Difference between revisions of "Talk:Past"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(reply)
Line 6: Line 6:
  
 
::::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.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:13, 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.--[[User:Aschlafly|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…) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:22, 9 January 2009 (EST)

Revision as of 00:22, 9 January 2009

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 00:22, 9 January 2009 (EST)