Good question from a muslim: Why did god need Jesus to die?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I didn't actually learn to read it, but I did actually bother to read a concordance and I did learn enough about it to understand the difference in tenses. Granted, I can't do it by heart and I require reference, but that's more than enough.

A concordance? Are you sure you don't mean a Greek Lexicon? A Concordance will just tell you the place and frequency a word appears in the text and it's contextual definition. So you've never studied Koine Greek, but you did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night? Is that what you're getting at? How many commentaries do you own? What do your various commentaries say? My favorites are Matthew Henry's 1811, Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible and Chuck Missler's commentary on the Book of Matthew. (Especially Chuck Missler, he's both a Hebrew and Koine Greek expert, and Poole who summarized the views of the top 150 textual critics of his day.)

Well, I doubt that a theologian could get over cognitive dissonance, and there are actually Bible scholars that do agree with me.

I'm sure there may be a Bible scholar here or there that does agree with you, however, no one uses the exception to define the rule in their critical thinking. That's a huge fallacy.

(Errr, I mean generally no one uses the exception to define the rule.)

And yes, I'm familiar with the "Preterist position". It pretty much died out with the advent of the 20th century and WWI and WWII. Or as Chuck Missler quipped: "If we're in the millineal reign that means satan's chain is a bit to long."

Appealing to authority, tradition, and popularity are all warning flags that you don't really have an argument at this point.

Absurd in this instance.

1. I'm not appealing to MY authority. I'm punting to Missler, Poole, and Henry. You're most likely not familiar with them, they ARE "authorities" in the commentary business.
2. Appeal to tradition is pretty relevant for a 2,000 year old text. There's been plenty of time for scholars to reach a consensus for the most part.
3. "Popularity", again the Preterist position pretty much has been abandoned in the 20th century.


Christ made the telling of the "generation" and the "fig tree" obvious that it was not the people/generation He was addressing because in verse 36 Jesus closes with:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

This cannot refer to His 2nd coming to Earth to defeat the antichrist which is exactly 1,260 days from the "abomination of desolation" spoken of by Daniel. It therefore refers to the rapture of the gentles/bride of Christ "which no man knows the day nor the hour". (Which is actually a Hebraism for Rosh Hishanah)

This Harpazo event is the trigger for the final scenario, the generation that sees this event will be the generation to see the end of the age. And the Harpazo is the event that removes the "blindness" from the state of Israel.

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Romans 11:25

The same "blindness" Christ cursed the Jews with on the day of His triumphal entry into Jerusalem as the Messiah for their failure to recognize the "day of thy visitation".

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Chuck Missler is quite possibly one of the most idiotic apologists on the planet. I don't have time to get into his stupidity, but that peanut butter thing is second only to the great banana.

I had a Concordance/Lexicon. Lost it to severe water damage...aka it fell in a sea. I did also happen to actually learning a bit of the grammar from various resources. You don't have to be a scholar to understand the grammatical structure of a single sentence.

Anyway...

Absurd in this instance.

1. I'm not appealing to MY authority. I'm punting to Missler, Poole, and Henry. You're most likely not familiar with them, they ARE "authorities" in the commentary business.

Yes, that's an appeal to authority. Instead of providing their arguments you're merely telling me they disagree with me.

2. Appeal to tradition is pretty relevant for a 2,000 year old text. There's been plenty of time for scholars to reach a consensus for the most part.

But that doesn't mean it's true. Again, it's a logical fallacy for a reason.

3. "Popularity", again the Preterist position pretty much has been abandoned in the 20th century.

Well, I'm not talking about that position, so that's a straw man on the top of the pile. I'm talking about secular scholars, who I doubt you've actually bothered reading the work of.

Christ made the telling of the "generation" and the "fig tree" obvious that it was not the people/generation He was addressing because in verse 36 Jesus closes with:

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."

Day or the hour...but he never said "General time frame". He gave a general time frame. He makes it clear that he's addressing this generation when he says that some will see those things come to pass....

Unless, of course, Highlander is a work of fact and there are immortals from the time of Jesus roaming around still.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Chuck Missler is quite possibly one of the most idiotic apologists on the planet.

WOW!!! lol, no, actually those people who STILL think Missler was serious when he did the peanut butter bit. Even when people have linked the videos, and exact time frame on the videos where Chuck calls that illustration "a silly little illustration" are the "idiots". Besides, that has absolutely nothing to do with his understanding of Greek. Why are you poisoning the well? Ad hominem much?

Yes, that's an appeal to authority. Instead of providing their arguments you're merely telling me they disagree with me.

Pot meet kettle. Explain why I need to provide the evidence that you are wrong, when you have not provided any that Jesus was wrong other than your own opinion? Or that the near-universal consensus for Jesus's prophecy is wrong. How does that make any sense logically? I have to prove incorrect your opinions that you've never explained to begin with other than to say, "I disagree cuz I once read a concordance".

Poole and Henry are the most authoritative commentaries in existence. Unless you can provide some serious scholarly disagreements you're simply a "clanging gong and banging cymbal." I'd stay off evilbible.org if I were you, that site is hardly scholarly.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Pot meet kettle. Explain why I need to provide the evidence that you are wrong, when you have not provided any that Jesus was wrong other than your own opinion?

I did say that he said "this generation". That is evidence. I'm arguing from a very plain reading of a text.

Or that the near-universal consensus for Jesus's prophecy is wrong. How does that make any sense logically? I have to prove incorrect your opinions that you've never explained to begin with other than to say, "I disagree cuz I once read a concordance".

No, you're just using a straw man here. Oh, and I'd like to point out one thing...you mentioned these people. If you're going to mention them in support of your claims then you might want to bother showing me where they are saying that you are correct and why they are saying it.

Poole and Henry are the most authoritative commentaries in existence.

Citation needed.

Unless you can provide some serious scholarly disagreements you're simply a "clanging gong and banging cymbal." I'd stay off evilbible.org if I were you, that site is hardly scholarly.

Wow, again with a straw man and ridicule.

Why do I have to provide a scholarly disagreement when you've only mentioned that someone has agreed with you without providing their actual arguments? Oh, and why does it have to be 'scholarly'? Can't I just provide some actual disagreements by saying that Missler and a bunch of other apologists are tacking together things to create a false narrative from disparate texts in a desperate attempt to cling on to a religion that makes him feel comfortable?

I mean, he doesn't have any proper justification for his claims. I'm already aware of this.

I would have to point out that Missler only retracted the peanut butter thing after the internet pointed out the massive amounts of fail.

Also, how is my commentary on the Bible any different from Missler's commentary on the sciences? I probably know more about the Bible than he knows about science...and I definitely know more about science than he does.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

I did say that he said "this generation". That is evidence. I'm arguing from a very plain reading of a text.

We've went over this the last time. That statement is only evidence if one refuses to acknowledge that Jesus's apostles asked Him 3 different questions. Which were: 1. When the Temple would be destroyed with not one stone left upon another (Which was done by the Romans in 70 AD without a single stone left on another one when they destroyed the temple. Certainly not "post hoc".). 2 What signs would be for his 2nd coming to Earth, and 3. the signs for the end of the age. (Aion in the Greek).

3 different questions were asked and answered by Jesus. The "this generation" was after giving the hint of the parable of the fig tree as an indicator that the time was in season. He then further goes on to tell them in verse 14 that "the gospel will be preached to the entire world" before the end and in verse 36 that no man will know the day nor hour of his return. if you read all the signs Jesus speaks of in chapter 24 he couldn't possibly have been speaking of the people seated around Him when He said "this generation", but was speaking of the generation that witnessed the completion of the fig tree parable and the other signs mentioned.

But that's kinda irrelevant to our discourse in this thread. You stated that you arrived at your conclusions based upon the Greek that you discerned from a Concordance you used to have, then didn't offer any justification of the Greek that you mentioned while demanding I justify my position by posting the Greek. How is that not special pleading?

No, you're just using a straw man here. Oh, and I'd like to point out one thing...you mentioned these people. If you're going to mention them in support of your claims then you might want to bother showing me where they are saying that you are correct and why they are saying it.

No, not a straw man. It was simple ridicule, I apologize.

Matthew Henry Biblical Commentary 1811 edition ~ Matthew Chapter 24

Poole's Commentary isn't available in online format like Henry's, however you can get the PDF if you're really that interested. it's a 3 volume set.

"This Generation Shall Not Pass... by Dr. Chuck Missler"

Citation needed.

Really? You can research this yourself, but Matthew Henry's commentary on the OT & New is the gold-standard for Bible commentaries. And Henry punted to Poole for issue in the Greek or Hebrew.

Matthew Henry ~ Wiki

Henry, Matthew (d. 1714) Presbyterian minister at Chester in England. He was called ‘the Prince of Commentators’ on account of his great influence as expositor of scripture in the Reformed tradition. His strength was his ability to write clear analyses of large blocks of material

Matthew Henry, encyclopedia.com

Wow, again with a straw man and ridicule.

No, that's quite true actually, www.evilbible.com is the National Enquirer of anti-Biblical websites. A reading of her articles is a journey into straw man after straw man after cherry-picked verses and others taken completely out of context. Her site is so astoundingly incompetent it would be hilarious if people didn't actually take it seriously.

And parousing the site it appears most of your claims are taken right of the pages almost word for word.

I would have to point out that Missler only retracted the peanut butter thing after the internet pointed out the massive amounts of fail.

Citation needed.

Not, you're having way too much fun. ;-D Isn't shooting fish in a barrel illegal somewhere?

I admire your patience. I have none with the evilbible and infidels.org cut-and-pasters.

Speaking of real scholars, are you familiar with Dr. Ann Nyland? She is an expert in both classical and koine Greek, and her The Source NT with extensive notes is a valuable resource on both the linguistic and historical/grammatical issues. There are a few spots where I think she might come to a thinly-supported conclusion, but I'd put her up against any other Greek scholar in the world... including the vaunted experts at ATS. ;-P

reply to post by SaberTruth

I admire your patience. I have none with the evilbible and infidels.org cut-and-pasters.

Despite how much people claim the bible has been "mistranslated" or the meaning has been lost through a series of chinese wispers the sinister and abhorrent passages in the bible exist, there's no exusing or mistaking them.

More amazingly, Muslims claim that because the QuRan has been mostly unchanged since it's formation that it stands in favour of it's "authenticity" or "accuracy", that such sinister dogma is more truthful because it hasn't been reformed like Christianity. - I disagree.

Abrahamic scripture is plagiarism infused with some pseudo-philosophy and bad moral and ethical teaching.

Originally posted by SaberTruth
Not, you're having way too much fun. ;-D Isn't shooting fish in a barrel illegal somewhere?

It's fun sure, but the real fun is the U2Us I get from people thanking me for explaining difficult things in a way they can understand/relate to. That's where the real satisfaction is.

I admire your patience. I have none with the evilbible and infidels.org cut-and-pasters.

it's like there is an anti-Christian chain mail service or something, in all the websites i debate in the same threads/arguments/complains arise in virtually the same wording. It would be comical if there were not good intentioned folks buying into the claims.

Speaking of real scholars, are you familiar with Dr. Ann Nyland? She is an expert in both classical and koine Greek, and her The Source NT with extensive notes is a valuable resource on both the linguistic and historical/grammatical issues.

No, not familiar with her, but I am quite skeptical of the "scholars" who support the Alexandrian texts. Do you know if she supports them or the Syrian/Majority text? I'm addicted to buying literature/commentaries so I will look into it after this post is complete.

There are a few spots where I think she might come to a thinly-supported conclusion, but I'd put her up against any other Greek scholar in the world... including the vaunted experts at ATS. ;-P

That will be a tough claim to prove, very tough.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Despite how much people claim the bible has been "mistranslated" or the meaning has been lost through a series of chinese wispers the sinister and abhorrent passages in the bible exist, there's no exusing or mistaking them.

On the quality of the Bible texts, people need to understand the difference between mistranslation and mis-transmission. We have ms. that are very close in time to the originals, to a degree that few other ancient texts can match. We also have a great quantity of them, in various languages, such that the supporting evidence for the accuracy of the earliest copies is well within any reasonable limits for literature of the time. So unlike the "telephone game" where the message one hears depends completely and solely on the one just before it, we can go to the second or third person in the line. The same textual criticism that is applied to secular texts is applied to the Bible, such that if we discard the Bible on the grounds that it must be significantly altered from the originals, then we must also discard everything else in antiquity on those same grounds.

Once it has been established that the Bible we have is accurate, then we can look at its message. Here again, people need to understand at least some basic facts:

1-- We can't read modern sensitivities into ancient texts, especially across different cultures.
2-- We can't think that to report a crime is to support a crime; there are many evil things the Bible simply reports without comment, because it is at least partially a history book. We would not trust a historian that only reported positive things, or accuse the historian of condoning the evil things being recorded.
3-- We have to recognize that unless God created robots, he allows mankind free will-- which includes taking responsibility for bad actions. But the central theme running through the Bible, in spite of having been written down over such a long time and by many different people, is redemption. And this redemption is not just a smashing of unbelievers (per pagan god myths) but an education, a journey. Here is how I try to illustrate this:

The story is told of people pulling a very heavy cart up a hill. At times they would need to rest, so they would put a block behind one of the wheels. The purpose of the block was not to pull the cart but to keep it from rolling back down the hill. In the same way, God's interventions at various points in history is like the wheel block: not condoning all the errors and evils, but containing them and seeing to it that progress is maintained. So in Genesis we see personal responsibility, then a rudimentary government after the Flood. Eventually Abram was chosen to begin the formation of the Jewish nation, and then the Messiah came. Now that Jesus has come it is time to bring the Gentiles up to speed through the gospel, and then Jesus will return to set everything right again.

This is what the Bible is all about: not immediate thunderbolts against every infraction, but a guidance and growth toward the goal of ultimate peace on earth. That's why there are bad things in the Bible, more so in the OT. To fail to grasp this meta context is to completely twist the Bible into something it never was meant to be.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
it's like there is an anti-Christian chain mail service or something, in all the websites i debate in the same threads/arguments/complains arise in virtually the same wording. It would be comical if there were not good intentioned folks buying into the claims.

We have a "b-Greek" mailing list, maybe there's a "b-Devil" mailing list.

No, not familiar with her, but I am quite skeptical of the "scholars" who support the Alexandrian texts. Do you know if she supports them or the Syrian/Majority text? I'm addicted to buying literature/commentaries so I will look into it after this post is complete.

It says it's based on the UBS Fourth Revised Edition, which is based mostly on the Nestle-Aland 26th-27th editions.

That will be a tough claim to prove, very tough.

Oh, I'm just braggin' on her. She'd certainly give just about anybody a hard time though.

Muslims do not believe he died a martyr. He was made to appear dead in teh Qur'an but was actually elsewhere. The man that died on the cross was a fake I guess.

Originally posted by IamBoon
Muslims do not believe he died a martyr. He was made to appear dead in teh Qur'an but was actually elsewhere. The man that died on the cross was a fake I guess.

Wrong, Muslims teach that Allah replaced Jesus with Judas.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


That is not what is said in the Qur'an.... And Like I said in the post Jesus didn't die on the cross in Muslim belief yet you say I am wrong! lol Some arrogance.

Originally posted by IamBoon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

That is not what is said in the Qur'an.... And Like I said in the post Jesus didn't die on the cross in Muslim belief yet you say I am wrong! lol Some arrogance.

Because you are in error, no offense though. Muslims believe that Allah replaced Jesus with Judas or the "one that betrayed him". I've been rounds and rounds with Muslims on this issue.

From the Surahs:

"And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not. (4-157)

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Ok, I stopped reading when you stated that not a single stone is left of the temple.
Apparently what is considered the most sacred site in Judaism doesn't exist.
Just so I could get a link for this.

You're just wrong. I've gone back and forth with you over this before and you won't budge. You have no argument, I'm sick of wasting my time.

Oh, and you made a comment about 'anti-Christians' repeating the same arguments in refutation of your claims...well, it's because your claims tend to be wrong for a very narrow range of reasons.

If you argue creationism, you're going to get the same set of scientific answers thrown at you. There are only a limited number of ways to correct incorrect statements.

Now, imagine how frustrating it is from our end when Pascal's wager is thrown at us daily. Or the cosmological argument. Or any of the other arguments that are centuries old. At least we have relatively fresh material. Atheists have been dealing with the same flawed arguments for a few centuries.

Missler is wrong, the Henry commentary is wrong. They're both based in cognitive dissonance. They provide no good argument beyond "Well, in some places a fig tree is used as an allegory for Israel." and then spin a bunch of crap that ignores the simple grammar of the statement. The grammar is present tense. Had it said THAT generation shall not pass, it would have made sense. He shifts to future tense and then returns to the present. The tenses did not get lost in translation. You have no explanation for this simple, honest fact.

So did Jesus killing a fig tree represent him metaphorically killing Israel? Did his apparent ignorance of the time at which fig trees produce fruit have allegorical meaning?

Oh, and Chuck Missler is far worse than evilbible.com. Evil Bible tends to actually be relatively accurate about the Bible. Missler is...well...listening to him talk about science makes me want to weep for what may happen if people like him get any more control of our education.

reply to post by SaberTruth

Originally posted by SaberTruth
Not, you're having way too much fun. ;-D Isn't shooting fish in a barrel illegal somewhere?

I admire your patience. I have none with the evilbible and infidels.org cut-and-pasters.

I love that I'm being accused of cutting and pasting from websites that I don't actually visit. I also love that this claim is being made without evidence contrary to that claim. Nothing I have said is cut or paste from those sites. Not one post in nearly six years as a member on this website.

reply to post by IamBoon


I've actually asked about this to an Imam and he basically said that it was essentially a magic switch act with a wholly fabricated body. Jesus was switched out magically. Boom, end of story until the apocalypse for Jesus.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Nowhere in that passage is Judas mentioned. In fact, nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say that Jesus was replaced by Judas. The one Imam I spoke to on the issue send that it was a created body...but I'm not sure on how valid that is within the community. He speaks for one Mosque in one town in Missouri. Of course, that doesn't stop you from making unsubstantiated claims.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Ok, I stopped reading when you stated that not a single stone is left of the temple.

Learn to read. You linked an article about the temple MOUNT. I said not one stone was left upon another of the Temple i.e. the Temple itself! Three Roman legions destroyed it in 70 A.D. All the stones were removed to gather the molten and hardened gold that had ran into the cracks from the Temple fire that destroyed the structure.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Ok, I stopped reading when you stated that not a single stone is left of the temple.

Learn to read. You linked an article about the temple MOUNT. I said not one stone was left upon another of the Temple i.e. the Temple itself! Three Roman legions destroyed it in 70 A.D. All the stones were removed to gather the molten and hardened gold that had ran into the cracks from the Temple fire that destroyed the structure.

Correct. Temple Mount -- yep, still there (not surprisingly.) The Temple itself -- nope, been destroyed for quite some time now (hint to Madness: there's a reason for that, feel free to sign on with the conspiratorial types to wave it off )