Lisa Shea Forums General Discussion Religious Research Biblical Prophesy Fulfilled!!!

mbas the wall you speak of is part of the wall erected by Herod the Great, and was not the actual temple. The actual temple was destroyed and not one piece of it remains. This is what has made it so hard for the Jews there to figure out where the temple was in relation to this dome of the rock.

There are several walls that lead into the temple area, and some of those remain standing, but the actual temple building where the sacrifices were made, where the ark of the covenant was kept, where the holy of hollies was, no longer exists.

How do we know for sure what Jesus said, since we only have the evidence of the Gospels, which most objective scholars believe were written decades later by non-eyewitnesses?

Some of the 'Words of Jesus' could have been added later. Heretical, maybe, but definitely possible.

The Gospels are not 'proof' of anything.

Actually Joe it's some objective scholars. There is alot of debate about when the gospels were written, and the reason that the "objective scholars" feel that the gospels were written prior to 70AD, is exactly because of the temple prophecy. The "objective scholars" cannot fathom a God who can see the future, and actually be so accurate.

Even if you follow the "objective scholars" reasoning the one gap or hole in their theory is Luke. Most "objective scholars" feel that Mark was written first, and Luke was based on Mark. Yet neither Luke nor Acts, both attributed to Luke the beloved physician of Paul and close friend of Paul, mention the death of Paul in 63AD. Why?

If my mentor, friend, teacher died a horrible death and I was responsible for documenting stuff, I'd be sure to document his death. Now Luke wrote the gospel of Luke, and Acts. Luke ends Acts some 2 years prior to Paul's death. Based on that alone I feel that the gospel of Luke was written prior to AD59, which would put Acts around 60-61. The major difference between me and most scholars is that I do believe that God knows and can tell the future, so I don't have a need to explain away the destruction of the temple.

Oh and as for Jesus' words being added later, only time will tell. Because like most Bible prophecy Jesus' words had dual meanings. Yes Jesus fortold the temple destruction, but he also mixed in end time prophecies.

Yes, dual meanings: the actual meanings, and the ones Christians have been taught to believe.

Just like the Hebrew Bible has dual meanings too. The original meaning, and the Christian interpretation of that meaning.

The thing that I have noticed is that there seems to be a need to 'interpret' the scriptures. I feel that this 'interpretation' enables them to fit into the Christian religion and all that goes with it.

How about looking at it all a bit more objectively and saying that it is actually quite unlikely for a human to be God incarnate and for ancient writers to be able to prophecy the future or for them to know, for example, about God having conversations with Satan, regarding Job?

How about, then, trying to interpret the scriptures in the light of what they are ~ old religious, mythical, historical propaganda and folk tales?

I am convinced that, if as much energy was put into interpreting the Bible on that basis, as is put into trying to show that it is some kind of 'divine truth', we would find some very different conclusions being drawn.

Lol, the dating is a lot more complex than just the prophesy issue!

Check out www.earlychristianwritings.com for some of the research.

You believe that St Luke himself wrote the Gospel of Luke and Acts, but again, the scholars don't all agree with you. There does seem to be general agreement that the Gospel of Luke and Acts were written by the same person, because of linguistic and theological similarities between the two documents. However, there is no agreement that the person in question was in fact Luke, the companion of Paul.

Even if Luke the companion of Paul was in fact the author, he does not claim to have actually been an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He merely claims to to have "investigated everything carefully" and "written an orderly account" "of the events . . . just as they were handed on . . . by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses" (Luke 1:1–4). So by the author's own admission, the Gospel account is second-hand at best.....

As to why Acts does not include an account of Paul's death....yes, that could indicate that Acts was written before Paul died, but there are other explanations, for example that the author wanted to end on a positive note, or that he himself died before he could finish writing Acts, or even that he planned a third book as a follow-up to Acts that never got written.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer writes: "In any case, it may seem strange that the reader is not told anything about the death of Paul, the hero of the second half of Acts. Yet the ending, such as it is, may not be as puzzling as some think, because it does record that Paul continued to preach the kingdom of God, even in Rome, 'with all boldness and without hindrance' (28:31). That is the note of triumph on which Luke wanted his story to end. The gospel was thus being preached at Rome, the 'end of the earth' (1:8), 'and without hindrance' (28:31). The reader of Acts already knows that Paul's personal end was not far off; the Lucan Paul intimated as much in his speech at Miletus, and so Luke felt no need to recount it. Homer's Iliad is not seen to be incomplete because it does not describe Achilles' death!" (Source: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/luke.html)

quote:

'Obviously you haven't looked too closely at other books. The Qu'ran is filled with prophesies too. Especially the one about the end times. They will have a great big war just like your Tribulation, and Allah will come and save everyone, etc. The only difference between the Christian version and the Muslim version is that the Muslims win theirs.' [mbas400]

As far as I know, there has never been a prophecy in any other religious book. I could certainly be mistaken. However, I thought that was not a religious book, but pretty much the Muslim’s doctrine and what they believe.
I believe your a bit mistaken about the tribulation. the Trib is not a war itself, but a seven year judgment period God sends on the earth after He's ruptured the Christians, and world peace is declared by the Anti-Christ. At the end of the seven years the Anti-Christ and God will war in Armageddon, and God will win and utterly destroy evil. I'm not sure what you mean by the Christian's losing.

Quote:
'How about looking at it all a bit more objectively and saying that it is actually quite unlikely for a human to be God incarnate and for ancient writers to be able to prophecy the future or for them to know, for example, about God having conversations with Satan, regarding Job?' [PDM]

It is unlikely and impossible for a human to be incarnate such as God is. Also for any human being to make prophecies; without the power of God.
I believe in the first statement you were talking about Jesus? Jesus was not incarnate, i don't believe, not in His human form. He died on the cross. However, He was raised from the dead in His spirit form--being able to walk through doors, appear at will.
About the ancient writers, God spoke to them and ordered them to say this or that. They had no clue about it themselves; He told it to them.

Quote:
'How about, then, trying to interpret the scriptures in the light of what they are ~ old religious, mythical, historical propaganda and folk tales?'

'I am convinced that, if as much energy was put into interpreting the Bible on that basis, as is put into trying to show that it is some kind of 'divine truth', we would find some very different conclusions being drawn[PDM]

I'm sure you know of C.S. Lewis. He became a Christian trying to prove, in any way, that the Bible wasn't true. He spent years at it, doing all sorts of research. Eventually, when he was unable to find nothing to prove the Bibles was wrong, he realized it had to be true and became a Christian. There are many ways of interpreting the Bible...but you must keep it in context. And the Bible is very deep, with many hidden double meanings and code words, such as Edom. It can be hard to understand for smart Christian Scholars.


NOTE FROM PDM:

WHEN QUOTING SOMEONE, COULD YOU PLEASE NOTE WHO POSTED THE ORIGINAL COMMENTs ~ THANKS

1) There are plenty of people who started out as Christians and through the same research have come to the conclusion that Christianity is a fraud and have left the faith. This includes many ministers as well.

2) The Qu'ran is just a doctrine to Muslims the same way the New Testament is just a set of historical niceities to Christians. It is their Bible, plain and simple.

3) The War for Armageddon between Gog and MaGog is talked about in the Qu'ran also. But the Muslims win that one, and the "infidels" including the Christians, are thrown in to the eternal hell.

Be sure to pack lightly, I hear it's hot down there.

1: Anyone can come to conclusions. It would be nice to know what proof they had that Christianity and the Bible is NOT real.
2: There is a difference between a doctrine and what the Bible is. The Bible is an account, mostly, correspondences. It is the holy word of God. Yes, there is doctrine in it; of course. I know this is besides the point but the Bible is not the doctrine of the Christian, although it has all the instruction we need in it. a doctrine by itself is the set of rules one must follow for that religion. the Bible is much, much more.
3: As for that, personally, I believe is that a man interpreted the Bible and made his own religion out of it. That is a personal belief and totally debatable. But I don't see how what you have stated makes a point--other than the Bible and the Qu'ran are similar in certain areas of writing.