When is JC returning?

[Tanstaafl]

Thankyou, it's been 7 weeks since the last surgery and I get stronger each day. I'm managing pretty well on Tylenol so that's been really great.

Glad to hear you're feeling a bit better. I hope the trend continues.

 

[kurious_kathy]

I feel sympathy for your pain but wonder why you are relying on science to relieve your condition rather than your faith in your saviour?

While I don't put all my faith in science or doctors, I do believe God has a purpose in making these things available for us. If a doctor has a cure we go to them. If there is no cure we pray hard and ask God to please heal us. It seems healings only happen by divine intervention when there isn't any other recourse. At least this is my opinion, God gave us doctors to help too.

I am sure the likes of Benny Hinn, Peter Popoff et al will be willing to heal you in the name of Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, in return for a nominal tax-deductable donation to their ministry.

Don't even get me started on Benny Hinn or other faith healer preachers. I'm not going to judge them because I don't know their hearts, but to me Benny just doesn't preach the true gospel of Christ? What concerns me is many go to his meetings for healings but the true gospel message is about repentance not healing. And I'm not saying some don't get physical healing, I just don't think it's that common. Of course in other countries where they don't have the medical facilities we have God seems to do many incredible healings.

I just think salvation is suppose to be the focus, not healing.

 

[Kochanski]

I have read many books and done some studies concerning the second coming of Christ, and while we won't know the exact time of His coming we can anticipate it will be soon. As scripture tells us...Look up, your redemption draws near.

My concern is will we be ready? I want to be busy doing the work God cares about. What do you think that work is? As it stands right now I think the gospel has been preached throughout the whole world, or has it?

And these are celibate, virgin men
Did you miss this kk? Seems like no matter what you do, you ain't going to join the choir invisible at rapture time.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[SezMe]

While I don't put all my faith in science or doctors, I do believe God has a purpose in making these things available for us. If a doctor has a cure we go to them. If there is no cure we pray hard and ask God to please heal us.

Kathy, wouldn't it make more sense for god not to give you neck problems in the first place?

Don't even get me started on Benny Hinn or other faith healer preachers. I'm not going to judge them because I don't know their hearts, <...>

I think I do...money. Lots of it.

 

[kurious_kathy]

Kathy, wouldn't it make more sense for god not to give you neck problems in the first place?

Who says God gave me these afflictions? I blame it on myself for reckless living in the past and perhaps Satan. As with Job Satan was aloud to afflict Job but God had a purpose in what He aloud. I believe all things have and do work for the good for those who love the Lord and are called according to His purposes.

I am such a strong willed person it's probably been something that He needed to allow so I would cry out Abba, Father I need you, help me. I admit without God I do not want to continue living. Don't you see the good in that dependency on a higher power like God? I certainly do.

I live and breathe each day because God wills it. I believe it's the same for each of us, but some acknowlege Him and others don't. God gives people purpose to be. We were created to have a relationship with our loving Heavenly Father. It's not about religion, it's all about relationship!

 

[AgingYoung]

By the way – it has been suggested that Luke’s Gospel was written after AD 70. In that case, maybe he’s doing a Nostradamus, then – creating an after-the-event forecast? Well, let’s face it, that’s the only way to guarantee accuracy....

Who has ever suggested this and what are their names and addresses? Ok, maybe what reason did they have for this suggestion?

mean Gene

 

[Kochanski]

kk, are you ignoring that scripture says you ain't going when the rapture comes?

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

As usual, wikipedia has a good summary with links to support the case they make. And it's not at all unusual to suggest that Luke was written after 70 AD. It would seem to be be the consensus to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke

 

[SezMe]

Who has ever suggested this and what are their names and addresses? Ok, maybe what reason did they have for this suggestion?

mean Gene

Get a copy of Who Wrote The Gospels by Randel McGraw Helms. It is an excellent, readable account of the gospels. He has:

Mark: the early 70s
Matthew: mid 80s
John: 90-95
Luke/Acts: ~105

All dates AD.

 

[AgingYoung]

Yuppy,

There isn't a consensus among scholars as to the dating of the gospels. The range from wiki for Luke...

• Estimates range from c. 50 to c. 100.

Different scholars have different reasons for their opinions.

SezMe,

I'd be more interested in the reasoning as opposed to the conclusions. If you've read Who Wrote The Gospels repeat the case for a late dating of Luke. I'd like to hear it.

Gene

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

AgingYoung,

What percentage of scholars would you consider to represent a consensus?

I consulted two teaching bibles and a variety of websites and couldn't find any who supported a date earlier than 70 AD. And note that I didn't say 70 AD, I said "later than 70AD". If I'm understanding you correctly, your source argues for a much later date. If so, that would also support what I said. Someone would need to cite some scholars arguing for a date earlier than 70AD to refute what I claimed.

While I don't think there is a consensus on when Luke was written, I think there is a consensus that it was later than 70 AD.

 

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Thanks to you all for contributing, especially to our very own Yuppie - hope the recovery is progressing - for those two verses from Mark.

I had dimly remembered that one of the gospelleers had written like that, but didn't find the actual verses.

Thanks to Adler for your contribution. I have boundless respect for you and all others who use their brains, and have the courage to escape from such greedy and vindictive sects. All I did was to leave the Presbyterian Church

I guess my thoughts are heading this way - and I'm making a number of assumptions here, of course

When JC was crucified, a shock-wave went through the faithful and hangers-on. However, when you read the confused accounts of this and the resurrection, I for one suspect that He probably didnt die at all.

Given that it normally took days for victims of this punishment to die, and JC was only hanging about for a few hours, and that Pilate was apparently a greedy, venal governor, it seems more than likely that PP was bought off, Jesus was taken from the cross before death, and the conspiracy sprung into action.

All of those supporters who were expecting the "knight on shining armour" to free them from the hated Romans (what have the Romans ever done for us?) must have been getting very twitchy at this point, so the story of His imminent return to glory was produced.

Now possibly a real problem arose at this point - maybe He really did die. Oh, sorry, He was raptured, wasn't He? It seems likely at this point most of the Jewish supporters had had enough, hence the decision to open up the new religion to the great unwashed Gentiles. Because of this, the decision was made to convert His kingdom to one of the heavens, not worldy at all.

Then later, things began to be written down, so that folk can discuss them on the Internet.

Of course, this depends on whether He really existed in the first place, of course.

YBW

 

[AgingYoung]

Yuppy,
Let me rephrase this. The source you cited (wiki) gives a date range for Luke of circa 50AD - 100AD.

To this point...

• What percentage of scholars would you consider to represent a consensus?

The facts of a matter aren't determined by consensus. When it comes to the dating of the gospels different scholars for different reasons have their opinions. I'm generally always interested in the reason more than I am the conclusion and I seldom care if it's a majority opinion.

For instance the archeologist Sir William Ramsay for the most part ascribed to the Tubingen theory. As I understand it that theory states the gospels were a 3rd century contrivance. After studying the archeology of Asia Minor he was persuaded that Acts (traditionally believed to be written by Luke) was written by someone that was familiar with the historical context of the period it was thought to be written in; he considered it an accurate record with regard to the topography and customs of that period.

One of the most significant points as to the date of Luke as I see it is the fact that no mention is made of the destruction of the temple. YouBelieve suggests that's because it was written after the fact and it was a dishonest effort on the part of the author to make the account seem prophetic. I believe if Luke were written after the destruction of the temple it would have been noted. I think speculation to the contrary is hard to believe. I wouldn't mind hearing any reasoning to support that idea by anyone.

mean Gene

 

[Marc L]

I believe the Lord is waiting for the last sinner to repent and be saved before His return.

And yet, the Bible clearly teaches that all will not be saved. There will be those that reject Jesus, even after his return, if I remember right. How does that mesh with what you typed here?

By the way, good luck with your neck pain, I hope you recover soon.

Marc

 

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

I've followed a similar route to SezMe, where Luke is considered to have been written long after AD70. Also, Wiki mentions 50-100, which isn't incompatible with a guess of "later than 70".

The passage quoted does look like a good description of the Roman attack to me, so I've put that, and a suggested date together to create my hypothesis - a debating point if you will.

We'll probably never know the truth.

I'd like to add my hopes for a speedy recovery KK, too.

YBW

 

[cj.23]

I've followed a similar route to SezMe, where Luke is considered to have been written long after AD70. Also, Wiki mentions 50-100, which isn't incompatible with a guess of "later than 70".

Yes, I thought this was common knowledge? I was last working in Bib Crit seriously a good decade ago, but here are some dates

Mark is usually placed in the early 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80 to 90s, and John was usually believed to 90s or sometime in the early to mid second century. We know the late dates for John are wrong now, as we have found a fragment from an early manuscript.

In fact, I am beginning to believe in Johannine priority, but that is another story.

However of the Synoptics (other 3 gospels, not John's), Mark definitely came first. It was often in the 19th century dated to AD 62-65, but is now dated by Biblical scholars to the period shortly after AD70, because it seems to predict the Destruction of the Temple, and therefore we assume it was written after that event.

So saying it predicts the Destruction of the Temple & Fall of Jerusalem because it was written after the event is actually kind of odd. Yes, that is why we believe it dates from after AD70 in the first place!

Yet Luke does, as much as Mark does. All three Synoptics have exactly the same material on the destruction of the Temple. You can find it in Matthew 24, and I will find it in Luke ionce i've had my morning coffee.

cj x

 

[Marc L]

In fact, I am beginning to believe in Johannine priority, but that is another story.

Don't leave us hanging, dude. By all means, start the thread

Marc

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The facts of a matter aren't determined by consensus. When it comes to the dating of the gospels different scholars for different reasons have their opinions.

Ah, I did get confused in thinking you had mentioned the source provided by SezMe. But my original post to you was in response to your apparent surprise that some scholars dated Luke after 70AD when in fact it is quite a common opinion and even appears to be a majority opinion to me.

As to my own opinion, I wouldn't suggest a specific date. I'd just go with the facts and the wiki articles lays out some of the largest: We have 3rd century copies that are nearly complete and reflect it's current form; We have references to people talking about the writing from the later 2nd century; beyond those "hard facts" we have interpretations based on oral traditions and content of the gospel.

he considered it an accurate record with regard to the topography and customs of that period

If we have accurate enough knowledge today to make such a judgement couldn't an author writing between 50 and 325 AD have similar knowledge? Can you cite some particular bit of knowledge about customs or topology that was conclusively lost during some part of that period and recovered afterward?

 

[Tanstaafl]

I admit without God I do not want to continue living. Don't you see the good in that dependency on a higher power like God? I certainly do.

I have wondered at times if you understand at all that you have traded one addiction for another. I may have underestimated you, it sounds like you do at least have a clue.

At least this addiction is less harmful.

 

[Mephisto]

After a number of recent threads, especially one where KK mentioned how much she was looking forward to the Rapture, I thought I'd try to find out why people would think that it's imminent.

So - when's He returning?

Actually he already did, but he made the mistake of appearing as an illegal immigrant wandering through an ethno-phobic American desert and was beaten and left for dead.

Now try wearing that symbol on a chain around your neck.