John 2.19 Destroy this temple and in three days i will raise it

Faith & Science Conversation
,
25

I am not entirely sure I understand what do you mean by this?

The ten commandments already existed before Moses.
The reason that the Israelites were taken out into the desert after Egypt also included what I suppose we would call a re education excursion. You have to remember, the Israelites had been in Egypt for many generations…they were corrupted by the Egyptian way of life and had largely forgotten their own heritage and belief structure.
When God took them to mount Sinai and gave them the 10 commandments, this was part of that process to remind them of what it mean to follow the one true God and not the idols and ways of Egypt.
Some might ask, how can I provide evidence that the 10 commandments already existed? That is quite easy…(I am not arguing allegory or otherwise below…that is not my intention here)

Genesis 12:16
16 And the LORD God commanded him, “You may eat freely from every tree of the garden, 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; for in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die.”

So here we have God saying to Adam, if you do not follow my expectations, my wishes, my laws, then you will surely die

then there are some interesting statements in the 10 commandments (and this is why the Sabbath commandment for example, is so important)
Given the Israelites had just left the Egyptian culture and its influences, dont you find it rather ironic that God starts off the 10 commandments as follows:

1 And God spoke all these words:

2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

3 You shall have no other gods before Me.a

Then he goes on to say shortly after this:

8 Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy.

It is very obvious that the law, Gods eternal law, pre existed this earth we live on. That should make perfect sense to any Christian to be honest and here’s why: A person, a mature adult person, has beliefs that they inherited from their upbringing. These things usually a result of indoctrination from parents, peers and culture. Now God is accepted by Christians as being a mature adult…the difference being, he was never a child who had to learn from anyone. Now that we have established the everlasting nature of God, it should be quite easy to theologically accept that God has rules and these rules are as old as He is.
Rules are not a consequence of sin, that is a complete fallacy. Science has rules, do these rules only exist because of failure or do they exist because they are a natural order of things? Is natural order sinful? I would argue it is not!

the point of law is to provide a pathway to maintain harmony. If we follow that pathway, we stay safe…if we venture off it, then chaos erupts. That is the natural order of things…in an of itself, it isn’t sinful or evil any more than laws are. We do not say that the law the criminal breaks is sinful, we say the criminal who refuses to follow the natural order of things (ie the law) is sinful.

So even within our every day lives experience, it should be quite easy to understand and accept that the 10 commandments, Gods law of Love, predates Exodus 20 and even creation. It also means that these laws will continue to exist for as long as God does…all eternity.

26

I have a theological issue with a claim in the Forward of the book written by Humprey. See below

Finally, he made a fresh attempt to date the crucifixion of Jesus by using astronomical evidence for determining the likely year and also by proposing that Peter’s reference in his Pentecost speech to the moon being turned to blood (Acts 2:20) was to a lunar eclipse in AD 33 at which the moon would indeed have had a blood-red appearance.

Paul was not speaking retrospectively of past events when he quotes the prophecy in Joel…the Blood moon is not about the death of Christ. that prophecy is speaking of times after Jesus life on earth. I do not believe that it can be interpreted as an event that occurred years earlier (remembering that by the time the book of Acts was written and Paul was ministering, it was a number of years. Paul did not even know Jesus…he had never even heard him preach)

I do not wish to attempt to trash a scholar far more educated than myself, however, even just basic logic tells me its highly unlikely that the blood moon event can be scientifically linked with Jesus death using Acts 2:20 as its primary source of reference.

EDIT
Also I am considering what Jesus said in Matthew 24

29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days:

‘The sun will be darkened,

and the moon will not give its light;

the stars will fall from the sky,

and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.b’

30 At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven,c and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.d

I also disagree with the claim by this author (Humprey) that there is a problem with the last supper. ie that there is mystery over the type of bread eaten. He claims that it is uncertain whether or not one should eat unleavened or leavened bread at this meal. I see this as being directly addressed in Exodus 12

5 Your lamb must be an unblemished year-old male, and you may take it from the sheep or the goats. 6 You must keep it until the fourteenth day of the month, when the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel will slaughter the animals at twilight.b 7 They are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframesc of the houses where they eat the lambs.

8 They are to eat the meat that night, roasted over the fire, along with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

9 Do not eat any of the meat raw or cooked in boiling water, but only roasted over the fire—its head and legs and inner parts. 10 Do not leave any of it until morning; before the morning you must burn up any part that is left over.

11 This is how you are to eat it: You must be fully dressed for travel,d with your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. You are to eat in haste; it is the LORD’s Passover.

I also disagree completely that there are any inconsistencies in the events of the trial of Jesus. Humprey cites a table of events as apparent evidence for said inconsistencies, however, in reality, the various authors of the gospels actually are spot on with each others accounts in the timeline. The only difference is how much information is provided, not whether or not they agree. I do not see any problem here as Humprey appears to claim. He is searching for red hearings in my opinion.

27

true God has rules and society has made a new set of rules and created their own division and problems , i do not see what you do not understand when i asked what day is the sabbath so reading what you have stated here you are implying that i am understanding is that the sabbath falls on the day that adam and eve got kicked from the garden i am still questioning these days and howw they came to be how did one establish time did they wake up one day and learn to read a clock these are the questions i have for society and many can only give what they know as the truth

28

Society hasn’t really made new rules…I think that basically the rules have remained exactly the same.

I am not implying that the Sabbath day is the Day they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden. I don’t think the Bible tells us what day of the week that event occurred. WE do know that God came down and walked with them every day…so I wouldn’t subscribe personally to it being the Sabbath. I am not stating it wasn’t the Sabbath, just that I am not aware of what day of the week it was when they were kicked out.

I am not really understanding your question of days and time. It seems to me that you do not agree that there are miracles in the Bible…would I be correct in saying that?

the days exist because God created them. The universe exists because God created it. Time exists because God created time. Is this anymore difficult to understand and accept than someone saying it (time/days) for a completely unknown reason, suddenly appeared and expanded into existence from nothing?

The only difference between the secular view and the religious view, is what existed before the big bang and how it started. I don’t think either side of the argument debate that the big bang/expansion of the universe took place. And that is because both scientifically and theologically it makes perfect sense.

29

first off i disagree with you when you state and i quote Society hasn’t really made new rules…I think that basically the rules have remained exactly the same end quote . excuse me maybe that is true in Church doctrine but as far as society and the laws man have i do not see though shall not in the Criminal Code of Canada. I do not see though shall not and though shall do this and that in the consitution and that can go back to honest abe Miranda Rights Established - HISTORY so yes society has in fact created a set of laws to rule and bring order to us so called humans there is even the CRiminal code so i am right in saying that society has made sets of rules that differ from church doctrine in order to suit their needs and the needs of the rich and powerful and the ones who bring economic value to this world and as far as miracles go yes i do bellive in all that ■■■■ including ghosts lost soals and old lucy goosy that was eating dinner on the left hand side of ya jesus prove that i am wrong ya cant

30

I think you are slightly missing the point of laws. All laws, despite the intricases of the legal system, all laws stem from a very small number of basic principles. In fact, we can draw them all from just one of two principles…love your neighbour as yourself (sound familiar?).

I have used the following in the past whenever this comes up and I challenge you with it as I have done others…take any one of the 10 commandments and on a daily basis and intentionally break that commandment.

Despite which of the commandments you break, doing so will be contrary to both your health and happiness (even breaking the Sabbath). It may not necessarily happen in an instant, however, over time, absolutely it will be detrimental to your wellbeing.

Next, take each of the the 10 commandments and compare them with laws we follow in society today. You will find that every law has its foundations in one or a number of the 10 commandments. The reason why is because these are universal laws that when followed, make society and the individual function more harmoniously.

I would also suggest comparing your way of life in Canada with say another individuals way of life (as published) in North Korea or Russia. Clearly the rights that are removed from these citizens violate the 10 commandments and those citizens are therefore exceedingly disadvantaged as a result. It seems almost unfathomable that removing/not following Gods laws could violate an individuals freedoms, however, North Korea is a classic example of exactly that principle!

31

i do not think i am missing any points about laws i think you are basically judging my responses .I think you are slightly missing the point of laws. i do not think I am missing the point of laws at all and yes LoveI thy neighbour sounds really familiar however i do not think that implied top all mankind one could sit here and talk about the bible and love and war all day long

as far as your challenge goes you should come to Calgary and challenge Alberta health services and the employees the military hires and the CiA O PARTAKE IN THE SAME 10 COMMANDMENT CHALLENGE I GUARENTEE THE FALSE IDOLS AND PLAYERS YOUR KNOW THE 24 KARET MAGIC THAT IS IN THE AIR WELL LOOK WHOSE BACK AGAIN AND GURENTEE THEY WILL ALL HAVE FAILED WHY BECAUSE HMM IT DOESN’T TAKE A ROCKET SCIENTIST TO FIGURE OUT THAT ONE CAN TURN OFF AND CAMER’AS THAT ROTATE AT A DEGREE OF 360 AND AS FAR AS STEP 2 GOES HEY NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK MOVE THE HECK OVER BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT LEARNED A DAM THING LOL THOUGH SHALL NOT STEAL DOES THIS INCLUDE SACRED SPACES IN A HOSPITAL OH ■■■■ DOES DO NOT WORSHIP ANY OTHER GODS BUT ME OK SO I CAN USE MY FLESH TO SIGN A DOCUMENT STATING I AM JESUS CHRIST AND I SIGNED A DOCUMENT UNDER DURESS I THOUGHT JESUS AND GOD DON;T HAVE STRESS OK NEXT LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR AS YOURSELF DOES THIS MEAN THAT ONE CAN POST PERSONAL HEALTH INFORMATION REGARDING THEIR NEIGHBOUR DOES THIS MEAN I CAN FALSELY JUDGE MY NEIGHBOUR UM NOT THE LAST TIME I CHECKED AND DOES THAT INCLUDE MOHOMMED A PROPHET OF THE LORD TAKING A 16 YEAR OLD GIRLS LIFE IN EDMONTON KILLING THOUGH SHALL NOT KILL HMM

32

The original intent of this thread quibbling over the meaning of “3 days” was not very interesting. But reading the title now, what pops into my head is in relation to another thread where it was asked if Jesus raised Himself from the dead. This doesn’t actually say that Jesus will resurrect Himself from the dead, but isn’t it enough that this passage says He could.

1 Like
33

It was Peter who quoted the Joel prophecy, not Paul. And although Acts was written a few decades after Jesus departed, it concerns the events starting with his ascension. Pentecost happened just a few weeks after this, and Peter clearly uses the quote from Joel to explain to the predominantly Jewish crowd what they had witnessed. Reread Acts 2 and youll see this. Although Joel’s words are in typical apocalyptic language and therefore should probably not be understood literally, I find it interesting that a literal blood moon, ie a lunar eclipse which would have made the moon appear red, may have occurred on the day the Messiah was crucified. Surely a ‘sign’.

Regarding the words of Jesus in Matthew 24, there is debate as to when Jesus is referring. Many commentators assume he’s referring to the end of the world when he returns to earth, but others maintain he was referring to the 1st century, primarily regarding the tribes of Israel rather than the whole world. Jesus, as the Messiah, per Daniel comes on the clouds in heaven, approaching the Ancient of Days in heaven, where he is given complete authority. This happened following his ascension to heaven. I accept there are different views on how one should understand such passages, but I think such a view is quite feasible, rather than some far off future time.

I hope that helps with some of your concerns.

1 Like
34

He could and He did, though Father and Holy Spirit were also no doubt involved. That is why Peter can say that God raised him from the dead. I find it interesting that John is the only Gospel author to quote Jesus saying this, but it is in the Synoptics that we find Jesus being falsely accused based on Him saying this (even though the Synoptics dont record it), when they conveniently change it to Him claiming ‘He’ would destroy the Temple. In other words the slander as recorded in the Synoptics gives strong evidence of what He is recorded to have said by John. Further evidence that John is historically accurate.

35

This is exactly the point of the resurrection. God incarnate, Jesus, came to this earth. He lowered himself and took on flesh, and then died for us. A good time to insert Isaiah 9:6

6 For unto us a child is born,
unto us a son is given,
and the government will be upon His shoulders.
And He will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

That is the entire point that most Arians simply do not understand. They continue with this tripe that trinitarians are not monotheists…nothing could be further from the truth. “In the beginning God” is a monotheistic statement.

The 10 commandments do not say, “I am the Father you shall have no other Gods before me”…what they do say is “I am the Lord your God who brought you up out of Egypt…, you shall have no other gods before me”

This is where JW’s insert Jehovah randomly throughout the bible…they simply do a “search and replace” in their translation and it gets to the point of absurdity at times…so bad it changes the meaning of the text completely. When this tacktic causes huge theological problems, they simply ignore the literary and theological problems by sidestepping them. The NWT translation is a really bad bible to use as a resource because of this problem.

36

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.