Fortigurn

BEREA Admin Team
  • Content count

    13,181
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    404

Fortigurn last won the day on April 21

Fortigurn had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,187 Excellent

About Fortigurn

  • Rank
    Addicted to BEREA
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,231 profile views
  1. Once you're talking about the oral tradition Mark used, you are no longer talking about the gospel of Mark, and you are agreeing that Mark's gospel is not the earliest historical account of the resurrection. Because his letter is high context.
  2. Paul's. Irrelevant, that's not addressing the topic under discussion. The topic under discussion is whether or not Mark's is the first historical account of the resurrection, and whether all others are later interpolations and fabrications subsequent to Mark. Whether or not we believe Paul's accounts, they are indisputably earlier than Mark's, and therefore destroy the argument under discussion.
  3. Sure it does. It explains that Jesus' death was an object lesson and a motivation for us. Actually God could have taken it away, and Jesus even says so. He did. People like David were forgiven before Jesus.
  4. I would laugh at them, since they would clearly be ignorant of the fact that the earliest accounts of the resurrection pre-date Mark, and that this is almost universally agreed on by secular and religious scholars of the historical Jesus.
  5. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. According to evolution they are humans, just as much as you and I. They are not "just evolved animals" and they are not just "high order mammals", they are homo sapiens sapiens like you and I. That's exactly how science defines them. Well the Bible never says this, and the scientific evidence is clear that they did not descend from Adam. I don't see any evidence that the serpent was trying to deceive her. His reasoning deceived her but I see no evidence that this outcome was deliberate.
  6. Any Jews who meet Jesus. No I don't, I merely have to show that they don't match the description of events in Babylon, like the passages which describe Israel being exiled into all nations, not just Babylon. But the Olivet prophecy was obviously written after the Babylonian method. You have already seen my conclusions explained in great detail.
  7. Typically, yes. Animals cannot reason as we can. However, even lower order mammals have an ability to draw certain associations between actions, and to comprehend when certain actions are illogical or even "unfair" in some sense. If it was a real serpent it was not responsible. I take serious issue with your claim that the Australian Aboriginals are incapable of moral reasoning and only have the reasoning ability of animals. It's not only obviously untrue, it's incredibly racist.
  8. In English? You'll find there's a wealth of commentary which is still available only in Greek or Latin. You can find Theophylact on Mark here (English), but the only commentaries of Euthymius Zigabenus I know of are in Migne.
  9. Yes. God's obedient servant. See here for evidence that Ben Sira referred to the evil inclination as satan, the Plea for Deliverance refers to the evil inclination as satan, and various passages in the Talmud (including the comment by rabbi Laqish), refers to the evil inclination as satan. 1. ‘Ben Sira knows about Satan, for a few chapters earlier he says: “When the godless man curses Satan [ho Satanas], he is cursing himself" [Sirach 21.27]. This probably means that he identifies Satan with a person's own bad impulses, and when one blames an external tempter or adversary, one is really condemning oneself.’, Paolo Sacchi, The History of the Second Temple Period (vol. 285; A&C Black, 2004), 351, 2. ‘Ben Sira claimed also that evil in this world derives from God's will and is intended as a test of humanity (2,4-9). So, “when a wicked man curses the satan (or: Satan, tòn satanân), it is himself that he curses” (21,27). Ben Sira means that Satan is, therefore, nothing but an individual's impulse to evil and does not exist as a material being who can act in this world according to his own decision.’, Piero Capelli, “The Evil One in Second Temple Judaism,” in “The Words of a Wise Man’s Mouth Are Gracious” (Qoh 10,12): Festschrift for Günter Stemberger on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (ed. Mauro Perani; Walter de Gruyter, 2005), 142. 3. ‘In addition, Tigchelaar considers the juxtaposition of a satan and an “evil inclination” in the Plea for Deliverance to be parallel to the identification of Satan with the evil inclination in the Babylonian Talmud (b. B.B. 16a).’, Miryam Brand, Evil Within and Without: The Source of Sin and Its Nature as Portrayed in Second Temple Literature (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 21. 4. After four pages reviewing instances of satan in the Talmuds, Bamberger concludes “In at least some of the passages just cited, Satan is no more than a figure of speech”, Bernard J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels: Soldiers of Satan’s Realm (Jewish Publication Society, 2010), 98. 5. ‘In the context of this statement we have the famous saying of Resh Lakish (third century): “Satan, the evil inclination and the Angel of Death are one and the same.” This highly rationalistic remark means: Satan is but the personification of sin that leads to death.’, Bernard J. Bamberger, Fallen Angels: Soldiers of Satan’s Realm (Jewish Publication Society, 2006), 95. 6. ‘Note that in b. Bab. Bat. 16a, the evil inclination is identified with Satan. “Resh Lakish said: Satan, the evil prompter, and the Angel of Death are one””, Richard H. Bell, No One Seeks for God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 1.18-3.20 (Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 182. 7. ‘Zerahiah also informs us here that both Satan and Job’s wife are metaphors for the evil inclination, a motif Zerahiah seems to identify with the imagination. Zerahiah bases his view on Resh Lakish’s Talmudic dictum that Satan, the evil inclination, and the angel of death, are all one and the same, a dictum that had been central in Maimonides’ discussion of Satan as well.’, Robert Eisen, The Book of Job in Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2004), 120. 8. ‘Updating a psychological insight of the sages, Maimonides treated Satan as a personification of imagination. “It is their dictum in the Talmud: Rabbi Simon ben Laqish said: Satan, the evil inclination, and the angel of death are one and the same” [BT, Baba Batra, 16a] (Guide III:22; p. 489).’, David Bakan, Dan Merkur Ph.D, and Dan Merkur, David Bakan, David S. Weiss, Maimonides’ Cure of Souls: Medieval Precursor of Psychoanalysis (SUNY Press, 2009), 61. 9. ‘Hebrews seems to reflect the same tradition as that of Resh Laqish (B. Bat. 16a), who identified Satan, the evil inclination, and the angel of death.’, Paul Ellingworth, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1993), 173. Nonsense. It doesn't say "imperative law", or "a law of the house", or that "Nothing but the denial of truth" or "overt disobedience" can justify absence, is certainly not contained in the word "shall". Just like my ecclesia. So you can see your original claim was totally incorrect.
  10. No. The return of the Jews from Babylon was a complete fulfillment of the prophecy of the return of the Jews from Babylon. The current day fulfillment is a complete fulfillment of the prophecies of the Jews returning to their land after centuries of exile. Some of them are conditional, but I see no evidence that Christ could have been accepted in the first century. The Old Testament tells us he would not have been, and he himself said he was never going to be accepted. I don't think anyone is going to be given a "second chance" to accept Jesus. They either accept him or they don't. No. You should interpret them using a method different to your current methods.
  11. Yes, and the carnal mind is one thing, not millions of things. Are you unaware that believe in supernatural evil beings was rejected by some of the Second Temple Period Jewish commentators? Yes. Yes it does. Do you want to see the relevant scholarly literature on this point? You can't get out of it that easily, because you also claimed that what was in the Ecclesial Guide was "the same idea" as is found in the constitution. But it isn't the same idea at all. And no my ecclesial constitution does not say that. It says this. "4. We meet every Sunday morning for worship, exhortation, and the partaking of bread and wine, and at other times during the week as may be decided upon for Bible study and preaching activities." Doesn't even use the word "shall". It isn't semantics, because "imperative law", and "a law of the house", or that "Nothing but the denial of truth" or "overt disobedience" can justify absence, is certainly not contained in the word "shall". To put it another way, the constitution does not contain the same wording or even the same idea, about meeting on Sunday, as the Ecclesial Guide.
  12. The devil is not "a mind". The devil is a name for the yetzer ra. There are not millions of yetzer ras, that's simply one term for a specific phenomenon found in people everywhere.
  13. No, you said "Are you familiar with your own community writings? I know many modern Christadelphian's haven't read the constitution of their Ecclesia", which clearly indicated you believed that this was in all ecclesial constitutions and I hadn't read it. You reinforced this when you claimed it was in all the ecclesial constitutions you had read, which were all practically alike. But this isn't in a law, it's in a constitution. It simply means "will", which is the standard common English meaning. And you will note of course that the clause in that constitution says absolutely nothing about penalties or it being an "imperative law" to meet on the first day of the week, or anything else like that. Remember, you said "I will quote from the ecclesial guide which says the same idea". And this is what you quoted from the Ecclesial Guide. But that is not "the same idea". The actual constitution from which you quote doesn't say that meeting on the first day of the week is "a law of the house", or that "Nothing but the denial of truth" or "overt disobedience" can justify absence.
  14. "However, none of these pre-apocalyptic passages is yet at the point of describing a cosmic catastrophe, the complete destruction of the entire world; basically, images that have been developed in past times are used once again in order to describe Babylon’s demise as if it were an event that brought about the return of a chaotic situation. What happened once upon a time to Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 19*) is now going to happen to Babylon, which does not mean that order and the basic functioning of the entire world would grind to a complete halt." Hans Wildberger, A Continental Commentary: Isaiah 13-27 (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1997), 25. " I. Pronouncement concerning Babylon 13:1–14:32." Marvin Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to Prophetic Literature (vol. 16; The Forms of the Old Testament Literature; Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), 212. "According to Isaiah’s description, Babylon’s day of the LORD will be totally devastating to the helpless recipients of God’s wrath and fierce anger." Terry R. Briley, Isaiah (The College Press NIV Commentary; Joplin, MO: College Press Pub., 2000–), 174. Can't you see the complete incongruity of pulling out a few verses from the middle of a chapter all about God's judgment on Babylon, and saying "Those words aren't talking about judgment on Babylon"? As I read it, those section headings actually do describe it as all about Babylon.
  15. Sorry but you are not making yourself clear. 1. You quoted the Ecclesial Guide by Robert Roberts and claimed it was my ecclesia's constitution. You clearly did not know that this document is not an ecclesial constitution, and is not the constitution of my ecclesia. I don't believe it's the constitution of any ecclesia. 2. When you say you have seen about six different constitutions, please tell me which of them was just the Ecclesial Guide. I bet you didn't find a single constitution which was actually the Ecclesial Guide. When my ecclesia wrote it's constitution, we borrowed and modified the constitution of an ecclesia in the US, which of course was not the Ecclesial Guide, and which did not refer to the Ecclesial Guide at all. That is splitting hairs. You were trying to tell me what the constitution of my own ecclesia was, and wrongly pointing to a document which you thought was the constitution of all ecclesias. You can know by asking.