Pressing matters of the day and of all time, debated among thoughtful participants of all faiths

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Reply to topic
marco
First Post
PostPosted: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:10 am  Was Jesus unsuccessful? Reply with quote

No sooner had the star announced the birth of Christ than a multitude of infants were murdered. Surely an early sign of failure? Though it must have been planned in heaven there was no advance booking made for pregnant Mary. Jesus, on this important assignment, simply vegetated fro thirty years before wandering out to do his job. Was a 20-year old Christ incapable of spreading more good news? His immediate family, the direct recipients surely of his divine message, didn't recognise him.

He operated on foot in a small area of the globe and apparently all he had to say of note was "the kingdom of God!" The consequence of his lack of explanation is that hundreds of different sects have arisen all believing different things. Worse, another powerful messenger of God had to come in the 7th century to do what Christ had failed to do. The world is split; the world fights over who said what. It all adds up to a failed mission.

Is this a good summary of Christ's mission? Or are there some details missing?
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 31: Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:42 pm
Reply

Like this post
marco wrote:

We can argue that Alexander, on his deathbed, said that he left his empire "to the strongest." It's a saying recorded in history, not a fact. The verbatim words of Calgacus, a Pictish chieftain, are recorded by Tacitus. It is a fact they are recorded but the words are not facts. We have supposed verbatim statements from Christ but since historians can and do question how such statements can be genuine, they are not facts. Facts are not disputed.


There aren't any "facts" when it comes to antiquity...but if the preponderance of the evidence points in one direction, you simply go where the evidence takes you.

marco wrote:

Why not take it in the way it was written and intended?


I thought that is what I did.

marco wrote:

Your example suggested that murders occur in all beliefs and colours. That is true. However, Christians killed because they were spreading or preserving Christ's message.


And most Christians that I am aware of would say that is the wrong way to get the message across.

marco wrote:

South America became Christian because of Spanish devotion to Christ. And if you say that Christ never intended division , take Luke 12:53 "The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."


Wait a minute, did I not say in post #19 "You will always have division among imperfect man".

Second, you just gave the PERFECT example to my point. It is perfect. Notice what you said in the above quote...you said "And if you say that Christ never intended division".

Keyword: Intended

You say that as if Christ is advocating for a division of homes? Why? Probably because of how you interpret the word "shall" in Luke 12:53. Lets look it up..

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shall

Webster uses four different definitions/contexts, but I will focus on two..


2 a —used to express a command or exhortation

you shall go



3 a —used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future

we shall have to be ready



It sounds like you are interpreting the word "shall" in Luke 12:53 in the context of definition #2, while I interpret it in the context of definition #3.

Same word, different interpretation....so if you go and teach a group of people from your perspective, and I do the same on my end...that is how denominations get started. And if it can happen in small-scale cases like this, it can certainly happen on large-scale cases in other areas. That is how divisions begin.

marco wrote:

You have stated that you think Christ was successful. I have pointed out the divisions, the deaths and the rise of Islam as indications that he wasn't successful. So it is a tad unjust to say the subject is silly.


But airing out divisions and dealing with the deaths and rise of Islam wasn't on his agenda. He would only be unsuccessful if he had an objective that he was unable to cross off his checklist.

Hell, if it was all about bringing divisions together, I reckon Jesus would have went on a mission to preach against the Sadduccees who were going around preaching against Resurrections (or who just simply didn't believe in resurrections Acts 23:8).

Hey, I don't know your view on Christian theology, but according to Judeo-Christianity, when God/Jesus has their mind set on something, there are no failures...they get the job done. All of this "unsuccessful" stuff you are talking about just has no place in Christian theology. So it is a silly question.

marco wrote:

If it is so easy to refute, refute it. You haven't done so.


I can and I did.

marco wrote:

If you take a ridiculous interpretation you make the OP ridiculous. I am discussing the consequences of Christ journeying from heaven.


Either way, as mentioned before, we are talking about a omni-God...there can be no failures/unsuccess when dealing with an omni-perfect being. So either way, the question was fallaciously loaded and incompatible with Christian theology.

marco wrote:

If the entire point was to come, get himself killed, and exit then yes, well done! We can't possibly know if he did anything about the sins of future people. We can however examine his influence for good or bad. That is what I am doing. It is said he came to spread the good news; we might ask, how well did he advertise this for future generations.


Umm, he advertised it enough for it to be the #1 religion in the world. Don't know what more you want than that. If you are a music artist and your album (The Bible) is the #1 selling album of all time (the Bible is the best selling book of all time), and more people follow you on Twitter/Facebook/Instagram than any other music artist (more followers of Christianity than any other single religion)...then I am not sure what more you want at that point.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 32: Sat Jan 13, 2018 3:15 pm
Reply

Like this post
For_The_Kingdom wrote:




There aren't any "facts" when it comes to antiquity...but if the preponderance of the evidence points in one direction, you simply go where the evidence takes you.


I agree. This is called making a good guess. You talked in terms of facts/truths.
For_The_Kingdom wrote:

And most Christians that I am aware of would say that is the wrong way to get the message across.


You are having your cake and eating it. Here you condemn the spread of Christianity by force. Later you extol the vast numbers in Christianity, ignoring the fact that they were put there by the force of Rome, Spain and Britain.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:


Probably because of how you interpret the word "shall" in Luke 12:53. Lets look it up..


I am aware of the proper grammatical usage of will and shall. Your explanatory note gives only half of the explanation. Strictly, shall and will are not interchangeable without the meaning changing, as is pointed out. I quoted from KJV. If 'will' is used instead of shall, the meaning is altered. I didn't misinterpret. There can be ONE meaning, if the sentence is phrased grammatically correctly.

Here is the difference. A man is drowning and shouts:
"I will drown and no one shall save me." This is an expression of intent and the grammarian will not rescue him.
If, instead, he shouts
"I shall down and no one will save me," he is expressing a fear of what might happen. The grammarian will save him.

If we write: "Father shall turn against son," then we are using the intentional or imperative form.
If we say: "Father will turn against son" we are expressing what will occur in the future.

Shall varies in meaning depending on the person of the verb.

I studied grammar in great detail.

When you say:

Quote:
It sounds like you are interpreting the word "shall" in Luke 12:53 in the context of definition #2, while I interpret it in the context of definition #3.

you are demonstrating that you don't understand the distinction. I hope it is now clear.


For_The_Kingdom wrote:



Hey, I don't know your view on Christian theology, but according to Judeo-Christianity, when God/Jesus has their mind set on something, there are no failures...they get the job done.



Here it is not axiomatic that what Christ does is done perfectly. Were this so, I should not have set the OP.



For_The_Kingdom wrote:




All of this "unsuccessful" stuff you are talking about just has no place in Christian theology. So it is a silly question.


It is a silly question if I accept the premise that Jesus does not err. I don't.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 33: Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:20 pm
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 25 by For_The_Kingdom]

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

A hallucination from Paul (which is a theory I don't accept) wouldn't explain the origin of the apostles belief in the Resurrection, nor does it explain the empty tomb.


The story of the resurrection of Jesus affected Paul in the same way that it affected you. Both you and Paul have chosen to believe in an apparently unrealistic story even though neither of you we a witness to what is claimed. Paul though has an additional reason for his belief. He believed that he met the risen Jesus.

The story in Acts specifically indicates that Paul was severely dehydrated. Severe dehydration brings with it, among other things, reduced eyesight and hallucinations. After he recovered Paul was convinced that he had spoken to Jesus. But Jesus had been DEAD for several years. Since there is no REALISTIC chance that Paul actually spoke with a dead man, and given his physical condition and the fact that he was being tended to and prayed over by a Christian man, the conclusion that he, Paul, hallucinated a vision of Jesus is simply obvious. No actual supernatural events have ever been unambiguously recognized to have occurred. Which means that natural explanations are vastly preferable to supernatural ones. Because natural explanations can be shown to be vastly more likely. That you don't accept the obvious natural explanation and prefer the supernatural one is a product of your specific religious indoctrination. You certainly would not so readily accept unrealistic claims presented by believers of a non Christian religion.

What the apostles actually believed is known only to those apostles that claimed to have seen the risen Jesus. And they are no longer talking. We are necessarily only talking about a handful of people. That others who were not claiming to be witness to the risen Jesus came to truly believe the stories, is reflected in the fact that YOU were not a witness to the risen Jesus, but you have become convinced that the claims are true. Much in the same way that Muslims have been convinced that Muhammad's claims are true, of Mormons are convinced that Joseph Smith's claims are true. And yet those of us that are outside of those belief systems looking in see only unrealistic foolishness. Because people invariably give their own belief systems a free pass from any in depth skepticism.

Christians proclaim, and believe, that the empty tomb is evidence that the corpse of Jesus came back to life and flew away. And yet that is among the least likely possibilities. In fact it has no "likelihood" of being true at all. The empty tomb is in fact easily explained with no supernatural element necessary. But Let's wait for our head to head to deal with that.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Agreed...but then again, the entire genre of history is based upon people who have no direct knowledge of any event X. The best we can do with historical inquiry is say that "based on the presented evidence, it is more likely than not that person/event X occurred/existed".


The secular historical record is also entirely bereft of any supernatural claims which are considered to be uniformly accepted historical fact. That Muhammad began the religion of Islam is a historically accepted fact. That Muhammad was commanded to put to memory information given to him by the angel Gabriel, information which would later be written done and become known as the Quran, is a religious belief. It is not an accepted historical fact. Except, of course, by Muslims. Exactly the same way that Christians consider the details of their religious beliefs to be historical fact.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

That is not just limited to the Resurrection \..but any event, claim, person in antiquity.


It is not only possible but probable that our current understanding of history is wrong to some degree. It's difficult enough to know what actually occurred without having to factor in claims of magic.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

And the Resurrection is in fact a historical event/claim of a miracle..and believers who apply the historical method to this come to the conclusion that it is more probable than not that the Resurrection occurred in human history.


The resurrection of Jesus is a well known historical CLAIM. It is NOT a well known historical fact. It is a religious belief. The idea that the resurrection is as well established historical fact the equal of any other historical fact is immediately refuted by the observation that no other supernatural claims are considered to be valid history.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

That wouldn't explain the empty tomb, nor would it explain the origin of Paul and James (brother of Jesus) beliefs in the Resurrection. Now, a theory of the followers of Jesus lying about his appearances AND Paul hallucinating about Jesus seems rather far-fetched.


As I said, I can explain the empty tomb easily enough. If you are going to propose the sudden rise to prominence of James the brother of Jesus to a position of authority in the new church is unexplainable without his being a witness to the resurrect Jesus, you are going to first have to explain what took him so long. In fact you need to explain why non of the other three brothers and unknown number of sisters seem to be particularly impressed with him. They grew up with him after all. If he was really so obviously special his family should have been his earliest supporters. But in fact his family members are largely missing from the story. And what of the neighbors, individuals who actually knew the young Jesus growing up?

Mark 6:
[3] Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.


They were not impressed. And neither, apparently was his brother James. At least not until his brother was unfairly and cruelly crucified on what seem to be the flimsiest of charges.

Deut.21
[23] His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.


Hanging was the most degrading of all possible deaths to a Jews. Jesus' death by crucifixion would have been considered a great family dishonor, as well as unfair and unwarranted. James the brother of Jesus and the other apostles sought to clear the name of Jesus in the only real manner available to them. By making the case that Jesus had been sent by God, as the claim of his resurrection would surely establish. But you see, we are still left with two undeniable facts. Who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus? His followers and ONLY his followers. Who claimed to have seen the risen Jesus fly off up into the sky? His followers and ONLY his followers. And of course both of these claims violate all common sense and common experience.

If you want to talk about what is far fetched, and use it was a defence for your claims, you should first consider that your core belief is that a corpse came back to life and flew away. Which in and of itself makes it appear that your concept of "far fetched" is already completely distorted. But yes, I am suggesting that the apostles and a few other disciples were responsible for spreading the false rumor that they had seen the risen Jesus. A rumor they knew to be false. But for each new convert, they had an individual like you and Paul; an individual who was not knowingly spreading a false false rumor, but telling a story they believed in with all certainty. Just like you.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Which is irrelevant considering this fact; the claim is not that Jesus rose naturally from the dead...but rather, God raised Jesus from the dead..which is a miracle that natural observation/occurrences can't touch.


Every religion is founded on some measure of supernatural assumptions. THis is what separates religions from simple philosophies. As with every other religion, your supernatural assumptions are founded on no actual physical evidence, but entirely on the unquestioned and unverifiable belief that your claims are valid. This is make believe in action. It's the same sort of make believe that every religion is founded on. Unless you are prepared to make the claim that all religions are founded on some measure of actual truth, then it is clear that the majority of people right around the world are completely and utterly fulla-bulla. (Mods: Fulla-bulla was a sour grape Slurpee drink that I used to be fond of back in the seventies.)

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Humans also have the propensity to tell the truth...which is why things should be looked upon on a case by case basis, instead of generalizations.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA

Or maybe it's more accurate to say that humans have a difficult time recognizing and understanding the truth. Because the truth is always subject to the perspective of the individual who is doing the observing. That is why modern science works within a system of repeated experimentation and observation. This is known as the empirical method for attempting to ascertain the truth. And it is a system which has led to our modern working technological society. What does the evidence show repeatedly and without fail? Among other things, it shows that a fully dead corpse will not come back to life and fly away. A simple claim to the contrary cannot overcome all common observation. People lie! Sometimes people lie with good motivation. Often they lie because it is easy, or because it works to achieve a goal. What was the goal of the disciples of Jesus in lying about his resurrection? Restoring his mystique and good name. And I would say that it worked far better than they could have ever imagined that it would.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Obvious to who? You? Not to me.


That is because you have chosen to be gullible. The disciples claimed that Jesus came back to life and flew away. The obvious conclusion is that this is a lie. Belief in such a story requires a level of gullibility, self deception and lack of skepticism that many people, myself included, are simply not capable of. If I am suggesting that you are gullible to a foolish degree, and I am, I am also suggesting that the vast majority of people around the world are also gullible to a foolish degree. Because the various unrealistic and outlandish beliefs that exist around the world is staggering.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Genetic fallacy. Their motivation for achieving their objective has nothing to do with the truth value of the claims. Unless it can be proven that they were lying.


Genetics are not involved. People have motives for making claims. All claims must be subjected to reason and evidence before even being considered potentially true. Because people commonly lie, or are just plain deceived. How does one "prove" a claim is valid or not? By comparing it to all common experience. The claim that a corpse came back to life and flew away fails miserably when compared to all common experience. And what is the evidence for the truth of the claim in this case? Somebody said so!

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Probably more. The Apostle's creed states that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at once (1Corin 15:3-8). Kinda hard to keep things on the hush-hush at that point.


Paul states this in 1 Corinthians. 1 Corinthians was written about a quarter of a century after Jesus was supposed to have been executed, and represents the first ever mention, historically, of the risen Jesus. This is in fact the only source for this claim of the five hundred. And Paul got his calling years after the crucifixion of Jesus, and was not a personal witness to any of the claimed post crucifixion appearances of Jesus. 1 Corinthians represents a single claim made by an individual not present for the event he describes. 1 Corinthians does not represent five hundred eye witness testimonies. I am willing to concede that Paul was a believing Christian however. Just as you are.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Please reread the question, sir.


I have repeatedly conceded the historical existence of Christians. I also concede the historical existence of Hindus, Muslims, and Buddhists, as well as the one time existence of believers in thousands of other now largely extinct beliefs.


Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
This would only be true if humans were reliable. But as we all know too well, they are not.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Some are, some aren't. The question is, were they?


Is it conceivable that the apostles might have lied? In general we actually know very little about the apostles. The only apostle we know very much about at all is Peter. Is Peter the sort of man who would lie?

Matthew 28:
[69] Now Peter sat without in the palace: and a damsel came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Galilee.
[70] But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest.
[71] And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and said unto them that were there, This fellow was also with Jesus of Nazareth.
[72] And again he denied with an oath, I do not know the man.
[73] And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.
[74] Then began he to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man. And immediately the cock crew.


[b]PETER IS IN FACT ONE OF THE MOST INFAMOUS LIARS IN WESTERN LITERATURE.[b] So we begin with a basis for supposing that Peter would certainly lie if he felt the circumstance warranted it.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

Well, if they truly believed that a corpse came back to life, then there had to be a reason why they believe it. What would get you to believe that a person died and came back to life? You wouldn't believe it just for the sake of believing, because as you said, dead people don't come back to life...so if you did believe it, you would have what you consider to be convincing evidence...which is what they allegedly had.


You truly believe that a corpse came back and flew away. There must be a reason why you believe it. For the overwhelming majority of people around the world, the reason they subscribe to their particular belief system is because mommy and daddy said so. And that's just a fact. I suppose it is fair to say that convincing evidence is represented by whatever serves to convince someone that a thing is true. But you see, we also have that darned gullibility factor to consider. Because what other people do in very similar circumstances has a direct bearing on what can be observed as being part of the common human condition.


Notice how religions tend to be concentrated into distinct areas. This is because most people end up subscribing to whatever religion they were indoctrinated into.


For_The_Kingdom wrote:

About as rare as dead matter becoming animated and conscious (abiogenesis). But that doesn't stop people (and probably yourself) from believing in that stuff. So what is stopping people from believing in a dead person coming back to life? Ahhh, probably because one has a personal accountability factor, and the other one doesn't. Yup, probably.


Matter is not dead exactly. At least not in the sense that it is completely inert. Even a rock has internal movement at the atomic level. Because matter interacts with itself. Even dead animal or plant tissue undergoes decay. Matter is constantly changing, because matter is one of the forms that energy takes, and energy can neither be created or destroyed. All it does is change form. Continuously. The problem is that most people do not understand modern concepts of biology and physics. If they did they would not so casually dismiss the idea that non sentient matter could, over time, in certain cases evolve the ability to respire and excrete, and reproduce, and eventually even become self aware. Because it is hard to successfully argue against one's own existence.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

As I said, a case can be made that he did.


A case can be made that Shakespeare did not exist, but was a pseudonym used by Sir Francis Bacon, who in fact was responsible for writing the plays attributed to Shakespeare. A case for that very thing has been made, in fact. But it is a long way from having been proven true.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:

So please tell me how it evolved from the 50's AD to 70-100 AD.


Most of what we know of the state of Christianity in the 50's is taken from the letters of Paul. There is no mention at all of Jesus' birth, virgin or otherwise, John the baptist, or the empty tomb in Paul's letters. Features of the story which had developed ultimate importance by the time the Gospels were written. The legend of Jesus grew and took shape over the course of years.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 34: Sat Jan 13, 2018 5:28 pm
Reply
Re: Was Jesus unsuccessful?

Like this post
marco wrote:

No sooner had the star announced the birth of Christ than a multitude of infants were murdered. Surely an early sign of failure? Though it must have been planned in heaven there was no advance booking made for pregnant Mary. Jesus, on this important assignment, simply vegetated fro thirty years before wandering out to do his job. Was a 20-year old Christ incapable of spreading more good news? His immediate family, the direct recipients surely of his divine message, didn't recognise him.

He operated on foot in a small area of the globe and apparently all he had to say of note was "the kingdom of God!" The consequence of his lack of explanation is that hundreds of different sects have arisen all believing different things. Worse, another powerful messenger of God had to come in the 7th century to do what Christ had failed to do. The world is split; the world fights over who said what. It all adds up to a failed mission.

Is this a good summary of Christ's mission? Or are there some details missing?

Hello Marco:
First a little background context. God's everlasting gospel promise is that a great nation of those justified by the faith of Abraham, will inherit everlasting possession of all the land between the Euphrates and the river of Egypt, and will bless all nations with everlasting peace on earth. A thousand years later, the nation with promised to fulfill God's gospel promise fell into non-existence. What was left of God's faithful began to watch for the anointed one who will resurrect the kingdom of Israel, and fulfill God's promise.
When Rome conquered post-Babylon captivity Judea, it strategically gave the Jews Herod to satisfy their kingdom resurrection zeal. Rome was in possession of the land God had defined in His gospel, so the gospel was a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire.
Jesus' stated mission was to preach the gospel of the coming kingdom to the backslidden Jews, and bring every last one of them back to the fold from which they had strayed.
When backslidden Jews began to return to the faith, the Jewish leaders feared that Rome might kill all the Jews, so they had Jesus killed to save all the Jews. This is very clearly recorded in John 11:45-55.
Here is the problem: Jesus' death brought an untimely end to his stated mission, and that might well be why the Jews are still backslidden to this day.
So yes, Jesus failed in his stated mission because he was a threat to Rome, and therefore indirectly a threat to all the Judean Jews.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 35: Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:11 pm
Reply
Re: Was Jesus unsuccessful?

Like this post
marco wrote:

No sooner had the star announced the birth of Christ than a multitude of infants were murdered. Surely an early sign of failure? Though it must have been planned in heaven there was no advance booking made for pregnant Mary. Jesus, on this important assignment, simply vegetated fro thirty years before wandering out to do his job. Was a 20-year old Christ incapable of spreading more good news? His immediate family, the direct recipients surely of his divine message, didn't recognise him.

He operated on foot in a small area of the globe and apparently all he had to say of note was "the kingdom of God!" The consequence of his lack of explanation is that hundreds of different sects have arisen all believing different things. Worse, another powerful messenger of God had to come in the 7th century to do what Christ had failed to do. The world is split; the world fights over who said what. It all adds up to a failed mission.

Is this a good summary of Christ's mission? Or are there some details missing?


I'm afraid that some details are missing. But the missing details only add more evidence that it was a failed mission.

Christianity (or Islam) would not exist minus:

1) the fear of dying
2) the fear of the unknown
3) ignorance
4) superstition
5) the desire to control people for financial and political gain

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 36: Sat Jan 13, 2018 10:21 pm
Reply

Like this post
marco wrote:

I agree. This is called making a good guess. You talked in terms of facts/truths.


Well, based on the best historical evidence thus far I am convinced that it is true, so I speak as if it is.

marco wrote:

You are having your cake and eating it. Here you condemn the spread of Christianity by force. Later you extol the vast numbers in Christianity, ignoring the fact that they were put there by the force of Rome, Spain and Britain.


First off, no one can "force" you to believe anything. Second, even if people are forced to believe things, this act of "forcing" has no barren on the truth value of the belief.

marco wrote:

I am aware of the proper grammatical usage of will and shall. Your explanatory note gives only half of the explanation. Strictly, shall and will are not interchangeable without the meaning changing, as is pointed out. I quoted from KJV. If 'will' is used instead of shall, the meaning is altered. I didn't misinterpret. There can be ONE meaning, if the sentence is phrased grammatically correctly.

Here is the difference. A man is drowning and shouts:
"I will drown and no one shall save me." This is an expression of intent and the grammarian will not rescue him.
If, instead, he shouts
"I shall down and no one will save me," he is expressing a fear of what might happen. The grammarian will save him.

If we write: "Father shall turn against son," then we are using the intentional or imperative form.
If we say: "Father will turn against son" we are expressing what will occur in the future.

Shall varies in meaning depending on the person of the verb.

I studied grammar in great detail.

When you say:

Quote:
It sounds like you are interpreting the word "shall" in Luke 12:53 in the context of definition #2, while I interpret it in the context of definition #3.

you are demonstrating that you don't understand the distinction. I hope it is now clear.


If I didn't understand the distinction, then I wouldn't have made the distinction between your implication of what you think Christ meant, on the contrary to what I think Christ meant (Luke 12:53).

In fact, it is because of that distinction that we are having this discussion...because I don't see it the way you do.

marco wrote:

Here it is not axiomatic that what Christ does is done perfectly.


Well you are certainly entitled to think what you want to think...that has no barren on God's perfection as stated in the narrative and what Jesus' agenda was, in the narrative.

According to the narrative, it was a success. Now, to an unbelieving skeptic some 2,000 years later in an online religious forum, maybe it wasn't. I will stick with the narrative.

marco wrote:

Were this so, I should not have set the OP.


Boredom.

marco wrote:

It is a silly question if I accept the premise that Jesus does not err. I don't.


If you don't believe in the historical Resurrection, and Jesus is not who he said he was, then whether or not he was successful and/or erred is completely irrelevant...which goes right back to it being a silly question.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 37: Sun Jan 14, 2018 5:56 am
Reply

Like this post
For_The_Kingdom wrote:



If I didn't understand the distinction, then I wouldn't have made the distinction between your implication of what you think Christ meant, on the contrary to what I think Christ meant (Luke 12:53).

In fact, it is because of that distinction that we are having this discussion...because I don't see it the way you do.


Let me repeat. "Shall" has one meaning when it is attached to "we" and another meaning when attached to "they". "We shall" and "they shall" demonstrate what you offered as an explanation of two different meanings of "shall". Now when someone, using correct grammar, says: "Fathers shall oppose sons" there is only ONE meaning. It is not open to interpretation, as you wrongly suppose, unless the writer has been careless in the usage.

Fathers shall oppose sons: is a statement of intent, command, firm assertion
We shall oppose sons is a statement about what will happen in the future.

(We can also use the word "will". Fathers will oppose would be a statement of future happenings, not an assertion of intent or command.)

I don't extract one of two interpretations; I extract the only interpretation. You misunderstood the explanation given and took the wrong meaning since you wrongly supposed that "shall" can arbitrarily have either of its two meanings, regardless of the person of the verb.


For_The_Kingdom wrote:


If you don't believe in the historical Resurrection, and Jesus is not who he said he was, then whether or not he was successful and/or erred is completely irrelevant...which goes right back to it being a silly question.


And who do you think Jesus said he was? God? Or, like us all, as he demonstrated in the Our Father, just one of God's metaphorical children?

If the world and its uncle entertained your fixed view as a truth, my question would be incomprehensible. Amazingly, some people differ from your view, saving the OP from silliness. A good strategy might have been to illustrate how Christ was invariably successful. You avoided doing this, claiming instead that gods don't make mistakes for if they do, maybe they're not gods at all. And that is the point of the OP.

I think we've exhausted this line of enquiry. Go well.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 38: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:32 am
Reply

Like this post
marco wrote:

Let me repeat. "Shall" has one meaning when it is attached to "we" and another meaning when attached to "they". "We shall" and "they shall" demonstrate what you offered as an explanation of two different meanings of "shall". Now when someone, using correct grammar, says: "Fathers shall oppose sons" there is only ONE meaning. It is not open to interpretation, as you wrongly suppose, unless the writer has been careless in the usage.

Fathers shall oppose sons: is a statement of intent, command, firm assertion
We shall oppose sons is a statement about what will happen in the future.

(We can also use the word "will". Fathers will oppose would be a statement of future happenings, not an assertion of intent or command.)

I don't extract one of two interpretations; I extract the only interpretation. You misunderstood the explanation given and took the wrong meaning since you wrongly supposed that "shall" can arbitrarily have either of its two meanings, regardless of the person of the verb.


RSV - Luke 12:52 for henceforth in one house there will be (ἔσονται esontai) five divided, three against two and two against three; 53 they will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against her mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”

NASB - Luke 12:52 for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

NKJV - Luke 12:52 For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53 Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.”


Strong's G2071 - esomai
Outline of Biblical Usage [?]

"I will be" (future first person singular of 'to be')

Strong’s Definitions [?](Strong’s Definitions Legend)
ἔσομαι ésomai, es'-om-ahee; future of G1510; will be:—shall (should) be (have), (shall) come (to pass), × may have, × fall, what would follow, × live long, × sojourn.


Last edited by Mithrae on Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:47 am; edited 1 time in total

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 39: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:46 am
Reply

Like this post
[Replying to post 38 by Mithrae]

I am aware these translations. I pointed out, in my earlier post:

" I quoted from KJV. If 'will' is used instead of shall, the meaning is altered."

I was dealing with the wording of the statement I had quoted.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 40: Sun Jan 14, 2018 6:50 am
Reply
Re: Was Jesus unsuccessful?

Like this post
amortalman wrote:



I'm afraid that some details are missing. But the missing details only add more evidence that it was a failed mission.

Christianity (or Islam) would not exist minus:

1) the fear of dying
2) the fear of the unknown
3) ignorance
4) superstition
5) the desire to control people for financial and political gain


These would help the spread of a message that said "eye hath not seen....what God has prepared." Muhammad ingeniously offered virgins on green couches for his lusty audience. I'm not sure this would have helped Christ's message though.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version