of Matthew was penned in AD 90, AD 100, AD 110 - some 60-80 years after Jesus spoke the prophesy. And, if you are correct, ANYBODY who read the book initially would have said, "Hey, wait a minute! This didn't happen!" In fact, anybody who WROTE the book at the time would said that.

Just goes to show the lengths to which you (and others) will go. You haven't explained it. You aren't gonna explain it. Why? Well, the number one reason is: you have no believable explanation, so all we can expect is another rant...

It will be interesting to see just how well Beasst understands eschatology if he even bothers to reply to my post.

Another thing, I noticed MCB made a big fuss about me not responding to him. When I did he is silent and although he has been busy on the web in various threads now for some days he has ignored responding to the post on the thread he created.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 1:03:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/19/2014 6:24:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:12:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/19/2014 4:11:21 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt
He also clings to a rather absurd theory concerning the dating/authorship of the Book of Matthew which places the date of composition well after anybody with half-a-brain could see that the prophesies contained therein had already failed, if his interpretation of them be correct.

Well, I understand that your hypothesis on the dating could only come from someone with half a brain. It's good to see that you understand that. But the reality here is that the "Gospel of Matthew" says what it says about the return of Jesus (that it would happen before the death of all of the disciples), and it's also true that the "Gospel of Matthew", contains 606 parallel verses to the verses in the "Gospel of Mark", which shows that "The Gospel of Mark" was written first.

Just because the gospels contain parallels does not necessarily translate to them having this fictitious Q source that you so readily imply and pu;; from your magic hat, a source that no one has ever been able to reproduce so it has not been established as historical in any way. This is what you place all your evidence on. It is a product of modern biased scholarship that originates centuries after the facts, the biblical books.

Several church fathers also record that Matthew was written first and in Hebrew.

Then you have oral tradition. These disciples would have spent 3 1/2 years walking the countryside with Jesus. They would have witnessed and shared similar events and probably talked about what they had witnessed among themselves repeatedly. So, considering that they relied on memory skills more than we do today it is very likely that they would have remembers vast amounts of the teachings of Jesus, especially so with the help of the Holy Spirit which they claimed brought the teachings of Jesus to light after His ascension.

The first century was an "oral environment".

We have noted the literacy in this day was between 5-10% depending on the location. However, even those who could read were affected by a "residual orality" that colored their writing. This residual orality can be described as "habits of thought and expression...deriving from the dominance of the oral as a medium" [Neville, 115].


http://www.tektonics.org...

And Christians simply CAN'T be honest about this. It would mean deconverting.

Spoken like an atheist. I make the same judgment of dishonesty on atheism. You can't afford to be wrong.

Peter

PS. I'm still waiting for your response to my previous post on eschatology in this thread. You made some rash comments. Now I want to see you back them up.

Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 1:03:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 12:31:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:54:40 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:24:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/19/2014 6:12:49 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 9/19/2014 4:11:21 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/18/2014 5:40:44 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 9/18/2014 3:41:19 PM, PGA wrote:
At 9/12/2014 12:09:19 PM, Beastt

He is "going by" the speculations and ramblings of pre-millennialists, I would guess.

I believe his problem is that he has been extremely influenced by radical German higher criticism and the form of ideas such as that of Edwin Johnson and people centuries removed from the events.

Modern scholarship lists a hypothetical source (Q) for the gospels that they can't produce. That is flimsy evidence to say the least.

Exactly.

He also clings to a rather absurd theory concerning the dating/authorship of the Book of Matthew which places the date of composition well after anybody with half-a-brain could see that the prophesies contained therein had already failed, if his interpretation of them be correct.

Well, I understand that your hypothesis on the dating could only come from someone with half a brain.

.... then yours comes from someone with substantially less than half.

It's good to see that you understand that.

I certainly do. It would take an absolute f-o-o-l to make the following claims:

(1) A man can't take the books of Matthew and Mark and easily CALCULATE the time of the ministry/death of Christ with little effort. Yet you have to claim that the author didn't know it.

(2) The Book of Matthew was obviously written to encourage people to become Christians. Therefore, one good way to do it is to include a prophesy which had notably failed by the time you say the book was written! Can you top that one?

How dumb can ya get? Here we have atheists trying to claim that the book of Matthew was penned in AD 90, AD 100, AD 110 - some 60-80 years after Jesus spoke the prophesy. And, if you are correct, ANYBODY who read the book initially would have said, "Hey, wait a minute! This didn't happen!" In fact, anybody who WROTE the book at the time would said that.

Just goes to show the lengths to which you (and others) will go. You haven't explained it. You aren't gonna explain it. Why? Well, the number one reason is: you have no believable explanation, so all we can expect is another rant...

It will be interesting to see just how well Beasst understands eschatology if he even bothers to reply to my post.

Another thing, I noticed MCB made a big fuss about me not responding to him. When I did he is silent and although he has been busy on the web in various threads now for some days he has ignored responding to the post on the thread he created.

Peter

Well, all MCB does is take figurative language from, for instance, Matt 24, then stand up and exclaim, "This ain't happened." Then he goes back and reinvents the entire passage in a pretty poor effort to conform it to the "This ain't happened". That's why he comes up with such nonsense as "this generation" meaning "the generation which sees the signs".
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."