An Atheist's Misinterpretation

[Right Divider]

Sounds like deja vu all over again.

He makes the same idiotic comments over and over and over and over..... repeat.

 

[csuguy]

Was the gospel preached to every creature?
Is this authentic scripture? Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Paul said the gospel was preached to every creature. Do we agree with him? Col. 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
It seems to me that Matt. 24:14 agrees with what Paul said in Col. 1:23.

As I pointed out in my other posts - you have a glaring problem if you attempt to say that the gospel was literally preached throughout all nations by 70 AD. Namely: the Americas. Scripture often speaks in hyperbole - and you will find yourself trying to defend silly and untenable positions if you don't realize this.

Take the example of Romans 3 where it teaches that everyone, all Jews and all Greeks, are sinners who fall short of the glory of God. It also quotes the OT where it says things like:

Romans 3:10-12 There is none righteous, not even one; 11 There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; 12 All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.”​

If you attempt to take these in the most literal sense rather than as a hyperbole - you will end up with the untenable position that these things apply to Jesus: "for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin" (Romans 3:9). We might also consider as counter-examples infants and young children, particularly ones that die young such as from abortion. They did not sin. These scriptures are meant as generalizations not as absolutes.

Now, it maybe fair to say that Paul is speaking literally here from his 1st century understanding of the world. In which case this is a case of human error due to a lack of knowledge. However, I am inclined to view such statements as hyperbole. He simply means that it is actively spreading and being preached throughout the world - not that they have gone and preached to the entire world, and certainly not to every creature.

Also Revelation speaks about things that must shortly take place. Rev. 1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
Revelation 22:6 And he said unto me, These sayings are faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.

2 Peter 3:8 - 9 But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
​

 

[George Affleck]

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

The day of Pentecost, when the disciples, filled with the Holy Ghost, preached to devout men out of every nation under heaven was the fulfilment of this prophecy by Jesus.

Verse 5 - "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."
Verse 11 - "...we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Verse 37 - "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
Please read Acts 2.

God ensured, prior to the days of great tribulation (AD 70) that the gospel was deposited, as a witness, in every nation under heaven in devout men who undoubtedly took this good news with them, as a witness, when they returned to their own country.

This is not a charge to take the gospel of the kingdom to every creature. This is a supernatural endeavour, orchestrated by God, ensuring that every linguistic/cultural group under heaven that could be considered, by any reckoning, a nation, had some witnesses to the truth.

What is interesting to me is that this "witness to the nations" was accomplished exclusively by Jews.

 

[daqq]

'Pay no heed' is telling someone to do something (or not to do something in this case). When you tell someone to do something, we call that a 'command'.

In grammar it is called an imperative.

In Greek, imperatives are dealt with by changing the verb ending. In English, it is done in several ways, including by adding an exclamation mark. In English, 'Go!' is the imperative but 'You are going' is the indicative. 'Go!' is telling someone to do something, which we also call a command. 'You are going.' is not telling anyone to do anything but it just a statement of fact. 'Are you going?' is a question but it is still indicative because it is asking a question about a state of fact.
In English (modern English at least), negative imperatives require an auxilliary verb:

'Do not go!', 'Do not pay attention!'

Anyone can see that the form of the negative imperative is quite different to the positive imperative.

Are you with me so far?

In Greek, the singular imperative of blepo is blepe and the plural imperative is blepete.
In Greek, the singular indicative is blepeis and the plural indicative is blepete. Negatives are formed by addition of the word ou (not).

In Greek, negative imperatives, as in English, are formed differently. These are prefixed by adding the word 'me' instead of the word 'ou'. Your invented translation was 'Pay no heed to...'.
This would be rendered in Greek as 'me blepete' because it is a negative imperative.
The actual Greek text is 'ou blepete'. Because it is 'ou' and not 'me', it cannot possibly mean 'Pay no heed...' Rather it means 'You do not see' or 'Do you not see?'

This is learnt in the third or fourth lesson of a beginners Greek class.

You have no humility and I don't expect you to accept this basic explanation. But I am on record as telling you it in black and white and I also earlier posted a link which explained it in more detail. It is basic Greek and English grammar. If you cannot accept it but still need to peddle your own wares, invented by only yourself, believed on by only you, motivated by only ambition to be the dunce of the class, then that is your loss.

It is not worth arguing with you about it but I also am on record for trying to show you how your interpretation, though it follows the majority of your super-scholar-teachers, makes the Master Teacher Yeshua look foolish. You only show now that you do not care so long as his words follow your rules which came after the fact.

Essentially this is your doctrine concerning Yeshua:

Disciple -- "Master, look at these magnificent beautiful stones!"
Yeshua -- "Do you not see these stones?"

Uh-huh, have fun explaining that one . . . :chuckle: :wave:

 

[Desert Reign]

It is not worth arguing with you about it

You are correct. Because you are wrong and I am right.

but I also am on record

Your attempt at a face-saving climb down begins.

for trying to show you how your interpretation, though it follows the majority of your super-scholar-teachers,

There is nothing super-scholar about it. It is basic ancient Greek. As I said before, 3rd or 4th lesson of beginner Greek. You only say this because you want to make those who know what they are talking about look bad, instead of what you should be doing which is making those who don't know what they are talking about look bad. Is this what you do to everyone who knows something that you don't?

makes the Master Teacher Yeshua look foolish. You only show now that you do not care so long as his words follow your rules which came after the fact.

Just because you don't understand the text doesn't mean that you can go and retranslate it to suit yourself. Is that what you do to the rest of the Bible when there is something you don't like? FOR CRYING OUT LOUD MAN, you don't even know any ancient Greek at all and you don't even have any concept of English grammar, let alone an ancient foreign language. And here you are retranslating the New Testament! WHAT KIND OF CROOKED MENTALITY MAKES YOU TICK?

Essentially this is your doctrine concerning Yeshua:

Disciple -- "Master, look at these magnificent beautiful stones!"
Yeshua -- "Do you not see these stones?"

Uh-huh, have fun explaining that one . . . :chuckle: :wave:

You have invented this. It doesn't say 'Do you not see these stones?' It says 'Do you not see all these things?' And the disciples didn't say "Master, look at these magnificent beautiful stones!" It says they "came up to point out the temple buildings to Him".

Your basic problem is that you are not humble enough to learn. The reason why all these what you disparagingly call 'super scholars' know what they know is because they began by being humble and recognising that they needed to learn. That is the reason why they now know a lot more than you do and why you have difficulty understanding basic things like this text - because you never wanted to learn anything in the first place.

 

[daqq]

You are correct. Because you are wrong and I am right.

Your attempt at a face-saving climb down begins.

There is nothing super-scholar about it. It is basic ancient Greek. As I said before, 3rd or 4th lesson of beginner Greek. You only say this because you want to make those who know what they are talking about look bad, instead of what you should be doing which is making those who don't know what they are talking about look bad. Is this what you do to everyone who knows something that you don't?

Just because you don't understand the text doesn't mean that you can go and retranslate it to suit yourself. Is that what you do to the rest of the Bible when there is something you don't like? FOR CRYING OUT LOUD MAN, you don't even know any ancient Greek at all and you don't even have any concept of English grammar, let alone an ancient foreign language. And here you are retranslating the New Testament! WHAT KIND OF CROOKED MENTALITY MAKES YOU TICK?

You have invented this. It doesn't say 'Do you not see these stones?' It says 'Do you not see all these things?' And the disciples didn't say "Master, look at these magnificent beautiful stones!" It says they "came up to point out the temple buildings to Him".

Your basic problem is that you are not humble enough to learn. The reason why all these what you disparagingly call 'super scholars' know what they know is because they began by being humble and recognising that they needed to learn. That is the reason why they now know a lot more than you do and why you have difficulty understanding basic things like this text - because you never wanted to learn anything in the first place.

I have not backed off from anything except trying to avoid disrupting this thread any more than we already have. You only think you know what you are talking about because you have been led by the nose straight into the ditch. You have to mesh all of the Gospel accounts together before you will see the bigger overall picture. Mark 13:1 was already quoted in this thread. Perhaps if you would have taken a better look at that passage you might have noticed that what I said above is indeed spoken to Yeshua from a disciple at that same time that the words in Matthew are recorded. You do realize these are companion passages do you not? In addition I was referring also in part to the example I gave which you must have also ignored. And perhaps if you had checked you might also have noticed the difference in the Mark 13:2 companion statement where "ou" is not present as it is in the Matthew 24:2 statement:

Mark 13:1-2 KJV
1. And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!
2. And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

This one is more correctly rendered but it throws the reader-interpeter a curve ball when it comes to Matthew because Matthew does NOT say the same thing. Nice talkin to ya wise one. :chuckle:

PS ~ Come to think of it you would have been better off to go with the two or three examples already provided up until now. But since you are trying to make it look as if I have not already stated what the passage says here it is word for word:

Disciples from Matthew and Mark --
And Yeshua went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple; and one of his disciples said unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!

Opening reply from Yeshua in Matthew 24:2 --
And Yeshua said unto them, See you not all these things?

And you think this is better for your case than my previous examples?
This includes the whole gigantic temple building structure!

Disciple: Master, Look at these stones and this great magnificent building!
Yeshua: Do you not see these stones and this building? (all these things).

Are you really so dense that you see no problem with this response? :crackup:

 

[RevTestament]

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

The day of Pentecost, when the disciples, filled with the Holy Ghost, preached to devout men out of every nation under heaven was the fulfilment of this prophecy by Jesus.

While I respect your desire to understand Matt 24 from a scriptural standpoint George, I don't see every nation in the world spoken of by Jesus as necessarily every nation under heaven. Every nation under heaven implies every nation under the law of heaven to some degree. It is also saying specifically "Jews" from these nations:

Verse 5 - "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven."
Verse 11 - "...we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Verse 37 - "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?"
Please read Acts 2.

The Jews have no record of living in nations such as China which existed at the time. The same with the nations of the Americas. I feel it is referencing every nation that the people of Israel had been spread to by that point in other words it is speaking about the "nations" of Israel to whom the gospel was to come first. Josephus notes that the "lost" ten tribes lived on the other side of the Euphrates which at the time was Parthia, and they actually had successful battles with the Romans. Indeed this is probably where the "wise men" came from who visited the infant Jesus, and who later disbursed when Parthia was defeated by the Persians. There were probably Jews from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Gentile nations to the north. Jews have always been involved in mercantile trade and so traveled to these "nations" bringing them "under heaven."

God ensured, prior to the days of great tribulation (AD 70) that the gospel was deposited, as a witness, in every nation under heaven in devout men who undoubtedly took this good news with them, as a witness, when they returned to their own country.

My point is that every "nation under heaven" is not necessarily every nation in the world spoken of by Jesus in Matt 24, but every Israeli nation, as the nations God had promised to bless in Genesis ie "under heaven."

This is not a charge to take the gospel of the kingdom to every creature. This is a supernatural endeavour, orchestrated by God, ensuring that every linguistic/cultural group under heaven that could be considered, by any reckoning, a nation, had some witnesses to the truth.

If the gospel had been heard by "every creature" under heaven, how come Paul spends the rest of his career preaching it to those "creatures" who did not know it?

 

[George Affleck]

RT - Although I am sure we would differ on many things, I always appreciate the way you conduct yourself and the way you choose your words to make your points. Many here would do well to learn from you that a difference of opinion can be discussed in a God honouring way. You have my respect sir/ma'am.

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations (ethnos); and then shall the end come."

"And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation (ethnos) under heaven."

While I respect your desire to understand Matt 24 from a scriptural standpoint George, I don't see every nation in the world spoken of by Jesus as necessarily every nation under heaven.
Every nation under heaven implies every nation under the law of heaven to some degree. It is also saying specifically "Jews" from these nations:

To a great degree 21st century Bible students are prisoners of modernity. What is a "nation" to us is probably not identical to what the Jews would have understood it to mean 2000 years ago or even what God would recognize a nation to be.
My opinion is that this is why God, In Acts 2, used the phrase "every nation under heaven". To me it is like saying 'every people group that is recognized by heaven (God) to qualify with nation status'. It could even be based on the structure God decided on during the confusion of languages at Babel. On this subject, the word "ethnos" is probably derived from "etho" which means to be accustomed or customary behaviour.
We would agree that a few huts in the middle of nowhere hardly qualifies as a nation. The question is; what does qualify? How many huts makes a nation? Perhaps what qualifies is whether or not a Jewish community existed in that people group as you suggest down a bit from here. Essentially we are walking the same side of the street.

The Jews have no record of living in nations such as China which existed at the time.

According to the Sino-Judaic Institute small groups of Jews lived under Chinese rule as early as 92 AD. Some scholars believe it was well before that. I don't think it really matters.

The same with the nations of the Americas.

Ok - you got me! Here is where I need to play the "who says there were any nations recognized by God in the Americas" card. And we come back to the same question - how many huts does it take to make a nation in God's eyes?

I feel it is referencing every nation that the people of Israel had been spread to by that point in other words it is speaking about the "nations" of Israel to whom the gospel was to come first. Josephus notes that the "lost" ten tribes lived on the other side of the Euphrates which at the time was Parthia, and they actually had successful battles with the Romans. Indeed this is probably where the "wise men" came from who visited the infant Jesus, and who later disbursed when Parthia was defeated by the Persians. There were probably Jews from Egypt, Ethiopia, and the Gentile nations to the north. Jews have always been involved in mercantile trade and so traveled to these "nations" bringing them "under heaven."
My point is that every "nation under heaven" is not necessarily every nation in the world spoken of by Jesus in Matt 24, but every Israeli nation, as the nations God had promised to bless in Genesis ie "under heaven."

And my point is that, during the 1st cent., if a nation was not "under heaven" it was not a nation at all, it was just so many huts. A region without Jewish presence was not called a nation by God or by the Jews and when Jesus said "a witness to all nations", He was correct. He was including only the people groups who had been brought under heaven, as you put it, because they were the only nations in the world at the time certified by heaven because of the presence of a Jewish community.

...to the Jew first...

If the gospel had been heard by "every creature" under heaven, how come Paul spends the rest of his career preaching it to those "creatures" who did not know it?

I suggest that preaching the gospel to every creature has nothing whatsoever to do with either of these verses. I think its in a different category and is a "charge" to personal witnessing and discipling which was to begin with the apostles. It is individual instead of general.

 

[Ben Masada]

Some find this disturbing. They would rather see a dead fossil than a live being.

Perhaps because in a dead fossil there is History already lived and in a live being, History is still on the living. Hence, for some, death is more interesting than life.

 

[iamaberean]

In his book "The Atheist’s Introduction to the New Testament: How the Bible Undermines the Basic Teachings of Christianity", Mike Davis says that, for him, the deciding factor about Christianity came down to Matthew 24:34.

If Jesus was Divine, He would not have made this prediction which obviously did not come true 1900 years ago. Either the Bible is untrustworthy or Jesus was wrong. Because of this the case against Christianity is "closed".

I, of course, like the KJV so here it is:
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Was Jesus a false prophet?

No, Jesus was not a false prophet. Yet many Christians believe that Jesus did not return in the disciples generation. I know he did because he told his disciples that the temple would be destroyed, and it was in 70 AD. Subtract 30, the age Jesus started teaching, from 70 and you get 40. Forty years is the length of time that the Jews would wander in the wilderness in order that that generation would not enter into the promise land, and that is the length of time until the end of their age of law, a wilderness.
If Jesus did not return in 70 AD then we are still waiting for him to set up his kingdom.
I am not waiting, I do not live under the law, I live under grace.

 

[George Affleck]

No, Jesus was not a false prophet. Yet many Christians believe that Jesus did not return in the disciples generation. I know he did because he told his disciples that the temple would be destroyed, and it was in 70 AD. Subtract 30, the age Jesus started teaching, from 70 and you get 40. Forty years is the length of time that the Jews would wander in the wilderness in order that that generation would not enter into the promise land, and that is the length of time until the end of their age of law, a wilderness.
If Jesus did not return in 70 AD then we are still waiting for him to set up his kingdom.
I am not waiting, I do not live under the law, I live under grace.

I agree.

I am convinced that Jesus did "return" in the "clouds of judgement" on those who failed to heed God's warnings, in 70 AD, and also to fulfill the balance of the prophecies: cessation of sacrifices, sealing up the visions, etc.

As you point out concerning His kingdom, the last and final destruction of Jerusalem and dissolving of theocratic Israel put to rest all doubt, for His followers, that the Son of God was in charge. He ascended to His throne and now reigns, possessing the keys of hell and death.

For me, the destruction of Jerusalem, and particularly the temple, was the "sign of the Son of man in heaven". It was the earthly sign that the physical/earthly kingdom had given way to the spiritual/heavenly kingdom and that Jesus was indeed King forever more.

Today's Israel is not a resurrection of the old theocratic nation. Today's Israel is just a country like any other and Jews are simply sinners in need of forgiveness. The Lord abandoned the old Israel and declared; "Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he (Jesus) that cometh in the name of the Lord." and "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

 

[MichaelCadry]

I agree.

I am convinced that Jesus did "return" in the "clouds of judgement" on those who failed to heed God's warnings, in 70 AD, and also to fulfill the balance of the prophecies: cessation of sacrifices, sealing up the visions, etc.

Dear GeorgeA,

Jesus did not return in 70 AD. He is yet to return. As far as the fact that the sacrifice and oblation to cease written of in Daniel, it pertains to something else. Not what you are claiming. And He shall come with the clouds of Heaven and all of the earth will mourn. That has not happened yet. Jesus said all of the events in Rev. must happen first before His Return. It is for the latter days. Now if 70 AD was the latter days, then what do you call these? What, almost 1930 years later? And two witnesses shall come first. Did they come back in 70 AD? George, too many holes. Plus, Jesus' Return IS in the near future. WE are living in the Latter Days, not someone else. Be sure of it.

As you point out concerning His kingdom, the last and final destruction of Jerusalem and dissolving of theocratic Israel put to rest all doubt, for His followers, that the Son of God was in charge. He ascended to His throne and now reigns, possessing the keys of hell and death.

This is too far out. I don't have the time or inclination to deal with these errors right now. Maybe at some other time. I am super busy. George, be careful what you believe. Where did you come up with all of this except the idle man's mind to make up what is not true.

Hey Buddy!! I've got to tell you that Jesus HASN'T returned yet. It is still to be in the very near future. Almost everything you said in your post before this one is not true. I can't answer each different paragraph or sentence, because I don't have time right now, and you probably would not believe me anyways. I'm outta here.

For me, the destruction of Jerusalem, and particularly the temple, was the "sign of the Son of man in heaven". It was the earthly sign that the physical/earthly kingdom had given way to the spiritual/heavenly kingdom and that Jesus was indeed King forever more.

Today's Israel is not a resurrection of the old theocratic nation. Today's Israel is just a country like any other and Jews are simply sinners in need of forgiveness. The Lord abandoned the old Israel and declared; "Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he (Jesus) that cometh in the name of the Lord." and "Behold, your house is left unto you desolate."

God Watch Over You!!

Michael

 

[George Affleck]

WE are living in the Latter Days, not someone else. Be sure of it.

Heb 1:2KJV, 1 Pet 1:20KJV, 1 Cor 10:11KJV, Ac 2:17KJV, 1 Jo 2:18KJV

The apostles knew they were in the "last days".

 

[MichaelCadry]

Heb 1:2KJV, 1 Pet 1:20KJV, 1 Cor 10:11KJV, Ac 2:17KJV, 1 Jo 2:18KJV

The apostles knew they were in the "last days".

Dear George Affleck,

You will see what the last days are and then you will know them by their passing. You will never forget it all and it shall leave an indelible mark upon your soul and mind. You shall see the Lord coming just as He left... with the clouds of Heaven. 'Then shall all of the tribes of the Earth mourn and they shall see the coming of the Lord Jesus...' This has not happened yet, George. You also may have read that there shall be a great earthquake, such as none since man has been upon the Earth, in the last days. Now this has not happened yet either. I could go on and on, but I've got other business to take care of right now. {See Rev. 6:12KJV and Rev. 16:18KJV}.

Much Love, In Christ!!

Michael

:rapture: :rapture: :cloud9: :angel:

 

[George Affleck]

It is difficult for us in the 21st century to conceive of how
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
refers to the destruction of Jersusalem in 70 AD.

But upon closer examination, we find that this symbolism is used elsewhere in scripture for disaster and the destruction of nations. See Is 13:10KJV for Babylon and Ezek32:7KJV for Egypt. But we should know that He is speaking metaphorically anyway by the inclusion of "the powers of the heavens shall be shaken" clause. The physical sun, moon and stars have no power that can be shaken. The book of Hebrews explains the mystery when it says; " Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. And this word, Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain." Israel was shaken and removed. What remains is the Kingdom of God with Christ as King.

The nation of Israel is symbolically referred to throughout Rev 12. In verse 1, Israel is described as a Woman clothed with the sun and moon and wearing a crown of stars. Tying the symbols to Joseph's dream in Genesis 37 confirms the Woman's identity. In the next verse, Israel is the Woman about to give birth.

In Genesis, Jacob clearly understood that he was the sun, his wife was the moon, and his twelve children were the stars. This is the root of the nation of Israel. In Revelation, these symbols are used for two reasons. One is to signify the root of the woman portrayed there, that she is Israelitish: sun, moon, stars—Jacob, Rachel, and the twelve sons. But the sun, moon, and stars also have a secondary meaning: to indicate glory. She is a glorious woman—one that can be associated with the glorious things in the heaven—the sun, moon, and stars. Israel's beginning was as glorious as the heavenly bodies but her ending was with desolation.