A Discussion/Debate on Religion & Other Closely Related Topics

[aretood2]

Sure, different conclusions. But they can't be contradictory conclusions of an objective nature.

Interpreting any text always results in contradictory conclusions if it is big and complex enough. Now what do you mean by "of an objective nature?"

I recall Womble mentioning this. Women had extraordinary freedoms, for that time. But not for our century, and it is not acceptable in this century. Yet people still accept that it is eternal truth.

Reading the bible, I see no reason why women can have equal political and social rights while fulfilling God's commandments. Are they expected to be humble in regards to their parents and husbands? Yeah. I think that is the only area of contention that any secular feminist would have. For many women, it is enough. Since I am not a woman I do feel that I can only discuss this to a certain depth.

I'm pointing out that Jesus was sent by God, to his death, to Hell for three days. He was sent, according to John. Jesus himself was extremely unhappy with his fate until the Garden.

Yeah...Acts 2:31 quotes David from Psalm 16:10 saying “He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in HELL, neither His flesh did see corruption.” KJV. The verses from Ephasians and Peter that you are referring to state that he went, as in it was through his own agency that he went. Matthew 28:18 states that Jesus had God's authority, thus why he was able to go without being sent by God. Now there are a few issues with "hell" and the context provided by each scripture in regards to this, which I think are beyond the point. Mentioning Jesus as being sent anywhere post partum is not biblicaly sound.

[aretood2]

And so we must now assume that there are so many idioms, and we can't take anything seriously...I don't know where you're going...

Allow me to illustrate:

Jelgate flew by my house in his car, that guy is crazy!

Now, am I saying that he actually was flying in his car as if the car could take off and remain in the air? Or was I saying that he sped by very quickly?

When Jesus said that one should cut off an arm if it bothered them he was using an expression just like my illustration. When speaking to a cultured individual of the same time and culture as myself I do not need to lampshade an expression by saying "Oh that was a figure of speech. Do not take it literally!" they should automatically recognize it. So when you tell me something shocking and I say "Get out of town!" or "Shut the front door!" You won't think that I want you to skip town (As in to go away) or actually shut whatever qualifies as a front door.

By idioms I also meant expressions that are known well enough within a culture, and emphatic language as well, that they would be automatically recognized by members of such culture.

I mention Jesus' advice about the cutting off of the arms because you once implied that you took that as him literally advising amputation. No christian in History of any worth that I know of has ever suggested such a thing.

For that reason alone, reading the bible at face value without considering ancient Hebrew and Greek idioms, expressions, and original language fegurative language is negligent at best and dangerous at worst.

Now we don't need to assume since Jews have been kind enough to talk and talk and talk and talk and talk about all of their ancestor's colorful expressions and idioms and have also been nice enough to write prolifically about them for thousands of years. So we know of the majority of the expressions in the old testament. We also have countless examples of such language from the Greeks and early Christians and so on for our Greek portions of the bible. We just need to study and read carefully.

You are correct. And currently, there are some that are attempting to do just that. But if it happens, could you see the State of Israel standing for that? For the instatement of the brutal practises declared by Halakha? Are you kidding? One of the Conservative Jews I know, and has far more friends in the Jewish community than I do, says that it will never happen, and that most of them acknowledge that while the Temple may or may not be built, that the practices of stoning will never be instated, especially if they want to be taken as a serious Western nation. A la carte. Another example of a la carte? The Jewish Kingdom. As far as I know, there is absolutely no attempt to turn Israel from a Presidency to a Kingdom. That's a very pivotal aspect of Jewish law, and actually has a chance, albeit really really small. But most Orthodox Jews? They don't give a crap about that, and they have no intent to advocate for a Kingdom. There are also some that do not mind if the Halakha is edited to align with history. Haredis don't, some "lesser Orthodox" don't mind. But this is a la carte.

More snags here, actually.

Those who are attempting that are a la carte themselves. According to Old Testament prophecies, the Messiah will reestablish the divinely appointed monarchy. According to Jewish Tradition, there will never be another Prophet of God, the New Testament also says as much. So the authority to build a temple sanctioned by Jehovah of hosts is null until the Messiah comes. Without the temple and the kingdom and the court, these laws will always be biblicaly moot.

According to the old testament, with the Messiah's kingdom, the world to come will be ushered where all of mankind will know that Jehovah of hosts is the God of Israel and bow down to him. So there will be no need to worry about how Israel would look like to the rest of the world. It also mentions a new covenant and that Torah will no longer be written on stones (or books etc..) but in people's hearts. There will be no more sin, no more death, no more sickness.

I would like to bet that your conservative friend meant that the practices would not be revived in this world, not that it wouldn't be revived in the world to come. But then again, in the world to come there will be the Messiah as king and the who world will know the truth. Israel would not need to be worried about being taken seriously as a western nation. The nation of Israel would not even exist.

[jelgate]

I came back later to steal aretood's things and sold it on eBay

[aretood2]

I came back later to steal aretood's things and sold it on eBay

You fiend!!! *waits for the Messiah so I can have Jelly stoned to death* wait...there won't be anymore death >.>...YOU FIEND!!!!

[jelgate]

You things were garbage. Chinese level garbage. I only made $22.34

[Womble]

You are correct. And currently, there are some that are attempting to do just that. But if it happens, could you see the State of Israel standing for that? For the instatement of the brutal practises declared by Halakha? Are you kidding? One of the Conservative Jews I know, and has far more friends in the Jewish community than I do, says that it will never happen, and that most of them acknowledge that while the Temple may or may not be built, that the practices of stoning will never be instated, especially if they want to be taken as a serious Western nation.

You're kind of sort of right here but for all the wrong reasons.

First off, to give you perspective about your friend's opinion, "Conservative" Judaism isn't called so because it actually is conservative. It is called so because it is somewhat more conservative than the Reform Judaism from which it sprung. It was founded by people who, at some point, began to feel that the Reformists were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But the line between "Conservative" Jews, Reform Jews and atheist Jews is far more blurry than between these and Orthodox Judaism.

Second, there's no recorded instances of "legal" stoning being actually used EVER in the history of ancient Jewish kingdoms. The Bible mentions a grand total of three cases of stoning as punishment carried out in the Israelite society, all of them pre-kingdom. Historical records add none to the list. (Although there were some cases of mob stoning, which obviously doesn't belong in the same category).

Third, stoning, as any capital punishment, is extremely difficult to mandate under the Jewish law because the requirements for a case to merit capital punishment are so strict. Aretood listed only a small part of the conditions. Back in the days of the Sanhedrin, a court that condemned a man to death once in ten years was deemed "bloodthirsty". The state of Israel used death penalty once- on Eichmann- and I don't think it would matter to anyone, including Eichmann himself, whether he was to be hanged or stoned.

Another example of a la carte? The Jewish Kingdom. As far as I know, there is absolutely no attempt to turn Israel from a Presidency to a Kingdom. That's a very pivotal aspect of Jewish law, and actually has a chance, albeit really really small. But most Orthodox Jews? They don't give a crap about that, and they have no intent to advocate for a Kingdom. There are also some that do not mind if the Halakha is edited to align with history. Haredis don't, some "lesser Orthodox" don't mind. But this is a la carte.

Israel is not a "presidency", your dumbness. We are a Westminister-model parliamentary democracy

There's actually no reason why, should the Messiah come, Israel couldn't become a monarchy while continuing to function just fine as a democratic state. And I don't even need to make the obvious reference to Barack Obama and other Western leaders bowing humbly to the Saudi king, literally and otherwise.

You seem to associate "kingdom" strictly with absolute monarchies, The idea that a kingdom cannot be a "serious Western state" is pretty odd, seeing how a fair few Western states are formally constitutional monarchies. More interestingly, though, there exists- and is still practiced- a concept of elective monarchy, which can work well within a democratic state structure. Hell, we could probably replace the position of the President with that of a king- his authority and duties pretty much mirror those of the British queen as it is.

The reason the majority of Orthodox Jews aren't in the rush to advocate for a kingdom is simple- there's no urgency of any kind to do so. It's the end stage of a very long process that will begin when the Messiah comes. Can't have a kingdom with no one to put on the throne.

[lordofseas]

It was meant to be

I would say in more relies on the existance (or belief in the existance) of Jehovah than the gospels.

That's fair.

If you are going to argue the consistancy of the Bible, sure, but Jehova could exist without the bible could "he" not?

Yes, but he would not be as described then.

Au contraire, science does inded have limits, and the limit is the understanding of the person employing or investigating the science. Strangely enough, you could replace the 2 uses of the word science in my previous statement with the word religion and it would read just fine as well.

So, science is only limited by those who study it.

I disagree

That is a very interesting statement, why do we abhor it?

Main reason? It's violent. And I tend to abhor violence. I can't speak for others on this.

Interpreting any text always results in contradictory conclusions if it is big and complex enough. Now what do you mean by "of an objective nature?"

Exactly what I mean. See: Objectivity.

Reading the bible, I see no reason why women can have equal political and social rights while fulfilling God's commandments. Are they expected to be humble in regards to their parents and husbands? Yeah. I think that is the only area of contention that any secular feminist would have. For many women, it is enough. Since I am not a woman I do feel that I can only discuss this to a certain depth.

Humble is not the word I'd use. Deferring and servile seems adequate.

Yeah...Acts 2:31 quotes David from Psalm 16:10 saying “He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that His soul was not left in HELL, neither His flesh did see corruption.” KJV. The verses from Ephasians and Peter that you are referring to state that he went, as in it was through his own agency that he went. Matthew 28:18 states that Jesus had God's authority, thus why he was able to go without being sent by God. Now there are a few issues with "hell" and the context provided by each scripture in regards to this, which I think are beyond the point. Mentioning Jesus as being sent anywhere post partum is not biblicaly sound.

Correct, his soul wasn't left in hell, and his flesh never went there. That's not what I said. He was sent to Earth, to go to Hell, and return and ascend.

Allow me to illustrate:

Jelgate flew by my house in his car, that guy is crazy!

Yes, yes he is.

Now, am I saying that he actually was flying in his car as if the car could take off and remain in the air? Or was I saying that he sped by very quickly?

The second. Though there are cars that can now do that. Extremely expensive, though.

When Jesus said that one should cut off an arm if it bothered them he was using an expression just like my illustration. When speaking to a cultured individual of the same time and culture as myself I do not need to lampshade an expression by saying "Oh that was a figure of speech. Do not take it literally!" they should automatically recognize it. So when you tell me something shocking and I say "Get out of town!" or "Shut the front door!" You won't think that I want you to skip town (As in to go away) or actually shut whatever qualifies as a front door.

You would think that they would address the figurative nature for a book that's intended to speak to different cultures, and so on. But I digress.

By idioms I also meant expressions that are known well enough within a culture, and emphatic language as well, that they would be automatically recognized by members of such culture.

Note: The Gospels weren't recorded just for the sake of documentation. They were recorded 30 years after the death, for the sake of proselytism. The book of Luke is addressed to a Greek or Roman man, is it not?

I mention Jesus' advice about the cutting off of the arms because you once implied that you took that as him literally advising amputation. No christian in History of any worth that I know of has ever suggested such a thing.

And it's quite possible for some to take that literally.

For that reason alone, reading the bible at face value without considering ancient Hebrew and Greek idioms, expressions, and original language fegurative language is negligent at best and dangerous at worst.

Now we don't need to assume since Jews have been kind enough to talk and talk and talk and talk and talk about all of their ancestor's colorful expressions and idioms and have also been nice enough to write prolifically about them for thousands of years. So we know of the majority of the expressions in the old testament. We also have countless examples of such language from the Greeks and early Christians and so on for our Greek portions of the bible. We just need to study and read carefully.

Reading and studying carefully. I'm fine with that.

More snags here, actually.

Those who are attempting that are a la carte themselves. According to Old Testament prophecies, the Messiah will reestablish the divinely appointed monarchy. According to Jewish Tradition, there will never be another Prophet of God, the New Testament also says as much. So the authority to build a temple sanctioned by Jehovah of hosts is null until the Messiah comes. Without the temple and the kingdom and the court, these laws will always be biblicaly moot.

My point. (Just to bring this back into perspective). People tend to take religion a la carte, in proportion to what they want.

According to the old testament, with the Messiah's kingdom, the world to come will be ushered where all of mankind will know that Jehovah of hosts is the God of Israel and bow down to him. So there will be no need to worry about how Israel would look like to the rest of the world. It also mentions a new covenant and that Torah will no longer be written on stones (or books etc..) but in people's hearts. There will be no more sin, no more death, no more sickness.

No bloody choice in the matter.

I would like to bet that your conservative friend meant that the practices would not be revived in this world, not that it wouldn't be revived in the world to come. But then again, in the world to come there will be the Messiah as king and the who world will know the truth. Israel would not need to be worried about being taken seriously as a western nation. The nation of Israel would not even exist.

Sometimes, I have no idea what he means. I have weird friends.

You're kind of sort of right here but for all the wrong reasons.

First off, to give you perspective about your friend's opinion, "Conservative" Judaism isn't called so because it actually is conservative. It is called so because it is somewhat more conservative than the Reform Judaism from which it sprung. It was founded by people who, at some point, began to feel that the Reformists were throwing out the baby with the bathwater. But the line between "Conservative" Jews, Reform Jews and atheist Jews is far more blurry than between these and Orthodox Judaism.

This I know.

Second, there's no recorded instances of "legal" stoning being actually used EVER in the history of ancient Jewish kingdoms. The Bible mentions a grand total of three cases of stoning as punishment carried out in the Israelite society, all of them pre-kingdom. Historical records add none to the list. (Although there were some cases of mob stoning, which obviously doesn't belong in the same category).

Great. What do you want me to say.

Third, stoning, as any capital punishment, is extremely difficult to mandate under the Jewish law because the requirements for a case to merit capital punishment are so strict. Aretood listed only a small part of the conditions. Back in the days of the Sanhedrin, a court that condemned a man to death once in ten years was deemed "bloodthirsty". The state of Israel used death penalty once- on Eichmann- and I don't think it would matter to anyone, including Eichmann himself, whether he was to be hanged or stoned.

Stoning is hardly as instantaneous as hanging. Perhaps it may not have mattered to Eichamnn, but simply as a matter of human rights, stoning should never be permitted.

Israel is not a "presidency", your dumbness. We are a Westminister-model parliamentary democracy

The old ad hominem. How many times, now?

Of course you're omitting one very important word. Israel is a presidential westminster-model parliamentary democracy, but you know, the small things in life...

There's actually no reason why, should the Messiah come, Israel couldn't become a monarchy while continuing to function just fine as a democratic state. And I don't even need to make the obvious reference to Barack Obama and other Western leaders bowing humbly to the Saudi king, literally and otherwise.

As a fragmented democratic state, surely.

You seem to associate "kingdom" strictly with absolute monarchies, The idea that a kingdom cannot be a "serious Western state" is pretty odd, seeing how a fair few Western states are formally constitutional monarchies. More interestingly, though, there exists- and is still practiced- a concept of elective monarchy, which can work well within a democratic state structure. Hell, we could probably replace the position of the President with that of a king- his authority and duties pretty much mirror those of the British queen as it is.

That's disingenuous. Look at the context of the use of Kingdom in the old testament. At what point does it depict a constiutional monarchy? Or something even close. Of course I know they exist, I live in one. Elective monarchy, IIRC, was only used in Denmark, and now the Holy See. There's a reason that in this, I am saying that Kingdom is an absolute monarchy. Because in the books that are describing that return, there were only absolute monarchies, or dictatorships of the military. There were proto-democracies, but nothing that resembles a sustainable system.

The reason the majority of Orthodox Jews aren't in the rush to advocate for a kingdom is simple- there's no urgency of any kind to do so. It's the end stage of a very long process that will begin when the Messiah comes. Can't have a kingdom with no one to put on the throne.

At least you said the majority. Because there are those that are settling the lands under the PA in an attempt to bring the Messiah back.

[Womble]

Great. What do you want me to say.

Oh, far be me from wanting you to speak...

Stoning is hardly as instantaneous as hanging. Perhaps it may not have mattered to Eichamnn, but simply as a matter of human rights, stoning should never be permitted.

I see no difference of principle between stoning, hanging and the electric chair. Especially since the methodology of the Old Testament kind of stoning was rather different from the one currently practiced by the Islamists.

The old ad hominem. How many times, now?

Of course you're omitting one very important word. Israel is a presidential westminster-model parliamentary democracy, but you know, the small things in life...

It isn't. The President is not the head of state.

As a fragmented democratic state, surely.

Is the Kingdom of Sweden a "fragmented democratic state"?

That's disingenuous. Look at the context of the use of Kingdom in the old testament. At what point does it depict a constiutional monarchy? Or something even close. Of course I know they exist, I live in one. Elective monarchy, IIRC, was only used in Denmark, and now the Holy See. There's a reason that in this, I am saying that Kingdom is an absolute monarchy. Because in the books that are describing that return, there were only absolute monarchies, or dictatorships of the military. There were proto-democracies, but nothing that resembles a sustainable system.

First, there's no reason to precisely replicate the original Davidian monarchy to the smallest detail the way it worked in the ancient times. An elective monarchy model is completely justifiable under the Hebrew Bible, and would in fact be closer to the desired ideal. Let's not forget that the Bible treats the very concept of absolute monarchy with open disapproval:

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

The monarchy was established the way it was as the lesser evil compared to the rule of the (elected) judges which degenerated into corruption. There's no religious requirement to re-establish the monarchy exactly the way it used to be.

At least you said the majority. Because there are those that are settling the lands under the PA in an attempt to bring the Messiah back.

It's damn hard to find any of those, in fact, as the Messiah's coming does not depend on how big a share of the land has been settled.

My aunt is a "settler". She is a 70 years old atheist woman with a heart condition, who lives in Ariel because it's a nice little town that has all she needs, rent is reasonable and there's no reason why she shouldn't live there.

"PA land" is an interesting concept though. PA has no legal title of any kind to the land on which the settlements stand.

[lordofseas]

I see no difference of principle between stoning, hanging and the electric chair. Especially since the methodology of the Old Testament kind of stoning was rather different from the one currently practiced by the Islamists.

Typically, chucking stones at people whether they are unconscious or not is regarded as brutal. Whether or not you're a Jew or a Muslim.

It isn't. The President is not the head of state.

Knesset Website says you're wrong.

Is the Kingdom of Sweden a "fragmented democratic state"?

No. The Riksdag is not nearly as fragmented politically as the Knesset. The Israeli government is built on a fragile coalition, and there are what, 12 political parties in the Knesset? The balance of power is held by the smaller parties, which tend to be fringe. Ergo, fragmented democratic state.

First, there's no reason to precisely replicate the original Davidian monarchy to the smallest detail the way it worked in the ancient times. An elective monarchy model is completely justifiable under the Hebrew Bible, and would in fact be closer to the desired ideal. Let's not forget that the Bible treats the very concept of absolute monarchy with open disapproval:

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[c] and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

Disapproval, yes, but it doesn't look like God cares. :/

The monarchy was established the way it was as the lesser evil compared to the rule of the (elected) judges which degenerated into corruption. There's no religious requirement to re-establish the monarchy exactly the way it used to be.

Are you saying that the Jewish writers managed to foresee the advent of democracy in the world? Because, in the context they were talking about, it does not appear to mean that the Messiah is to be impotent, with an elected parliament beneath him. I may now sound like Aretood, but context is important.

It's damn hard to find any of those, in fact, as the Messiah's coming does not depend on how big a share of the land has been settled.

My aunt is a "settler". She is a 70 years old atheist woman with a heart condition, who lives in Ariel because it's a nice little town that has all she needs, rent is reasonable and there's no reason why she shouldn't live there.

"PA land" is an interesting concept though. PA has no legal title of any kind to the land on which the settlements stand.

Are you saying that there are no Orthodox Jews that settle the land in the hope of bringing on the Messiah, through making the Land of Israel Jewish? The concept that when the Jewish Homeland is fully realized, that the Messiah will come? That the settlements are in direct conflict with international law which Israel as a state signed?

Also, I never mentioned the phrase "PA Land". Nice try.

[The Dude]

Hey I didn't know we were allowed to talk about religious things on this forum; cool. This being the case, then I've got some interesting info to inject into ye olde information stream. Okay first, let's just forget about my past history and I'll go ahead and go on record as being Christian. I have to add the caveat here that I think that the bible is all true- but Christianity in general is horribly wrong- pretty much just a bunch of archaic family-perpetuated traditions based on gross misunderstanding masquerading as true representation of the bible. But, in fact, a confused mess of nonsensical counter-productive traditions. This is not to say that Christians are bad people- just, not really caring too much about what the bible actually is saying, and more involved in the "social club" aspect of "churchianity" instead of hands-on "DRIVEN TO DISCOVER TRUTH WHEREVER IT MAY LEAD" approach.

But that's the caveat. Here is the info I came across about two years ago: this should prove better debate material than mere ideology and untestable dogma:

So, apparently Sir Isaac Newton was a bible fanatic (did not know this until then) and he even wrote a commentary on bible prophecy called Observations on Daniel and the Apocalypse. It's an interesting read- but what really caught my attention was chapter 10, where Newton interprets what is commonly known as "The Seventy Sevens" prophecy (link to commentary: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Book...ervations.html) and this is where things get interesting.

Newton writes here:

Newton writes, "The former part of the Prophecy related to the first coming of Christ, being dated to his coming as a Prophet; this being dated to his coming to be Prince or King, seems to relate to his second coming. There, the Prophet was consummate, and the most holy anointed: here, he that was anointed comes to be Prince and to reign. For Daniel's Prophecies reach to the end of the world; and there is scarce a Prophecy in the Old Testament concerning Christ, which doth not in something or other relate to his second coming."

"This part of the Prophecy being therefore not yet fulfilled, I shall not attempt a particular interpretation of it, but content myself with observing, that as the seventy and the sixty two weeks were Jewish weeks, ending with sabbatical years; so the seven weeks are the compass of a Jubilee, and begin and end with actions proper for a Jubilee, and of the highest nature for which a Jubilee can be kept: and that since the commandment to return and to build Jerusalem, precedes the Messiah the Prince 49 years; it may perhaps come forth not from the Jews themselves, but from some other kingdom friendly to them, and precede their return from captivity, and give occasion to it."

"Thus have we in this short Prophecy, a prediction of all the main periods relating to the coming of the Messiah; the time of his birth, that of his death, that of the rejection of the Jews, the duration of the Jewish war whereby he caused the city and sanctuary to be destroyed, and the time of his second coming: and so the interpretation here given is more full and complete and adequate to the design, than if we should restrain it to his first coming only, as Interpreters usually do. We avoid also the doing violence to the language of Daniel, by taking the seven weeks and sixty two weeks for one number. Had that been Daniel's meaning, he would have said sixty and nine weeks, and not seven weeks and sixty two weeks."

Now, Newton is using the bible to make predictions; but note well- his predictions (as opposed to your Harold Campings et.al.) are apparently COMING TRUE

For Newton, who held that unfulfilled prophecy remained obscure, but when completed served as a "convincing argument" for providence, the return of the Jews would act as the ultimate evidence for the validity of biblical prophecy; and writes: "And if there shall then go forth a commandment to restore Jerusalem to its old inhabitants, the truth will fully appear within seven weeks after."

Thus through the prophecy Sir Isaac Newton rightly predicted:

1. This may come forth not from the Jews themselves, but from some other kingdom friendly to them: Newton: 1-1
2. The return of the Jews from captivity: May 14, 1948? - Newton: 2-2
3. The restoration of Jerusalem to the Jews: June 7, 1967? - Newton: 3-3

Newton's fourth and final prediction based on Daniel's "seven sevens":

4. From the restoration of Jerusalem to the Jews there would be 49 Jewish years until the second coming of the Messiah - Newton: 4-4?

So using the biblical source, Newton predicts that (1) the Jews will return to the Middle East as a nation again (2) by a nation friendly to them (3) the city of Jerusalem will be restored to them. Is it strange that this is EXACTLY what has occurred? The Palestinians actually hold annual "mournings" on these days called al-Nakba (the catastrophy: Israel is "born" May 14) and an-Naksa (the calamity: Jerusalem is "captured" June 7).

So this is my question: if this is not EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE of the EXTRAORDINARY SOURCE- then what is it?

According to Newton:

1. Jews return to Middle East as Israel
2. Jerusalem is restored to the Jews

49 years later: second coming.

Comments?

[aretood2]

Hey I didn't know we were allowed to talk about religious things on this forum; cool. This being the case, then I've got some interesting info to inject into ye olde information stream. Okay first, let's just forget about my past history and I'll go ahead and go on record as being Christian. I have to add the caveat here that I think that the bible is all true-

Same here.

but Christianity in general is horribly wrong- pretty much just a bunch of archaic family-perpetuated traditions based on gross misunderstanding masquerading as true representation of the bible. But, in fact, a confused mess of nonsensical counter-productive traditions. This is not to say that Christians are bad people- just, not really caring too much about what the bible actually is saying, and more involved in the "social club" aspect of "churchianity" instead of hands-on "DRIVEN TO DISCOVER TRUTH WHEREVER IT MAY LEAD" approach.

I totally agree. Lot's of tradition has corrupted the bible leading centuries of false beliefs such as women being inferior to men, trinity (Disagree or not, it is what I believe), the use of the cross, justifying war and violence, and so on.

But that's the caveat. Here is the info I came across about two years ago: this should prove better debate material than mere ideology and untestable dogma:

So, apparently Sir Isaac Newton was a bible fanatic (did not know this until then) and he even wrote a commentary on bible prophecy called Observations on Daniel and the Apocalypse. It's an interesting read- but what really caught my attention was chapter 10, where Newton interprets what is commonly known as "The Seventy Sevens" prophecy (link to commentary: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Book...ervations.html) and this is where things get interesting.

Newton writes here:



Now, Newton is using the bible to make predictions; but note well- his predictions (as opposed to your Harold Campings et.al.) are apparently COMING TRUE

For Newton, who held that unfulfilled prophecy remained obscure, but when completed served as a "convincing argument" for providence, the return of the Jews would act as the ultimate evidence for the validity of biblical prophecy; and writes: "And if there shall then go forth a commandment to restore Jerusalem to its old inhabitants, the truth will fully appear within seven weeks after."

Thus through the prophecy Sir Isaac Newton rightly predicted:

1. This may come forth not from the Jews themselves, but from some other kingdom friendly to them: Newton: 1-1
2. The return of the Jews from captivity: May 14, 1948? - Newton: 2-2
3. The restoration of Jerusalem to the Jews: June 7, 1967? - Newton: 3-3

Newton's fourth and final prediction based on Daniel's "seven sevens":

4. From the restoration of Jerusalem to the Jews there would be 49 Jewish years until the second coming of the Messiah - Newton: 4-4?

So using the biblical source, Newton predicts that (1) the Jews will return to the Middle East as a nation again (2) by a nation friendly to them (3) the city of Jerusalem will be restored to them. Is it strange that this is EXACTLY what has occurred? The Palestinians actually hold annual "mournings" on these days called al-Nakba (the catastrophy: Israel is "born" May 14) and an-Naksa (the calamity: Jerusalem is "captured" June 7).

So this is my question: if this is not EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE of the EXTRAORDINARY SOURCE- then what is it?

According to Newton:

1. Jews return to Middle East as Israel
2. Jerusalem is restored to the Jews

49 years later: second coming.

Comments?

That's all nice, but I must disagree with you here. For if Jesus himself did not know, what makes you think he would know? In the end this attempt at predicting the future (especially the end) is futile and is. In the end he fell for the same mistake that many like Jehovah's Witnesses have fallen into, trying to predict when Jesus will return and/or when the world to come will come.

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone...For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be."--Matthew 24:34, 38, 39 NASB

[lordofseas]

Newton was weird. He was also obsessed with Alchemy and the dimensions of the Temple.

[aretood2]

Newton was weird. He was also obsessed with Alchemy and the dimensions of the Temple.

Weirdness seems to be something geniuses have in common However one thing though, how does one apply the seven seasons from Daniel as meaning something other than what Daniel himself said it meant? Talk about adding to scripture...which is forbidden by the Bible itself btw.

[SGalisa]

That's all nice, but I must disagree with you here. For if Jesus himself did not know, what makes you think he would know? In the end this attempt at predicting the future (especially the end) is futile and is. In the end he fell for the same mistake that many like Jehovah's Witnesses have fallen into, trying to predict when Jesus will return and/or when the world to come will come.

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone...For as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so will the coming of the Son of Man be."--Matthew 24:34, 38, 39 NASB

True, Jesus did say that. However, he also made a strong notation of what signs to specifically look for. Jesus was talking to his own people -- the Jews, not to the Gentiles. The book of Revelation is a completion of what signs Jesus noted in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13. So, is the book of Daniel and a bunch of other OT books leading up to the "end of the age."

We are not looking for the END of time or the END of the world, but the end of an AGE -- a specific time era. Without the signs or signals -- no one would be able to figure out what approximate time period / era they exist in. Revelation 6:14 describes what happens in a nuclear bomb blast--If anyone has ever seen the movie the original "The Terminator" with Arnold S., or even "the Day After" (1983 version), both films graphically show what a nuclear blast does -- it rolls forward and then recedes back upon itself.

Anywho, that's not the point.. it's being aware of the time era (decade?) such events will occur within -- this is not pin-pointing an exact DAY and Hour. Jesus warned against guessing the exact Day and Hour.


Next-- cramming some of this quote into spoiler space for space...

...Here is the info I came across about two years ago: this should prove better debate material than mere ideology and untestable dogma:

So, apparently Sir Isaac Newton was a bible fanatic (did not know this until then) and he even wrote a commentary on bible prophecy called Observations on Daniel and the Apocalypse. It's an interesting read- but what really caught my attention was chapter 10, where Newton interprets what is commonly known as "The Seventy Sevens" prophecy (link to commentary: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Book...ervations.html) and this is where things get interesting.

Newton writes here:

Spoiler:

Now, Newton is using the bible to make predictions; but note well- his predictions (as opposed to your Harold Campings et.al.) are apparently COMING TRUE

For Newton, who held that unfulfilled prophecy remained obscure, but when completed served as a "convincing argument" for providence, the return of the Jews would act as the ultimate evidence for the validity of biblical prophecy; and writes: "And if there shall then go forth a commandment to restore Jerusalem to its old inhabitants, the truth will fully appear within seven weeks after."

Thus through the prophecy Sir Isaac Newton rightly predicted:

1. This may come forth not from the Jews themselves, but from some other kingdom friendly to them: Newton: 1-1
2. The return of the Jews from captivity: May 14, 1948? - Newton: 2-2
3. The restoration of Jerusalem to the Jews: June 7, 1967? - Newton: 3-3

Newton's fourth and final prediction based on Daniel's "seven sevens":

4. From the restoration of Jerusalem to the Jews there would be 49 Jewish years until the second coming of the Messiah - Newton: 4-4?

So using the biblical source, Newton predicts that (1) the Jews will return to the Middle East as a nation again (2) by a nation friendly to them (3) the city of Jerusalem will be restored to them. Is it strange that this is EXACTLY what has occurred? The Palestinians actually hold annual "mournings" on these days called al-Nakba (the catastrophy: Israel is "born" May 14) and an-Naksa (the calamity: Jerusalem is "captured" June 7).

So this is my question: if this is not EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE of the EXTRAORDINARY SOURCE- then what is it?

According to Newton:

1. Jews return to Middle East as Israel
2. Jerusalem is restored to the Jews

49 years later: second coming.

Comments?

I've studied this very "theory". I think it was J.R.Church who announced about it in the 1980's -- with all eyes focused "in the last days" upon Israel. Actually, it's now focused on the generation being "70 years" with 1948 as the starting point (70 is the average lifespan of man, with a possible 80 years, if one is fortunate to live that long). That would make 2012 a critical point with 2018 being the 70th year. Add 7 full years to the end of 2012 = 2019.. off by one year, or start out with 2013+7= 2020. If the generational lifespan for Israel should be 80 instead of 70, then add another decade. But the way the world is going now, it doesn't seem Israel has much longer to see this version of prophecy come true (in that manner--with Israel still surviving into the 2020's). Also, Israel is a key factor in the last 7-year countdown with Jerusalem being the crown Jewel for who will ultimately own it. That includes whether or not, Israel is still in existence as a (UN decreed) nation or not.

So, even in that scenario, Daniel's 70th week or the remaining last 7 years of his messianic prophecy, the timing is shakey at best, even if it uses Jewish holidays as key dates to look for specific signs (meaning the Passover, Yom Kippur and the Jewish New Year).

[The Urban Spaceman]

True, Jesus did say that.

It's cool that you can know with 100% certainty what somebody said 2000 years ago, when we sometimes struggle to be sure of what somebody in a position of power said even last week. If only courts of law could have access to this amazing truth device you possess.