Re: not one stone upon another

[Athetotheist]

Here's another piece I posted in Random Ramblings and thought I would bring over into a debate forum to see if any issue can be taken with it:


In Matthew 24:2 Jesus prophesies that the temple will be thrown down with "not one stone left here upon another". Apologists regard the Romans' demolition of the temple in the year 70 as a remarkably accurate fulfillment of Jesus's words.

This doesn't seem to be the case since the famous Western Wall, dating to the 1st or 2nd century BCE, is still standing stone upon stone.

Apologists may argue that Jesus was referring only to the temple buildings themselves in the Matthew passage, but in Luke 19:41-44 he makes the same prophecy for the entire city, which included the temple complex where the Western Wall stands. Between prophesying every stone at the temple thrown down and prophesying every stone in the whole city thrown down, Jesus didn't have much room to let the Western Wall slip by.

So for a question: Is there any way out of this dilemma?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #49]

Hmmm.. should I suspect from all this, that Luke had a problem with Peter?

It seems to me that the one who had a problem with Peter was John. In Matthew 16 Peter declares that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and Jesus declares that God, not flesh and blood, revealed this to Peter. Yet in John 1 it's Peter's brother Andrew who tells him, "We have found the Messiah."

[TRANSPONDER]

I've had to delete two posts but let me be Transparent as John's glass Jesus with a glowing God inside.

There is a tune as hidden in the gospels as the one in Elgar's Enigma (Eh what? ) and it's anti -Judaism, and specifically the failure of Zealotry. And despite the need for the disciples to be the ones to transmit the Christian message to Paul (as distinct from the other way around ) the fails, inadequacy and weakness of the disciples is a regular feature.

It would be interesting to compare all the supper and gethsemane accounts to see just what and whom is said regarding these swords. Rather like the Crucifixion as resurrection and indeed the miracle healings, it works very well as a zealot tale, and specifically a messianic attempt that failed. The temple, the blood of the Galileans, Barabbas and the execution fo the King of the Jews - it all fits and at one time I was pretty convinced.

I'm more inclined to suspect a made up story with the basis of the Christian case against Judaism the Mara Bar Sertapeon letter. 'Jerusalem fell because the Jews killed their king'. This is the prediction all through the gospels, The Jews will reject Jesus and the Romans will smash Judea as God's punishment. And he will of course shift his affections to the Gentiles and so the Gospel Jesus must spend some time declaring how much more Faithjful the Gentiles (preferably a Roman centurion, but a Samaritan will do at a pinch) the Gentiles are. Though faithful to what exactly, since Jesus is no more than a peripatetic Jewish precher wich a healing ability, and nothing about God and messiahship) is not clear, but the writers are working with foreknowledge of what Jesus will become.

Now, Christians may say 'it isn't a history book, but a metaphor of Christian doctrines'.

I'd agree, but that only makes it a fairy -tale. It could be. Just Paul taking his own Judaism and adapting it to suit his fellow Romans and starting off a church. Or it could be a real failed messiah ending up (after being driven from the temple, leaving most of the Galileans who backed Jesus up when he was kicking tables over, lying dead amongst their sacrifices (Luke - who knew some history we don't) 13) and a last stand at Gethsemane which explains why they had swords there, how Judas fell on a field of Blood why Peter is rebuked for wanting to defend his master because armed zealotry is what got the temple destroyed and meekness and mildness in a Rome that doesn't like Christians (who do not recognize Caesar as King) is what's needed. And of course the 'robbers' (a term used by Herod at least for rebels) nailed up are barabbas' boys, which is to say, Jesus' followers.

It all fits and - like the rescue - it is either all a tall tale that just happens to have narrative elements that look like a plot or they are actual events that Were a plot. But what they are not is a reliable account of a Christian Jesus predicting his own death and resurrecting. You can bet you life on that. You may have to

[William]

[Replying to William in post #49]

Hmmm.. should I suspect from all this, that Luke had a problem with Peter?

It seems to me that the one who had a problem with Peter was John. In Matthew 16 Peter declares that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and Jesus declares that God, not flesh and blood, revealed this to Peter. Yet in John 1 it's Peter's brother Andrew who tells him, "We have found the Messiah."

Well we are informed that in those early days, there was a unit within the company who thought along the lines of which of them would be the greatest, so it stands to reason this even more inner-circle of the inner circle hustling for favorable positions would be in play and identifiable once the final edition of the story was given the green-light and pushed into circulation.

[William]

Yes - I get that impression to.

I go with the calculated plot, even that is has the element of conspiracy theory, since the whole Christian bible [OT inclusive so therefore the Hebrew element as well] is built on a CT re rebels against the God and rebels for the God.

And the result is warfare, regardless.

The way I am looking at 'it' presently is that the religion of the Jews permitted rebellion against the Romans, and that was doomed to fail, and did fail.

The consequences of the failure were far reaching because the Romans sought not only to suppress the rebellion, but to make a world-wide statement against the Jews for even attempting to overthrown their landlords.

Paul-who-was-Saul comes across as one of those intellectual Jews who had no time for the shenanigans of dusty ill-tempered peasant-class Jews who were propelled by the Messianic agenda the priesthood had allowed to be instilled [installed] in said poor-folk.

Such would have been an embarrassment to these intellectuals, who would have cooperated with Rome - especially after the fall of the temple, the looting of the goodies then displayed down the main streets of Rome, and the dispersion of Jews into the world through kicking them out of their homeland.

The intellectual Jews would have easily been able to cooperate with the intellectual Romans and explain to the Romans how Judaism 'saw things' and together invent a counter-religion which would work efficiently for Rome and make sure the offspring of the dispersed Jews never forgot that they had their noses well and truly bloodied, and look! No messiah coming to help them - because Jesus was deemed "The Christ" and given that role over Christians - effective repeating the same policies the priests of Judaism had made in allowing such notions of survivorship to continue, only going down a more peaceful pathway [were rebels were thus called terrorists], and everyone else who was a Christian, simply passively awaited the promised return...all while "Romans" continued to rule, even after Rome itself fell into ruination.

Clever little intellectuals.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes - I get that impression to.

I go with the calculated plot, even that is has the element of conspiracy theory, since the whole Christian bible [OT inclusive so therefore the Hebrew element as well] is built on a CT re rebels against the God and rebels for the God.

And the result is warfare, regardless.

The way I am looking at 'it' presently is that the religion of the Jews permitted rebellion against the Romans, and that was doomed to fail, and did fail.

The consequences of the failure were far reaching because the Romans sought not only to suppress the rebellion, but to make a world-wide statement against the Jews for even attempting to overthrown their landlords.

Paul-who-was-Saul comes across as one of those intellectual Jews who had no time for the shenanigans of dusty ill-tempered peasant-class Jews who were propelled by the Messianic agenda the priesthood had allowed to be instilled [installed] in said poor-folk.

Such would have been an embarrassment to these intellectuals, who would have cooperated with Rome - especially after the fall of the temple, the looting of the goodies then displayed down the main streets of Rome, and the dispersion of Jews into the world through kicking them out of their homeland.

The intellectual Jews would have easily been able to cooperate with the intellectual Romans and explain to the Romans how Judaism 'saw things' and together invent a counter-religion which would work efficiently for Rome and make sure the offspring of the dispersed Jews never forgot that they had their noses well and truly bloodied, and look! No messiah coming to help them - because Jesus was deemed "The Christ" and given that role over Christians - effective repeating the same policies the priests of Judaism had made in allowing such notions of survivorship to continue, only going down a more peaceful pathway [were rebels were thus called terrorists], and everyone else who was a Christian, simply passively awaited the promised return...all while "Romans" continued to rule, even after Rome itself fell into ruination.

Clever little intellectuals.

I agree. I think the clue is that Paul was a Jew and makes his claim to it, but was also very much a Roman citizen. I think he believed in Judaism and it's salvation -promise and he wanted to have his fellow - Romans accept it, too. But he had to adapt it to suit them That meant jettisoning dietary laws, and particularly circumcision which is almost obsessively a matter of discussion in Paul's letters and Acts. Paul would have no sympathy for Jewish rebels and that's what i think was behind his early persecution of 'the church'. Pharisee Judaism not only permitted rebellion but positively encouraged it. They rebelled against Jannaeus, Herod and in turn, the Romans. The Sadducees on the other hand effectively collaborated with the Romans, and you can see that from Caiaphas and Pilate working together in the administration of Judea over a long period when otherwise, High Priests and governors tended to have short terms of office.

I'm not too sure about Paul working with the Romans to invent Christianity to undermine Judaism. They would surely have said that loyalty to Rome would have to be one of the basics so that Rome could embrace it as a legitimate religion, which they never did until Constantine. And the Jews never did give up the notion of the Messiah, or at least rebellion against Rome, even after the Jewish war.

[1213]

...Are these scriptures fully compatible with John, who has no angels appear at the tomb until Mary Magdalene goes there for the second time?

I think so.

[Athetotheist]

...Are these scriptures fully compatible with John, who has no angels appear at the tomb until Mary Magdalene goes there for the second time?

I think so.

Can you demonstrate?

[brunumb]

...Are these scriptures fully compatible with John, who has no angels appear at the tomb until Mary Magdalene goes there for the second time?

I think so.

Others find such things quite problematic. I'll take this opportunity to re-post something from another thread for your consideration. I wonder if you are able to meet the 'Easter Challenge'.

The clip below is concerned with the top 5 contradictions in the Bible according to Dan Barker, co-president of the FFRF. It begins about half way through the whole program at the fifth one which concerns the resurrection. He claims that he has found 17 contradictions in the resurrection story. Barker then describes his 'Easter Challenge' in relation to this which requires one to take the four gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, about 150 verses, plus the accounts in the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians, and put them all together in one single coherent narrative leaving nothing out as a simple story of exactly what happened between the resurrection and the ascension. According to Barker no one has been able to do that, including Christian apologists.



https://youtu.be/r7kOEkv1fp8?t=2008

[TRANSPONDER]

...Are these scriptures fully compatible with John, who has no angels appear at the tomb until Mary Magdalene goes there for the second time?

I think so.

That link does not explain anything, other than preach Faith, unless one digs, which is really your job, not ours. What you Think is irrelevant. What arguments you can present to explain why John has No angels or angelic message when the women arrive at the tomb, never mind that they don't run into Jesus, as in Matthew, is relevant. These are doubts and questions that 'Demand and Answer' as the saying goes.

[TRANSPONDER]

...Are these scriptures fully compatible with John, who has no angels appear at the tomb until Mary Magdalene goes there for the second time?

I think so.

Others find such things quite problematic. I'll take this opportunity to re-post something from another thread for your consideration. I wonder if you are able to meet the 'Easter Challenge'.

The clip below is concerned with the top 5 contradictions in the Bible according to Dan Barker, co-president of the FFRF. It begins about half way through the whole program at the fifth one which concerns the resurrection. He claims that he has found 17 contradictions in the resurrection story. Barker then describes his 'Easter Challenge' in relation to this which requires one to take the four gospel accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, about 150 verses, plus the accounts in the book of Acts and 1 Corinthians, and put them all together in one single coherent narrative leaving nothing out as a simple story of exactly what happened between the resurrection and the ascension. According to Barker no one has been able to do that, including Christian apologists.



https://youtu.be/r7kOEkv1fp8?t=2008

I wonder he picked the stone -rolling contradiction which is so easily explainable that I never use it. The women do not see the angel descend when they arrive. It happens when they are on their way there. Simple. I have said before that I don't waste my time on piddling problems, but go for the big ones.