Source: http://www.earth.webecs.co.uk/
Viewing the facts i deduct there’s a bit more going on than the usual butchery and earth shaking at the moment.
I don’t care that the advance in technology and greater population help boost frequency and casualties…
…who cares about the reasons or factors? It’s about if it’s happening or not. (To be or not to be if you will)
I always wonder how some people view Hiroshima and Nagasaki or the systematic killing of the Nazi death camps as business as usual. Today in 2013, children are still born deformed from the effects of Agent Orange in Vietnam and the depleted uranium shells used in Iraq. (twice)
Never mind the lasting effects of land mines, cluster bombs and white phosphorus bombs. (Did i mention Hiroshima?)
Just killing is not enough anymore, the maiming **continues **way after the soldiers have left. This is our age.
The most casualties are now civilians, not just by direct force but because civilian infrastructure and facilities have become targets as well. (think water supplies, food and medicine storage and power plants)
Since the Nazis started bombing cities and the British followed their example we never really went back. Direct or indirect, civilians pay the prize. Even with the latest smart bombs or 21st century drones.
And when asked on TV about half a million children dying, they give the L’oreal Answer.
They don’t even try faking emotion anymore. This is your age.
Business as usual? I don’t think so.
Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13 and 2Timothy 3… It doesn’t even seem slightly off the mark to me.
Especially 2Timothy because i keep running into people that think everything is quite normal. Scary.
PS
The number of UK/US soldiers that commit suicide now often outnumbers the actual casualties from enemy fire. I bet there’s someone that will try to give this a positive spin. Don’t let me stop you.
Good thing, since you do not seem to be here to actually discuss anything -
I will point out that your eathquake quote is blindingly incorrect and appears to be from a site ‘proving’ end times prophecy
From the USGS website -
[QUOTE=http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/increase_in_earthquakes.php - bolding mine]
We continue to be asked by many people throughout the world if earthquakes are on the increase. Although it may seem that we are having more earthquakes, earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater have remained fairly constant.
[…]
According to long-term records (since about 1900), we expect about 17 major earthquakes (7.0 - 7.9) and one great earthquake (8.0 or above) in any given year.
[/QUOTE]
and how do they get that in an 11 year period a total of 99 is 6 times greater when its expected to have 17 per year??? basic math shows that number to be about half the expected total.
Based on the ‘quality’ of your research, we can see how easy it would be to rebutt the ‘rest’ of your pathetic post.
Figured out how to use the USGS global search - [%2C[85%2C360]]%2C%22viewModes%22%3A{%22help%22%3Afalse%2C%22list%22%3Atrue%2C%22map%22%3Atrue%2C%22settings%22%3Afalse}%2C%22autoUpdate%22%3Afalse%2C%22search%22%3A{%22id%22%3A%221382841087586%22%2C%22name%22%3A%22Search%20Results%22%2C%22isSearch%22%3Atrue%2C%22params%22%3A{%22starttime%22%3A%221986-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22minmagnitude%22%3A7%2C%22endtime%22%3A%221996-01-01%2000%3A00%3A00%22%2C%22orderby%22%3A%22time%22}}}"]there were 137 earthquakes from 1986-1996 that were 7.0 or higher](Latest Earthquakes{%22feed%22%3A%221382841087586%22%2C%22sort%22%3A%22newest%22%2C%22mapposition%22%3A[[-85%2C0) - making his ‘cite’ totally bogus.
A direct quote Verses 27-28 in Matthew Chapter 16-
" For the Son of man Is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father and then he will render to everyone according to his conduct."
In the Bibles I have read; a direct quote: “Amen a say to you there are some of those standing here Who will not taste death, till they have seen the son of man coming in his Kingdom”.
You wish to translate differently, that is your right
A failed prophesy repeated is still a failed prophecy.
Not that it matters, of course, since Jesus didn’t fulfill any of the Old Testament prophesies to become a messiah, and to become one he would have had to fulfill all of them. Even if you could somehow show that Jesus fulfilled a prophesy or two(and you certainly haven’t), it would be like claiming that a mouse is an elephant because it has four legs and a tail.
No. No. The proof that a mouse is an elephant is that a mouse has four legs and a tail and it is grey. (White mice correspond to white elephants, of course.)
Won’t argue with your opening sentence as it reads.
However, it does not translate into meaning that an “unfulfilled” prophecy is a “failed prophecy.” It’s just the reality of things - like the fact that a mouse is not an elephant, no matter what color they come in:)
Here you go again with your own brand of ad libbing : “Messianic Judaism, routinely criticized, defended Peter, monolithic bloc, Judaism is not Judaism.” all to suit your own narrative. You’d do better sticking what I actually said, not what you think I meant.
That said, I will stand corrected on your mention of " high priest - pharisee," Sanhedrin was actually the word I should have used in association with high priest.
Now as to your most recent claims about biblical history, there is much to be corrected.
The following verses accentuate the fierce opposition that Jesus faced and that a united effort was put forth by his foes.
Matthew 16:1 The Pharisees and Sadducees both confronted Jesus to test and confound him. Also, In Mark (among others) chief priests, scribes and elders confronted Jesus and questioned his authority.
Matt. 26:57 & 59: Now the chief priests and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death.And they that had laid hold on Jesus led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled.
59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;"
So here again we have “whole council” which we know also included Pharisees; many were likely scribes, and Sadducees ; a more priestly clan, along with the elders, etc.
Now among ALL those groups which comprised the “council” (aka, Sanhedrin) and despite their major differences, what was the one common denominator that they ALL shared ? - Fierce opposition to Jesus as Messiah.
And to what extent does Scripture indicate they- the council - were willing to go to find Jesus guilty? - False testimony.
You inserted the word “monolithic” in this regard, I did not. I may have use “contorted.”
Your suggestion I was inferring Peter/Apostles were being “routinely criticized” is again, pure exaggeration.
I merely drew a parallel on what you stated about “ignorance” and what Acts 4:13 says:
“Now when they beheld the boldness of Peter and John, and had perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.”
And as to your claim of Pharisees not even being present here too is also errant - Acts4: 5 “And it came to pass on the morrow, that their rulers, and elders, and scribes, 6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.”
Sounds pretty much like the same clan that conspired against Jesus to me, and also the very same which sought to deal harshly with Jesus - preaching.
And finally, as to your inference that the council member who was a Pharisee had "defended Peter, this also is an embellishment. His testimony reveals concern for what would be the wiser move for the preservation and appearance of Council, not Christianity.
Be persuaded by what Scripture says, not what I or anyone else thinks it says.
A quick comment about what 'Christians’l knew before Christ’s promise of The Holy Spirit was fulfilled; The Apostles and other believers knew very little before they were enlightened by “The Comforter”, who would teach them all concerning truth and insights.
Appears fairly obvious to me that your own brand of interpretation is what “failed” - that Jesus was referring to those physically present with Him at that time.
It didn’t work when you claimed it and “it doesn’t work” today.
What “doesn’t work” is an ‘interpretation’ that doesn’t comport with reality.
Unless and until he has fulfilled all the Old Testament prophecies, he is not and cannot be the messiah. The is no position of “Messiah(pending approval)”. Jesus didn’t, therefore he isn’t. Dude’s dead-deal with it and move on to the next candidate.
My interpretation - uses the words as plainly written.
Your interpretation - requires all kinds of contortions and ‘but, he really meant’ that are not backed by the plain text.
If he did not mean those physically present with him that day - there were other words that could have been used - since they were not - he clearly meant what was written down - that is reality.
What you said tends to be a distorted version of reality and snipping phrases out of context that you deny without demonstrating an actual error fails to persuade.
Nothing you have posted, here, contradicts anything I said. You are not “correcting” anything, but simply pretending that you have a point. I have never claimed that no Pharisees were involved in the opposition to Jesus. You, however, have used the word “Pharisee” on multiple occasions without any clarifying adjective, implying that the Pharisees spoke with one voice or acted in complete concert–that is pretty much the essence of a monolithic bloc–and you have done so in places where you have claimed that “they” were the enemies of Jesus. I have already pointed to a passage of scripture in which a Pharisee actually spoke out in defense of the Christians.
You emphasize the word “ALL” and then complain that you did not use the word “monolithic.” I have already pointed out how your language has implied a monolithic group and you have still failed to post anything that contradicts the facts I posted to correct your errors.
No. I took your words:
Nothing in that quote says “some Pharisees” or “once criticized.” It is a flat declaration that implies that it was an ongoing situation regarding all the Pharisees. If that is not what you meant, then you should have written a more carefully worded sentence.
Now, you are the one who is inventing statements. I never said that the Pharisees were not present. In fact, my evidence that some Pharisees defended the early Christians came from the next chapter. I said that no Pharisee was “involved.” From the beginning of Acts 4 through the end of Acts 5, many Sadducees and no Pharisee is mentioned as being a part of the accusations. Let’s look at your list - Annas the high priest, (already identified as a Sadducee), and "as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, (so, most likely more Sadducees).
It “sounds like” it because you hae a need to interpret it that way instead of following your own instructions to take actual scripture for your history.
I never claimed that the Pharisee was acting out of noble impulses, so your “embellishment” is in your own head. I noted that the only person noted as defending Peter, for whatever reason), was Pharisee. And whatever motive you choose to impute to him, his argument explicitly noted
so he is explicitly noting that they could be from God.
Rest assured I will not be persuaded by anything that you say.
