Sunday, April 17, 2016

Dennis can't help noting...An Uncomfortable Truth Of Critical Scholarship Demolishes Prophecy and Personality Based COG Split, Splinter and RCG Sliver Foolishness

Dennis can't help noting...

An Uncomfortable Truth Of Critical Scholarship Demolishes Prophecy and Personality Based  COG Split, Splinter and RCG Sliver Foolishness

Why the Book of Daniel Seems So Darn Accurate

"The impression that predictions made in the distant past were fulfilled accurately is due to the fact that the apocalypses were written after these events had already taken place, but their predictions are presented as though they were made prior to their predicted events."


DennisCDiehl said...

In a similiar yet different way, the prophecies of the New Testament life of Jesus are actually taken "according to" and from the OT scriptures to write the story that no one actually knew in reality, giving the Gospels their uncanny impression that the details of Jesus life were predicted in the OT.

"Matthew" no better shows this in his "and thus it was fulfilled" statements taking OT scripture, badly out of context and meaning what it never meant, to flesh out the fantastic story of Jesus miraculous birth. A story Luke never read having made up his own contradictory version.

We see this in the mistaken idea Matthew had that Jesus rode TWO animals into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2-7) He badly misunderstood, "a fold , the colt of an ass" in the OT to mean "a colt and its fold" thus writing two animals into the story. The other Gospels catch this blunder and correct it. It shows Matthew did not actually witness any such event in Jesus life but found a way to write about what he imagined it to be by mining the OT for a story.

DennisCDiehl said...

PS "According to the scriptures" is not the same as "I saw this happen."

Anonymous said...

Cliff's Notes - there's an authoritative source for Biblical scholarship. I guess it is settled then!

Anonymous said...

Answered prayer tells me that the bible is Gods inspired word. QED.

DennisCDiehl said...

Just an example of the common critical perspective. Few here are going to dig into the details

DennisCDiehl said...

There is nothing shallow about a summary for the layman of hard work done by the critical theologians and experts in such material. The real homework is easily done by the open minded and observant of biblical origins and content. However, few upset their own applecarts once belief overshadows the problems with scripture

Anonymous said...

we are born knowing absolutely nothing, and what little we learn is severely limited by the perceptions of the five senses (and frankly they depend on whether or not we eat on a daily basis), yet we presumtuously think we know it all, and have all the answers; and we laud they who are really good at demonstrating this behavior...

we are among animals the most where do you suppose such arrogance comes from???

Michael said...

Dennis wrote:

"We see this in the mistaken idea Matthew had that Jesus rode TWO animals into Jerusalem (Matthew 21:2-7) He badly misunderstood, "a fold , the colt of an ass" in the OT to mean "a colt and its fold" thus writing two animals into the story."

Definitely my favorite one :)
Just imagine the spectacle of poor Jesus having to straddle the two beasts riding into the city. My guess is that "Matthew", in his misunderstanding, thought it was an unusual passage and hence more of attention grabber if he could claim Jesus actually did such an unusual thing...

Byker Bob said...

As a retrospective critique of Armstrongism, I've said for years that the WCG and its pretentious heirs would have been of much greater service to their members if they had concentrated their teachings on classic humane principles, or Christian values, and Christian living, rather than on prophecy.

Regardless as to authorship, or the time in which these apocalypses were written, the net effect is that they were used to leverage and manipulate the devotees to Armstrongism, and the special understanding that HWA claimed has turned out to be totally false. Bottom line is that he did not understand prophecy to any greater extent than did those from whom he sought to differentiate himself.

Those who have blown off a large chunk of their lives to this, and who have made considerable sacrifices, seeing this prophecy message as their work or commission, can either write off their losses, and begin anew, or hold on to some vain hope that sometime in the remainder of their lives, by delayed effect, it will all come to pass. Either alternative is potentially painful. Wouldn't it be nice if they had never been been exposed to HWA's uninformed and uninspired speculations in the first place?

Whether by design or by some perverse version of serendipity, HWA got exactly what he had envisioned for himself as a young business man. We see the gold and silver, prepared for auction. There are all the photos in which he posed with the rich and powerful. Though he claimed to own nothing, he created and controlled a very substantial (if not durable) empire. At the time of his death, he epitomized the bumper sticker "He who dies with the most toys wins". His riches were all directly attributable to false prophecy.


DennisCDiehl said...

The perceived and personal answers to prayer have nothing to do with the realities of scriptural origins, textual problems, historical inaccuracies, politic or faith with no use for critical thinking. Many would say unanswerrd prayer drove them to the oposite conclusions

Questeruk said...

Dennis, this is a ‘self-evident’ article, is it not. You know what they will say just by knowing their standpoint.

If the author of the article believes that the book of Daniel is the work of men, and not inspired by God, then of course he will say what he said! He has to ascribe a date several hundred years later, otherwise how can he explain away the details that would have been written in advance? He HAS to say the book was written hundreds of years after it claims, or admit that it was more than the writings of a man.

You can find plenty of other sources that come to far different conclusions. Ah yes, but Dennis would say they were just ‘apologetics’. Yes, they probably are – what else would they be if they find that what evidence there is tends to show that the book was written when it claims to be written?

An example is - not the last word on the subject, but certainly some food for thought there, from a different perspective, and they are definitely not a COG site!

But no doubt you know of them Dennis – they certainly know you, they have a brief mention of you on their site, which you are probably aware of!

Anonymous said...

I should have added that on several occasions, God answered my prayer by putting a scripture into my mind. So that proves to me beyond doubt that the Christian bible is Gods inspired word. And yes, I am aware that there are translation inaccuracies and the odd copying mistake. As for the separate issue of critical thinking, the bible does teach the obtaining of wisdom. A common experience of church members is to be given the most mentally challenging tasks and responsibilities in their workplace. So God agrees with the development of critical thinking skills.

Black Ops Mikey said...

Several perspectives should be noted.

First, a Gospel quotes one portrayed as Jesus saying that if anyone asks the Father for anything in his (Jesus') name, it would be given.

Then there's the parable of the unjust judge with the admonishment that you have to keep at it praying, so you will be sure to be answered.

Finally (to keep this short), the Apostle Paul said he asked three times, but got the smart aleck answer, "My grace is sufficient for you".

So does God answer prayer or not? How many times do you have to keep asking?

And, hey, does anyone really believe that one appropriate answer to prayer is, "No!"? (Let alone, never getting any sort of answer at all?) It's all so arbitrary for the claim that the one through whom the prayers are answered is the same yesterday, today and forever.

So how does one reconcile this... or is any reconciliation possible, seeing as how the gospels were forgeries written a minimum of 30 years after the time Jesus was supposed to have been around (more like 60, probably), that at least 6 of the epistles of the Apostle Paul were forgeries, as was II Peter and maybe I Peter as well and the epistles by the others... ??? And Revelation barely made it into the Bible over some serious protests.

We all need to remember that the Catholic Church is responsible for compiling the New Testament. How reliable would you expect it to be, compiled by a religion that insisted for centuries that the earth was the center of the universe and the sun revolved around it -- by pain of excommunication and even death to those who didn't believe the doctrine?

Yes, I believe that we can utterly rely on the infallibility of Scripture, as long as we can prove that the sun revolves around the earth (and it may be helpful to prove that the earth is flat as well).

It seems to be the case the more people are truly educated about the real world around them, the more likely they are to be agnostics or atheists. At best, the Bible can be viewed as the collection of speculations by men about the nature of God, without every really encountering Him. In other words, there probably isn't anyone on the face of the earth who knows who or what God is.

If that is the case, Herbert Armstrong and his hireling henchmen would be even more in the dark than anyone else, not even believing the Bible -- because if they did, they would be terrified about being false prophets, but, as we all know, they're just fine with it and expect no vengeance or death over it whatsoever.

What's with that?

DennisCDiehl said...

Yes Q..Foul mouthed Holding called me s High Priest of Marduk a decade ago.. Lol

Questeruk said...

Thought their article on Daniel was quite interesting, but not that familiar with the site, and was a bit surprised to see you listed there.

Lowers my respect for any site if they go round giving out personal abuse.

Someone having a different idea or belief may be a cause for debate, but should never be a reason to insult the person, or question their motives.

As the saying is 'I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it'.

Minimalist said...

Holding comes across, to me, as a bully - I'm thinking of the Holding/Humphries debate.

Anonymous said...

DD said:"Matthew did not actually witness any such event in Jesus life but found a way to write about what he imagined it to be by mining the OT for a story."

We ALL do what Matt did. I still firmly choose to believe that there was, and is good intentions behind the writing of the bible. The catalyst for me "losing my religion" was realizing that the bible is a journal of notes of people who were on their own quest to find God and that is it. We can choose to keep the things that work and dispose the things that don't. We can even add to it if we want. Hopefully, we can add better opinions and understandings to this journal. "Blasphemy!" they will say, but they are the ones who are only holding onto the opinions and errors of other men. Maybe, in this way of looking at it, we can begin to understand why Jesus Christ didn't write The Book himself.

"Anything worth knowing can't be taught, it must be experienced!"
Carl Whitaker


Anonymous said...

Divine Power attributed to "The Book".
An example of "Misplaced Concreteness"
I was born into a fundies christain family. I went to a cultish Private School from K5 to 8th grade.
When I was in the 2nd grade there was a tiny incident that greatly affected me in a negative way. We were asked to bring our homework to the teacher's desk. Everybody did this at the same time, because the teacher was not clear about doing this one student at a time. So, through the crowd I put my homework on top of the teacher's desk that was most close to me. I did not realize that I had layed my homework on "The Book". I then figuretively went through hell as a six-year old child. The teacher's anger, scolding, shaming, humiliation drove me to tears, but not so much for being embarrased but believing that I had actually offended God in some extreme way. I can laugh at it now and imagine how I would have liked to have responded to that situation with how I think and feel now. That helps, and I have come to learn that narcisstic people are always so eager to defend and uphold that kind of God.