Oldest Bible Pieced Together

hairyheretic

I came across this story elsewhere, and thought some of the more scholarly types would find it of interest

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/07/22/oldest-bible-online.html

July 22, 2008 -- The oldest surviving copy of the New Testament, a 4th century version that had its Gospels and epistles spread across the world, is being made whole again -- online.

The British Library says the full text of the Codex Sinaiticus will be available to Web users by next July, digitally reconnecting parts that are held in Britain, Russia, Germany and a monastery in Egypt's Sinai Desert.

2 page story at the link. Hope your ancient Greek is up to the task of reading it if you do decide to go browse it next year though.

Puck

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

AtomicHorror

Nice interface. Wonder what the differences are?

Pompey Magnus

Just an update on the story: Link

Article wrote:

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

PDN

I'm presuming that spending cuts at the BBC are responsible for people writing about stuff they apparently know little about. The legacy of Thatcherism?

Those of us who believe in inerrancy do not believe that the modern Bibles we hold are the unaltered Word of God. We believe that the original manuscripts were inerrant, and that modern Bibles are only inerrant to the extent that they accurately reproduce and translate from the original.

More worthy of the Daily Star than the BBC given that the 'thousands of alterations' were mainly iotacisms:

Iotacism meant that some words with originally distinct pronunciations were pronounced similarly, which can be seen in some of the variant readings of the New Testament. The upsilon of ὑμεις humeis (or ὑμων humōn) and the eta of ἡμεις hēmeis (or ἡμων hēmōn) could be easily confused if a lector were reading to copyists in a scriptorium. As an example of a relatively minor (almost insignificant) source of "variant readings", some ancient manuscripts spelled words the way they sounded, such as the 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus, which regularly substitutes a plain iota for the epsilon-iota diphthong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iotacism

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Those of us who believe in inerrancy do not believe that the modern Bibles we hold are the unaltered Word of God. We believe that the original manuscripts were inerrant, and that modern Bibles are only inerrant to the extent that they accurately reproduce and translate from the original.

Out of interest are Christians today single minded in accepting that the Bible we have today is not inerrant?

Also what exactly is the point of God providing an inerrant text when he doesn't follow up on it with the copies, thereby allowing mistakes and alterations to creep in almost immediately? The Bible itself doesn't claim that its autographs were inerrant, in fact I believe this is a fairly new claim among Christians. Where did this idea come from if not the text itself, is it just a wild guess or assumption?

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Out of interest are Christians today single minded in accepting that the Bible we have today is not inerrant?

That depends what you mean by 'Christian'. If you are referring to those who were raised in a so-called Christian country and have never seriously thought about their faith, then they may well believe that the King James Bible is inerrant. Such people also swallow unbiblical traditions such as Jesus being born on the 25th of December, the Devil ruling over the damned in his own little kingdom in hell, and that dead people turn into angels in heaven who sit on clouds.

Those Christians who take the time and trouble to know what they believe should certainly be aware of how the Bible came to us. In our Church such knowledge would be expected as a condition of membership.

Also what exactly is the point of God providing an inerrant text when he doesn't follow up on it with the copies, thereby allowing mistakes and alterations to creep in almost immediately?

Translatability is key to the Christian message (thus distinguishing it from Islam). When you translate any text from one language to another it will never convey precisely the same meaning.

The Bible itself doesn't claim that its autographs were inerrant, in fact I believe this is a fairly new claim among Christians. Where did this idea come from if not the text itself, is it just a wild guess or assumption?

The Bible claims inerrancy for itself. A little thought should enable us to realise that such a claim does not guarantee inerrancy for all subsequent copies.

Let me use a simple illustration. I might affirm that on the 4th of August 1979 I made a statement to the police that was absolutely truthful and without error. My affirmation, quite obviously, only refers to my original statement on that day. I cannot guarantee that any transcript later produced by a police typist, any newspaper report quoting such a transcript, or indeed any translation into another language will also be without error.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Translatability is key to the Christian message (thus distinguishing it from Islam). When you translate any text from one language to another it will never convey precisely the same meaning.

Errors arose long before the New Testament was translated out of Greek, I reckon most of today's most contentious problems with the NT arose prior to it being translated into Latin.

Also as the originals were written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic we know that a translation had already taken place during the writing of the supposed inerrant originals. As you correctly point out though translations by their very nature cannot completely accurately portray the original message, the translation in itself is a source of error to some degree. How can a translated text be inerrant if we accept that the process of translation cannot give a 100% exact reproduction of the original conversations, the teachings of Jesus for example? Does not absolute inerrancy fall down at the first hurdle, that it is impossible to give an exact account of a conversation from a different language?

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Errors arose long before the New Testament was translated out of Greek, I reckon most of today's most contentious problems with the NT arose prior to it being translated into Latin.

Tertullian wrote in Latin, including citing biblical quotations, before the end of the Second Century. So, while we have no record of any attempt at a complete translation so early, it would appear that Christians felt free to translate biblical texts into other languages.

Also as the originals were written in Greek and Jesus spoke Aramaic we know that a translation had already taken place during the writing of the supposed inerrant originals. As you correctly point out though translations by their very nature cannot completely accurately portray the original message, the translation in itself is a source of error to some degree. How can a translated text be inerrant if we accept that the process of translation cannot give a 100% exact reproduction of the original conversations, the teachings of Jesus for example? Does not absolute inerrancy fall down at the first hurdle, that it is impossible to give an exact account of a conversation from a different language?

That depends on what you mean by 'absolute inerrancy'. Any coherent evangelical theory of inerrancy involves the transmission of ideas and concepts rather than exact words. For example, the Bible uses figures of speech to convey truth. This includes phenomenological language (eg the sun rising) and approximations (eg rounded numbers, to Wicknight's irritation). The usual evangelical belief is that the original manuscripts (predominantly Hebrew & Greek + 2 chapters of Chaldean) were verbally inspired by God, and as such are inerrant. This does not require us to believe that the words of Jesus as recorded in the Greek are absolutely exact equivalents word-for-word with the Aramaic words spoken - but rather that they faithfully record the message that Jesus spoke.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That depends on what you mean by 'absolute inerrancy'. Any coherent evangelical theory of inerrancy involves the transmission of ideas and concepts rather than exact words. For example, the Bible uses figures of speech to convey truth. This includes phenomenological language (eg the sun rising) and approximations (eg rounded numbers, to Wicknight's irritation).

The point that is some what lost on you guys is that what you call "figures of speech" start off as being what people actually believed was true.

Concepts such as the rising sun and the four corners of the Earth entered common usage because people believed that the sun rose and that the Earth was flat and square.

We continue to use them as part of an oral tradition, while in modern times realizing that they are in error. But in the times they originated, such as Biblical times, they were considered reality and were not used as quaint approximation, but as actual representations of reality.

It is relatively easy to take a flawed piece of text and in hindsight go back over it classifying all the mistakes as simply "figures of speech". You will, amazingly enough, end up with a document that after the process contains no errors what so ever.

But it does some what betray any notion to accuracy or true.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

The usual evangelical belief is that the original manuscripts (predominantly Hebrew & Greek + 2 chapters of Chaldean) were verbally inspired by God, and as such are inerrant.

This raises alot of questions though. How does this affect the potential problem of sources used by the Gospel authors. Did God also verbally inspire the authors of the accounts that Luke admits using, indeed if Luke was ghostwriting for God then why did he need to refer to other sources at all, had he such high standards that he wasn't satisfied with the testimony of God almighty? What about the other sources that the other Gospel authors are generally accepted to have used, were these all verbally inspired by God? When later Christians scribes added stories to the Gospels which became accepted and are still reproduced today were they also inspired by God to do so?

It also raises he question of the relevance of who the Gospel authors actually were and when they wrote. As the accounts are anonymous and undated it has been important for Christians to attribute them to prominant members of the very early movement writing as early as possible, thus lending the accounts credibility and authority. However an inerrant, God narrated account from Luke, the follower of Paul, writing in the first half of the first century would be no more accurate than an inerrant, God narrated account from a random Jewish baker who lived in 3 Pompeii Street, Rome in 120 AD.

If Christians really believed that the Bible is the inerrant word of God then they shouldn't be concerned about who wrote the accounts or when, as neither factor would ultimately affect the authority of the accounts. However we find these very same Christians very preoccupied with promoting the idea that Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did in fact write the Gospels and did so very soon after the death of Jesus. I wonder if this is because, deep down, they know that God isn't really the ultimate source of the accounts and so they need to give the Gospels early, authoritative authors to give them the historical credibility that would be lacking if God was not the actual source.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

This raises alot of questions though. How does this affect the potential problem of sources used by the Gospel authors. Did God also verbally inspire the authors of the accounts that Luke admits using, indeed if Luke was ghostwriting for God then why did he need to refer to other sources at all, had he such high standards that he wasn't satisfied with the testimony of God almighty? What about the other sources that the other Gospel authors are generally accepted to have used, were these all verbally inspired by God?

Inerrancy does not involve any kind of 'ghost writing'. The doctrine of inerrancy affirms that God superintended the writing of the original manuscripts of Scripture so as to ensure that they are without error. This does not prevent the writers from using sources or wrting in their own styles.

There is no need to posit that the sources used by the Gospel writers were inspired - only that the Holy Spirit guided Luke etc. so as to avoid drawing any erroneous material rom their sources.

When later Christians scribes added stories to the Gospels which became accepted and are still reproduced today were they also inspired by God to do so?

They may have been inspired, just as a hymn writer is inspired, but that does not confer inerrancy. This is why Christians engage in textual criticism - so as to determine as closely as possible the authentic text.

So, for example, if you take a verse like the Johannine comma (1 John 5:7), most evangelical scholars do not believe it to be part of the original manuscript, therefore it is not considered to be part of the inerrant Scripture.

It also raises he question of the relevance of who the Gospel authors actually were and when they wrote. As the accounts are anonymous and undated it has been important for Christians to attribute them to prominant members of the very early movement writing as early as possible, thus lending the accounts credibility and authority. However an inerrant, God narrated account from Luke, the follower of Paul, writing in the first half of the first century would be no more accurate than an inerrant, God narrated account from a random Jewish baker who lived in 3 Pompeii Street, Rome in 120 AD.

That is true in that the identity of the author does not guarantee or prevent inerrancy. Evangelical scholars do not argue for traditional authorship, or early dating, in order to bolster clams of inerrancy. This may be a novel idea to those who just look for arguments to use against their opponents, but some of us are more interested in discovering the truth.

Evangelical scholars are more likely to affirm traditional authorship and early dating because they do not share the antisupernatural bias of liberal scholars. For example, a liberal scholar reads Christ's prophetic utterances of the destruction of Jerusalem and says, "Since we know that prophecy is impossible therefore this text must have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD." However, if you have enough objectivity to admit the possibility that Jesus actually could prophesy accurately, then many of the arguments for late dates and authors melt away.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

There is no need to posit that the sources used by the Gospel writers were inspired - only that the Holy Spirit guided Luke etc. so as to avoid drawing any erroneous material rom their sources.

One error that I have seen mentioned comes from the Gospel of Mark in which Mark quotes Jesus as referring to King David entering the Temple on the Sabbath and eating the consecrated bread "when Abiathar was the High Priest". Mark 2:25-26.

However when we look back to relevant passage in the Old Testament, 1 Samuel, we find a problem, Abiathar was not the High priest, Ahimilech was. 1 Samuel 20:2-4. Is this not an error in a supposed inerrant text?

Evangelical scholars are more likely to affirm traditional authorship and early dating because they do not share the antisupernatural bias of liberal scholars. For example, a liberal scholar reads Christ's prophetic utterances of the destruction of Jerusalem and says, "Since we know that prophecy is impossible therefore this text must have been written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD." However, if you have enough objectivity to admit the possibility that Jesus actually could prophesy accurately, then many of the arguments for late dates and authors melt away.

For the record I have no major problem accepting that Jesus correctly predicted the destruction of the Temple, in fact I would almost be surprised if he didn't predict it. My reasons for happily accepting his prediction are:

(1) The prediction was obvious. Jerusalem was a tinderbox as it was occupied by a pagan army, the most powerful force on Earth at the time and there was significant Jewish resistance to this desecration of their holy city. The Romans had developed a name for complete destruction of enemies who rose up against them, for example they razed to the ground cities such as Syracuse, Corinth, and Carthage. There were numerous Jewish "prophets" prediciting the end was nigh and even that the Temple would be destroyed, Josephus mentioned a Jesus, son of Ananias, who similarly made an accurate claim regarding the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem.

(2) The prediction was non-specific, thus making it less impressive still. He did not give a date for the destruction of the Temple and he did not give a manner for the destruction. Technically speaking had the Temple been spared by the Romans but hit by a meteor in the year 1384 AD he would have still been correct.

(3) The prediction was wrong. Remember that he claimed that not one stone would be left on top of the other. Sorry Jesus, you must have forgotten about the Western Wall on Temple Mount. I reckon he picked one of the only buildings in the city which has some stonework still intact two millenia later, he couldn't have been much more wrong.

I will make a prediction now that the Presidential Palace in Baghdad will be completely dismantled. I'm not going to say how, I'm not going to say who or what will do it, and I'm not going to say when. Come back to this thread in 2000 years time and see if I'm correct. If I am then I want to be acknowledged as a proven prophet who could equal or better Jesus' prophecy.

To recap, Jesus made a relatively obvious claim providing no specifics or dates, and 2000 years later the prediction still hasn't come true. I'll take off my skeptic hat for a minute and quite happily agree with you that Jesus could well have made that claim during his life prior to the writing of the Gospels.

robindch

Charco wrote: »

The prediction was obvious. [...] The prediction was non-specific [...] The prediction was wrong.

...to which one should add the usual riders that we don't know who wrote the prediction, nor when, nor under what conditions, nor how accurately the writer conveyed the words that Jesus is reported to have uttered. The prediction could quite conceivably have been written, or updated, at any point after the destruction of the temple, and we simply wouldn't know since there are no contemporaneous texts, no contemporaneous accounts of anything, to compare against.

This, btw, is the intellectual feat that intrigues me about religion in general -- how one can justify to oneself, the progression from uncertain text to certain conclusion. In a very real way, it's inerrant for no greater reason than one has decided it is.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

One error that I have seen mentioned comes from the Gospel of Mark in which Mark quotes Jesus as referring to King David entering the Temple on the Sabbath and eating the consecrated bread "when Abiathar was the High Priest". Mark 2:25-26.

The problem there, Charco, is that when I click on your link to Mark 2 it doesn't actually say "when Abiather was the High Priest". It actually says something very different - "in the days of Abiather the High Priest". Could you tell me which Bible translation you are citing, as it doesn't correspond with any English translation on my bookshelf or with my understanding of the Greek?

Did you actually look this up in a Bible, or are you just cutting and pasting from dubious sources?

I read a newspaper article recently in which the author spoke of prisoners being executed in Texas "when President George W Bush was Governor". Now, you and I both know that George Bush was not actually President at the time when he was Governor of Texas - but (unless we are incredibly pedantic) we don't start accusing the journalist of error. He is perfecty justified in using the Presidential title to let his readers know that this trigger happy governor was indeed the same individual who later became President.

The prediction was wrong. Remember that he claimed that not one stone would be left on top of the other. Sorry Jesus, you must have forgotten about the Western Wall on Temple Mount. I reckon he picked one of the only buildings in the city which has some stonework still intact two millenia later, he couldn't have been much more wrong.

Nil points for that one. If you read the prophecy of Jesus a bit more carefully you will see he was speaking of the Temple buildings that were part of Herod's Temple. These were constructed on the Temple Mount. As was clearly obvious last time I visited Jerusalem, the western wall was actually a retaining wall for the Temple Mount. No stones of the buildings that the disciples would have pointed to remain standing on one another.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

I read a newspaper article recently in which the author spoke of prisoners being executed in Texas "when President George W Bush was Governor". Now, you and I both know that George Bush was not actually President at the time when he was Governor of Texas - but (unless we are incredibly pedantic) we don't start accusing the journalist of error. He is perfecty justified in using the Presidential title to let his readers know that this trigger happy governor was indeed the same individual who later became President.

The journalist would be justified in this case, but I don't think you are comparing like with like. George Bush is the subject of the article and his position at the time of writing was President. Abiathar played no role in the story of David and the bread and was not the High Priest at the time of Mark's writing. He has no real place in the analogy except on the technicality in that he was alive at the time.

Your comparison is poor. A better modern comparison would be for a historical account to say something like "In the days of President George W. Bush the USA declared war on Vietnam resulting in serious casualities to both sides in a long drawn out conflict." To any reasonable observer this is extremely misleading to say the least and most would conclude that the author of the quote had simply made a mistake.

If you were to see this quote in a couple of hundred years time would you happily accept it as being accurate on a technicality or would you conclude a mistake was made?

If you read the prophecy of Jesus a bit more carefully you will see he was speaking of the Temple buildings that were part of Herod's Temple. These were constructed on the Temple Mount. As was clearly obvious last time I visited Jerusalem, the western wall was actually a retaining wall for the Temple Mount. No stones of the buildings that the disciples would have pointed to remain standing on one another.

I guess we come back full circle to the question of translations. The English account is not clear what Jesus was referring to in his prophecy, when he makes the prediction he is standing outside the temple and seems to refer to multiple constructions as he talks in the plural. The Jews today certainly regard the Western Wall as the last remaining structure of the Temple, not as just an unimportant wall outside where the Temple was. But I don't know, perhaps the original Greek quotation adequately distinguishes between a wall and the Temple. At any rate even if I am generous and allow that the entire temple was destroyed, it is still a pretty unimpressive prediction.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Your comparison is poor. A better modern comparison would be for a historical account to say something like "In the days of President George W. Bush the USA declared war on Vietnam resulting in serious casualities to both sides in a long drawn out conflict." To any reasonable observer this is extremely misleading to say the least and most would conclude that the author of the quote had simply made a mistake.

If you were to see this quote in a couple of hundred years time would you happily accept it as being accurate on a technicality or would you conclude a mistake was made?

Your comparison is much worse than mine. Bush was not in Vietnam. Abiathar was at the Tabernacle.

Abiathar played no role in the story of David and the bread and was not the High Priest at the time of Mark's writing. He has no real place in the analogy except on the technicality in that he was alive at the time.

He played no role in the story? Try reading 1 Samuel 22:6-23. As a result of David's actions the priests were slaughtered with only Abiather surviving. Abiather then fled to David for protection giving David the endorsement of the sole surviving priest. Abiather plays a very central role in the story and, if he was better known to Jesus' listeners than his father, it would be natural to speak of the event of occurring "in the days of Abiather the High Priest" or even "in the days of King David".

I guess we come back full circle to the question of translations. The English account is not clear what Jesus was referring to in his prophecy,

Au contraire, it is very clear.

Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down." (Matthew 24:1-2)

Crystal clear.

The Jews today certainly regard the Western Wall as the last remaining structure of the Temple, not as just an unimportant wall outside where the Temple was.

It is not an unimportant wall to the Jews. It is the only remaining portion of the Temple and therefore incredibly important to the Jews. The reason why it is the only bit remaining? Because all the actual buildings were destroyed so that not one stone was left standing on another.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Your comparison is much worse than mine. Bush was not in Vietnam. Abiathar was at the Tabernacle.

I was just following on from your previous point that as long as the passage says "in the days of..." and the subject happens to be alive at that point then any refererence to his later period of rule is acceptable.

Had Mark wrote "In the days of Ahimilech the High Priest..." then I could not complain. This is absolutely correct and not misleading at all.

For the sake of argument though lets say Mark was mistaken and he actually did think Abiathar was the High Priest at the time, it is then easy to see him writing "In the days of Abiathar the High Priest..." As it happens this would be indistinguishable from we actually find in Mark, the erroneous sentence is exactly the same as the one found in Mark. Mark had one way of being absolutely correct and another way which the difference between error and accuracy is highly ambiguous, Mark does not use the 100% accurate way, he uses the ambiguous way. Therefore it is impossible to determine whether or not his intention when writing was to explain accurately that Abiathar was alive at the point but not High Priest or that he mistakenly believed Abiathar was High Priest at the time. If you cannot know Mark's intention when writing then you can't just simply assume a contested passage to be correct in order to support Biblical inerrancy.

Au contraire, it is very clear.


Crystal clear.

Not at all. I would like to know what the 1st Century Aramaic word for buildings encompassed. As walls are structure which are built does this mean that they too are included? In English as it is written I would agree with you, I would not strictly class a wall as a building, but I don't know the context in which Jesus was speaking.

As a little exercise though I'm just trying to put myself in the position of one of the disciples present at the time. Standing in the courtyard of the Temple, in awe of the beautiful building and the massive surrounding walls, perhaps if I heard Jesus say "'Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down" I think I could easily see myself concluding he also included the Temple walls.

It is the only remaining portion of the Temple

So was it part of the Temple or not? Here you seem to be including it as part of the Temple and earlier you were saying that it wasn't.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Therefore it is impossible to determine whether or not his intention when writing was to explain accurately that Abiathar was alive at the point but not High Priest or that he mistakenly believed Abiathar was High Priest at the time. If you cannot know Mark's intention when writing then you can't just simply assume a contested passage to be correct in order to support Biblical inerrancy

But I'm not quoting it in support of inerrancy, am I? You are quoting it to disprove inerrancy. It would only disprove inerrancy if it can be determined that Mark absolutely believed Abiather to be high priest at the time. You have, in the above quote, admitted that it is impossible to determine whether that was Mark's intention or not. Therefore you have managed to disprove your own argument. Congratulations.

Not at all. I would like to know what the 1st Century Aramaic word for buildings encompassed. As walls are structure which are built does this mean that they too are included? In English as it is written I would agree with you, I would not strictly class a wall as a building, but I don't know the context in which Jesus was speaking.

As a little exercise though I'm just trying to put myself in the position of one of the disciples present at the time. Standing in the courtyard of the Temple, in awe of the beautiful building and the massive surrounding walls, perhaps if I heard Jesus say "'Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down" I think I could easily see myself concluding he also included the Temple walls.

All of which tells us a lot about your imagination but little about what Jesus was prophesying.

So was it part of the Temple or not? Here you seem to be including it as part of the Temple and earlier you were saying that it wasn't.

It was not part of the Temple buildings. It was part of the overall Temple site. It was a retaining wall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retaining_wall

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It was not part of the Temple buildings. It was part of the overall Temple site. It was a retaining wall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retaining_wall

You should run for political office PDN :pac:

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair

"It depends on how you define alone…" –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You should run for political office PDN :pac:

"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair

"It depends on how you define alone…" –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony

So you think a retaining wall that helps prop up the Temple Mount site is the same thing as a building constructed on the Temple Mount?

When you stand before the Western wall (a very memorable experience) and look up at the Temple Mount way up above, you realise that the two are very distinct. The Dome of the Rock is a building on the Temple Mount. The wall down below is not.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So you think a retaining wall that helps prop up the Temple Mount site is the same thing as a building constructed on the Temple Mount?

You think that when the Bible says the four corners of the world the authors know that the Earth is in fact round but are using a figure of speech? :rolleyes:

You are perfectly happy to apply non-specifics when it suits, and when it doesn't suit you are perfectly happy to get down to the specific meaning of specific words applied in a specific context.

Jesus turned around after walking away from the temple and in a general sense said that not one stone "here" will be left standing on another. The wailing wall falls into "here" in that context. Unless the wall is still standing after the destruction, in which case one arguing the accuracy of the prophecy needs to argue that it doesn't.

This is the problem with such prophecies, Charco is correct that the "prophecy" is so ridiculously vague as to allow pretty much any interpretation one likes years later.

You are no doubt going to argue that Jesus standing outside the temple looking around wouldn't include the structures of the mount itself.

Anything I can say to cast doubt on that? I seriously doubt it because you have already made up your mind that Jesus' prophecy must have been accurate, so what ever was the later situation that is what Jesus meant.

PDN wrote: »

When you stand before the Western wall (a very memorable experience) and look up at the Temple Mount way up above, you realise that the two are very distinct. The Dome of the Rock is a building on the Temple Mount. The wall down below is not.

Yes but Jesus wasn't talking specifically about the Temple buildings. The disciples were the ones who asked about the buildings. He was talking about everything he saw before him.

"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

The narrative was Jesus leaving the temple, his disciples asking about specific buildings and Jesus turning around and saying that everything here will soon be gone, in a sort of "don't worry about it" way. Asking about specific building is ultimately pointless when everything is going to be teared down.

The wall makes up the Temple Mount as you say it is a retaining wall supporting the expansion of the mount. When Jesus stands outside the temple and looks around and says everything here will be torn down it is very hard to seriously argue that "here" does not also include the stone structures of the mount itself.

Unless of course one has to argue that is the case.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

But I'm not quoting it in support of inerrancy, am I? You are quoting it to disprove inerrancy. It would only disprove inerrancy if it can be determined that Mark absolutely believed Abiather to be high priest at the time. You have, in the above quote, admitted that it is impossible to determine whether that was Mark's intention or not.

But I'm not the one making extraordinary claims about a book. I have given a quotation in which the easiest reading is that the author mistakenly thought Abiathar was High Priest at the time.

We know mistakes happen all the time and had this been in any other book the assumption would be that the author was in error and got his High Priests confused but because it is the Bible there is a special effort to allow for this apparent chronological error.

But let us not get too tied up in this rather obscure passage, I wouldn't want it to seem like this is the only, in indeed toughest, problem the inerrant Bible claimants have to deal with.

- Was Jesus born during the census of Quirinius (6 AD) as Luke claims or during the reign of Herod the Great as Matthew claims (Herod dying in 4 BC). Both can't be right.

- How many generations were between Jesus and David through Joseph? Was it 42 as in Luke or 28 as in Matthew? Now I expect you will claim that Luke was giving Mary's genealogy, that might explain it, except Luke explicitly says Joseph and doesn't once mention Mary in his genealogy.

- Did Joseph and Mary originally live in Bethlehem, move to Egypt, and return to settle in Nazareth as in Matthew, or did they live in Nazareth, move to Bethlehem for the census, go to Jerusalem to present Jesus, and then return home to Nazareth as in Luke?

- In John 2:23 Jesus is in Jerusalem, he talks to Nicodemus and then he goes to the land of Judea. The problem here is that he was already in Judea, Jerusalem being its capital. How can he go to a land that he is already in? That there is a problem here is evidenced by the way, for example, the NIV translators intentionally mistranslate the passage to say that Jesus went out into the Judean countryside. This is not the correct translation but it does hide away the problem.

- Who went to the tomb? Was it Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as in Mark? Or was it Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as in Matthew? Or did Joanna and other women accompany these two as in Luke? Or perhaps it was just Mary Magdalene as John claims?

-Did they visit the tomb while it was still dark as in John or after sunrise as in Mark?

-Was the tomb open when they arrived? Mark, Luke and John say yes, Matthew says no.

-Who did they find at the tomb? Was it one man, two men, one angel, or two angels?

- When the tomb was discovered did Jesus hang around in order to appear to Mary Magdalene as in John or was he already enroute to Galillee as in Mark?

These are just some questions that arise in the Gospels, there are plenty more.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

You think that when the Bible says the four corners of the world the authors know that the Earth is in fact round but are using a figure of speech? :rolleyes:

No, I think the authors had no idea whether the earth was flat, round or triangular. They never attempted to discuss the shape of the earth because that was irrelevant to the points they were making. They used conventional language of their day (and indeed of our day) to speak of a message going out everywhere as being spread 'to the four corners of the world'.

You and I both refer to the fourth day of the week as 'Wednesday'. This literally means 'Woden's Day' - meaning that day was dedicated to the Viking god. Now, if we say "It rained on Wednesday," that does not mean that we are affirming that Woden actually exists, and our statement still remains truthful. Now, what if a pagan, who actually believes in Woden, makes the same statement that "It rained on Wednesday"? The fact that his belief in Woden is wrong does not mean that his statement is now false. The statement is true and it remains true whether the speaker believes in Woden or not.

If someone is suffering indigestion, then they may say "I have heartburn". The truth of that statement is not affected by whether they understand 'heartburn' to be a figure of speech, or whether they really believe their physical heart os overheated.

If a schoolchild says "The lead in my pencil is nearly gone", the truth of the statement is not affected by whether the child actually believes the inside of their pencil to be lead or understands it to be graphite.

If someone says "People are coming from the four corners of the earth," they are using a conventional figure of speech to convey the meaning that people are coming from all over the world. The truth of that statement is not affected by whether the speaker actually believes the earth has corners or not.

You are perfectly happy to apply non-specifics when it suits, and when it doesn't suit you are perfectly happy to get down to the specific meaning of specific words applied in a specific context.

I am perfectly happy to concentrate on specific context as when Jesus responds to a question by the disciples that is specifically stated to refer to buildings.

If I ask my wife why there are packets of cornflakes, rice krispies, and cocopops left on the kitchen table then I am referring to those specific things and I reasonably expect her answer to refer to those same things. If she answers, "All these things will be put in the cupboard shortly" then I do not understand her as including the table on which the ceral boxes are standing as being part of "all these things."

I am simply using, and interpreting, language in a normal way. You, however, are so desperate to score a point against Christian belief that you are trying to redifine language in a quite ludicrous way.

Face the truth. This so-called 'failed prophecy' concerning the western wall is commonly used by Islamic fundamentalists to try to discredit Christianity. It has since been borrowed by atheist websites. Charco, not for the first time, has borrowed this kind of second-hand Islamic propaganda and has managed to end up arguing against himself and disproving his own assertion. Your attempt to rescue him is singularly ineffective.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

But I'm not the one making extraordinary claims about a book. I have given a quotation in which the easiest reading is that the author mistakenly thought Abiathar was High Priest at the time.

We know mistakes happen all the time and had this been in any other book the assumption would be that the author was in error and got his High Priests confused but because it is the Bible there is a special effort to allow for this apparent chronological error.

But let us not get too tied up in this rather obscure passage, I wouldn't want it to seem like this is the only, in indeed toughest, problem the inerrant Bible claimants have to deal with.

In post #13 you claimed that Mark made an error.
You also misquoted Scripture to try to support your point. You have not answered my question as to where this quote came from.
a) Are you quoting from a particular translation? If so, then which one?
b) Did you make up the quote yourself?
c) Are you now reduced to cutting and pasting biblical quotes from atheist or Islamic websites without bothering to check your sources?

Then in post #18 you state that it is impossible to know whether Mark was making such a claim or not. That directly contradicts your assertion in post #13.

- Was Jesus born during the census of Quirinius (6 AD) as Luke claims or during the reign of Herod the Great as Matthew claims (Herod dying in 4 BC). Both can't be right.

- How many generations were between Jesus and David through Joseph? Was it 42 as in Luke or 28 as in Matthew? Now I expect you will claim that Luke was giving Mary's genealogy, that might explain it, except Luke explicitly says Joseph and doesn't once mention Mary in his genealogy.

- Did Joseph and Mary originally live in Bethlehem, move to Egypt, and return to settle in Nazareth as in Matthew, or did they live in Nazareth, move to Bethlehem for the census, go to Jerusalem to present Jesus, and then return home to Nazareth as in Luke?

- In John 2:23 Jesus is in Jerusalem, he talks to Nicodemus and then he goes to the land of Judea. The problem here is that he was already in Judea, Jerusalem being its capital. How can he go to a land that he is already in? That there is a problem here is evidenced by the way, for example, the NIV translators intentionally mistranslate the passage to say that Jesus went out into the Judean countryside. This is not the correct translation but it does hide away the problem.

- Who went to the tomb? Was it Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as in Mark? Or was it Mary Magdalene and the other Mary as in Matthew? Or did Joanna and other women accompany these two as in Luke? Or perhaps it was just Mary Magdalene as John claims?

-Did they visit the tomb while it was still dark as in John or after sunrise as in Mark?

-Was the tomb open when they arrived? Mark, Luke and John say yes, Matthew says no.

-Who did they find at the tomb? Was it one man, two men, one angel, or two angels?

- When the tomb was discovered did Jesus hang around in order to appear to Mary Magdalene as in John or was he already enroute to Galillee as in Mark?

These are just some questions that arise in the Gospels, there are plenty more

Feel free to start a thread on any of those questions and I will derive great pleasure from debating them with you.

We will not try to combine them in one thread as it is too easy for you to pick a quarrel over one issue, then when you are proved wrong, try to mask that by quickly raising another question.

I love the way how critics of Christianity loudly proclaim that they have discovered a devastating contradiction, then, when it is quickly shown to be not so devastating, claim that it is obscure and not important at all - cue a quick change of subject!

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

It has since been borrowed by atheist websites. Charco, not for the first time, has borrowed this kind of second-hand Islamic propaganda

Amazingly enough I didn't borrow this from second-hand Islamic propoganda, this was a first hand authentic Charco propoganda that I thought up all by myself.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

They used conventional language of their day (and indeed of our day) to speak of a message going out everywhere as being spread 'to the four corners of the world'.
....

I am perfectly happy to concentrate on specific context as when Jesus responds to a question by the disciples that is specifically stated to refer to buildings.

Can you not see the nonsense in that position.

When they say "the four corner" they are not referring to the actual four corners of the Earth. That is certainly a reasonable interpretation.

When Jesus says all you see "here" he is referring to the specific buildings that the disciples asked about and nothing else. That is nonsense.

You are selectively picking when you take something that literally and when you don't depending on how correct you need the statement to actually be.

The point Jesus was conveying with his statement is that everything here will be torn down. He is dismissing the specific questions of the disciples about the specific buildings because they are pointless. Everything is going to be destroyed, the specific buildings are irrelevant.

The language gymnastics you give out about when dealing with something like the "four corners" quote you embrace when it suits the purpose of your religion to demonstrate that Jesus was correct in the specifics of his prediction.

He wasn't correct. He was incorrect. Some of the Temple Mount was destroyed, the Temples for example. Some of it wasn't, the stone foundations such as the wall. When Jesus looked around and said that everything one sees here will be torn down that prediction was inaccurate. Some of what one would have seen was torn down, the rest wasn't.

The idea that Jesus when he said "all these things" was only talking about the specific building that the disciple was specifically looking at at that specific moment of time is just silly.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

In post #13 you claimed that Mark made an error.
You also misquoted Scripture to try to support your point. You have not answered my question as to where this quote came from.
a) Are you quoting from a particular translation? If so, then which one?
b) Did you make up the quote yourself?
c) Are you now reduced to cutting and pasting biblical quotes from atheist or Islamic websites without bothering to check your sources?

My quote came from The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. I don't have the book in front of me at the minute as it is at home so I'm afraid I can't provide the page number to completely satisfy your curiosity. My quote was exactly as presented in the book, if I recall correctly it was in the introductory chapter in which Ehrman recalled writing a long paper during his undergraduate years at Princeton Theological College in which he tried to work around the problem in Mark just as you did here, as Ehrman also was a believer in Biblical inerrancy, but his tutor, Bruce Metzger, when correcting his paper simply wrote at the end "Maybe Mark just made a mistake."

I am not sure where the author, Prof. Bart Ehrman, derived his quote from but I suspect this may have been his own translation as in his other works he provides his own translation for early Greek, Latin and Coptic manuscripts, for example the very interesting book "Lost Scriptures" in which he translates various non-canonical Christian texts.

So no, your accusation that my quote was cut and pasted from an Islamic propoganda website is quite wrong and obviously an attempt to discredit my arguments. It is from the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Bart Ehrman, one of the most authoritative textual critics of the New Testament alive today. So I have provided my source, any futher problems you might have with it you can take up with Prof. Ehrman.

Satisfied?

PDN

Charco wrote: »

My quote came from The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. I don't have the book in front of me at the minute as it is at home so I'm afraid I can't provide the page number to completely satisfy your curiosity. My quote was exactly as presented in the book, if I recall correctly it was in the introductory chapter in which Ehrman recalled writing a long paper during his undergraduate years at Princeton Theological College in which he tried to work around the problem in Mark just as you did here, as Ehrman also was a believer in Biblical inerrancy, but his tutor, Bruce Metzger, when correcting his paper simply wrote at the end "Maybe Mark just made a mistake."

I am not sure where the author, Prof. Bart Ehrman, derived his quote from but I suspect this may have been his own translation as in his other works he provides his own translation for early Greek, Latin and Coptic manuscripts, for example the very interesting book "Lost Scriptures" in which he translates various non-canonical Christian texts.

So no, your accusation that my quote was cut and pasted from an Islamic propoganda website is quite wrong and obviously an attempt to discredit my arguments. It is from the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Bart Ehrman, one of the most authoritative textual critics of the New Testament alive today. So I have provided my source, any futher problems you might have with it you can take up with Prof. Ehrman.

Satisfied?

Ehrmann is indeed a biblical scholar, although I don't think anyone except his own family (or atheists who see him as an ally) would describe him as "one of the most authoritative textual critics of the New Testament alive today".

I have always thought Ehrmann to be a highly qualified scholar who takes some extreme minority viewpoints in his field, but nevertheless sincere. However, if he really is substituting his own translations (conveniently slanted to support his viewpoints) instead of translations that are accepted by linguists and other scholars, then that certainly would affect my opinion as to his sincerity.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

The idea that Jesus when he said "all these things" was only talking about the specific building that the disciple was specifically looking at at that specific moment of time is just silly.

It was clearly referring to the buildings (plural) on the Temple Mount. Any other interpretation is silly. Why not widen it even further and claim that Jesus was referring to every building in Jerusalem? Heck, you might as well go the whole hog and pretend he was referring to every building in the world! Why let the silliness stop too soon?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

It was clearly referring to the buildings (plural) on the Temple Mount. Any other interpretation is silly.

Please quote the line or passage that lead you to that conclusion.

PDN wrote: »

Why not widen it even further and claim that Jesus was referring to every building in Jerusalem?

Because they were standing outside the temple on the Temple Mount, and remember we aren't engaging in language gymnastics. If an atheist poster came on this forum saying the prophecy was false because you can see all of Jerusalem from the Temple Mount and the city wasn't destroyed you would dismiss that as language gymnastics, and rightly so. Jesus is not talking about everything one can literally see. Equally he is not talking about the specific building they are looking at at that specific time.

He is talking about what is there.

I stand on an oil rig (applies because you have both the buildings and the foundations, ie the temples and the temple mount) and someone asks what do I think about the new canteen and I say don't worry about it, all you see will be torn apart.

Now do you think I'm saying that the buildings will be destroyed leaving the oil rig itself intact, or do you think I mean the oil rig itself will be destroyed?

The Temple Mount itself was a thing. It was made of earth and (more importantly) stone. It was a construction, a human construction. When Jesus stands on it and say all "here" will be torn down he is including the temple mount.

Any other interpretation is simply language gymnastics, the type you are heavily critical of yourself when it suits you.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Please quote the line or passage that lead you to that conclusion.

Maybe these?

Mark 13:1-2 (NIV)
1 As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"

2 "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

Mark 13:1-2 (NKJ)
1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe these?

Mark 13:1-2 (NIV)
1 As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"

2 "Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

Mark 13:1-2 (NKJ)
1 And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

2 And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

well yes, that is exactly the point.

Jesus was not talking about the specific temples, he was talking about everything at the site, all stone buildings at the temple mount. That includes constructions of the temple mount itself, the walls and gates Unless you want to argue that they are not buildings...

Pompey Magnus

If the Western Wall is just a retaining wall which was not part of the Temple as is being argued here then can someone explain the religious significance of the wall today? The historical significance is obvious, but the religious significance can only be explained if it is still regarded as part of Solomon's Temple.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

well yes, that is exactly the point.

Jesus was not talking about the specific temples, he was talking about everything at the site, all stone buildings at the temple mount. That includes constructions of the temple mount itself, the walls and gates Unless you want to argue that they are not buildings...

The word for buildings is oikodomas. This is derived from the normal Greek word for house (oikia - from which we get our English word economics - 'laws of the household').

A few years ago I entered into what the King James Version would refer to as 'no small disputation' with the Revenue Commissioners over a site I had purchased. The site had planning permission, the foundation slab already existed, all I had to do was build the house. The Revenue Commissioners (God bless them!) wanted me to pay stamp duty on the basis that there were no buildings on the site, and that a foundation slab did not constitute a building. I fought the Law but the Law won. I had to pay the stamp duty because, as my rather expensive solicitor explained, in normal language the word 'building' does not include a foundation slab.

Neither, I might add, does the word 'building' include your gate posts, gates or even, if your site is on a slope, a retaining wall.

Give it up, Wicknight, you're not convincing anyone. The biblical text clearly refers to buildings.

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. (Lewis Carroll - Through the Looking Glass)

If you keep redefining language like Humpty Dumpty then don't be too surprised if you suffer a great fall etc.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

If the Western Wall is just a retaining wall which was not part of the Temple as is being argued here then can someone explain the religious significance of the wall today? The historical significance is obvious, but the religious significance can only be explained if it is still regarded as part of Solomon's Temple.

Come on, it's not as if this is hard to understand.

All the Temple buildings, constituting the holiest place in the world to Jews, were totally destroyed with not even one stone being left on top of another. Therefore the only thing the Jews have left is the retaining wall. They would love to rebuild the Temple, but there's a garish big mosque sat where the buildings were. If they destroy the mosque then WWIII kicks off. If the wall was considered to be a building then there would be nothing to stop the Jews constructing another Temple down at the base of the wall. They won't do that because the only place for Temple buildings, in their view, is up on top of the Temple Mount. Therefore they pray at all they have left - the retaining wall - and look forward to the day when there will once again be buildings on the Temple Mount.

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

well yes, that is exactly the point.

Jesus was not talking about the specific temples, he was talking about everything at the site, all stone buildings at the temple mount. That includes constructions of the temple mount itself, the walls and gates Unless you want to argue that they are not buildings...

To my understanding, and in the English language context of this debate, the word building can mean either:

1) The act of constructing something.

Or

2) "A relatively permanent enclosed construction over a plot of land, having a roof and usually windows and often more than one level, used for any of a wide variety of activities, as living, entertaining, or manufacturing."

Of course, you'll disagree, but of the 10 of so definitions of the word 'buildings' I've encountered on-line, all would favour the idea that the word is applicable to a structure like a house, factory, hall, etc. In other words, definition 2.

However, taking your definition of the word buildings (noun in the plural) to include everything that is constructed - houses, walls, gates, roads etc, etc - I would assume you see 1000s of buildings in this picture of the Aran Islands, and not 20 or so houses along with countless walls?

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus was not talking about the specific temples, he was talking about everything at the site, all stone buildings at the temple mount.

You state that any other interpretation is simply language gymnastics. Well, given that Jesus and the disciples had just walked out of the temple and were talking about buildings (and this is a buildings in the scenes of the definition 2), I think that it is you who are doing the gymnastics.

PDN

OK everybody, time for a quiz. Look carefully at this picture:

Now, which would you describe as a building? The wall in the foreground? Or the thing that looks like a house in the background?

Be careful now, this is an interactive quiz - if you give the obvious answer then a little troll will pop up and accuse you of language gymnastics!

Pompey Magnus

Again with the poor comparisons? Let us instead imagine standing in the middle of St Peter's Square in Rome.



Now lets image I say " Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Would you assume I was only referring to St Peter's Basillica and was not including the collonades around the square?

PDN

Charco wrote: »

Would you assume I was only referring to St Peter's Basillica and was not including the collonades around the square?

You think a colonnade is equivalent to a retaining wall?

Do you actually understand what a retaining wall is?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

You think a colonnade is equivalent to a retaining wall?

Do you actually understand what a retaining wall is?

Do you understand what the Temple Mount is?



Are you telling me if you were standing outside the temple and you looked around and saw someone say all the stone "here" will be torn down that they were not talking about the walls of the mount itself, only the temple?

Such an interpretation defines reason

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you telling me if you were standing outside the temple and you looked around and saw someone say all the stone "here" will be torn down that they were not talking about the walls of the mount itself, only the temple?

If I was standing 'outside the Temple' (ie on the Temple Mount but outside the Temple building) and I heard someone say "Do you see all these great buildings? Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down" then I certainly would not think, "Ah, he's obviously not actually talking about buildings but rather about that old retaining wall that we can't actually see but which is over that edge over there."

Such an interpretation defines reason

My interpretation is certainly reasonable, but I would hardly go so far as to claim that it defines reason.

Your interpretation, on the other hand, defies reason.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

that old retaining wall that we can't actually see but which is over that edge over there."

I'm sorry did you miss the big picture in the middle of my post ... ?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm sorry did you miss the big picture in the middle of my post ... ?

I don't need your cute little model. I've actually been there and had a good look at the site.

studiorat

Interesting debate A place on my list of places to visit too.
If I might interject. Surely a statement like "all this will be knocked down" or "no stone left unturned" or whatever. I paraphrase intentionally. Anyways it's a pretty safe prophesy in all fairness. I mean eventually every building will fall in the fullness of time.

Pompey Magnus

studiorat wrote: »

I mean eventually every building will fall in the
fullness of time.

Absolutely, and in addition to this prominant culturally important buildings which happened to be located in rebellious cities in the Roman Empire had a very strange tendancy of finding themselves razed to the ground. You didn't have to be the Divine Son of God to know that the destruction of the Temple was a very real prospect, Jesus wasn't the only person predicting that this would happen, there were other people who could see it coming too as Josephus recalled.

Plus there is the fact that it took 40 years for this to occur, this is not an inconsiderable length of time. Jesus could see the warning signs that rising Jewish extremism could easily provoke a deadly response from Rome and the logical target for the response would be the Temple. I would rank Jesus' predictive power as being pretty much at the same level of the economist George Lee. Given enough time and given pretty obvious evidence it is quite easy to make accurate predictions.

JimiTime

Charco wrote: »

Absolutely, and in addition to this prominant culturally important buildings which happened to be located in rebellious cities in the Roman Empire had a very strange tendancy of finding themselves razed to the ground. You didn't have to be the Divine Son of God to know that the destruction of the Temple was a very real prospect, Jesus wasn't the only person predicting that this would happen, there were other people who could see it coming too as Josephus recalled.

Plus there is the fact that it took 40 years for this to occur, this is not an inconsiderable length of time. Jesus could see the warning signs that rising Jewish extremism could easily provoke a deadly response from Rome and the logical target for the response would be the Temple. I would rank Jesus' predictive power as being pretty much at the same level of the economist George Lee. Given enough time and given pretty obvious evidence it is quite easy to make accurate predictions.

I'd LOL if I didn't think it was so tragic. I suppose Jesus said that it will all seem foolish to those perishing though.

Actually, things like the above tell me that faith is actually a virtue.

studiorat

JimiTime wrote: »

Actually, things like the above tell me that faith is actually a virtue.

I was wondering when this would come into it.

So when does faith become virtuous?

Why is it virtuous?

It would appear it's meaning has changed once again.
Trust is a virtue, not faith, in a religious context anyway. Why is believing in god deemed more virtuous than not believing in god?

Pompey Magnus

JimiTime wrote: »

I'd LOL if I didn't think it was so tragic. I suppose Jesus said that it will all seem foolish to those perishing though.

Actually, things like the above tell me that faith is actually a virtue.

OK, so can you please explain what is so impressive about Jesus' prediction that the Temple would be demolished one day in the unspecified future by unspecified agents for unspecified reasons?

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

It would appear it's meaning has changed once again.
Trust is a virtue, not faith, in a religious context anyway. Why is believing in god deemed more virtuous than not believing in god?

The meaning hasn't changed - certainly not in the last 2000 or so years. Read 1 Corinthians 13 for clarification on what Paul constitutes as virtue.

Why is believing in God more Virtuous than not believing in him? I'll give you a clue: you are in the Christianity forum and asking the question of Christians.

studiorat

That's a beautiful passage. The King James is pure poetry sometimes.
Faith is of no use without charity or love, depending on the version you are reading. The word faith seems constant enough though.

I would have thought the Christianity forum would be the perfect place to ask why faith is a virtue. You are suggesting I ask in the A&A forum?

Since the discussion is/was on the bible a quote would suffice.

EDIT: this is the wrong thread! oops! Apols...
same debate going on next door!