Talk:Past

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Do you think you could explain the significance of it not being mentioned in the Gospels? I'm sorry, I just don't see the point as currently written. --KevinS 22:14, 5 January 2009 (EST)

There are levels of understanding. Can't expect to understand everything all at once or have things explained that way. --RickD 22:19, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Keep trying, KevinS, you'll get there. Jesus and the Apostles did not speak of their personal past once. Not once. How often do you think and speak of your personal past?--Andy Schlafly 22:32, 5 January 2009 (EST)
Okay, but shouldn't an encyclopedia be a tad less cryptic? As it is, it seems like an extraneous fact and a little out of place. I believe I understand what you're getting at, but I think it would help for the article to be a bit clearer. --KevinS 22:36, 5 January 2009 (EST)
KevinS, I'm not being deliberately quiet. A good encyclopedia leaves it to the reader to draw the conclusions. The Bible itself does not spell everything out either. Neither do parables.--Andy Schlafly 23:13, 5 January 2009 (EST)

Hmmm, a little scrap which manages in its two lines to be badly written, and is here touted as some kind of deep and important theme. Perhaps the authors of this "article" might get OFF the talk page, and provide some supporting material for whatever it is they are driving at. I always thought Americans were plain speaking but here we have someone who either won’t or is incapable of saying what he means.

As it is, I might get the ball rolling by making two observations. First, the Gospels don’t mention a lot of things which existed then, for example orangutans. Do you want to make a point about the fact that Jesus did not speak about orangutans?

Secondly, while Jesus and Gospel writers might not have specifically referred to the “past”, the whole of the Old AND New Testament are absolutely FULL of matters having to do with the past, with tradition, and with privileges and obligations laid down by God. It is surprising to find writers hand-waving about the absence of the past, when in fact it would be impossible to find any peoples more completely absorbed and beholden to “the past” then the Jews, now and three thousand years ago. There are references to matters relating to the past on every page of the Gospels. For example, Jesus notes that people did not listen to the Prophets who came before him. He says of his teaching which forbids summary divorce that the divorce laws which were then binding had not been such “from the beginning”, a direct reference to “the past”. The Gospel writers traced Jesus’ ancestry to David, generation by generation. There are references to Elijah, and the fact that some people were saying that Jesus was “Elijah come again”. Isn’t that a direct reference to events which occurred in the past and the prophet who lived then? The list is endless. Please do us all a favour and explain yourself. (Favour spelt the Australian way… Chuckle…) MylesP 00:26, 9 January 2009 (EST)

MylesP, the reference here is to the common use of "the past": a personal past. It does refer to "history", which has its own term.--Andy Schlafly 09:04, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Andy, I’m quite a Conservative when it comes to the English language, and it appears to me that in this field of human affairs I am talking to a barefoot Bohemian radical. Your bull in a China shop confidence is not matched by an equivalence in understanding of matters linguistic. Excuse me, but where did you obtain the notion that the plain and ancient term “the past” refers to personal events and not historical ones? Not a dictionary, that is for certain. Let me give you access to an excellent dictionary site: http://www.onelook.com/?w=past&ls=a

Here, you will be linked to no less than 26 authoritative dictionaries and encyclopedias, not ONE of which agrees with your ad hoc definition. That, no doubt, shows you just how rotten the shadowy puppet masters of onelook are in their satanic attempts to sideline the Bible, but nevertheless, their view must be taken seriously. In Alice in Wonderland, Humpty Dumpty says, in a scornful tone: “When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.' Unfortunately for Humpty (and for you), words have meanings which are generally accepted as legitimate by those who speak that language, else conversation would be like unto the residents of Babel (although that is not so far removed from goes on around this neck of the woods today).

Two quick points: 1. I imagine that you meant to write “it does not mean” where you wrote “it does mean”, the last making nonsense of your point. Do try to proof read your missives, Andy. I mean most of them are only a couple of lines long so it should not be that difficult.

2. In any case, if your mystifying point is that the Gospels contain no reference to the personal history of those who are mentioned in its pages, then that notion is just as erroneous. Indeed, it is difficult to see how a book which aims to provide first hand accounts witnessing to their authors’ faith could do so without mentioning the circumstances relating to their conversion, a matter which is in the past, and undeniably personal.

As one example, we need only look at Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus, which is dealt with by Luke in Acts, and of course many times by Paul in his epistles. The episode is the lynchpin of Paul’s life and work. In another example from the life of Jesus, He heals a blind man. His disciples ask (very presciently I have always thought): “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” And Jesus answers: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned…” Here is a discussion between Jesus and his disciples concerning the PAST of one of those he healed, and the reasons for his plight. That’s pretty much QED for my case, though I could point to a dozen other examples.

I have now written 20 fold as much as you on this subject, so I seek that you should elucidate us all as to the gist of your latest crusade. MylesP 23:06, 9 January 2009 (EST)

MylesP back here. Oh an afterthought: this just in. Andy, if as you "history has its own term" for the past, then pray tell, what might that be? MylesP 18:23, 11 January 2009 (EST)

MylesP back. Ok, no word from Andy. I'll take that as an admission of defeat. One up to the Aussies!! As a matter of honour (spelt Aussie style) I will expect this rather sad excuse for an article to be relegated to the "What was I thinking?" archives. MylesP 20:21, 13 January 2009 (EST)

Personal tools