Might as well make use of this space

[Fenris]

I will answer in parts to keep our conversation readable.

Appreciated.

Not happened yet, but I believe that will happen, was God's intention from the start when he called Moses, right?

So the nations will think that Israel is wise for following the bible's laws?

So far the prediction came true, even when you think it was rigged. Oh wait, you just said that.

That's what you're hanging your hat on?

Well, it's impossible that Jesus predicted a past event (as you say), He ascended to heaven around 30-33 AD, if you think it was rigged it was done by the gospel writers, one big cheat, yes? Speaking of Mark, evidence for an early gospel of Mark is pointing to the 60's, example: There is a high degree of scholarly consensus that the Gospel of Mark was written in the 60s. [ link ]

Let's say it was written in the 60s. 66 perhaps? That seems to be the earliest possible date. What was going on in the year 66? Oh. The Romans were waging war in Judea after the Jewish revolt.

And nobody really knows.

[Fenris]

So even more corruption by the 4 gospel writers?

I'm not saying "corruption". I'm saying people decades after some events, that they did not personally witness, believers wrote an account. There's nothing wrong with believing it's true, but it's hardly strong evidence.

You missed my point, so I highlighted it in blue (me) and you (red). The gospels tell us that Jesus showed Himself alive to the apostles and those with them.

Again, written decades later by people who were not eyewitnesses.

Now imagine the hypothetical case you invent a story for dubious reasons of which people take great offense up to the point you get death threats, up to a point a guy put a gun to your head with the message, take back that lie, or else. Knowing you lied, will you die for that lie or do you retract and live? The apostles did not retract and many died.

True- but only if one believes the NT account.



Everything you say is obvious- but only if one accepts that the NT is holy writ.

[Fenris]

You are missing the central message of the NT, what went wrong in Eden is recovered by Jesus sinless life enabling Him to defeat death and restore the broken relationship between God and mankind since the fall in the garden.

Right, that's the message of the NT. But it's not the central message of my bible, which has a different lesson. Man can overcome sin by himself, on a personal level. When the Jews do so on a national level, it ushers in the messianic era. The messiah is the reward at the end of the process, not part of that process.

The OT is unfinished

Says you. 

the NT is complete and Christianity is the most logic religion of all on a pure intellectual base.

I don't think Christianity is any more logical than any other religion. I mean, if God is all powerful, why can't he, you know, just forgive sin? That's what I believe.  Why is a human/divine sacrifice even necessary? That's a point of faith, not fact.


 

Ask yourself the question, why couldn't A&E not stay in the garden? Why this drastic measure by God?

The bible tells us. Because they would eat from the tree of life.

I am not adding, it's matter of understanding or you must believe that Moses was sinless, which you don't.

God tells Moses that he can't see Him, not because Moses has sin, but because he is human.

A&E already had free will.

Yes and no. They could be tempted from outside, but not from within. They lacked an inner evil urge. The serpent and God both agree "you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

And you are implying the life of A&E in the garden had no meaning.

Less meaning. Living on God's dole and not making meaningful choices. It's hard to be good, and so gives out choices meaning.

[Fenris]

I assume that the sum of both our percentages are above 100% 

I am sure that we both have 100% faith in what we believe to be correct. 

[ProDeo]

Solly (as my youngest grandchild used to say) for late reply.

Not happened yet, but I believe that will happen, was God's intention from the start when he called Moses, right?

So the nations will think that Israel is wise for following the bible's laws?

Sure, in the Millennium age when the Messiah will rule the Earth.

So far the prediction came true, even when you think it was rigged. Oh wait, you just said that.

That's what you're hanging your hat on?

As much as you will hang on Moses and the first 5 books.

Well, it's impossible that Jesus predicted a past event (as you say), He ascended to heaven around 30-33 AD, if you think it was rigged it was done by the gospel writers, one big cheat, yes? Speaking of Mark, evidence for an early gospel of Mark is pointing to the 60's, example: There is a high degree of scholarly consensus that the Gospel of Mark was written in the 60s. [ link ]

Let's say it was written in the 60s. 66 perhaps? That seems to be the earliest possible date. What was going on in the year 66? Oh. The Romans were waging war in Judea after the Jewish revolt.

And nobody really knows.

Well, if Mark was written in 66-67 then not only Jesus but maybe also Daniel spoke about AD 70?

[Fenris]

Solly (as my youngest grandchild used to say) for late reply.

Real life happens. No apology is necessary.

Sure, in the Millennium age when the Messiah will rule the Earth.

Deuteronomy mentions nothing about that. Regardless, wouldn't that mean that the bible's laws remain in effect?

As much as you will hang on Moses and the first 5 books.

I don't know what this means. Moses was the lawgiver. He made no extraordinary claims that were not witnessed by everyone else. Nobody is required to "believe in" Moses.

Well, if Mark was written in 66-67 then not only Jesus but maybe also Daniel spoke about AD 70?

Well... the book of Daniel is another can of worms. You see, nobody knows when that was written either. If it was written in the 2nd century BC, which is possible, (it contains heavy use of Aramaic, among other internal signs) then the devastation isn't prophecy, it's a past event about Antiochus Epiphanies IV sacking Jerusalem.

So comparing it to Mark is apt.

Regardless, Daniel is biblical canon to me and Mark is not.

If Mark was written during the Jewish revolt against Rome, it doesn't take any sort of prophet to conclude that Rome would devastate Judea (as indeed many or most Pharisee Rabbis did). Of course, if Mark was written in 70 or later, which is certainly possible, then it isn't prophecy at all.

In any case this is not evidence of the sort that I would accept to throw aside my religious beliefs.

[ProDeo]

As much as you will hang on Moses and the first 5 books.

I don't know what this means. Moses was the lawgiver. He made no extraordinary claims that were not witnessed by everyone else. Nobody is required to "believe in" Moses.

I believe the context was: is that why you hang on Jesus? And so my answer: As much as you will hang on Moses and the first 5 books.

There is more evidence for the historic Jesus than the historic Moses and there are these pesky baby-in-the-basket stories of Sargon and Karna.

Well, if Mark was written in 66-67 then not only Jesus but maybe also Daniel spoke about AD 70?

Well... the book of Daniel is another can of worms. You see, nobody knows when that was written either. If it was written in the 2nd century BC, which is possible, (it contains heavy use of Aramaic, among other internal signs) then the devastation isn't prophecy, it's a past event about Antiochus Epiphanies IV sacking Jerusalem.

Well, Jesus Himself says: Daniel.

So where in your opinion in the OT is AD 70 mentioned?

In any case this is not evidence of the sort that I would accept to throw aside my religious beliefs.

I am not stupid  and you did not say I was 

Blessings.

[Fenris]

I believe the context was: is that why you hang on Jesus? And so my answer: As much as you will hang on Moses and the first 5 books.

There is more evidence for the historic Jesus than the historic Moses

I never said that Jesus didn't exist. His existence doesn't imply that Christianity is true however.

Well, Jesus Himself says: Daniel.

Jesus says, or is attributed to say, a great many things. So what?

So where in your opinion in the OT is AD 70 mentioned?

It isn't. Lots of Jewish tragedies aren't mentioned. The Holocaust. The massacres of Jews by the Cossacks in 1648. The expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492. The expulsion of Jews from England in 1290. The massacres of Jews during the first crusade in 1096. And on and on.

I am not stupid  and you did not say I was