I appreciate this being a response to a concerning issues. But it seemed to deny Craig’s portrayal of NT Wright while then going on to describe something which seems to confirm, in its bones, Craig’s portrayal of NT Wright.

@MrStormNation

23 күн бұрын

To say something is not then describe it exactly

@ryan8737

23 күн бұрын

​@@MrStormNationhuh?

@MrStormNation

23 күн бұрын

@@ryan8737 to clarify. WLC describes NT position then tom says it's not accurate then describes the position WLC describes

@Topherlionhead

23 күн бұрын

I think the fundamental issue is a false equivalency: “return” is not what “come” means in the passages that NT Wright uses as support (Mark 13:26, Matt 24:30, Luke 21:27). These passages find the meaning of “coming” from Daniel 7:13-14. Would love to talk more about this with you. Grace and peace ✝️

@joostbakker

23 күн бұрын

​@@Topherlionhead I think you got it right. Tbh, I don't understand how Mike is confused by this... (It might be that my leaning to (partial) preterism helps to getting what he means easily and that Mike is missing this as someone leaning to premillennialism if I'm not mistaken.)

I have listened 3 times. I still don't think he answered the question.

Was that a yes or a no?

Some are complaining that he didn't answer the question. His full answer is truncated in this clip and the final part of his answer is missing. You need to go to the full video to get the final part, which builds on and concludes what he's talking about here.

Stopped reading & listening to NT a while ago. I see I am not missing much.

Well, that was as clear as mud. Listening to Tom Wright explaining himself is very often like watching a man trying to climb out of a dirt hole with a shovel.

@thecanberean

27 күн бұрын

How apposite.

@PC-vg8vn

25 күн бұрын

He said Craig was wrong to say he (Wright) believed Jesus returned in AD70. That is straight forward to me. Matthew 24 relates directly to Daniel's son of man.

Huh? That answer William Lane Craig somehow? I must be dumb because I don’t see it.

@NomosCharis

29 күн бұрын

Exactly. I heard no answer here. Lol

@mycount30000

28 күн бұрын

He answered in odrer for us not undrestand

@thecanberean

27 күн бұрын

You’re not dumb 😂

@PC-vg8vn

25 күн бұрын

he did answer it - Craig misunderstood Wright. Jesus' 'coming in the clouds' refers to his ascension, as per Daniel.

@NomosCharis

25 күн бұрын

@@PC-vg8vn clear as mud. Did Jesus return in AD 70 or not? Is Wright a full Preterist, or not? Does he still believe in a future return of Christ? A simple yes or no would suffice. If Matt 24 is about the ascension rather than the return, is he claiming that Jesus didn’t ascend into heaven until AD 70? Is he denying that the return of Christ is a theme in Matt 24?

The preterist amillennial (or even postmillennial) outlook is very common among the clergy in the liturgical churches. (Though the laity often hold more Biblically literal ideas.) For myself, I think this view is an over-symbolization of the eschatological writings of the New Testament. I see no evidence that the Satanic power of evil is bound and removed in our day. In fact, the opposite. At the same time, Wright's explanation of the ultimate blessed hope as being the new creation with a bodily resurrection and new earth takes seriously and literally the early Christian writings.

@jeffreybomba

28 күн бұрын

That idea became popular after the Reformation then the Renaissance that followed, leading European out of the Dark Ages and into the Mercantile age where missionaries started going everywhere BEFORE the colonialists did. This spread of the gospel was seen as the church coming to power across the world, and preparing the kingdom for Jesus to come rule on earth. Much like the Jews took the passages about the suffering messiah and turned them into to a metaphor for the suffering of the Jewish people. In the same way many views turn end times prophecy into endless metaphor. The problem is that we can point to pages and pages of OT prophecy that has been fulfilled, and they all pretty straightforward. Daniel 12 is a great example of how we have screwed up prophecy. This was seen as metaphorical, and then the explosion of archeological/historical research of the colonial age uncovered tons of evidence showing that Daniel 12 was a very simple, straightforward telling of what happened to the kingdoms that rose out of Alexander the Great.

“What does Wright believe about the future return of Christ?” Wright did not answer this question in the video. He may have dodged it on purpose, but he didn’t say directly. “What did he just say?” He said that Daniel is about Christ being enthroned in AD 70. It sounds like Wright is refuting the claim that He believes Christ returned in AD 70, and instead explains how he interprets Daniel to be talking about the son of man being lifted up and enthroned in AD 70. He’s saying Daniel is not speaking about future events. (If I grant Wrights interpretation of Daniel, I can’t grant revelation as not about future events, so that’s why I’m with you on eschatology, Mike!)

That was still not helpfully clear concerning Tom's understand. Is he saying that Christ Jesus took his rightful place as the Son of Man in 70 AD and began its expressive reign from them on?

@PC-vg8vn

25 күн бұрын

no that happened following Jesus' ascension. This is what Daniel was told would happen. Jesus took His seat beside The Ancient of Days (the Father) at His ascension.

It doesn’t seem as if Wright addressed his views of the return of Christ to the earth. He seems to be applying Daniel 7 to a different event (the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD) rather than addressing the second coming of Jesus at all, thus leaving open what he believes about it. His interpretation of Daniel still leaves me with a lot of questions, not the least of which is how the coming back of the Son of Man to heaven to sit at the right hand of the Father could have happened in 70 AD when other Scripture seems to indicate that it occurred at his ascension.

As a Pastor and a theology student, N.T. Wright is sooooo overrated. He does sloppy scholarship (most his books have zero footnotes) and he is a bad teacher for lay people (he speaks with no clarity, you leave more confused then when he started talking).

@jameswillison1527

23 күн бұрын

You are confusing his scholarly works with his popular level works. Books like Surprised by Hope don’t have as many footnotes (endnotes in SbH) as, say, his book on the Resurrection.

@remshot1998

23 күн бұрын

Yeah you are way off

@PC-vg8vn

23 күн бұрын

What is not to understand? Wright clearly says he does not believe Jesus returned in AD70. Rather when the text refers to 'coming' it is referring to the son of man coming in the clouds to the Ancient of Days per Daniel. In other words, it is Jesus going to the Father after his ascension and taking his rightful seat.

@kentzepick4169

23 күн бұрын

I think there’s some truth to what you’re saying, especially his works in the last 15 years. The writing and reasoning is often sloppy and lazy.

@atfaithvalue1728

22 күн бұрын

I agree. I've heard him explain the gospel. My conclusion is that he doesn't understand the gospel.

I didn’t hear anyone ask Tom about the Book of Daniel 😏

@PC-vg8vn

24 күн бұрын

you have to refer to Daniel because Jesus referred to his writing regarding the Son of Man.

He seems to have mixed up two John Wyndham novels The Fay of the Triffids and The Kraken Wakes.

I clicked on this because I thought you had posted, Mike. It's hard to follow this guy. I like the way you describe bible stories better.

no he didn't

In other words, the verses in question are not about jesus "coming to earth" as in second coming, but rather about jesus "coming to the ancient of days" in his ascension.

@PC-vg8vn

23 күн бұрын

indeed, I dont understand why others are not getting this!

Oh boy 🙈

I still haven't understood 😮

Was that a "yes" or "no?"

@thecanberean

27 күн бұрын

😂😂😂😂

Did you get the impression that Tom didn’t WANT to answer the question? Or was that just a bad chunk of teaching which left everyone confused?

@kentzepick4169

23 күн бұрын

I could see why people might think so, but instead I think this is just typical Tom Wright: he initially appears to start answering a question and then strays off course, going on tangents that aren’t necessarily irrelevant but whose connection to the original question is less than clear. I don’t think Wright does this intentionally to avoid the question; I just think that’s how his mind works. I’m not saying it’s good that his mind works that way; I’m just saying that is who he is.

@PC-vg8vn

23 күн бұрын

no he answered the question directly. He does NOT believe Jesus returned in AD70. Rather the text using 'coming' refers to the son of man coming in the clouds to the Ancient of Days per Daniel. Why is this not clear?

Ya, that was a good commentary on Daniel 7 but not an answer to the question

Absolutely not! And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him *the buildings of the temple* And Jesus said unto them, "See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, [question one] Tell us, when shall these things be? and [question two] what shall be the sign of thy coming, and [question three] of the end of the world? {Matthew 24:1-3} ... “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” {Matthew 24:34} Jesus continued, “Heaven and earth *shall pass away* but my words shall not pass away." {Matthew 24:35} -- We have a second (or third) witness in the Gospel according to Luke. “But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and *wrath upon this people* And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and *shall be led away captive into all nations* and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, *until the times of the Gentiles* be fulfilled. And there shall be *signs* in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken. And *then shall they see* the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.” {Luke 21:23-28} -- We have a second (or third) witness in the Gospel according to Mark. “But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things. *But* in those days, *after that tribulation* the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth [the first resurrection] to the uttermost part of heaven." {Mark 13:23-27} "after that tribulation" And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth [maketh intercession in judgment] for the children of thy people: and there shall be *a time of trouble such as never was since there was a nation* even to that same time: and *at that time thy people shall be delivered* every one that shall be found written in the book. {Daniel 12:1} ...("whoso readeth, let him understand")

NTW, I enjoy him, but what in the world was that word salad of an answer?

2:02 Calling lions »monsters« - instinct-driven animals who were ostensibly caged in by humans and given fellow humans as food, is rich. Wo are the real monsters in this scenario?

@ritawing1064

24 күн бұрын

Struck me, too, but these people do not think in terms of sentience and human short-sightedness.

not in visible way. if you waiting for kingdom of heaven from the sky, you get satan falling out of grace instead. everyone is been paid for fully at the cross by God. stop pointing fingers at the free gift of God.

Wright is obviously brilliant, agree with him or not. However, I've quit trying to read him or even listening to him. His style is so full of metaphors and similes and analogies---and most distracting to me, are all this parenthetical thoughts that interrupt the flow of what he is saying so that I miss the point he's making. Obviously others don't have this problem. In theology I like it said as simply as possible and as short as necessary.

It is Heresy

WHAAAAT?????

I'm going to be heretical and, some will agree, blasphemous, but why would God commission a "bible" that is NOT univocal, is confusing and contradictory to such an extent that even biblical scholars can't agree on what's what and people for centuries have been abusing others simply because there is no consensus of opinion? This is the word of God? I thought that God is not a god of confusion. And I didn't understand a word this man said.

@kentonnur

27 күн бұрын

Yes, if two of the supposed greatest minds of biblical knowledge cannot remotely agree, does that not make the whole prophetic voice of scripture look unsound, and thus lead to other sceptical interpretations of Christian theology ?

@foolfether

27 күн бұрын

because instant or quick knowledge of deep stuff is demonic and brings the end of the world. the first and foremost biblical example is in the garden of eden, when adam and eve took the fruit of the knowledge of good and bad (for which they were not ready) by the temptation of the serpent; this brought the end of the world, namely, the exile from the garden. this understanding is also in apocryphal books, like the book of enoch, where the angelic sons of God came to earth and taught occult knowledge to their human women; and this also brought the end of the world. that's why proper knowledge is build, not popped into existence. also, healthy (and not "i'm right; you're wrong. therefore: die!") disagreement is fun!

@thecanberean

27 күн бұрын

Well you can take comfort in the knowledge that at least you’re not alone 😂

@PC-vg8vn

25 күн бұрын

mere human writings can sometimes be hard to grapple with, even more so God's word I would think? At least some of it. I dont find that surprising at all.

@tylerbrock6047

24 күн бұрын

Because N.T. Wright is a joke, there's your answer. The Bible is not contradictory and most of it is easy to understand with diligent study. Also, the important things in the Bible are clear as window pane and less important things are not.

Uh.....wut m8?

Bart Ehrman At Last. Jesus and the Son of Man. August 23, 2020 Two weeks ago I started addressing a question I got asked on the blog. At first I was just going to reply to the question as a comment; as my response started getting a bit long I decided I better devote an entire post to it. When I started working on a post on in, I decided it needed to be a thread. As I pointed out, that was two weeks ago. And I still haven’t answered the question. I’ll answer it here rather briefly, based on the information I’ve given. The answer should make sense on its own terms, but if you want to see the reasoning behind it, read the posts over the past couple of weeks that have been about “the Son of Man.” QUESTION: In Mark 8:27-28 Jesus asks his disciples “Who do people say that I am?” and they reply that different people think he is “John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the prophets” Jesus then follows up with the key question: “But who do you say that I am?” and Peter replies: “You are the Christ.” When Luke tells the story Luke keeps the verbal back and forth almost the same, although when Peter replies he is a bit more specific: “The Christ of God.” (Was there another kind of Christ?!) Matthew’s version is a bit different, though. Jesus asks, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” The disciples reply in much the same way (although in addition to John the Baptist and Elijah, they also say that some people think he is Jeremiah). And Jesus replies again. “But who do you say that *I* am?” And Peter replies, “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” (And Matthew adds more at that point) So, was Matthew having Jesus ask two different questions: who is the Son of Man, and who am I? Or is Matthew trying to have Jesus refer to himself in this passage as the Son of Man? In fact, is Matthew equating Jesus, the Son of Man and the Son of God as all the same person in this passage? Or is he differentiating between Jesus and the Son of Man? He obviously tweaked the passage for some purpose. RESPONSE: In my previous posts I’ve laid out the views I have about Jesus and the Son of Man, and some of the reasons I have them. It turns out to be a terrifically complicated matter. There are entire books devoted just to this one issue (“What was Jesus view of the Son of Man”), written by scholars with different understandings. The view I reached toward the end of my PhD work (it’s one of the standard views that has been around since the end of the 19th century) was very (very!) different from the one I had before. But it’s the view I still have, though I understand it much more fully now. To wit: Jesus did use the term Son of Man as a central part of his message. In doing so he was referring to a cosmic judge of the earth who would come at the end of history to bring a cataclysmic end to the world as we know it, to destroy all the evil forces in the world that are opposed to God and that are making life miserable for his people. After this Day of Judgment the Son of Man would bring in a new kingdom on earth, a utopian kingdom of God. The ultimate root for this view of the coming Son of Man lies in a passage in the Hebrew Bible, Daniel 7:13-14, one of the earliest apocalyptic passages we have out of ancient Judaism. Different Jewish teachers in Jesus’ time understood the passage differently, and various ones of them had a differently nuanced understandings of who this “one like a son of man” was. Jesus’ view was distinctive but not entirely unique. Others too thought of the Son of Man as the cosmic judge of the earth. To show this was Jesus’ view requires an in-depth study of the way he uses the phrase in the NT Gospels, since he uses it in a variety of ways - and one has to determine which of these sayings about the Son of Man actually go back to Jesus himself (just as we have to determine at every point which of Jesus’ sayings are his, and which have been put on his lips by later storytellers after his death, passing along the traditions about him). There are several remaining fundamental points: When Jesus talked of this Son of Man, he was not referring to himself. Jesus was a man on earth speaking as a prophet about a cosmic judge who was soon to come from heaven above. After his death, Jesus’ followers believed that he had been raised from the dead and exalted to heaven. They also thought that Jesus was the messiah who had been sent from God in fulfilment of prophecy. But the prophecies about the messiah in the Jewish tradition were entirely about his exerting the power of God to destroy his enemies and rule as king over the nation of Israel. Jesus obviously never did that. On the contrary, he was a virtual unknown in his day, a rural preacher who offended the ruling authorities, was arrested, tried, condemned, publicly tortured and humiliated, and then executed for crimes against the state. His followers could plausibly maintain that he was the messiah only by insisting that he was coming a second time in glory, to fulfill the prophecies of the messiah who would destroy his enemies. Jesus was coming again from heaven to judge the earth in power. Jesus, then, in the views of his followers after his death, was himself the coming Son of Man. And so they came to believe that when he had spoken of the Son of Man, he was speaking about himself. They adjusted his sayings about the Son of Man accordingly, and put sayings on his lips in which he described himself as the Son of Man. And that is why you have the conversation recorded above, in the passage of Matthew, expressed the way it is. In the older version, Mark, Jesus asks his disciples “Who do people say that I am” and when the reply he follows up with “And who do you say that I am.” Matthew, who used Marks’ version as his source, altered the conversation slightly so there can be no question about Jesus’ identity: he first asks “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” This is a clear self-reference here (i.e., in *Matthew’s* version: he has changed Mark’s wording). When the disciples reply, he responds, “And who do you say that I am” Matthew has phrased the conversation in such a way that it is obvious to the reader that Jesus himself is the Son of Man. In that way, in every other place where Jesus refers to the Son of Man, everyone will understand that he’s talking about himself. Mark would have agreed that Jesus is the Son of Man, as did all the other Gospels. Mark simply did not make the matter as explicit as Matthew chose to do. It was not, though, the view of Jesus himself. It was actually quite contrary to his view. Each of these bullet points would require substantial discussion, evidence, and argument to back them up. I have at least laid out the outlines in the earlier posts. Everything about the historical Jesus is complicated for historians to resolve. Very few things are as intricate and complicated as this

@PC-vg8vn

25 күн бұрын

it's obvious to me Jesus believed himself to be the Son of Man. I find it odd that Ehrman doesnt see that.

@rossbingbong

25 күн бұрын

@@PC-vg8vn You should join his Blog, Did Jesus Think He Would Be the Judge of the Earth? August 13, 2020 In order to answer a very specific question about how Matthew uses the phrase “son of man” for Jesus, I have had to discuss what the phrase generally means in the Gospel and whether it is a phrase that Jesus actually used. I am arguing that he did use it. That one of the ways he used it was to refer to the judge of the earth who was coming from heaven to destroy God’s enemies and set up a kingdom here (down here, on earth). And here is the big surprise. My argument is that when he talked about the future cosmic judge, he was *not* talking about himself. In my last post I talked about the criterion of dissimilarity. Now I want to show how it relates to this specific problem/issue. Among the various sayings about the Son of Man on the lips of Jesus are some that would not have been put *on* his lips by his followers. (The ones where he is talking about himself obviously *could* have been put on his lips later, since his followers firmly believed he was the coming Son of Man.) These are the ones that speak of the Son of Man as judge of the earth. In these, Jesus gives no indication he is talking about himself. My view is that these are the ones he said. They would hot have been invented. In what follows I splice together a few paragraphs, with a bit of editing, that can be found in my book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Consider a saying I quoted earlier: Mark 8:38. “Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of that one will the Son of Man be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.” Now we know that the earliest Christians believed that Jesus himself was the Son of Man (cf. Rev. 1:13). For that reason, when Jesus talks about himself as the Son of Man in the Gospels - as he frequently does - there’s no way to know, in view of this criterion, whether that’s…. Want to see where this ends up? To keep reading you’ll need to be a blog member. It’s an unbelievable deal: for much less than a milkshake a month at Hardees - and far better for you - you can be a member and get at least 20 substantial blog posts (that month). And the fee goes entirely to charity. So what’s the downside? …. there’s no way to know, in view of this criterion, whether that’s the way he actually talked or if that’s how Christians - who believed he was the Son of Man - “remembered” him talking. But in sayings like Mark 8:38, there is no indication that he is talking about himself. In fact, if you didn’t know in advance the Christian idea that Jesus was the Son of Man, there’d be no way you would infer it from this saying. On the contrary, just taking the saying on its own terms, Jesus appears to be referring to someone else. To paraphrase the saying: “whoever doesn’t pay attention to what I’m saying will be in big trouble when the Son of Man arrives.” That is, at the end of this age, the cosmic judge from heaven will punish those who reject Jesus’ message. My point is that since Christians thought Jesus was the Son of Man, it seems unlikely that they would make up a saying in such a way as to leave it in question whether he was referring to himself. That means Jesus probably did say the words now found in Mark 8:38. And so, we say in an earlier post that in multiply attested traditions Jesus did use the phrase to refer to a cosmic judge of the earth. And now it appears that he is referring to someone other than himself. Moreover, these are sayings that Christians themselves would not have been likely to invent, since Jesus’ later followers naturally assumed that he was the Son of Man. Thus these particular Son of Man sayings, at least, have a good chance of going back to Jesus on the grounds of dissimilarity. The same is not true of the other kinds of Son of Man sayings, since they presuppose that Jesus, like his later followers, did use the term to refer to himself. That is, they can’t be shown to have been said by Jesus on the grounds of dissimilarity. Where did the idea come from, though, that a future cosmic judge of the earth would be called the Son of Man? Almost everyone agrees that the phrase, used in this apocalyptic way, ultimately comes from our oldest surviving apocalypse, the book of Daniel in the Hebrew Bible. In a fascinating passage in Daniel 7, the prophet is shown the future course of history in one of those ghoulish nightmares that you’re glad was inflicted on someone else. He first sees a series of beasts arising out of the sea, one after the other. There are four beasts, each worse than the preceding. These trample the earth, wreak havoc, and devastate the people of God. But then, in contrast to these grotesquely formed beasts, Daniel sees “one like a son of man” coming from heaven on the clouds. Unlike the beastly ravagers of earth, this figure is human-like, humane. To him is given an eternal kingdom, the perpetual rule over the earth, with dominion, power, and praise forever, as the beasts are robbed of their power and done away with (Dan 7:2-14). In an angelic interpretation of the dream, we’re told that the beasts represent kingdoms that will take over the earth and assert their oppressive control over its peoples. These evil powers will remain until the coming of the one like a son of man, who will bring destruction to the forces opposed to God but eternal dominion to God’s people (Dan 7:17-27). When Jesus refers to the Son of Man, he appears to be alluding to this vision in Daniel 7. Like other apocalypticists from his time that we know about, Jesus maintained that there will be an actual cosmic judge sent from God to overthrow the forces of evil and bring in God’s good kingdom. Consider the following Jewish apocalyptic texts of the first century: And they [the people of God] had great joy, and they blessed and praised and exalted because the name of that Son of Man had been revealed to them. And he sat on the throne of his glory, and the whole judgment was given to the Son of Man, and he will cause the sinners to pass away and be destroyed from the face of the earth. And those who led astray the world will be bound in chains, and will be shut up in the assembly‑place of their destruction, and all their works will pass away from the face of the earth. And from then on there will be nothing corruptible, for that Son of Man has appeared and has sat on the throne of his glory, and everything evil will pass away and go from before him. (1 Enoch 69) As I kept looking the wind made something like the figure of a man come up out of the heart of the sea. And I saw that this man flew with the clouds of heaven; and everywhere he turned his face to look, everything under his gaze trembled…. After this I looked and saw that an innumerable multitude of people were gathered together from the four winds of heaven to make war against the man who came up out of the sea … When he saw the onrush of the approaching multitude, he neither lifted his hand nor held a spear, or any weapon of war; but I saw only how he sent forth from his mouth something like a stream of fire, and from his lips a flaming breath … [which] fell on the onrushing multitude that was prepared to fight, and burned up all of them, so that suddenly nothing was seen of the innumerable multitude but only the dust of ashes and the smell of smoke. (4 Ezra 13:1‑11). And so my overarching view, which I argue for more fully in my book: one of the main points of Jesus’ preaching was that people needed to repent because the Son of Man was soon to arrive in judgment on the earth. It was to happen within Jesus’ own resurrection. And Jesus was not talking about himself. I’ll continue from here, and eventually arrive at an answer to the question that started this thread. Jesus appears to have shared this basic apocalyptic vision and called the coming judge the “Son of Man.” In his view, at the judgment that this one will bring, those who are at present oppressed will be vindicated, and those who are in power will be vanquished. This in fact is a general theme of Jesus’ apocalyptic teaching: there is to be a major set of reversals when the kingdom comes. Those who are suffering now will be rewarded then; those who are in control now will be overthrown. And this coming reversal should affect how people live, and want to live, in the present

@PC-vg8vn

24 күн бұрын

@@rossbingbong you appear to be picking and choosing which things Jesus said and which things his followers allegedly later put in his mouth. Sadly many try to do that because it suits their own particular theories of this, that or the other. I have no reason to think the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were not in fact spoken by him, at least in summary form. So he referred to the Son of Man, and believed himself to be that figure from Daniel. The divine yet human figure.

@rossbingbong

24 күн бұрын

@@PC-vg8vn I'm in no way picking and choosing I am reading the historical research and weighing up the evidence from many critical scholars if you think jesus said everything attributed to him you are likely a fundamentalist and nothing I say will matter, I just finished reading Christian scholar Dale Alison's book the resurrection of jesus and gives an exhaustive look at jesus and the many many different sides of the arguments it's a great refrence for rational thought whatever your conclusions end up being.

Umm, no. When you play with Stretch Armstrong long enough, he breaks. Your comic book is full of errors. You can't even deal with the slavery issue.

@TwoKrows

23 күн бұрын

The ‘slavery issue’ has been dealt with on a number of occasions by many august scholars. You just choose to ignore this and pretend it’s not there. A fairer objection might be to recognize the very best arguments and object to them - rather than pretending satisfactory answers have not been given.

@jason666king

23 күн бұрын

@@TwoKrows which scholars? Oh, you mean apologists. The scholars don't dispute the fact that there is not one verse in the entire Bible that condemns slavery. In fact, it is explicitly condoned. That's not problematic from a historical standpoint, but is morally problematic if you think God is the author of said Bible.

Oh boy 🙈