When Is Jesus Coming?

[Gravity]

Different books say different things. A book being true because the books SAYS it is true is idiotic circular logic at its finest.

Here:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John:
"Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary:
Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me:
"Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John:
"If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me:
"What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John:
"Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

Me:
"That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary:
"Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me:
"Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John:
"Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me:
"Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary:
"Oh yes, all the time..."

Me:
"And has He given you a million dollars?"

John:
"Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me:
"So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary:
"You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."

Me:
"Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John:
"My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me:
"Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John:
"Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me:
"So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary:
"Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me:
"What's that got to do with Hank?"

John:
"Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me:
"I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John:
"But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me:
"Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary:
"No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me:
"Then how do you kiss His ass?"

John:
"Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me:
"Who's Karl?"

Mary:
"A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me:
"And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John:


"Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."






From the desk of Karl

1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.





Me:
"This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary:
"Hank didn't have any paper."

Me:
"I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John:
"Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me:
"I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary:
"Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me:
"I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

Mary:
"It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me:
"How do you figure that?"

Mary:
"Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me:
"Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John:
"No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me:
"But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John:
"There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me:
"Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary:
"But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me:
"I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John:
"Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me:
"We do?"

Mary:
"Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me:
"You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John:
"Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me:
"But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary:
She blushes.

John:
"Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me:
"What if I don't have a bun?"

John:
"No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me:
"No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary:
She looks positively stricken.

John:
He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me:
"So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary:
Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John:
"That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me:
"It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary:
She faints.

John:
He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater."

With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

 

[robtex]

All right than, now we are getting somewhere.....how and why will Jesus come? Lets here the theory. Espcially the how theory.

I exist because my mother and father mutually agreed to concieve. Now can we get back to that Jesus thing?

Southstar says he ain't coming back and backs it up with a theory. You say he is and provide no validation, theory or fact as to your proposed event. Unequal authority

southstar= qualified opinion
marcac=unqulified opinion

change that and quality why he is returning.

if you know how he is suppose to arrive tell us and back it up historicial fact, independant analysis, and structured theory. Not on a book you call allegogic in nature.

I gotta confess I love William Blakes poetry. As a matter of fact my fav book of his is

"songs of innoncence and experience"...my fav poem is the fly.

He speaks poetically, alllegorical of God many many times. Why I find his words beautiful to read and very emotional to me I would never use his prose or poetry, as it is art and allegoically presented, to prophize my future and the future of all mankind. Or any allegoric work for that matter. You say the Bible is allegoric and than use it as a literal way to live your life based on some fella who has been dead for 2000 years.

 

[MarcAC]

Different books say different things. A book being true because the books SAYS it is true is idiotic circular logic at its finest...

O.k. and who said anything different? The truth of the Bible is verified through faith in God. The Bible doesn't say "The Bible is true". People believe the Bible is true. They have their rationale and their faith by which they judge its truth. Starting from 1+1=2 and then trying to prove that 1+1 "is not equal to" 2 is something totally different.

 

[MarcAC]

I exist because my mother and father mutually agreed to concieve. Now can we get back to that Jesus thing?

Why: "For what purpose, reason, or cause; with what intention, justification, or motive: Why is the door shut? Why do birds sing?"
So, you answered the cause. Why is much more than just a cause. A cause is simply a how. Why has much deeper meaning. Now: Why are you you?

Southstar says he ain't coming back and backs it up with a theory. You say he is and provide no validation, theory or fact as to your proposed event. Unequal authority

southstar= qualified opinion
marcac=unqulified opinion

...In your unqualified opinion. The Star uses Biblical text and states an opinion: "It is to be taken literally". If you read the texts from my posts above you will see that I use Biblical text and say: "It may be taken figuratively". The Star's conclusion doesn't follow from The Star's comments (not to mention the fact that Biblical text is used). I can equally conclude that Jesus is still returning and He just hasn't done so as yet (using the same text the Star does). When you prove that wrong then my opion becomes unqualified. I showed that in all my posts to you which you have conveniently failed to reply specifically to. Why is that? I won't repeat myself.

 

[TruthSeeker]

1) rejected Jesus inclusion of the trinity

What is trinity? Where is it written in the Bible? Trinity is a catholic thing. I'm not catholic. That is something completely different from what I believe.

2) admitted the Bible was manipulated by the catholics for their own political agenda

It certainly was. Not only that, but they used to preach in latin so that nobody would understand what they were saying and question it.

3) said that your belief in a higher power and following of it is based on morality not the dogma of the Bible.

Certainly. I don't like dogmas. They are artificial and close-minded.

4) contended that one must search for the answers as one goes through life

Absolutely. You never stop learning.

5) reject God as theistic and omni potent (and thus one who could prevent preversion by catholic church of the the holy bible)

I didn't say that, tough. God can do whatever He wants - even not do anything.

I think that is wonderful that you said and think all of that. There is not a preacher that you will ever meet who would agree. What you are contending is that you are a thiest but if that philosphy is your honest assement at this point in time you are not a Christian.

A Chirstian is a person who:

1) Love others
2) Love God (a.k.a Love)

I say this because as part of Christanity you must accept

1) Jesus as a member of the trinity which you did not in that post

I don't believe in trinity and that is ok. Nowhere in the bible there is any kind of trinity. That was an invention, by men.

2) Accept the notion that the Bible was inspired by God which you do not

The Bible was inspired by God. But, unfortunately, it was written by men.

3) Use the dogma of the words contained within the Bible as a outline for moral aptitude which you do not

They are there. It's the dogma, traditions and artificial concepts that I don't accept. God clearly tells us to Love one another, and that's mainly what I see there.

4) God is omni-potent and theistically inclined

I'm actually not sure. I don't remember reading that God is omnipotent, in the Bible...

5) accept Jeuss as your savior (meaning you need to be saved )
6) accept the notion of orginal sin
7) Accept heavan and hell as real places

This is all very tricky. You can interpret those things as psychological allegories. But again, there might be a factor of "reality" in them (that is, literal).

I think your spirutuality is strong and good and moral but incongruent with Christian thinking. But don't take my word for it.

Not regular Christian, for sure. But a real Christian wouldn't follow traditions, or rely on dogmas. Christianism was supposed to be a way of life where you are constantly in communion if God (Love) and act upon it. It's not going to church and following traditions. It is not superficial. It's actually very deep.

1) The bible was not made to be read by "so many people"

The Bible was made to be read by everyone. The problem is that language changes over-time and theer are also many other languages. If you want to translate you have to be impartial. But it is always better to just read it in the original language

2) The bible has errors in it

It depends on what you call "errors". They are mere little mistranslations and things added by men (the latest, I presume). It is extremely easy to spot this kind of thing. The "first" Bible was right. It's the the translation that makes the whole thing complicated (and how people handle it, too :bugeye: ).

3) Jesus was just a teacher (ie a rabbi by the way)

Exactly. But Christ is a spirit that is one with God.

4) suggest one can search their conscious for the "answers" (as opposed to the Bible)

The Bible is a good guide, but if you just read it it won't be good for anything. You have to read it carefully and analize it yourself.

and take it around to say 10 christian churches and see how many of them agree with your theory. I am guessing none.

Exactly. Altough I know someone that might agree with all of that. I'm still learning about those things tough. Sometimes I write something for my church's magazine and it is very well received. But i never write about the most controvertial stuff. Even because I don't have a Phd in theology.

Its not a bad thing though. It is an honest thing and a liberating thing to not have to fit reality into the confines of a book that you yourself said has errors.

I have very broad studies. I never confine myself to a single book.
For example, I use a lot of psychology and philosophy to understand the Bible.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Marc, you are not in trouble. I am sorry if I offended you. I threw out the four senerios

1) the timeframe is not important enough to be known.
2) God was not able to communicate such information.
3) Man was not able to discover the information provided
4) There is no certainty of a second coming

Because I figured it has to be one of them...or at least one if not more. Aren't you curious as to why it is not known? Southstar's point is solid. The resurrection is a big part of the Christian religous system. Even if you say it is God's will that you know or don't know don't you have a theory. And more importantly the sense of urgency that you spoke of of earlier posts..isn't it odd...sense the fact that he has not returned yet dictates a non-urgency?

Well... he does bring a good point. Jesus is here.


PS: I had an interesing typo. Instead of writting "does" I wrote "deos"!!!!

 

[robtex]

Well... he does bring a good point. Jesus is here.


PS: I had an interesing typo. Instead of writting "does" I wrote "deos"!!!!

When you say here....where is here? I don't see anyone pointing him out....

 

[Gravity]

When you say here....where is here? I don't see anyone pointing him out....

Jesus isn't ''here'', but he is close - here is his email address: jesuschrist@hush.com

Really!

 

[TruthSeeker]

When you say here....where is here? I don't see anyone pointing him out....

Matthew 25:34-40
"34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' "

Also, the Christ was supposed to "live in your heart". Which is basically what is written above.

It's like... you should see Christ within everyone, and you should also love everyone and... so on.

 

[MarcAC]

All right than, now we are getting somewhere...

No, we aren't getting anywhere... Now for a more fitting and comprehensive reply...

how and why will Jesus come? Lets here the theory. Espcially the how theory.

Why: Jesus will come to excercise "final judgement". He will come to allow the creation of God's new kingdom. What could that be? He will return to allow those who chose in their lifetime that they loved God and wanted to be with God for 'eternity' to do so. How? The references in the Bible boil down to two main ideas;

1. The Event will be grand (See The Star's post for reference)
2. The Event will be "at a time least expected" - not unexpected (The Star's post again)

With regards to what will physically happen, I have no idea. I share theories with scientists (Heat Death, Big Rip, Big Crunch) who are uncertain at present. The second coming signals the creation of a new universe. The Bible states that there will be a new creation. A change. That's enough for me. Just like knowing Jesus will return as is stated in the Bible (See The Star's post for references), but the time is uncertain.

if you know how he is suppose to arrive tell us and back it up historicial fact, independant analysis, and structured theory. Not on a book you call allegogic in nature.

Now where did I state that I know how Jesus will arrive apart from what the Bible explicitly refers to (which I've shown and The Star's shown in previous posts)? So are you saying you will accept The Star's opinion based on Biblical text (that Jesus isn't returning), but you won't take the Biblical text in support (it clearly gives an indication of how in The Star's post and mine) of Jesus' return? This is a waste of time then. Your lack of definite replies to my posts betrays your position; a static one. How can one be rational or fair (to onseself even) in such a position? If you want some rigorous scientific theory as to how the atoms will be ripped apart or how the material in the universe will collapse to a singularity and then rebound then you are in the wrong thread bro. You need to start a new one to get that... arguing with some skeptics is like arguing with a brick wall... then again even the wall is made of atoms which oscillate and absorb and emit radiation. I'm done with this one for this thread.

 

[Gravity]

<sigh> Quoting from the Bible to ''prove'' something?

Quoting the Bible is a poor way to support or 'prove' anything in a comparative religion/logic discussion. Either the Bible is infallable - or its subjective (meaning knowing *which* interpretation is ''correct'' is completely impossible). So, if its infallable - here is a copy of the free pocket Bible guide from Cryptoclast.org:

Who You Should Kill

--Unruly or rebellious child. Deut 21:20-21
--Those who curse or hit their parents. Lev 20:9, Ex 21:15
--Worshipers of other gods. Deut 13:6-11
--psychics, witches. Lev 20:27, Deut 13:6-11,Ex 22:18.
--Those who do not believe in Jesus (parable). Luke 19:27.
--Those who work on the Sabbath. Ex 35:2 (Moses kills a gentile for this. Num 15:32-36.)
--Those who are accused by at least two people of wickedness. Deut 17:6.
--The children and babies of enemies. Num 31:17, Deut 20:13, Psalm 137:9, Lev 26:29.
--Adulterers. Lev 20:10.
--Homosexuals. Lev 20:13.
--A woman who is not a virgin when married. Deut 22:13-21.
--Those who are careless with murderous livestock. Exodus 21:29.

Who You Should Hate

--Those who eat crab or shrimp. Lev 11:10.
--Those who sacrifice an animal to God that has a blemish. Deut 17:1.
--Those who remarry the same person after divorce. Deut 24:4.
--Homosexuals. Lev 18:22.
--Those who are proud. Prov 16:5.
--A woman who wears pants. Deut 22:5.
--A man with long hair (Jesus?). 1Cor 11:14 contradicts Num 6:5, 1Sam 1:11, Jug 13:5.
--those who call others fools Mat 5:22

Should we still do this stuff?

--All OT laws still apply in NT. Matt 5:17-19

Doomsday Cult

--Jesus/Bible claims the end is near + in our past Mark9:1 Mat16:27-28 Luke 9:26-27 Luke 21:32 Mat 24:34 John 5:25-29 James 5:8 1John 2:18
1Pet 4:7 Mal 4

Family and Political Values

-- Jesus says to hate/abandon your family Luke 14:26, Mat 10:35-36, Mat 19:29.
--Jesus says to call no man on earth your father. Mat 23:9
--Jesus says to honor your parents. Mat 19:19.
--No families in heaven. Mark 12:25.
--Don't marry 1cor7:1,8,27, Remarry Mat 5:32
--Jesus/NT says to pay taxes and obey the government. Rom 13:1-7, 2Peter 2:10,
Mat 22:17-21, Mark 12:17, Luke 20:25.
--Jesus is against public prayer. Mat 6:5-6.
--Rich can't be Christian. Matt 19:24.
--Give all to poor. Luke 18:22.
--Lot impregnates his daughters after God kills his wife, then honored. Gen 19. 2Peter 2:7
--a thing is not alive until breathing. Gen 2:7.
--Punishment for killing fetus is fine Ex 21,22-25.
--Women are worth less and should submit Eph5:22-24, Col 3:18, 1Cor 11:5-10, 14:34-35.
--Become eunuchs (castrated) Mat 19:12
--Sodom not destroyed for homosexuality, not listening to Jesus=greater sin than Sodom's. Ez16:49-5, Luke 10:10-12.
--Gay David?1Sam18:1-4,20:3-4,7,41, 2Sam1:25-26
--God makes people gay. Rom 1:26-28.

Mythical Creatures.

--Giants. Gen 6:4, 1Sam. 17:4, Num 13:33.
--Ghosts 1Sam 28:8:20
--Demons. Luke 11:14.
-- Leviathans. Isaiah 27:1, Job 41:1.
-- Dragons. (Revelations).
-- Angels. Mat 28:2, Gen 19.
--Unicorns. Isaiah 34:7.-
--Witches/Mediums Ex22:18 Mic5:12 1Sam28:8-20
--Sorcerers. Ex 7:22, Ex 8:7, Ex 8:18.
--Talking Donkeys. Num 23:23-30
-- UFOs. Gen 6:4, 2Kings 2:11, Ezek 10

Super Powers and Magic

--A true Christian should be baptized, have faith, cast out demons, speak in tongues, take up serpents, be able to heal the sick, and be completely immune to any poison. Mark 16:16-18.
--A true Christian can perform greater miracles than Jesus. John 14:12.
--Christians can move mountains and trees by command. Mat 17:20, 21:21 Mark 11:23 Luke 17:6
--Whatever a man asks of God he will receive Mat 7:7
--all things are possible with God. Mat 19:26.
--God has trouble overcoming iron chariots. Judges 1:19.
--Jesus uses magic spells. Mark 6:4-5, 7:33-35, Mark 8:23-25.
--Jesus had limited powers. Mark 6:5
--Sorcerers can do the same magic stuff God does. Ex 7:22, Ex 8:7.
--Apollonius is just like a Jesus.

Science.

--7 days, firmament, plant (before the sun), sea creatures, birds, land animals, man and woman together, Gen 1.
--1 day, man, plants, all other creatures, woman, knowledge of good and evil given only to a tree at first, flaming sword Gen 2.
--7,000 year old earth.
--The earth is flat. Mat 4:5-8, Luke 4:5, Isaiah 11:12, Rev 7:1, Dan 4:10-11
--The sun moves around a stationary Earth and the moon has its own light. Isaiah 13:10, Psalm 19:4-5, 1Sam 2:8, 1Chr 16:30, Psalm 96:10, Psalm 104:5.
-- Pi = 3. 2Chron 4:2, 1King7:23.
--Flood--rainbow Gen9:13, 7 (Gen 7:2) or 2 (Gen 6:19 7:8,9,15) of each animal, lasted 40 (Gen 7:17) or 150 (7:24, 8:3) days, salinity+fish, Australia's animals,deadly parasites, dinosaurs, size+time+feed problem.
-- Tower of Bable Linguistics Gen 11.

Jesus' Birth

--Jesus was conceived by the holy spirit and was a product of virgin birth. Mat 1:18-21
--Jesus was conceived by the seed of David according to the flesh. Rom 1:3
--Heli was the paternal grandfather of Jesus Luke 3:23
--Jacob was the paternal grandfather of Jesus. Mat 1:16, John 4:5.
Jesus on a Good Day
--love your enemies. Mat 5:43-44.
--golden rule Mat 7:12 Luke 6:31
--Judge not. Mat 7:1
--Consider the lilies Luke 12:27, Mat 6:28
--be like children Mat 18:3.
--give anything asked of you by anyone. Luke 6:30
--turn other cheek Luke 6:29.
--not against me is with me Mark 9:40 Luke 9:50

Jesus on a Bad Day

--not with me is against me Mat 12:30, Luke 11:23
--accommodate the wicked and do not resist evil. Mat 5:39-45.
--Kill disbeliveers (parable) Luke 19:27.
--wicked get eternal torture of Hell. Mark 9:43-48.
--Fig tree hatred. Mark 11:13-14,20. contradicts Mat 21:19-20
--Jesus came to cause strife. Luke 12:51-53, Mat 10:34.
-- Jesus says to hate/abandon your family Luke 14:26, Mat 10:35-36, Mat 19:29.
--Jesus threatens to kill children Rev 2:23

Seeing God/Jesus

--no one has seen God. John 1:18.
--Jacob saw God's face. Gen 32:30.
--Moses saw his backside. Ex 33:23.
--God has dinner with Abraham. Gen 18.
--Paul never met Jesus 2Cor 12, Gal 1:11-12

Hopeful Plagiarisms

--Jesus + Elijah do the same thing in the same words. 1Kings 17, Luke 7.
--Luke + Elijah do the same thing in same words. Ezek 1:1,4:9,4:14, Acts10:11-14

Miscellaneous Contradictions

--God will punish son for father's crimes Ex 20:5
--God won't punish son for father's crimes. Ezek 18:20.
--Jesus' last words all different. Mat 27:46, Luke 23:46, John 19:30.
--Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James go to tomb, find guards and boulder which move after earthquake. One flying angel on boulder tells
what happened. Mat 28
--Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome go to tomb, find no guards or boulder and one young man in tomb tell what happened. But women told no one. Mark 16
--Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and some other women go to tomb, and two men in the tomb tell what happened. Luke 24
--Mary goes to the tomb to find nothing, she tells the disciples someone stole body so they go back and again find nothing. The disciples then leave and Jesus appears to tell Mary what happened. John 20
----older versions of Mark end at Mark 16:8 without anyone seeing the risen Christ.
-- Earth will exist forever Eccl 1:4.
--Earth will end in Armageddon 2Pet 3:10
--Judas fell and burst open. Act 1:18-19.
--Judas hung himself. Mat 27-3:10.
--Jesus carries his own cross. John 19:17.
--Simon carries Jesus' cross. Mark 15:21-22.
--Wisdom is good Prov 3:13, 4:7
--Wisdom is bad 1Cor 1:19 Eccl 1:18
--God had one son 1John 4:9
--God had many sons Gen 6:2,4 Job 1:6, 2:1 Miscellaneous Contradictions Continued
--No author was at Jesus' trial yet narrative fabricated to fit OT. Mark 14:50.
--Jesus crucified at 9:00am (3rd hour Rom) on Passover. Mark 15:1,25 14:1
--Jesus crucified noon (6th hour Rom) day before Passover. John 19:14.
--Virgin birth and the baptism.

God and Evil

--God admits He created evil. Isaiah 45:7 Amos 3:6
--God sends Satan to ruin Job's life. Job 2:1-7.
--God hardens Pharaoh's heart. Ex 9:12, 10:1,20,27, 11:10, 14:8.
--God commands/supports slavery. Lev 25:44-46, Ex 21:2-8, Eph 6:5, Col 3:22, Gen 9:25.
--Anti women. 1Cor 14:34, 1Tim 2:9-14, Gen 5:16.
--rape rules: Deut 22:23-29, in city man+woman die; in country only man dies; if woman not married then man pays 50 shekels, and they wed.
--Anti Jew. 1Thes 2:14,15, Titus 1:10
--Anti gay. Lev 18:22, Rom 1:26-28, 1Cor 6:9-11, 1Tim 1:10, Jude 7, Gen 19.
--God favors neither good nor evil. Mat 5:45.
--God created some people predestined to go to hell Rom 8:29-30, Jude 1:4, Mat 7:13-14.
--God admits to deceit. 1Kings 22:23. Is 6:10.
--Jesus admits to deceit (reason for parables). 2Thess 2:11-12, Mark 4:10-12, Mat 13:10-11
--God sends bears to kill children. 2Kings 2:24.
--God commands the killing of babies Num 31:17, Deut 20:13, Psalm 137:9, Lev 26:29, Num 31:17.
--Jesus threatens to kill children for mother's crime Rev 2:23
--God/Jesus hate. Rom 9:13, Rev 2:6, Psalm 5:5
--don't associate with people who have different opinions. 2John 1:10-11. 2Cor 6:14-17
--Incestuous Lot revered. 2Peter 2:7

 

[MarcAC]

Notice how when it threatens his theological views, he likes to take it metaphorically. Otherwise, he is simply content with taking it in literally and satisfying his own eisegesis.

Oh sorry... this one. Hmm new word for me... it will prove very useful... thanks Star.

Anyway, yes, you are exactly right.

Once my interpretation satisfies the rest of the "Biblical Framework" in a non-contradictory manner (unlike yours) then there is nothing wrong with my eisegesis. My eisegesis is of importance to God, not men. It must be. God, defined as Concious Creator of all, must have seen some value in me to put me here in the first place. If God meant to be known at all, God had to place some sort of intuitive knowledge of His existence in every human. If this intuitive knowledge is there then God clearly wants to have a relationship with each human. This intuitive knowledge would most likely manifest itself as some sort of governing behaviour of humans; a moral code, consciousness and sentience perhaps. We have an ability to recognise order and pattern in our existence - most of us infer the presence of some all powerful being behind it all - thus it seems that intuitive kowledge is even built into creation itself (even Quantum Uncertainty seems to show this). Thus when you see men who have a view of God quite similar to yours pen something, you use that intuitive knowledge you have along with the intuitive knowledge of the other and you hopefully learn someting more about God - quite an analog to a scientific process actually. That was the motivation of gathering all Biblical text (of course we are imperfect humans who love politics after all so...). Thus, when you see me take the views of all the men who have had faith in God (as I deem He would be) throughout the ages (a lot of which can be taken figurateively as in the stated case) and employ my eisegesis, that is my justification for doing so.

Of course, this is all under the assumption that God, as defined, exists. What is wrong with that?.

 

[MarcAC]

Quoting the Bible is a poor way to support or 'prove' anything in a comparative religion/logic discussion.

Well, that's what was done in The Starting post so that's a lost cause on this thread. Pointlessly lengthy post.

 

[Gravity]

Pointlessly lengthy post.

Nope, since at the very least it is cathartic for me to put such info out there as much as possible.

Listen: I'm an honest, loving, hardworking parent . . . who *truly* believes that we are facing possibly a totalitarian theocracy here in the USA in our lifetimes. And I fear for myself and my children.

 

[MarcAC]

You have made NO attempt whatsoever to address my points and yet you are attacking my conclusion and insisting that Jesus IS coming back.

In other words you haven't read the verses or my replies. I'm sure you aren't blind (visually).

For those of us like robtex who see the implications, if the only historical information FROM JESUS OWN LIPS so very clearly points to a timeframe long past, then there is NO reason to say otherwise.

Somehow I doubt robtex' views are any different from before this thread was started and will be any different until robtex dies.

I have asked you many times to supply ONE shred of evidence to support your claim that Jesus claims of "I am coming soon" were meant to be taken allegorically and yet you give me NOTHING.

I have shown you texts, which you obviously havne't read, which show other times when Jesus spoke in allegory and it was taken literally. I won't show you again, you can scroll back to see them. I'll just let you continue your static "defence". As has been stated on the thread before, to which the "defence" was an irrelevant attack on the person's (Lori 7) grounds for their belief, you restrict the definition of soon to suit your own purposes... and thus use your restrictive definition to try and contradict another section of the Bible. However, if one is to leave the definition of soon open and then interpret the definition with regards to the fact that there was a sense of urgency (meaning you have one life to live thus the return might as well be in your lifetime and your generation) then your contradiction is reduced to a flat denial.

Even if I am to be permissive, and allow your claim, then we can only conclude that all claims by Jesus that He is God are also to be taken metaphorically since it doesn't make sense to arbitrarily take one part metaphorically and take the other literally.

Not permissive, rational (which includes open-mindedness). It makes perfect sense. See my other post.

Either PROVIDE something contextual our discussion can go on, or keep rambling about this thread being a "diversion". I have listed the points systematically and addressed any objections a reader might have and reached my conclusion. You have done none of these except insist I am wrong because I am interpreting it "wrongly". To put it bluntly: 'Put up, or shut up'.

Again, I encourage you to address my previous posts specifically and then show me how they are void of any supportive texts... and stop repetitively defaming my character, saying I haven't provided anything contextual to support my notion that your conlusion is unwarranted, as it is obvious that I have. Persuasion by repition does not work - it's brain washing. It's obvious by your use of "permissive" that you realise you are being very rigid with regards to your defintions so read the posts when you have time and reply to the post k? I would prefer to see a quote of which section of my post you are specifically replying to as when that is done your posts seem less like rambling. If you don't understand something, say so, I will try to clarify my meaning.

 

[TruthSeeker]

<sigh> Quoting from the Bible to ''prove'' something?

Quoting the Bible is a poor way to support or 'prove' anything in a comparative religion/logic discussion. Either the Bible is infallable - or its subjective (meaning knowing *which* interpretation is ''correct'' is completely impossible).

The references to the Bible are excellent examples of what is written. When you discuss a book that you have read, don't you quote the book and analize it!? :bugeye:

I'm not "proving" anything, I'm just pointing out what it is written because that exactly what we are discussing!!!!!!!

It is like saying that something is not written in the Bible, then i point it out and then you come to me and say that quoting from the bible don't prove anything!!!!!!!!!

Who You Should Kill

--Unruly or rebellious child. Deut 21:20-21
--Those who curse or hit their parents. Lev 20:9, Ex 21:15
--Worshipers of other gods. Deut 13:6-11
--psychics, witches. Lev 20:27, Deut 13:6-11,Ex 22:18.
--Those who do not believe in Jesus (parable). Luke 19:27.
--Those who work on the Sabbath. Ex 35:2 (Moses kills a gentile for this. Num 15:32-36.)
--Those who are accused by at least two people of wickedness. Deut 17:6.
--The children and babies of enemies. Num 31:17, Deut 20:13, Psalm 137:9, Lev 26:29.
--Adulterers. Lev 20:10.
--Homosexuals. Lev 20:13.
--A woman who is not a virgin when married. Deut 22:13-21.
--Those who are careless with murderous livestock. Exodus 21:29.

Those are excellent examples of the laws men added....

What about this one: "--Those who work on the Sabbath. Ex 35:2 (Moses kills a gentile for this. Num 15:32-36.)"
Didn't Jesus work on the Sabbath? Why did he do that? What was he trying to teach? What did he say about the laws?

Who You Should Hate

--Those who eat crab or shrimp. Lev 11:10.
--Those who sacrifice an animal to God that has a blemish. Deut 17:1.
--Those who remarry the same person after divorce. Deut 24:4.
--Homosexuals. Lev 18:22.
--Those who are proud. Prov 16:5.
--A woman who wears pants. Deut 22:5.
--A man with long hair (Jesus?). 1Cor 11:14 contradicts Num 6:5, 1Sam 1:11, Jug 13:5.
--those who call others fools Mat 5:22

Again, all refute by Jesus. He clearly said that all those laws were junk made by men. Didn't he say "love your enemies"?

Should we still do this stuff?

--All OT laws still apply in NT. Matt 5:17-19

*sigh... oh God...

Matthew 5:17-19
"17 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.
18 "For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
19 "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "

Of course he came to fulfill the law! Because the law is Love! Whoever loves his neighbour fulfill the law!!!!!

Arrrrrrrrgh!!!

Romans 13:8
"8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. "

Romans 13:10
"10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. "

Galatians 5:14
"14 For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, " YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

James 2:8
"8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF," you are doing well. "


*sigh... what's the point...

Doomsday Cult

--Jesus/Bible claims the end is near + in our past Mark9:1 Mat16:27-28 Luke 9:26-27 Luke 21:32 Mat 24:34 John 5:25-29 James 5:8 1John 2:18
1Pet 4:7 Mal 4

Yes, in the wink of an eye. Too bad it's written that nobody knows when it is going to happen...


I REALLY don't have time for this....

 

[TruthSeeker]

Nope, since at the very least it is cathartic for me to put such info out there as much as possible.

Listen: I'm an honest, loving, hardworking parent . . . who *truly* believes that we are facing possibly a totalitarian theocracy here in the USA in our lifetimes. And I fear for myself and my children.

Huuumm... I understand. It's incredible how can some people twist everything for their own selfish purposes (i.e. US government).......

If I were you, I would live the US.

Sorry for the last post. It's just that I use Christianism as a way to promote love and kindness amongst all people, but unfortunately, people have done too many wrong things with it....

 

[Gravity]

I recognize and respect those that want to use any religion/myth/belief for good means. Those who choose to interperet it thus. The problem is, for every Mother Theresa there is a David Koresh . . . and each was ''right'' as far as interpreting the Bible to support their beliefs.

We all see and read everything through the lenses of our experiences and understanding.

The Koran is no less full of loving writings than the Bible, and no less full of hateful writings than the Bible. And there are wonderful things being done by people based on those writings, and then again things like 9/11 happen on behalf of those writings.

 

[MarcAC]

Now to betray the deceitful intentions once and for all... since I have time

It is especially ignorant to say that "I am coming soon" referred to Jesus coming 2000 years into the future when the textual evidence points to the immediacy of the event.

Immediacy alludes to urgency. We all have one life to live which determines our fate, thus, in fact, I am coming soon didn't refer to 2000+ years into the future. It referred to "soon":
"Main Entry: soon
Pronunciation: 'sün, esp New England 'sun
Function: adverb
Etymology: Middle English soone, from Old English sOna; akin to Old High German sAn immediately
1 a obsolete : at once : IMMEDIATELY b : before long : without undue time lapse <soon after sunrise>
2 : in a prompt manner : SPEEDILY <as soon as possible> <the sooner the better>
3 archaic : before the usual time
4 : in agreement with one's choice or preference : WILLINGLY <I'd just as soon walk as drive>"
Quoted from Merriam Webster Online.
It didn't refer to any definite date. Next...

There is no room in the passage to allow for the interpretation that this misery was coming in 2000 years.

No there isn't, because a definite time isn't indicated and isn't important. The focus of the passage as the urgency of the event.

In v. 3, he elucidates by saying that they were hoarding their wealth in "the last days". Obviously if he meant to refer to 2000 years later, he would not speak of the last "days" instead of years or millenia.

Nope. Not obvious. 2 Peter 3:8 renders this statement to be a load of crap. Another think to keep in mind is that there was no specific number quoted before "days". Also, speaking in purely temporal terms, the text is still valid due to the fact that past 2000 years may be considered the latter part of human history if we were to be completely anhialated this moment (regardless of if you are an astrnomer, historian, archeologist or paleontologist).

He tells his Christian audience specifically to be patient because the Lord's coming is near. James does NOT tell Christians of 2000 years later to be patient, he speaks directly to those of his generation, saying that the Judge is "standing at the door".

Still means a sense of urgency.

It is hardly necessary to state that the Judge can not have been standing at the door for the past 2000 years

That is a statement which betrays complete ignorance of the fact that Jesus is God and is Immortal and thus can return 2 billion years from now. Stupid statement in fact. Next...

Notice here that in 9:26, the writer describes the period of Christ's atonement as "the end of the ages". The reader must now note that the end of the ages cannot logically be extended for 2000 years and yet retain any literal value, save for the most arbitrary figurative interpretations.

A baseless statement. Why? You need to expand your kowledge of word usage:
"Main Entry: 1age
Pronunciation: 'Aj
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French aage, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin aetaticum, from Latin aetat-, aetas, from aevum lifetime -- more at AYE
1 a : the time of life at which some particular qualification, power, or capacity arises or rests <the voting age is 18>; specifically : MAJORITY b : one of the stages of life c : the length of an existence extending from the beginning to any given time <a boy 10 years of age> d : LIFETIME e : an advanced stage of life
2 : a period of time dominated by a central figure or prominent feature <the age of Pericles>: as a : a period in history or human progress <the age of reptiles> <the age of exploration> b : a cultural period marked by the prominence of a particular item <entering the atomic age> c : a division of geologic time that is usually shorter than an epoch
3 a : the period contemporary with a person's lifetime or with his or her active life b : a long time -- usually used in plural <haven't seen him in ages> c : GENERATION
4 : an individual's development measured in terms of the years requisite for like development of an average individual
synonym see PERIOD"

Ch. 1:1, speaks of the last days, in which the Son spoke of the Gospel, and also in 10:5, as the writer tells his audience that they can "see the Day approaching'. Obviously, if he had intended any figurative (extendedd) value to his earlier eschatological references, he would not speak of the Day so familiarly.

Where is the indication that the writer speaks of the day "familiarly"? What??? It's chapter 10:25 by the way. Misrepresenting information. A non-sequitor. There is no usage, even now, where someone can use the phrase in a literal sense. What a stupid conclusion. Sick.

Ch 10:5, therefore, can only be interpreted as the anticipation of a day within the audience' lifespan. One cannot see approaching what does not even approach within one's lifetime. We see the culmination of this sense of urgency in 10:37, as the writer employs the phrase "a very little while" to emphasize all the more the imminent coming of Jesus, stating that He "will not delay". Only the most ignorant of literary critics can contend that "a very little while" refers to the span of 2000+ years.

It's not Hebrews 10:5, it's;
Hebrew 10:25 "Some people have gotten out of the habit of meeting for worship, but we must not do that. We should keep on encouraging each other, especially since you know that the day of the Lord's coming is getting closer."
Disgusting. This was obviously a cut and paste activity which wasn't reviewed in it's entirety and as is clearly shown the stated interpretation of the verse is a load of deceitful s**t. The Devil's work indeed, but truth shall prevail.... Continuing...

In 2:6, we see that Paul clearly scorns the rulers of his age because he believed the rulers of his time were "coming to nothing". There is no reading past the literal sense of the text, as the context provides no clue whatsoever that a figurative interpretation is necessary. Such a proclamation is akin to saying, "George Bush's time in office is coming to nothing".

Total bullcrap. Coming to nothing as referring to the rulers themselves means literal death without salvation. The George Bush analogy is totally unrelated. George Bush' time in office isn't George Bush is it? Sickening.

Obviously, there is absolutely NO reason to suppose that this statement refers to an event 2000 years into the future. By rulers of this age, Paul referred to the Roman empire, whom he believed would be made powerless.

What a joke! LMAO. Well sure there is no reason, but I'm sure Pauul didn't expect the guyus to live for 2000 years!

We see also in 7:29 that he stresses again the immediacy of the coming, saying "the time is short". He recommends that husbands need not even have sex with their wives, and those who were happy might as well not be, that those who buy something would not even keep their belongings very long. No other emphasis on the timeframe of the second coming can be clearer, we see that Jesus was coming so very immediately that it was better to remain abstinent than to have sex, it was better not to cherish purchased items as if they were worthwhile and not even to mourn since the saints were soon to be reconciled with God.

Another stomach turning misrepresentation... Hebrews 7 is specifically addressing married people, not the coming. Paul refers to the coming to support one of his points... shall I continue... ?

We see even in 10:11 that "the fulfillment of the ages" was upon "us" (referring to Paul and his contemporaries). This is unmistakable evidence of Paul's fervency, that he should report that the second coming of Jesus was coming on "us", which in no way referred to Christian generations of 2000 years in the future.

Of course the guy was fervent. All Christians living now should also live as if Christ is coming tomorrow. Interestingly, for the children born a day or less after Paul stated "us" would include the future generation which includes the children and cna be extended infinitely.

Also in 11:25, Paul reminds his audience of the importance of proclaiming the Lord's death "until he comes". It is especially important to note here that he did not say "until you die", but rather do this "until he comes".

Why would Paul say until you die if that's not what Jesus said???? He was telling them what Jesus said! What kind of idiot would even come up with such nonesense????... and then...

Even more cogent is 15:55, in which Paul reminds his audience that "not all" will die before the Lord's coming, but rather those who fall "asleep" would be raised, and "we" will be changed. Again, we see that the pronoun "we" is used to refer to his contemporaries and not a (much) later generation.

Another sad twisting of the text. We will be changed refers to the text in revelation which states that the dead will rise first and they will be "changed", that is, they will rise in a different state from which they died. Such ignorance of the context of the text and you speak of context!?! Unbelievable! May I continue...

 

[locknroll]

"Of course he came to fulfill the law! Because the law is Love! Whoever loves his neighbour fulfill the law!!!!!

Arrrrrrrrgh!!!"

Maybe, just maybe the law is part of society, and as society changes, so DOES THE LAW!!!

The bible is a bunch of books tacked on to each other. By the time jesus came around the new testament society was different from the old testament society. Which brings us to:

GAY MARRIGE, EQUALITY FOR WOMEN, FREEDOM FOR SLAVES, ANYONE!!!

These are concepts brought about by changes in society. Religion will change and has changed to accomodate new ideas. Too bad revalation was the last book of the bible, or we might of had the gospel of Luke Skywalker, the Matrix Triology, and the Chronicles of Riddick added to the Bible.