Total Posts:393|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Should You Believe in the Trinity brochure?

PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 6:31:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is specifically for tstor because he sticks to his guns in that the BotchTower society has not misquoted publications of people in this brochure when in fact they have done exactly that by making it appear that these publications or people actually support their view.

The first quote, taken from their brochure found here:

https://ia601406.us.archive.org...

"Supporters of the Trinity say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible. Critics of the doctrine say that it is not a Bible teaching, one history source even declaring: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entire"ly pagan. "-The Paganism in Our Christianity."
p.3 of their publication.

Historian Arthur Weigall notes: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord. "-The Paganism in Our Christian"ity. [No page number again]
Thus, neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity"
p.6 of SYBITT.

"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the ... Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One. "-The Paganism in Our Christianity.
p. 6 of SYBITT.

Notice they don't supply a page number as to where the quotes were taken from. Who is the author in regards to his bias? Do you think they are representing someone who is a Greek scholar or who has actually studied Greek and who is not extremely biased in his outlook in quoting this person?

This is one of the Watchtower's Star Witnesses! Trashes whole of Core Christianity. Weigall, is a modernist and doesn't believe the Bible is God's word. He trashes 99% of what both JW's and Trinitarians believe as from Pagan origin. JW's leave the impression that Weigall would exempt JW's from his comments! In fact, Weigall specifically addresses the Watchtower/Arian/Jw view of God known as Angel-Christology, stating that "angel-Christology" is from Pagan origin! The premise of the entire book is that if something was taught before it was written in the Bible, it is of pagan origin. Problem is, Weigall claims to have found 27 major Bible doctrines to exist in Pagan religions before it was first recorded in the Bible. Such a conclusion is simply invalid and for this reason, it is utter deception for the Jehovah's Witnesses to use Weigall as proof that trinity is pagan, because the same identical logic would prove the virgin birth as pagan.

Weigall, Arthur: The Paganism in Our Christianity


http://www.bible.ca...

They fail to mention the extreme bias of this person, not only regarding the Trinity but also regarding them. Do you think this is honest scholarship? Do you think this publication represents the learned views of Greek scholars on the subject?

To be continued. This is only the start.

Peter
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 8:33:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Peter, thank you for the PDF link. It was very interesting, and the only document I've ever read from Watchtower that I've appreciated for its scholarship.

I wonder though, whether you'll be able to prove that there's a 'true' Christianity nearly so well as your evidence will show that just like Judaism, Christianity is the product of changing political and cultural ideas -- not all coherent -- and that consequently, there's no hope of believing in Biblical inerrance.
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/8/2015 10:50:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 6:31:20 PM, PGA wrote:
This is specifically for tstor because he sticks to his guns in that the BotchTower society has not misquoted publications of people in this brochure when in fact they have done exactly that by making it appear that these publications or people actually support their view.
How is this specifically for me when you did not even link me to it? The fact that you cannot even type out the correct name for the organization already shows your extremely negative view of it. Either that or you being childish. Perhaps a bit of both.

The first quote, taken from their brochure found here:

https://ia601406.us.archive.org...

"Supporters of the Trinity say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible. Critics of the doctrine say that it is not a Bible teaching, one history source even declaring: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan. "-The Paganism in Our Christianity."
p.3 of their publication.

Historian Arthur Weigall notes: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord. "-The Paganism in Our Christianity. [No page number again]
Thus, neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity"
p.6 of SYBITT.

"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the ... Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One. "-The Paganism in Our Christianity.
p. 6 of SYBITT.

Notice they don't supply a page number as to where the quotes were taken from. Who is the author in regards to his bias? Do you think they are representing someone who is a Greek scholar or who has actually studied Greek and who is not extremely biased in his outlook in quoting this person?
Okay, so let's examine the author. The author they quoted was Arthur Weigall. His credentials:
https://en.wikipedia.org...

He had every right to be commenting on the topic.

This is one of the Watchtower's Star Witnesses! Trashes whole of Core Christianity. Weigall, is a modernist and doesn't believe the Bible is God's word. He trashes 99% of what both JW's and Trinitarians believe as from Pagan origin. JW's leave the impression that Weigall would exempt JW's from his comments! In fact, Weigall specifically addresses the Watchtower/Arian/Jw view of God known as Angel-Christology, stating that "angel-Christology" is from Pagan origin! The premise of the entire book is that if something was taught before it was written in the Bible, it is of pagan origin. Problem is, Weigall claims to have found 27 major Bible doctrines to exist in Pagan religions before it was first recorded in the Bible. Such a conclusion is simply invalid and for this reason, it is utter deception for the Jehovah's Witnesses to use Weigall as proof that trinity is pagan, because the same identical logic would prove the virgin birth as pagan.

Weigall, Arthur: The Paganism in Our Christianity


http://www.bible.ca...
I do not see any quote or page number to your claim about his view of "Angle-Christology." As well, his view on such a matter is irrelevant to the purpose of the brochure.

They fail to mention the extreme bias of this person, not only regarding the Trinity but also regarding them. Do you think this is honest scholarship? Do you think this publication represents the learned views of Greek scholars on the subject?
I cannot find a quote about his comments regarding "Angel-Christology." In fact, through Google searches, the only place that mentions it is your own source (bible.ca)

To be continued. This is only the start.
It is a rather large brochure, so take your time.

Regards,
Tyler Storey
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 8:33:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Peter, thank you for the PDF link. It was very interesting, and the only document I've ever read from Watchtower that I've appreciated for its scholarship.

Scholarship Ruv? How do you figure that? They did not even quote the page the quote was taken from. Do you know how long it took others to track these quotes down. I went to my local library and found a few after a bit of reading to find out how accurate they were.

I wonder though, whether you'll be able to prove that there's a 'true' Christianity nearly so well as your evidence will show that just like Judaism, Christianity is the product of changing political and cultural ideas -- not all coherent -- and that consequently, there's no hope of believing in Biblical inerrance.

Well you know I disagree and find it a point of contention in prophecy alone. The wording is plain in so much of the NT and old concerning the time of the end and what end is signified. Now if you want to argue this it is right up my alley.

What the significance of prophecy is is that it shows that these events are very hard to explain away for the atheist or unbeliever because he/she goes against the logic of what the verses are actually saying and to whom. The OT looked forward to this time when the Messiah or Deliverer would come and it not only forewarned of judgment but also prophesied of grace and salvation. It also coincides with the historical evidence of the time. Prophecy centers around the judgment of apostate Israel in AD 70. To make it say otherwise creates a lot of problems of reading things into the text that they do not reveal.

Busy day tomorrow. That's all the time I have.

Peter
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:

Well you know I disagree and find it a point of contention in prophecy alone. The wording is plain in so much of the NT and old concerning the time of the end and what end is signified. Now if you want to argue this it is right up my alley.

You lost that argument right here: http://www.debate.org...

It's a long thread but you were defeated on the very first page with your chosen 'prophecy'.
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 2:58:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:

Well you know I disagree and find it a point of contention in prophecy alone. The wording is plain in so much of the NT and old concerning the time of the end and what end is signified. Now if you want to argue this it is right up my alley.

You lost that argument right here: http://www.debate.org...

It's a long thread but you were defeated on the very first page with your chosen 'prophecy'.

Why prophecy is impossible: http://www.debate.org...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 3:05:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/8/2015 8:33:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Peter, thank you for the PDF link. It was very interesting, and the only document I've ever read from Watchtower that I've appreciated for its scholarship.

Scholarship Ruv? How do you figure that?

The history of trinitarianism is a curio of Christianity, largely unremarked by Christians, but weird-looking to anyone outside the faith.

As the pamphlet mentions, ruling trinities aren't uncommon in polytheism, but are out of keeping with monotheism. Rather than acknowledging and explaining this oddness, Christianity 'hangs a lantern' on the anomaly as being 'profound'... but I don't see profundity, so much as an obscurantist attempt to patch over dogmatic incoherence. Regardless, for me it raises the question of how trinitarianism may have arisen, when pre-Christian Judaism offers no compelling evidence of such a tradition itself.

Such a development is readily explained if you consider that early Judaism had no thought of being a salvation religion, while Christianity may have gone from being a reform faith of Hellenicised Judaism to a distinct salvation faith over time. This could have produced a desire to worship Jesus as a god in himself, which later cultural influences could then have developed into trinitarianism.

That's not quite the position taken by the pamphlet, but is supported by all the historical evidence the pamphlet cites -- including its detailed study of the political influence of Constantine on the Council of Nicaea, of Theodosius on later Imperial Christian dogma, and of polytheism on early Christian thought.

I think it's a well-reasoned position; it accords with my historical readings; and seems more credible than parachuting an unprecedented Christian mystery into Judaism from out of the blue sky.

I draw slightly different conclusions, because I'm more interested in the history of human thought than I am in trying to make the JW faith look traditional (I don't believe it is.) However the arguments look historically sound -- and that's not something I'd normally say of a JW tract. :)

In any case, whatever its ulterior motives, it's nice to see theological apologetics serving independent religious critique for a change.

I look forward to reading your refutation.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 4:46:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I read the historical parts of the brochure and skimmed the theological parts. It seems to me that demonstrating the lack of any Biblical basis for the Trinity is something where no dodgy scholarship is required.

I don't read Watchtower so I won't comment on their scholarship in general, but there's not much to quibble over in this one.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:

Well you know I disagree and find it a point of contention in prophecy alone. The wording is plain in so much of the NT and old concerning the time of the end and what end is signified. Now if you want to argue this it is right up my alley.

You lost that argument right here: http://www.debate.org...

It's a long thread but you were defeated on the very first page with your chosen 'prophecy'.

I did not lose it. The question is does the Bible, both OT and NT, teach the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant before the event happened and the evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact it does. The problem is that people read into the text all kinds of things that it does not say, like changing the time span of the generation and age, the audience of address and how they understood Jesus' words in the light of their culture and times. What did words like 'heaven and earth' or 'coming in the clouds' mean to them?

What happened with the thread was a failure of people to admit that Jesus was speaking primarily to a 1st century generation about things that would shortly come to pass, within their generation.

Skepticalone side-stepped the issue throughout the debates I had with him. If you read the text in Matthew 24 Jesus is addressing His disciples and a parallel account even tells the reader which ones. The problem is that you can't dispute the text unless you ignore what it says and understand the type of language being used (whether symbolic/figurative or literal/narrative), which the Bible explains as its own interpreter.

Peter
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:

Well you know I disagree and find it a point of contention in prophecy alone. The wording is plain in so much of the NT and old concerning the time of the end and what end is signified. Now if you want to argue this it is right up my alley.

You lost that argument right here: http://www.debate.org...

It's a long thread but you were defeated on the very first page with your chosen 'prophecy'.

I did not lose it. The question is does the Bible, both OT and NT, teach the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant before the event happened and the evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact it does. The problem is that people read into the text all kinds of things that it does not say, like changing the time span of the generation and age, the audience of address and how they understood Jesus' words in the light of their culture and times. What did words like 'heaven and earth' or 'coming in the clouds' mean to them?

What happened with the thread was a failure of people to admit that Jesus was speaking primarily to a 1st century generation about things that would shortly come to pass, within their generation.

Skepticalone side-stepped the issue throughout the debates I had with him. If you read the text in Matthew 24 Jesus is addressing His disciples and a parallel account even tells the reader which ones. The problem is that you can't dispute the text unless you ignore what it says and understand the type of language being used (whether symbolic/figurative or literal/narrative), which the Bible explains as its own interpreter.

Peter

You lost. You agreed to a set of rules on what constituted a valid prophecy and you then put forward a prophecy (presumably your best shot) which clearly violated the rule (according to a consensus of biblical historians) that the prophecy had to uncontroversially precede the actual event. The fact that you can't accept this demonstrates that you are not amenable to reason. The umpire has made a decision but you refuse to walk. You won't accept any authority other than your own.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 9:19:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 3:05:02 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/8/2015 8:33:46 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Peter, thank you for the PDF link. It was very interesting, and the only document I've ever read from Watchtower that I've appreciated for its scholarship.

Scholarship Ruv? How do you figure that?

The history of trinitarianism is a curio of Christianity, largely unremarked by Christians, but weird-looking to anyone outside the faith.

As the pamphlet mentions, ruling trinities aren't uncommon in polytheism, but are out of keeping with monotheism. Rather than acknowledging and explaining this oddness, Christianity 'hangs a lantern' on the anomaly as being 'profound'... but I don't see profundity, so much as an obscurantist attempt to patch over dogmatic incoherence. Regardless, for me it raises the question of how trinitarianism may have arisen, when pre-Christian Judaism offers no compelling evidence of such a tradition itself.

The doctrine is developed from the Bible itself, regardless of what other religions teach about their triad of gods. The essence of the teaching is that there are not three Gods but one God who is revealed in the biblical text in three distinct persons who all have the same nature, essence, unity, eternity. The Bible teaches that God alone created the universe and everything in it. We see in passages of Scripture that not only the Father is attributed to creating everything, but also the Son and Holy Spirit, and God alone as God created all things, so logically God must be not one but three Persons.

I have a poor analogy. You as a father are human and your child as a son is human. Neither you nor you son is the same person yet you are both by NATURE human beings. That is true of God also, both Father and Son share the same nature, that of God.

Such a development is readily explained if you consider that early Judaism had no thought of being a salvation religion, while Christianity may have gone from being a reform faith of Hellenicised Judaism to a distinct salvation faith over time. This could have produced a desire to worship Jesus as a god in himself, which later cultural influences could then have developed into trinitarianism.

It is explained in the teaching of the OT.

Psalm 45:6
Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

Hebrews 1:8
But of the Son He says, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.


The OT always pointed ahead to Jesus Christ and God's means of salvation. I could give you a slew of passages in the OT that teach as much but right now I'm getting ready to start my day and it is going to be busy. Jesus in Luke 24 explained to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus that the whole OT spoke of Him, not only as their chosen Messiah but also in its types and shadows, the reality being Christ Himself.

That's not quite the position taken by the pamphlet, but is supported by all the historical evidence the pamphlet cites -- including its detailed study of the political influence of Constantine on the Council of Nicaea, of Theodosius on later Imperial Christian dogma, and of polytheism on early Christian thought.

The brochure misrepresents the thoughts of those it quotes from in what they say or the position they take and makes it seem that the BotchTower is gathering support from these quotes as to its view but the opposite is the case. These quotes in their entirity do not support the views of the BotchTower. It is dishonest to suggest they do. And to top it off notice that they don't provide page numbers or footnotes as to where exactly the quotes were taken from. How professional is that?

I think it's a well-reasoned position; it accords with my historical readings; and seems more credible than parachuting an unprecedented Christian mystery into Judaism from out of the blue sky.

Well reasoned? Not at all. If you have God alone saying He created all things and you have Jesus saying the same thing (and Jesus is not the same person as the Father or Holy Spirit) then either Jesus was lying (heaven forbid) or God is more than one person. The biblical teaching is that God is one God, united in essence and nature and substance, yet distinct in persons.

I draw slightly different conclusions, because I'm more interested in the history of human thought than I am in trying to make the JW faith look traditional (I don't believe it is.) However the arguments look historically sound -- and that's not something I'd normally say of a JW tract. :)

You draw a different conclusion because your starting point is different than mine. You refuse to take the claimed authority of God at His Word. You refuse to believe who He claims to be, that He is the beginning and end of all things created. You place yourself in the position of God in that you are the one who decides what is and is not true. Little old you!

In any case, whatever its ulterior motives, it's nice to see theological apologetics serving independent religious critique for a change.

They are as biased as they come. They push their position as does everyone else.

I look forward to reading your refutation.

I have to go.

Peter
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2015 7:21:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 9:19:50 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 3:05:02 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
As the pamphlet mentions, ruling trinities aren't uncommon in polytheism, but are out of keeping with monotheism. Rather than acknowledging and explaining this oddness, Christianity 'hangs a lantern' on the anomaly as being 'profound'... but I don't see profundity, so much as an obscurantist attempt to patch over dogmatic incoherence.
The doctrine is developed from the Bible itself, regardless of what other religions teach about their triad of gods.
Is it developed from the BIble, Peter, or added to it? Where is evidence that ancient Israelites believed in a trinitarian God? There is no such tradition in Judaism, and Jews reading the Tanakh do not see this interpretation. Yet the people who penned the books of the Tanakh lived among their fellow Jews, and there's no question that the Tanakh is venerated. So if the Tanakh's authorship were both prophetic and inerrant, and trinitarian worship was always intended, why is that tradition not present in the custodians of that scripture?

I have a poor analogy. You as a father are human and your child as a son is human. Neither you nor you son is the same person yet you are both by NATURE human beings.

Yet they are intellectually and socially distinct. By that ontology, they would be called 'humans' or 'the humans', and not 'The Human'. Even an ant-hive, which could arguably be said to operate as a single social and intellectual unit, is not called 'The Ant'.

This doesn't resolve intuitively, Peter. Nobody has ever managed to construct a credible intuition for it. The only things holding trinitarian worship as a monotheistic faith are that:

* Judiasm itself, in the form penned in the later parts of the Tanakh, is undoubtedly monotheistic;
* Christianity derives from Judaism; yet
* Christianity had lost its Jewish cultural continuity by the time it became the Imperial Roman state faith. So Christian scholars of the Roman empire could say with impunity virtually anything they liked about the intended meaning of the Tanakh, since it was the scripture of a client state.

It's almost a double insult, isn't it? Insulting the intelligence of the world's philosophers, while insulting the traditions of the custodians of the Tanakh?

I fell especially sorry for Hindu scholars, having to endure being told that Hinduism is an inferior and primitive faith because it's polytheistic, only to watch trinitarian Christians insist that they're monotheists by revising Jewish traditions and insulting their custodians. How they could see that as anything but the arrogance of an Imperial state faith is beyond me.

Such a development is readily explained if you consider that early Judaism had no thought of being a salvation religion, while Christianity may have gone from being a reform faith of Hellenicised Judaism to a distinct salvation faith over time. This could have produced a desire to worship Jesus as a god in himself, which later cultural influences could then have developed into trinitarianism.
It is explained in the teaching of the OT.
I think you're saying that Christian scholars have managed to make it fit the words of the Tanakh, if not their traditional interpretation.

That's not quite the position taken by the pamphlet, but is supported by all the historical evidence the pamphlet cites -- including its detailed study of the political influence of Constantine on the Council of Nicaea, of Theodosius on later Imperial Christian dogma, and of polytheism on early Christian thought.
The brochure misrepresents the thoughts of those it quotes from in what they say or the position they take
The brochure does nothing that early Christian curators did not also do with the texts they inherited.

The Tanakh does not pronounce itself inerrant -- that's a Christian invention. The Tanakh does not claim its first books were written by Moses -- that's a later interpretation. The titles given to the books of the New Testament were not all given to those books by their authors, but by later (nameless) scholars, often themselves construing authorship. And in what other ways were those documents redacted and revised?

How can you criticise the scholarship of a Watchtower pamphlet when identical faults of scholarship lie all through Christian and Judaic scripture?

I agree that the pamphlet isn't written to modern academic standards: it's a teaching-pamphlet, not a good academic essay, not always transparent about its derivations. But the same is true of Christian scripture. So if you're going to critique the one and call it invalid because it's not transparent, will you uphold the same standard of critique for the other?
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:

Well you know I disagree and find it a point of contention in prophecy alone. The wording is plain in so much of the NT and old concerning the time of the end and what end is signified. Now if you want to argue this it is right up my alley.

You lost that argument right here: http://www.debate.org...

It's a long thread but you were defeated on the very first page with your chosen 'prophecy'.

I did not lose it. The question is does the Bible, both OT and NT, teach the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant before the event happened and the evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact it does. The problem is that people read into the text all kinds of things that it does not say, like changing the time span of the generation and age, the audience of address and how they understood Jesus' words in the light of their culture and times. What did words like 'heaven and earth' or 'coming in the clouds' mean to them?

What happened with the thread was a failure of people to admit that Jesus was speaking primarily to a 1st century generation about things that would shortly come to pass, within their generation.

Skepticalone side-stepped the issue throughout the debates I had with him. If you read the text in Matthew 24 Jesus is addressing His disciples and a parallel account even tells the reader which ones. The problem is that you can't dispute the text unless you ignore what it says and understand the type of language being used (whether symbolic/figurative or literal/narrative), which the Bible explains as its own interpreter.

Peter

You lost.

I feel I lost because of the bias of those who voted, not on the logic of what was stated. This debate forum is significantly anti-Christianity. Annanicole lost her last debate on the same grounds with Envisage. Her argument was definitely the stronger.

For instance, the argument that this generation does not mean this generation is a poor one. Jesus talks judgment to them when He uses this phrase. In context He is speaking to this generation He came to. How can someone say it means a far distant future generation? Who are the words addressed to in the context? What does the time frame mean in context?

You agreed to a set of rules on what constituted a valid prophecy and you then put forward a prophecy (presumably your best shot) which clearly violated the rule (according to a consensus of biblical historians) that the prophecy had to uncontroversially precede the actual event.

The prophecy did not precede the event. What a bunch of baloney. There is no way these Jewish believers could have avoided writing about or even hinted at the destruction of the Temple if it had already happened. What you find is warnings of a soon coming event and the only one that fits the bill is the destruction of the city and temple in AD 70. And it was not only these NT writers that prophesied about this event. The OT writers did so too.

And it is the Dispensational view, that is dead wrong in its interpretation of Scripture, that has influenced much of Christianity today.

The reason so many view these prophesies as having been written after the fact is on the writing of one piece of doubtful historicity regarding the words of Ireneaus.

The fact that you can't accept this demonstrates that you are not amenable to reason. The umpire has made a decision but you refuse to walk. You won't accept any authority other than your own.

Your preconceived views and influence of the atheistic worldview demonstrates that you will not logically think this through. What events fit the warnings littered throughout the NT other than the destruction of the city and temple?

Peter
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:

Well you know I disagree and find it a point of contention in prophecy alone. The wording is plain in so much of the NT and old concerning the time of the end and what end is signified. Now if you want to argue this it is right up my alley.

You lost that argument right here: http://www.debate.org...

It's a long thread but you were defeated on the very first page with your chosen 'prophecy'.

I did not lose it. The question is does the Bible, both OT and NT, teach the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant before the event happened and the evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact it does. The problem is that people read into the text all kinds of things that it does not say, like changing the time span of the generation and age, the audience of address and how they understood Jesus' words in the light of their culture and times. What did words like 'heaven and earth' or 'coming in the clouds' mean to them?

What happened with the thread was a failure of people to admit that Jesus was speaking primarily to a 1st century generation about things that would shortly come to pass, within their generation.

Skepticalone side-stepped the issue throughout the debates I had with him. If you read the text in Matthew 24 Jesus is addressing His disciples and a parallel account even tells the reader which ones. The problem is that you can't dispute the text unless you ignore what it says and understand the type of language being used (whether symbolic/figurative or literal/narrative), which the Bible explains as its own interpreter.

Peter

You lost.

I feel I lost because of the bias of those who voted, not on the logic of what was stated. This debate forum is significantly anti-Christianity. Annanicole lost her last debate on the same grounds with Envisage. Her argument was definitely the stronger.

You are confused. I linked you to a religion forum thread, not a formal debate. There was no vote. You lost because you indisputably fell foul of an agreed upon rule on what would constitute a valid prophecy.

For instance, the argument that this generation does not mean this generation is a poor one. Jesus talks judgment to them when He uses this phrase. In context He is speaking to this generation He came to. How can someone say it means a far distant future generation? Who are the words addressed to in the context? What does the time frame mean in context?

I fail to see the relevance of this to the thread I linked you to. Regardless, quoting words that some anonymous writer put into the mouth of Jesus is a waste of everyone's time. A fictional character can be made to say anything.

You agreed to a set of rules on what constituted a valid prophecy and you then put forward a prophecy (presumably your best shot) which clearly violated the rule (according to a consensus of biblical historians) that the prophecy had to uncontroversially precede the actual event.

The prophecy did not precede the event. What a bunch of baloney.

I agree, and so does the consensus of biblical scholars.

There is no way these Jewish believers could have avoided writing about or even hinted at the destruction of the Temple if it had already happened. What you find is warnings of a soon coming event and the only one that fits the bill is the destruction of the city and temple in AD 70. And it was not only these NT writers that prophesied about this event. The OT writers did so too.

Oh dear. You still don't get it. It doesn't matter what you believe. The only hurdle I had was to find credible sources which state that the prophecy was written into the text after the event. I gave you three --- the wikipedia entry (with references to the authorities relied upon), the Catholic Encyclopedia, and earlychristianwritings.com. Not only did I cast doubt on 'Matthew' writing earlier than 67CE, in fact there is a strong consensus that he wrote later. It really doesn't matter if you accept whether the experts have got it right. Just the fact that it is a contested issue is enough to destroy your case for putting forward a valid prophecy.

And it is the Dispensational view, that is dead wrong in its interpretation of Scripture, that has influenced much of Christianity today.

Irrelevant.

The reason so many view these prophesies as having been written after the fact is on the writing of one piece of doubtful historicity regarding the words of Ireneaus.

Irrelevant.

The fact that you can't accept this demonstrates that you are not amenable to reason. The umpire has made a decision but you refuse to walk. You won't accept any authority other than your own.

Your preconceived views and influence of the atheistic worldview demonstrates that you will not logically think this through. What events fit the warnings littered throughout the NT other than the destruction of the city and temple?

Warnings are not prophecy. They are warnings. You put forward your best shot at a prophecy from Matthew and it was shot down in flames. Now you make vague assertions about prophecies throughout the Bible. What else can you do since you failed on the specific prophecy which you arrogantly thought was a shoe-in for you?
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:

Well you know I disagree and find it a point of contention in prophecy alone. The wording is plain in so much of the NT and old concerning the time of the end and what end is signified. Now if you want to argue this it is right up my alley.

You lost that argument right here: http://www.debate.org...

It's a long thread but you were defeated on the very first page with your chosen 'prophecy'.

I did not lose it. The question is does the Bible, both OT and NT, teach the fall of Jerusalem and the end of the Old Covenant before the event happened and the evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact it does. The problem is that people read into the text all kinds of things that it does not say, like changing the time span of the generation and age, the audience of address and how they understood Jesus' words in the light of their culture and times. What did words like 'heaven and earth' or 'coming in the clouds' mean to them?

What happened with the thread was a failure of people to admit that Jesus was speaking primarily to a 1st century generation about things that would shortly come to pass, within their generation.

Skepticalone side-stepped the issue throughout the debates I had with him. If you read the text in Matthew 24 Jesus is addressing His disciples and a parallel account even tells the reader which ones. The problem is that you can't dispute the text unless you ignore what it says and understand the type of language being used (whether symbolic/figurative or literal/narrative), which the Bible explains as its own interpreter.

You lost.

I feel I lost because of the bias of those who voted, not on the logic of what was stated. This debate forum is significantly anti-Christianity. Annanicole lost her last debate on the same grounds with Envisage. Her argument was definitely the stronger.

You are confused. I linked you to a religion forum thread, not a formal debate. There was no vote. You lost because you indisputably fell foul of an agreed upon rule on what would constitute a valid prophecy.

No, I'm not confused. I just noted what Skepticalone did in the debate I had with him on the subject. It addressed Matthew 24 and he questioned what a generation meant after agreeing in a previous debate that it meant the generation Jesus came to. That is the problem with both most atheists and believers today - they isolate the audience of address and time frame. The time frame tells the reader that the destruction of the temple had not yet taken place. These warnings address the 1st century audience about signs of Jesus' coming and the end of the age they lived in - an OT age. After AD 70 there is no more OT economy that the whole fabric of prophecy rests on.

And here is my answer to you in the thread you listed:

At 12/21/2014 7:44:20 AM, dee-em wrote:
Hold your horses. Before one can talk about prophecy, we must establish some rules.

These rules come from Atheism and Naturalism by Nicholas Covington.

1. The prophecy must not be vague.

The prophecy is anything but vague. I already claimed it radiated to every part of the Bible, like spokes from a hub.

2. We must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event.

How will you do that? Who will you believe? Will you believe the evidence from the 66 books? Will you believe that Daniel was written before the NT, or Isaiah, or the other books of the OT? Can you prove otherwise and how good is the scholarship? Can you prove the NT was written after AD 70? What kind of evidence do you have to rest your case on? Let's see it and see how logically consistent it is.

3. The prophecy must be fulfilled in full and must not appear in the same book as a text containing false prophecies.

My case is that they have been fulfilled completely. These prophesies are not false.

4. The prophecy must not be something which can plausibly be attributed to a guess.

How would you determine that? The history that we have confirms them. Is that acceptable to you? Do you view the biblical books as historical evidence?


5. The prophecy must not be something which the prophet and/or his followers could have fulfilled.

How could Daniel fulfill prophesies that were not relevant for his time? Which books of the NT can you identify as being written before AD 70? What is your evidence for this?

They seem fairly reasonable. Do you agree?

If I'm understanding them correctly I can work with them. I'll be interested to see who your expert sources will be. I may ask from time to time.


I do not work under the authority of your system of thought. I asked who your authorities were to see their particular bias. In post 6 you gave me a passage in Luke and wanted to explain how it lined up with your second argument in post #7:

2. We must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event.


You had already predetermined before I set forth one line of evidence that the experts were right and that Jesus never existed. So how do you work with someone who is going to deny everything you tell them?

It is not because the evidence is unreasonable but because you already have a preconceived explanation that you clutch onto with every fiber of you being so that it becomes impossible to reason with you.

As per the last time you continue to ignore my questions to you but expect me to supply an answer to everything you write. Your reply then was probably the same as it will be now and that was:

"I'm not going to get into a "discussion" with you. That would be pointless for the reason given above. What I will do is show you how your so-called "prophecy" does not meet the rules which you have tacitly accepted. A new post will be forthcoming."


How can you debate with someone who will not engage in the very point of contention but relies on the views of late date "scholars" or liberal theologians with an agenda?

The question is what the text is telling the reader and who Jesus addressed in the context of the text.

How can you debate with someone who refuses to engage in the text, the very topic of debate? Instead you prejudice comes through over and over.

You keep reading into the text the view that these books were written after the fact. Where is the early evidence for this? It all relies on a statement by Irenaeus that is under dispute as to whether it was translated correctly. But what does the text tell you?

It tells you that "this generation" that Jesus was speaking to was coming under the judgment of God, therefore they were to repent and turn to Him or face that judgment. Jesus specifically told His disciples to go to the lost sheep of Israel and that before they had gone through all the cities of Judea He would come again either in judgment or to bring salvation for those waiting for Him.

I did not lose the argument. You made up the rules and would not engage in the text because your thinking was already set.

Your reasoning is because "most experts" date most NT books to after the fall of Jerusalem so should you. Do you not think you should at least consider the argument from the text in dispute?

As you said:

"There is nothing you can "prove" to me. I am not qualified to assess whatever you may present. If you have something compelling, publish a book and get unanimous agreement on your side. Then come back and talk to me."

Peter
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 5:55:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:

Your reasoning is because "most experts" date most NT books to after the fall of Jerusalem so should you. Do you not think you should at least consider the argument from the text in dispute?

In the debate that I have on the dating of the book of Luke (or Luke/Acts), the guy basically said - and I'm paraphrasing -

"The books must be dated after the fall of Jerusalem because nobody could have predicted the event with such accuracy beforehand. We must make that assumption first, then we can get started." And he was serious!

In other words, we must deny that there is such a thing as divine prophesy - and in effect deny that there is a God - and only then can we launch forth on dating the books. Sadly, there are numerous liberal "scholars" who, while they affirm that there is a God of some sort, flatly deny divine prophesy.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 10:54:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:

Hold your horses. Before one can talk about prophecy, we must establish some rules.

These rules come from Atheism and Naturalism by Nicholas Covington.

1. The prophecy must not be vague.
2. We must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event.
3. The prophecy must be fulfilled in full and must not appear in the same book as a text containing false prophecies.
4. The prophecy must not be something which can plausibly be attributed to a guess.
5. The prophecy must not be something which the prophet and/or his followers could have fulfilled.

They seem fairly reasonable. Do you agree?

If I'm understanding them correctly I can work with them.

Addressing rule #2:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE, with a range of possibility between 70 to 110 CE (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[2][3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[4]

Considering the above (plus numerous other sources I could cite) are we absolutely sure that the prophecy was made before the event? Any sane person would have to accept that the scholarship says an emphatic NO (quite the opposite). Not Peter, because in Peter's world the only opinion that matters is his own and any rules he agreed to are made to be broken.
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 11:14:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 5:55:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:

Your reasoning is because "most experts" date most NT books to after the fall of Jerusalem so should you. Do you not think you should at least consider the argument from the text in dispute?

In the debate that I have on the dating of the book of Luke (or Luke/Acts), the guy basically said - and I'm paraphrasing -

"The books must be dated after the fall of Jerusalem because nobody could have predicted the event with such accuracy beforehand. We must make that assumption first, then we can get started." And he was serious!

In other words, we must deny that there is such a thing as divine prophesy - and in effect deny that there is a God - and only then can we launch forth on dating the books. Sadly, there are numerous liberal "scholars" who, while they affirm that there is a God of some sort, flatly deny divine prophesy.

His name is Envisage and he gave you a detailed explanation for his position (with sources):

Historical Method
IF Pro is not using a historical method to make her inferences, then she would be best served to actually provide her heuristic framework by which she determines the most likely explanation of facts. The historical method is a form of abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation, thus if Pro does not adopt this method, which has highly successful in virtually any fields of enquiry, including philosophy, diagnosis and not in the very least, the scientific method!

Any set of facts can have multiple explanations, thus we must implement techniques from sorting the most likely explanations from the least likely explanations. In the historical method, and abductive reasoning, we have three general principles, the plausibility condition, the causality condition, and the inference condition.[5]

Pro however violates the plausibility condition on an extreme level, and simply does not address any of my philosophical points regarding this. It is beyond what we have experience with, it violates the principle of uniformity of nature, and it is a non-simple explanation. All three are preferred by explanations within our already accessible explanatory set that puts the terminus ad quo past 70AD.

Thus, if Pro is going to grossly violate these principles, then she better have some exceptionally high standards of evidence fulfilled in order to do so justifiably. Unfortunately these standards of evidence are simply inaccessible from this type of enquiry, and likely require modern instruments and data recording.

Furthermore, Pro's position becomes self-defeating if she must reject the uniformity of nature principle, since virtually all of our inferences about the past where this principle no longer held are unsound, and are in the realm of complete speculation. Without the assumption that the past is physically like the present we cannot do history.[6]


And:

Pro attempts to dismiss my argument here as philosophical, ignoring that the entire process of inference and reason is grounded in philosophy. Without a good heuristic framework, then one cannot make reliable inferences. Our most successful framework for deducing reality is abductive reasoning, from which the scientific and historical methods are derived. Pro"s arguments require ignoring these highly successful routes of enquiry.

Pro drops that she needs to break the uniformity of nature principle (unless Pro can demonstrate that precise premonitions occur today, which she cannot, and even if they could occur today, that they do so at a non-negligible rate). Note my framework does not rule premonitions/prophecy as impossible a priori, it states that even if it were possible, it would have a very low a priori likelihood of being the correct explanation. Thus other more simple and mundane explanations are far more likely (e.g. Luke died, got lazy, etc. etc. etc.) Pro attempts to reduce these mundane explanations to incredulity, but ignores that I was drawing a parallel to her alternative, and what is more likely in principle.


The fact that you didn't link to the debate so readers could hear both sides of the story is instructive. Some intellectual honesty and fair play would be appreciated, Anna.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:15:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
For instance, the argument that this generation does not mean this generation is a poor one. Jesus talks judgment to them when He uses this phrase. In context He is speaking to this generation He came to. How can someone say it means a far distant future generation? Who are the words addressed to in the context? What does the time frame mean in context?

I fail to see the relevance of this to the thread I linked you to. Regardless, quoting words that some anonymous writer put into the mouth of Jesus is a waste of everyone's time. A fictional character can be made to say anything.

There again, that is your bias, not mine. You read into it that someone put these words into Jesus' mouth after the fact yet your argument is 20 centuries removed from the text in question and deconstructs the text to its own view then constructs it again under that view - truly postmodern.

You agreed to a set of rules on what constituted a valid prophecy and you then put forward a prophecy (presumably your best shot) which clearly violated the rule (according to a consensus of biblical historians) that the prophecy had to uncontroversially precede the actual event.

The prophecy did not precede the event. What a bunch of baloney.

I agree, and so does the consensus of biblical scholars.

In other words, the prophesies were not written after the event as those looking back at the event and making the prophecy fit the event. What evidence do you have regarding such a view? There is a statement by Irenaeus that is in question that people have used to force the prophetic writings after the even yet in doing so the evidence from the NT (and OT) books says exactly the opposite. It's a case of taking what one person said (and it is questionable whether or not what he said or meant was this) and building your whole case upon this one drop of disputable evidence while ignoring the volumes of evidence that goes against such a view.

There is no way these Jewish believers could have avoided writing about or even hinted at the destruction of the Temple if it had already happened. What you find is warnings of a soon coming event and the only one that fits the bill is the destruction of the city and temple in AD 70. And it was not only these NT writers that prophesied about this event. The OT writers did so too.

Oh dear. You still don't get it. It doesn't matter what you believe.

It is you who does not get it. You dismiss what I believe because it doesn't matter to you. It pulls against everything you want to believe. You look for every shred of evidence that says otherwise and you never address the texts as to their audience relevance or time frames. You are in fact blind to these things. You do not hear or see what the text tells you because you are so set against hearing it or seeing it.

The only hurdle I had was to find credible sources which state that the prophecy was written into the text after the event. I gave you three --- the wikipedia entry (with references to the authorities relied upon), the Catholic Encyclopedia, and earlychristianwritings.com.

Credible as you see credible. You are like the flock that follows the "experts" and you take anyone who agrees with you regardless of whether they are true or not. Check out Annanicole's debate with Envisage. He did the same thing because it was what he wanted to believe.

Not only did I cast doubt on 'Matthew' writing earlier than 67CE, in fact there is a strong consensus that he wrote later. It really doesn't matter if you accept whether the experts have got it right. Just the fact that it is a contested issue is enough to destroy your case for putting forward a valid prophecy.

It is not enough to destroy my case. It is enough to provide you with what your tickling ears want to hear. However you go against what the sources in dispute tell you - the biblical writers. To you they are not historical evidence, neither is the existence of Jesus Christ. You reject and dismiss Him too in all your puffed up wisdom.

And it is the Dispensational view, that is dead wrong in its interpretation of Scripture, that has influenced much of Christianity today.

Not at all. Ideas have consequences and this idea promoted many others that lead to confirmation bias, not on what the biblical texts are telling the reader.

The reason so many view these prophesies as having been written after the fact is on the writing of one piece of doubtful historicity regarding the words of Ireneaus.

Irrelevant.

You choose to make it so and because you choose to you it becomes so. The evidence says otherwise.

The fact that you can't accept this demonstrates that you are not amenable to reason. The umpire has made a decision but you refuse to walk. You won't accept any authority other than your own.

Your preconceived views and influence of the atheistic worldview demonstrates that you will not logically think this through. What events fit the warnings littered throughout the NT other than the destruction of the city and temple?

Warnings are not prophecy. They are warnings. You put forward your best shot at a prophecy from Matthew and it was shot down in flames. Now you make vague assertions about prophecies throughout the Bible. What else can you do since you failed on the specific prophecy which you arrogantly thought was a shoe-in for you?

Of course they can be prophetic. Woven into the warnings are prophesies that will take place. John the Baptist comes warning these 1st century Scribes and Pharisees to escape from the coming judgment. That judgment is prophetic.

Matthew 3 (NASB)
The Preaching of John the Baptist

3 Now in those days John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, saying, 2 "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 3 For this is the one referred to by Isaiah the prophet when he said,

"The voice of one crying in the wilderness,
"Make ready the way of the Lord,
Make His paths straight!""

4 Now John himself had a garment of camel"s hair and a leather belt around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; 6 and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, as they confessed their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming for baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance; 9 and do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, "We have Abraham for our father"; for I say to you that from these stones God is able to raise up children to Abraham. 10 The axe is already laid at the root of the trees; therefore every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

11 "As for me, I baptize you [g]with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals; He will baptize you [h]with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire."


Here you have John warning of the coming wrath, and he points to prophesies that would be fulfilled in this generation of people.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:18:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 5:55:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:

Your reasoning is because "most experts" date most NT books to after the fall of Jerusalem so should you. Do you not think you should at least consider the argument from the text in dispute?

In the debate that I have on the dating of the book of Luke (or Luke/Acts), the guy basically said - and I'm paraphrasing -

"The books must be dated after the fall of Jerusalem because nobody could have predicted the event with such accuracy beforehand. We must make that assumption first, then we can get started." And he was serious!

In other words, we must deny that there is such a thing as divine prophesy - and in effect deny that there is a God - and only then can we launch forth on dating the books. Sadly, there are numerous liberal "scholars" who, while they affirm that there is a God of some sort, flatly deny divine prophesy.

You forgot to include denying that there was a real Jesus.

I see these skeptics as pushing their own agenda by ignoring the reasonableness of the evidence.

Peter
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:21:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 10:54:51 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:

Hold your horses. Before one can talk about prophecy, we must establish some rules.

These rules come from Atheism and Naturalism by Nicholas Covington.

1. The prophecy must not be vague.
2. We must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event.
3. The prophecy must be fulfilled in full and must not appear in the same book as a text containing false prophecies.
4. The prophecy must not be something which can plausibly be attributed to a guess.
5. The prophecy must not be something which the prophet and/or his followers could have fulfilled.

They seem fairly reasonable. Do you agree?

If I'm understanding them correctly I can work with them.

Addressing rule #2:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE, with a range of possibility between 70 to 110 CE (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[2][3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[4]

Considering the above (plus numerous other sources I could cite) are we absolutely sure that the prophecy was made before the event? Any sane person would have to accept that the scholarship says an emphatic NO (quite the opposite). Not Peter, because in Peter's world the only opinion that matters is his own and any rules he agreed to are made to be broken.

I have to be up at four so I will address this and other posts as soon as I get some time.

Peter
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 3:05:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 1:15:34 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:

I fail to see the relevance of this to the thread I linked you to. Regardless, quoting words that some anonymous writer put into the mouth of Jesus is a waste of everyone's time. A fictional character can be made to say anything.

There again, that is your bias, not mine. You read into it that someone put these words into Jesus' mouth after the fact yet your argument is 20 centuries removed from the text in question and deconstructs the text to its own view then constructs it again under that view - truly postmodern.

Pot meet kettle. You don't have bias? You aren't 20 centuries removed? You don't deconstruct and reconstruct to fit your worldview? This criticism is a 2-edged sword. I'm entitled to my worldview given that the consensus of scholarship is that the author of 'Matthew' is anonymous and he wrote 80-90CE based on 'Mark' and other second-hand sources. He had to be putting words into the mouth of his Jesus character.

The only hurdle I had was to find credible sources which state that the prophecy was written into the text after the event. I gave you three --- the wikipedia entry (with references to the authorities relied upon), the Catholic Encyclopedia, and earlychristianwritings.com.

Credible as you see credible. You are like the flock that follows the "experts" and you take anyone who agrees with you regardless of whether they are true or not. Check out Annanicole's debate with Envisage. He did the same thing because it was what he wanted to believe.

Jog my memory. Who won that debate? Lol.

Those with a minority position always say the same thing. "The experts have got it wrong. Only I know the truth. Anyone who doesn't agree with me is biased. The establishment is suppressing us". Watching denial in action is so amusing.

Not only did I cast doubt on 'Matthew' writing earlier than 67CE, in fact there is a strong consensus that he wrote later. It really doesn't matter if you accept whether the experts have got it right. Just the fact that it is a contested issue is enough to destroy your case for putting forward a valid prophecy.

It is not enough to destroy my case. It is enough to provide you with what your tickling ears want to hear. However you go against what the sources in dispute tell you - the biblical writers. To you they are not historical evidence, neither is the existence of Jesus Christ. You reject and dismiss Him too in all your puffed up wisdom.

*sigh* Fanaticism.

And it is the Dispensational view, that is dead wrong in its interpretation of Scripture, that has influenced much of Christianity today.

Not at all. Ideas have consequences and this idea promoted many others that lead to confirmation bias, not on what the biblical texts are telling the reader.

Are you arguing against yourself? Lol.

Your preconceived views and influence of the atheistic worldview demonstrates that you will not logically think this through. What events fit the warnings littered throughout the NT other than the destruction of the city and temple?

Warnings are not prophecy. They are warnings. You put forward your best shot at a prophecy from Matthew and it was shot down in flames. Now you make vague assertions about prophecies throughout the Bible. What else can you do since you failed on the specific prophecy which you arrogantly thought was a shoe-in for you?

Of course they can be prophetic. Woven into the warnings are prophesies that will take place. John the Baptist comes warning these 1st century Scribes and Pharisees to escape from the coming judgment. That judgment is prophetic.

<snipped>

Peter fails at one prophecy so he flails around looking to try his luck with another. No thanks, Peter. I could dismantle this one too but you lost when it really counted. Gish gallop won't help you.
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 3:41:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 1:21:25 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 10:54:51 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:

Hold your horses. Before one can talk about prophecy, we must establish some rules.

These rules come from Atheism and Naturalism by Nicholas Covington.

1. The prophecy must not be vague.
2. We must be sure that the prophecy was made before the event.
3. The prophecy must be fulfilled in full and must not appear in the same book as a text containing false prophecies.
4. The prophecy must not be something which can plausibly be attributed to a guess.
5. The prophecy must not be something which the prophet and/or his followers could have fulfilled.

They seem fairly reasonable. Do you agree?

If I'm understanding them correctly I can work with them.

Addressing rule #2:

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE, with a range of possibility between 70 to 110 CE (a pre-70 date remains a minority view).[2][3] The anonymous author was probably a male Jew, standing on the margin between traditional and non-traditional Jewish values, and familiar with technical legal aspects of scripture being debated in his time.[4]

Considering the above (plus numerous other sources I could cite) are we absolutely sure that the prophecy was made before the event? Any sane person would have to accept that the scholarship says an emphatic NO (quite the opposite). Not Peter, because in Peter's world the only opinion that matters is his own and any rules he agreed to are made to be broken.

I have to be up at four so I will address this and other posts as soon as I get some time.

Peter

You can't address this post other than to concede. There is no other rational response.

Can we be sure that the prophecy was made before the event? No, we can't. Blind Freddy could see it.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 5:12:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 11:14:46 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:55:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:

The fact that you didn't link to the debate so readers could hear both sides of the story is instructive. Some intellectual honesty and fair play would be appreciated, Anna.

There was no intellectual dishonesty. I did not endeavor to recapitulate his "arguments". Nor did I represent my words as quotes. What I said was this:

"The guy basically said - and I'm paraphrasing - 'The books must be dated after the fall of Jerusalem because nobody could have predicted the event with such accuracy beforehand. We must make that assumption first, then we can get started.' And he was serious! In other words, we must deny that there is such a thing as divine prophesy - and in effect deny that there is a God - and only then can we launch forth on dating the books."

There's no dishonesty there. That was his position.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 7:41:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 5:12:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/10/2015 11:14:46 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:55:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:


The fact that you didn't link to the debate so readers could hear both sides of the story is instructive. Some intellectual honesty and fair play would be appreciated, Anna.

There was no intellectual dishonesty. I did not endeavor to recapitulate his "arguments". Nor did I represent my words as quotes. What I said was this:

"The guy basically said - and I'm paraphrasing - 'The books must be dated after the fall of Jerusalem because nobody could have predicted the event with such accuracy beforehand. We must make that assumption first, then we can get started.' And he was serious!

Of course he was serious. Not only was he serious but he then went on to give you the rationale for his position. That is the part which you ignore by selective quote mining to make it appear that his position is ludicrous when, in fact, it is perfectly sensible.

In other words, we must deny that there is such a thing as divine prophesy - and in effect deny that there is a God - and only then can we launch forth on dating the books."

No, this is you putting words in his mouth. This is what he actually wrote:

Note my framework does not rule premonitions/prophecy as impossible a priori, it states that even if it were possible, it would have a very low a priori likelihood of being the correct explanation.

There's no dishonesty there. That was his position.

It wasn't. You are being dishonest.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 7:50:09 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 7:41:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/11/2015 5:12:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/10/2015 11:14:46 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:55:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:


The fact that you didn't link to the debate so readers could hear both sides of the story is instructive. Some intellectual honesty and fair play would be appreciated, Anna.

There was no intellectual dishonesty. I did not endeavor to recapitulate his "arguments". Nor did I represent my words as quotes. What I said was this:

"The guy basically said - and I'm paraphrasing - 'The books must be dated after the fall of Jerusalem because nobody could have predicted the event with such accuracy beforehand. We must make that assumption first, then we can get started.' And he was serious!

Of course he was serious. Not only was he serious but he then went on to give you the rationale for his position. That is the part which you ignore by selective quote mining to make it appear that his position is ludicrous when, in fact, it is perfectly sensible.

In other words, we must deny that there is such a thing as divine prophesy - and in effect deny that there is a God - and only then can we launch forth on dating the books."

No, this is you putting words in his mouth. This is what he actually wrote:

Note my framework does not rule premonitions/prophecy as impossible a priori, it states that even if it were possible, it would have a very low a priori likelihood of being the correct explanation.

There's no dishonesty there. That was his position.

It wasn't. You are being dishonest.

His position - and yours- might not theoretically rule out prophesy as a possibility, but to both of you that's a mighty far-fetched theory - about as likely as the Queen of England having a dick. Heck, even less likely.

It's about like me saying, "Well, sure, I entertain the possibility that there is no God. I'm very open-minded." I've never claimed that.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 9:44:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 7:50:09 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/11/2015 7:41:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/11/2015 5:12:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/10/2015 11:14:46 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:55:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:


The fact that you didn't link to the debate so readers could hear both sides of the story is instructive. Some intellectual honesty and fair play would be appreciated, Anna.

There was no intellectual dishonesty. I did not endeavor to recapitulate his "arguments". Nor did I represent my words as quotes. What I said was this:

"The guy basically said - and I'm paraphrasing - 'The books must be dated after the fall of Jerusalem because nobody could have predicted the event with such accuracy beforehand. We must make that assumption first, then we can get started.' And he was serious!

Of course he was serious. Not only was he serious but he then went on to give you the rationale for his position. That is the part which you ignore by selective quote mining to make it appear that his position is ludicrous when, in fact, it is perfectly sensible.

In other words, we must deny that there is such a thing as divine prophesy - and in effect deny that there is a God - and only then can we launch forth on dating the books."

No, this is you putting words in his mouth. This is what he actually wrote:

Note my framework does not rule premonitions/prophecy as impossible a priori, it states that even if it were possible, it would have a very low a priori likelihood of being the correct explanation.

There's no dishonesty there. That was his position.

It wasn't. You are being dishonest.

His position - and yours- might not theoretically rule out prophesy as a possibility, but to both of you that's a mighty far-fetched theory - about as likely as the Queen of England having a dick. Heck, even less likely.

It's about like me saying, "Well, sure, I entertain the possibility that there is no God. I'm very open-minded." I've never claimed that.

Whatever the merits of your current criticism, it doesn't match your original complaint, does it? That is the issue. Now I don't know if you were deliberately misrepresenting Envisage or whether you have a recollection problem. Should we give you the benefit of the doubt?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 9:54:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/8/2015 6:31:20 PM, PGA wrote:
This is specifically for tstor because he sticks to his guns in that the BotchTower society has not misquoted publications of people in this brochure when in fact they have done exactly that by making it appear that these publications or people actually support their view.

The first quote, taken from their brochure found here:

https://ia601406.us.archive.org...

"Supporters of the Trinity say that it is founded not only on religious tradition but also on the Bible. Critics of the doctrine say that it is not a Bible teaching, one history source even declaring: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entire"ly pagan. "-The Paganism in Our Christianity."
p.3 of their publication.

Historian Arthur Weigall notes: "Jesus Christ never mentioned such a phenomenon, and nowhere in the New Testament does the word 'Trinity' appear. The idea was only adopted by the Church three hundred years after the death of our Lord. "-The Paganism in Our Christian"ity. [No page number again]
Thus, neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity"
p.6 of SYBITT.

"The early Christians, however, did not at first think of applying the [Trinity] idea to their own faith. They paid their devotions to God the Father and to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and they recognised the ... Holy Spirit; but there was no thought of these three being an actual Trinity, co-equal and united in One. "-The Paganism in Our Christianity.
p. 6 of SYBITT.

Notice they don't supply a page number as to where the quotes were taken from. Who is the author in regards to his bias? Do you think they are representing someone who is a Greek scholar or who has actually studied Greek and who is not extremely biased in his outlook in quoting this person?

This is one of the Watchtower's Star Witnesses! Trashes whole of Core Christianity. Weigall, is a modernist and doesn't believe the Bible is God's word. He trashes 99% of what both JW's and Trinitarians believe as from Pagan origin. JW's leave the impression that Weigall would exempt JW's from his comments! In fact, Weigall specifically addresses the Watchtower/Arian/Jw view of God known as Angel-Christology, stating that "angel-Christology" is from Pagan origin! The premise of the entire book is that if something was taught before it was written in the Bible, it is of pagan origin. Problem is, Weigall claims to have found 27 major Bible doctrines to exist in Pagan religions before it was first recorded in the Bible. Such a conclusion is simply invalid and for this reason, it is utter deception for the Jehovah's Witnesses to use Weigall as proof that trinity is pagan, because the same identical logic would prove the virgin birth as pagan.

Weigall, Arthur: The Paganism in Our Christianity


http://www.bible.ca...

They fail to mention the extreme bias of this person, not only regarding the Trinity but also regarding them. Do you think this is honest scholarship? Do you think this publication represents the learned views of Greek scholars on the subject?

To be continued. This is only the start.

Peter

No Pewter you should not believe in the Trinity Brochure.

What you should believe in is the scripture on which it is based and from which it has garnered the truth about Jehovah, Christ and holy spirit.

There are only two kinds of people who believe in the trinity Peter, though some people, you for instance, appear to combine both
.
1: There are those who are dumb enough to ignore the obvious slant against the trinity throughout both the Hebrew Scriptures and the Christian Greek Scriptures.

2: There are also those who rely on the works of dishonest translators who were so unsure of their ground that they felt the need to replace the holy name of God, the Tetragrammaton, with LORD, a mere title.

I ask you in all honesty Peter, how can anyone other than a fool trust translations which are so obviously the work of dishonest men?

How can any doctrine which demands the removal of the holy name of God to support it, possibly be true?

The fact that you let your pride, possibly even arrogance, come between you and the truth is precisely why God rejects people of your sort for his servce.

Too full of your own cleverness.

Too incapable of allowing holy spirit to do it's work in you.

Too inclined to trust so called educated men, educated in a system controlled by Satan at that, rather than allow Jehovah, through his son, to work in you.

Why do I say that?

1 Corinthians 1:26-30 is why.

1 Corinthians 1:26-30American Standard Version (ASV)

26 For behold your calling, brethren, that not many wise after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put to shame them that are wise; and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put to shame the things that are strong;

28 and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised, did God choose, yea and the things that are not, that he might bring to nought the things that are:

29 that no flesh should glory before God.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption:

Read that and think about it Peter.

Are you prepared to be counted amongst those whom Jehovah can use?

The "foolish things of the world,"

The "weak things of the world,"

The "base things of the world"

The "things that are despised"

The "things that are not"

No Peter, you are not. You think of yourself, and in fact are, at least one if not all of the things that Jehovah will bring to shame, as that scripture tells us, and so are all those on whose words you rely.

Humble yourself before Jehovah and he will make you great, because he can, and because he shows his power by using such as me to carry his message, a message that only those he empowers to see, can see, as 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 tells us:

1 Corinthians 2:12-16American Standard Version (ASV)

12 But we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God; that we might know the things that were freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth; combining spiritual things with spiritual words.

14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, and he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Only we, who have been granted holy spirit to give us understanding can see into the hidden things which are now so clear to us, but are hidden from such as you.

It is not our power, not our ability, but the ability given us by Jehovah, because we are happy to be despised by men, as long as we are loved by Jehovah, and we are.

Back to basics for you Peter, and beg Jehovah to open your eyes so you can see.
PGA
Posts: 4,032
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 2:36:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 7:50:09 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/11/2015 7:41:52 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/11/2015 5:12:52 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/10/2015 11:14:46 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:55:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 11/10/2015 5:22:35 PM, PGA wrote:
At 11/10/2015 3:48:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/10/2015 2:39:58 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:57:58 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 8:39:38 AM, PGA wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:37:55 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/9/2015 2:14:55 AM, PGA wrote:


The fact that you didn't link to the debate so readers could hear both sides of the story is instructive. Some intellectual honesty and fair play would be appreciated, Anna.

There was no intellectual dishonesty. I did not endeavor to recapitulate his "arguments". Nor did I represent my words as quotes. What I said was this:

"The guy basically said - and I'm paraphrasing - 'The books must be dated after the fall of Jerusalem because nobody could have predicted the event with such accuracy beforehand. We must make that assumption first, then we can get started.' And he was serious!

Of course he was serious. Not only was he serious but he then went on to give you the rationale for his position. That is the part which you ignore by selective quote mining to make it appear that his position is ludicrous when, in fact, it is perfectly sensible.

In other words, we must deny that there is such a thing as divine prophesy - and in effect deny that there is a God - and only then can we launch forth on dating the books."

No, this is you putting words in his mouth. This is what he actually wrote:

Note my framework does not rule premonitions/prophecy as impossible a priori, it states that even if it were possible, it would have a very low a priori likelihood of being the correct explanation.

There's no dishonesty there. That was his position.

It wasn't. You are being dishonest.

His position - and yours- might not theoretically rule out prophesy as a possibility, but to both of you that's a mighty far-fetched theory - about as likely as the Queen of England having a dick. Heck, even less likely.

She did, King Richard! (^8

It's about like me saying, "Well, sure, I entertain the possibility that there is no God. I'm very open-minded." I've never claimed that.

These guys seem to think their view has no bias. They can't take the Bible as an historical document because all their apples are in one basket and they can't afford to be wrong. They seem to think that proof is persuasion and their subjective feelings about the argument wins the argument. If they are persuaded towards an argument or it coincides with their subjective feelings and worldview bias they think it is true.

Scripture and prophecy is tied together cohesively and when someone attacks the NT they still have to address the OT because these prophesies stem from the OT and are expanded upon in the NT. They can't seem to (or just will not) allow an early date because in doing so it will undermine their very commitment that the Bible is wrong and they understand this, yet they seldom offer an explanation of why the central point of Judaism, the temple and sacrificial system has no mention of being destroyed in the NT by any of these authors steeped in an OT economy, yet in every NT book this constant warning to flee from the coming wrath of God, and these NT writers are comparing and contrasting the OT economy and form of worship with the NT economy and form of worship, never mentioning that it is destroyed.

The only event that this warning to flee fits is AD 70. There is no other soon or near or at hand event on the horizon. No other event comes close to it in scale, especially for an OT apostate people.

Of course this has nothing to do with the Trinity. Meanwhile, still waiting for tstor to address this thread.

Back on Saturday.

Peter