Robert's Gospel According to the Apostle Paul

[Rosenritter]

Many people don't realize that over half the Jews died inside Jerusalem before the Romans ever penetrated the walls.

The Zealots burned all the grain that was stored because they wanted the other two groups who opposed fighting the Romans to fight the Romans.

Many Jews starved to death inside the city. Josephus writes that parents ate their children. In addition to that, many Jews killed each other inside the walls.

Many Jews tried to escape, but were caught by the Romans. The Romans would hang these Jews on poles, and light them on fire at night.

It was Great Tribulation.

But certainly not the greatest that this world has ever seen, either before or after.

 

[Rosenritter]

No, this is a case of using a collective pronoun to teach a maxim.
If Jesus had used the singular, He would have been telling one individual, to the exclusion of others, that the Kingdom resided in that person. Therefore, in order to teach at all, the plural must be used when addressing more than one person. We can tell the use of a collective pronoun, usually, by considering how it would go if the singular were used.

Consider the verse Mat 6:21KJV
"For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

This could be read as; For where the treasure of all of you is, there will the heart of all of you be also.
But this verse is designed to not define the treasure which could be any number of things. It is to be applied personally in a singular sense but understood universally in a plural sense as teaching a maxim.

It is also teaching that the Kingdom of God is outward but inward.

Or perhaps that Jesus was the Kingdom of God? It is a manner of speaking to name a King as representing the whole Kingdom, no? Imagine "the kingdom of God is within you" with Christ's gesture towards himself.

 

[Rosenritter]

Math is my strong suit. Which is why the site you linked to is so funny to me.

How do you know how many children people had in those days?

Where does it say how long women were fertile back then?

Yet, there's virtually no trace of these 10 trillion people you claim exited, or the civilizations they allegedly lived in.

You haven't impressed me with your handle on numbers so far. But if you used your reading ability, it gave examples of what it used for estimates of children, both from biblical examples and Jewish tradition.

And as for the traces of those 10 trillion people, it's in your gas tank. Aside from population of humanity, the sheer biomass required to produce our known carbon fuel reserves requires an immense amount of life on the planet at the time of its destruction by water. Some are plants, some are animals, some are humans, and the plant life abundance (and the word of scripture itself) indicates that food was not a scarcity as it is now.

But since you love math so much, would you like to present how you would perform your calculation as to what the world population might from the Garden of Eden until the Death of Methuselah, so that we might compare them those performed by others? See if all factors are considered, etc? What model have you been using, other than placing a predetermined belief of "70 AD is the worst calamity greater than the Flood" as your deciding factor?

 

[George Affleck]

Extermination and Genocide and the destruction of every living thing not on a boat and world wars and mustard gas and flesh being literally boiled off the bones is in a scale that exceeds 70 A.D. both in numbers and intensity.

I disagree.

 

[Rosenritter]

Christ Jesus said the exact opposite.

(John 4:21) “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

You have people worshipping God on top of a mountain in Jerusalem again.

You have Jesus sitting on top of a mountain on a manmade throne, in a manmade temple, overseeing animal sacrifices for sin atonement again.

Jesus makes it clear what the future was to look like:

(John 4:23) Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

Worshipping the Father in the Spirit, does not involve a temple on top of a mountain.

Yet, that's what you Dispies claim.

Some obvious flaws in that response:

1) You assign arguments to myself that I have not taken for myself, such as "Jesus is being worshiped on top of a mountain"

2) You have assigned a group membership to myself of which I have not claimed, nor of which I am a party ("Dispie?")

Things like that don't make it seem that you're being very objective, more like you are arguing on reflex.

 

[Rosenritter]

Some of "those who pierced Him" were still alive in 70AD.

Yet, you think "those who pierced Him" will somehow see Him 2,000 years after they died.

Moreover:

(Rev 1:1) The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place....

"what must soon take place" is not 2,000 years into the future, as you claim.

If you are going to be super technical, there is only one or two people that pierced him, and they were Roman soldiers, and I'm not sure how well that harmonizes with your interpretation. But if we allow "those who pieced him" to include the whole peoples of the world that rejected and currently reject Christ, and that the intended meaning of the phrase is its emphasis on identifying He who was pierced from Zechariah, there is no necessary conflict nor specification of time.

Furthermore, "things which much shortly come to pass" can be two years or two thousand years. The specific length of time does not matter to God, and we are even cautioned not to worry that that which is prophesied shall come to pass, as a thousand years is as a day to the Lord.

2 Peter 3:8-9 KJV
(8) But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
(9) The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Wouldn't it seem a bit strange if Peter was inspired to tell us that a thousand years is as a day if all prophecy was to be fulfilled in a couple decades at most? He even specifies this is regarding the "day of the Lord." That's more of an indication that it will be a greater period of time from our perspective... but not God's. This world's been around for six thousand years, the last two thousand years aren't that long in comparison of what went before.

 

[Rosenritter]

Nope

Not one city on planet earth has had as many people die in it, then Jerusalem in 70AD. The people who died in Hiroshima & Nagasaki combined, don't even equal half of how many died in Jerusalem in 70AD.

Nor did any city have as many people die in it before 70AD.

Your continued assertion that no greater calamity has occurred in history than the death of the Jews in Jerusalem seems rather foolish and contrived and outside consideration of rational evidence.

 

[Rosenritter]

I disagree.

"The destruction of all living things on the face of the earth" compared to the invasion of one city? Perspective.

 

[Right Divider]

No, I am not "trying to be obnoxious" by asking you these questions. If you want to see what "obnoxious" looks like there are plenty of posters who use abusive language and mockery as their standard fare. It might be considered somewhat obnoxious to avoid answering polite questions though.

Only by ultra-sensitive daisies.

1. Is it correct to say that you assume that the verse numbering of scripture is not inspired, but do not have specific evidence or previous thought behind this assumption? (Y/N)

No, I don't assume anything. God did not say that they are ":God breathed" so I don't assume that they are. They have only been used for about the latest 500 years and we have to reason to assume that they are anything but man made.

2. Of course you made no comment on whether the canonization of our Bible is inspired. That's why I asked you, and it's relevant to the previous question. Do you consider that the choice of the books within our scripture canon are inspired or uninspired? And is your consideration an assumption or based on specific evidence? Y/N + why?

I'll just stick to one off-topic topic at a time. I don't feel like chasing every rainbow that you want to add to the story.

3. Once upon a time I gave no thought to the choice of the books in our bible. The only argument in favor of that initial assumption would be trusting that ones parents and church and tradition would provide proper scripture, but that isn't a very good argument as parents and churches and tradition can be prone to error. So I cannot give a good argument in favor of assumption. I might be able to give a better argument as touching some elements of evidence and faith.

Wonderful. .

If you are willing to answer the prior questions we could explore this. If not, then I can draw some conclusions by what you have already said and combine that with deductions from that which will not be answered.

Ok, Columbo.

 

[Right Divider]

Christ Jesus said the exact opposite.

(John 4:21) “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.

You have people worshipping God on top of a mountain in Jerusalem again.

You have Jesus sitting on top of a mountain on a manmade throne, in a manmade temple, overseeing animal sacrifices for sin atonement again.

Jesus makes it clear what the future was to look like:

(John 4:23) Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.

Worshipping the Father in the Spirit, does not involve a temple on top of a mountain.

Yet, that's what you Dispies claim.

More assumptions based on cherry-picking. Well done!

 

[Rosenritter]

Only by ultra-sensitive daisies.

No, I don't assume anything. God did not say that they are ":God breathed" so I don't assume that they are. They have only been used for about the latest 500 years and we have to reason to assume that they are anything but man made.

I'll just stick to one off-topic topic at a time. I don't feel like chasing every rainbow that you want to add to the story.

Wonderful. .

Ok, Columbo.

Thank you Daisy. Seeing that you will not answer if (and why or why not) you accept the Canonization of scripture as inspired, I think it is safe to conclude that you are clever enough to see a couple steps down the line as to know why you didn't want to answer that question. The decision as to which books are canonical was also made "by humans" and the same argument that the choice of those books are not "God breathed" could find purchase there just as easily.

But do you have any evidence besides "I don't see verse markings mentioned in scripture?" The absence of evidence argument does indicate assumption. I am not saying that an assumption is necessarily wrong, but if you had thought of some sort of objective test to disprove a positive assertion of (verse markings are inspired) then that would be considered judgment based on evidence. It would be healthier to just admit that you were stating an assumption.

 

[Right Divider]

Thank you Daisy.

Attempted humor.... how cute.

Seeing that you will not answer if (and why or why not) you accept the Canonization of scripture as inspired, I think it is safe to conclude that you are clever enough to see a couple steps down the line as to know why you didn't want to answer that question. The decision as to which books are canonical was also made "by humans" and the same argument that the choice of those books are not "God breathed" could find purchase there just as easily.

But do you have any evidence besides "I don't see verse markings mentioned in scripture?" The absence of evidence argument does indicate assumption. I am not saying that an assumption is necessarily wrong, but if you had thought of some sort of objective test to disprove a positive assertion of (verse markings are inspired) then that would be considered judgment based on evidence. It would be healthier to just admit that you were stating an assumption.

:juggle:
Start two new threads.

 

[George Affleck]

"The destruction of all living things on the face of the earth" compared to the invasion of one city? Perspective.

It was not just the invasion of one city.
It was the end of the theocracy.

Going from having all of God to having none of Him compared to the destruction of all living things on the face of the earth? No contest from a tribulation perspective.

It would be like Jesus coming back and declaring to all Christians that He had decided to withdraw His promise of salvation and His Spirit from the world for all ages.

 

[Rosenritter]

Attempted humor.... how cute.


:juggle:
Start two new threads.

I don't think I can create threads. Are you offering to create a new thread so you can answer that simple question? Send me a link so I can see your answer then.

 

[Rosenritter]

It was not just the invasion of one city.
It was the end of the theocracy.

Going from having all of God to having none of Him compared to the destruction of all living things on the face of the earth? No contest from a tribulation perspective.

It would be like Jesus coming back and declaring to all Christians that He had decided to withdraw His promise of salvation and His Spirit from the world for all ages.

From the perspective of the destruction of all living things on the face of the planet? Jerusalem is ONE little city within that planet. The end of a Theocracy? WW2 ended Japan's emperor worship. There's no shortage of 'emotional grief" from this world in past present and future and it seems very strange to say that the emotional grief of a Jew is of a whole different magnitude than the emotional grief of the rest of humanity.

 

[George Affleck]

There's a good subject for a new thread.

Would you trade the promise you have received of eternal life in heaven with Christ for God's promise not to destroy the world?

 

[musterion]

That Rosenkrantz is something else.

 

[musterion]

There's a good subject for a new thread.

Would you trade the promise you have received of eternal life in heaven with Christ for God's promise not to destroy the world?

Soooo...Satan reigns in perpetuity on an increasingly depraved and sin-soaked earth while God has to just sit by and watch, unable to judge it, while the one who wagered God goes to Hell.

How long did it take you to think through this?

 

[clefty]

It was not just the invasion of one city.
It was the end of the theocracy.

Going from having all of God to having none of Him compared to the destruction of all living things on the face of the earth? No contest from a tribulation perspective.

It would be like Jesus coming back and declaring to all Christians that He had decided to withdraw His promise of salvation and His Spirit from the world for all ages.

Going from all of God? What wut? Second temple didnt even have the Glory...the holy of Holies was EMPTY...

The Romans were actually called in by jews to settle the civil war there...where was God?

Not having a temple at 70AD was nothing new...they had survived babylon without it...

And kept going without it...some now even with a new contract new Signer new purpose...same terms...faith and faithful obedience

 

[Rosenritter]

There's a good subject for a new thread.

Would you trade the promise you have received of eternal life in heaven with Christ for God's promise not to destroy the world?

Exodus 32:31-32 KJV
(31) And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
(32) Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.

Like that?