With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

[okinrus]

Southstar, from the perspective of God who is everywhere, whether the world is flat or round does not seem to matter.

Well the Bible regardless provides the base of the Christian faith even if you do not agree it is the final authority. Do you not base your belief on the deity of Jesus on the Gospels? Surely it has to play some part.

Yes, but the gospels were written for our benefit, for us who do not hear the word of God constantly in our hearts. If we but listened only to God, the Bible would not be necessary.

But then we realize for example that Jesus supported the Old Testament's cruelty (by claiming to be the God of Abraham)

The Chronicles of the Old Testament were written by the prophets, who viewed God being the cause of everything when in fact God only allowed something to occur. Also its well-known that there are numerical copying errors.

believed the earth to be flat

Again, you're assuming something before you've proven it. There is no passage that says the earth is flat, but the analogy to the four corners of the earth is made.

and that Paul did not believe even in a physical resurrection.

No, Paul did believe in the physical resurrection.

There is no evidence whatsoever in the epistles of an empty tomb which obviously would have been a gargantuan argument to any audience.

Well, I don't think merely an empty tomb is all that much evidence, except to Jesus' disciples. Note also that none of the accounts conflict if they are viewed correct. When I say Bob went to the tomb, it does not necessarily mean that Joe and Jane did not.

Even if I am wrong on a few of this points, it still remains quite obvious through any objective inspection that the writers of the Gospels each had separate and incompatible theologies (which have now been arbitrarily forced to appear harmonious)

Obviously there are stylistic differences. The emphasis John uses to show something is not the same as that of Paul. But there's no evidence to suggest that both theologies were unreleated.

There is also the overwhelming evidence internally that both Jesus and the disciples expected His speedy coming, not one that would be drawn out over 2000 years.

No, I don't think so. There are passages that speak of many wars and rumors of wars,that the Antichrist was not yet in the flesh. For example, Mar 13:28 says "Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see these things happening, know that he is near, at the gates. Amem, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away." Is Jesus speaking of the fig tree(there are 2000 year-old fig trees) that he might be looking at? The disciple's generation? or the generation of Christianity in the future? Could Jesus be speaking of both at the same time?

Obviously there are intepretations of this passage that would conflict with us being here. But those interpretations that do conflict also conflict with on Scripture accounts which say that only the Father knows the time of the last hour. Hence this matter is very much dependent upon your own choice and what you want to believe.

 

[§outh§tar]

Southstar, from the perspective of God who is everywhere, whether the world is flat or round does not seem to matter.

Wow, more theological word spinning. Either the world is flat or it is round, please don't turn this into a word game. Take a look at the link I provided somewhere up top. If the so-called prophets claimed God was responsible for their prophetic vision, then obviously there should be nothing erroneous about their visions either. It is quite indisputable that if a man were to come in the skies, as Jesus claimed, the only way for His prediction that every eye would behold Him is if the earth is flat. You can try to twist it out of context and give it a more suitable interpretation, but I am basing what I say strictly on what the Bible says, not what I want it to say.

Yes, but the gospels were written for our benefit, for us who do not hear the word of God constantly in our hearts. If we but listened only to God, the Bible would not be necessary.

The Word is necessary, contrary to what you say. Jesus time and time again spoke about believing in His Word and Paul said:

Romans 10
14How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 15And how can they preach unless they are sent? As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!"

and again

Romans 1
17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last,[3] just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

and again

Romans 3
10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;

As Paul clearly says, they cannot hear UNLESS someone preaches the word to them. Since they have all turned away from God, your claim that we can listen to God directly and not the Bible is baseless, especially considering the differing interpretations of things. Or do you plan to say that your interpretation of things is what God has spoken to your heart and that He has given another a skewed version of things? The difference in opinion is so great that any claim that we can commune with God directly is invalidated. After all, didn't even Jesus study the Scriptures as it is written? Therefore what base do you have for making such a fantastic claim?

The Chronicles of the Old Testament were written by the prophets, who viewed God being the cause of everything when in fact God only allowed something to occur. Also its well-known that there are numerical copying errors.

Then we can only reasonably discount the words of the prophets by YOUR own words since there is absolutely no way of knowing which part of their testimony is valid and which part is not. If God only allowed some things to occur and the prophets got it wrong then they obviously did not recieve their message from God and the entirety of Judaism (and Christianity) is called into question. As for numerical copying errors, we must safely assert that the Bible cannot be relied on as a historically accurate amalgam of documents. After all, if the copyists erred on copying numbers, who knows what else they failed to copy accurately, or changed to fit their interpretations? The verse in the New Testament about holding snakes and drinking poison is an interesting evidence of this.

Again, you're assuming something before you've proven it. There is no passage that says the earth is flat, but the analogy to the four corners of the earth is made.

See the link I posted in the above post.

No, Paul did believe in the physical resurrection.

Show me.

Well, I don't think merely an empty tomb is all that much evidence, except to Jesus' disciples. Note also that none of the accounts conflict if they are viewed correct. When I say Bob went to the tomb, it does not necessarily mean that Joe and Jane did not.

What? More word spinning for me? "It does not necessarily mean" simply shows that you are basing your entire rationale on measly speculation. It could also mean that the different writers were never eyewitnesses, which is entirely possible. You are going to have to come up with more than speculation to make a case for yourself.

Obviously there are stylistic differences. The emphasis John uses to show something is not the same as that of Paul. But there's no evidence to suggest that both theologies were unreleated.

Justification by works or by faith or by both is a perfect example. The writers could not even agree on which is which. I am sure the only excuse you can come up with however is "just because it says by faith alone does not necessarily mean works are excluded".

-----------
Galatians 2:15-16
We who are Jews by birth and not "Gentile sinners" know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one is justified.

Matthew 5:17-20
"Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses those of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Note the complete contradiction in the two passages above. The sentence italicized showed the contradiction even more clearly: Paul is saying "we are not justified by observing the law" and Jesus is saying, in contrast, that "whoever practices the law will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."
- Rejection of Pascal's Wager, Paul Tobin

--------

No, I don't think so. There are passages that speak of many wars and rumors of wars,that the Antichrist was not yet in the flesh. For example, Mar 13:28 says "Learn a lesson from the fig tree. When its branch becomes tender and sprouts leaves, you know that summer is near. In the same way, when you see these things happening, know that he is near, at the gates. Amem, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will not pass away." Is Jesus speaking of the fig tree(there are 2000 year-old fig trees) that he might be looking at? The disciple's generation? or the generation of Christianity in the future? Could Jesus be speaking of both at the same time?

I think you and I can at least agree that it would be intellectually dishonest and really quite stupid to resort to the excuse that Jesus was speaking of fig trees in his reference.

I Thessalonians 4:15
For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.

I Corinthians 7:29
What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as though they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as though they are not; those who buy something, as if it is not theirs to keep; those who used the things of the world, as if not engrossed in time. For this world in its present form is passing away.

Mark 9:1 (Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27) And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God come to power."

Quite obviously he was not referencing later Christian generations either and the above verses also show quite plainly that the apostles understood the same thing to be true. It's either you look at the text for what it says or you twist it to somehow accomodate that He meant for at least another 2000+ years.

Obviously there are intepretations of this passage that would conflict with us being here. But those interpretations that do conflict also conflict with on Scripture accounts which say that only the Father knows the time of the last hour. Hence this matter is very much dependent upon your own choice and what you want to believe.

Again, you are twisting the words around to suit your own respective belief, saying it is "dependent" on each one's interpretation. The reference to the Father knowing the day and hour OBVIOUSLY refers to the exact time that Jesus would arrive. That is absolutely indisputable. The issue however is Jesus' failed prophecy of returning "quickly". I don't know about you, but only a fool would wait for over 2000 years and still call it "quickly". Each generation has supposedly been the generation which showed times of the endtimes (wars, famine, earthquakes) and each time, disappointment followed. When will you actually look at what Jesus said, instead of what you want Jesus to have said?

 

[§outh§tar]

First of all, the Bible isn't stating that the earth is flat, but we can easily see that the writers of the Bible believed that to be the case.

Excuse me to say that is a moronic interpretation. That is like saying Michael Moore thinks George Bush is incompetent, but that is not what his movie is trying to say. At least try to give a credible excuse.

But in the passages that the earth is described to be flat, the message is otherwise. The passages that have those descriptions might have the message that (just as a example) God is above all.

You may have assumed that I meant that the Bible say that God is above all by stating the earth is flat, but that wasn't what I meant. The Bible only indicates that the earth is flat. It's message is NOT to tell you whether the earth is flat or not, it uses this as a image that was common understanding at the time.

You are trying to reason with me that the God of the Bible tries to get His message across by indulging in a flawed understanding of the world, which is obviously inane and quite unlike any omniscient God. I know very well that you only meant the "God is above all" thing as an example, but all I wanted to show you is that your example actually digs a deeper hole for your argument.

If I tell you "there's alot of people on this flat earth that can show you love if you allow them to", what do you think my meaning is? What am I trying to tell you? That the earth is flat??

Uh oh. More twisting words around. If you tell me that, I can only conclude these things:

1) The earth is flat
2) The are a lot of people who can show me love if I let them.

You obviously understand that if premise 2 is wrong, the whole statement is wrong. If premise 1 is wrong, the whole statement is wrong.

It is like me telling you "God likes to punish His uncle". Now that means God likes to to punish, and God has an uncle. Since the premise that God likes to punish is wrong, the whole statement is obviously wrong. Similarly, since God doesn't have an uncle, the whole statement is wrong. You would have to be unreasonable to ignore the shortcomings of the passage and still try to make it sound like "Gospel".

Or if I tell you "God controls the winds from the four corners of the earth and knows the height of the heavens and the depth of the sea" (something like that is in the Bible), what am I trying to tell you? That God is above everything or that the earth is flat?

Like I said before, both. If even one part of the statement is wrong then the whole statement is wrong. Imagine for a moment the sea has no depth, that would obviously mean that God cannot know what it's depth is and therefore the statement is WRONG. A statement can't be part truth and part lie, especially when it applies to matters of the Bible.

If you still don't understand what I mean, then tell me so, and don't draw conclusions from it, I'm not having irrational beliefs. They are thought-through and based on healthy reasoning.

I have just shown how "healthy" your reasoning is, that you ignore the very fact that if God essentially told His prophets in a vision that the earth is flat, then it is God who is wrong. If you say that the prophets are wrong in order to save yourself from embarassment, you only dig a deeper hole by me asking why you would then believe anything the prophets say to be true.

So if the writer believes the earth to be flat, and the feeling tells him to use the image of earth to describe Gods greatness, then the writer will show us a image of a flat earth. The truth is in the meaning, not necessarily in the pictures that the writers used to describe the meaning.

This part has nothing to do with out discussion but now you are trying to change your argument to say the writers were just trying to "describe". The writers CLAIMED that their visions of a flat earth were given by God. You CAN'T ignore that and say they were only trying to describe God's greatness. I suggest you go up to the link I provided and read through it to know what the Bible really says about flat-earth. If the truth is in the meaning, then it is quite possible that you have misinterpreted the meaning, which also digs a deeper hold and begs even more questions. And also, just like okinrus, you resort to using the conditional "necessarily" because you know very well that your arguments amount to idle speculation. But as I told even him, I am basing my statements on what the Bible says, not what I want it to say and so he should do the same. Unless there is an indication that the writers of the Bible wanted to use the flat earth scenario as a description of God's power, you are lying to me since you have no reason to believe so.

As I said before, the chair can be easily verified if it can support your weight or not, God is unknown to us, thus we can't verify His existance that easily

.

Acts 17

22Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. 23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:|sc TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
24"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.

The very Bible that you claim to be defending has disqualified your argument. Paul claims to be proclaiming the "unknown god" therefore it is foolish to say "God is unknown to us", since the Bible refutes that line of thinking. Also see

Romans 1
8The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

It is quite clear from this passage that the Bible says God is not "unknowable" or incapable of being verified.

We can see that there are contradictions in the Bible, but we can also see what message that the Bible carries out.

When you see something that is wrong in the Bible, then it's up to you to believe that or not. But you shouldn't judge the whole Bible based on it.

The Bible has errors in it, just as any book which contains enough claims.

Why should I believe something that is imperfect is the product of a perfect Being? Do you have any valid reasoning behind this? I'm not judging the whole Bible besides, but I'm criticizing the individual book(s) in question and the writers in the New Testament who believed that those books were perfect.

But if I claim that 2+2 = 4 and 3+3 = 5 should you then take away both my claims just because I got one wrong?

If you claimed that God gave you the answers to both equations, then YES, I would. This is another example of bringing an analogy that has nothing to do with the discussion.

You have to see what you can believe in, even a prophet may make mistakes, but if the prophet has a true inspiration then there are no mistakes in what he writes during that inspiration. But a prophet can be tempted to make claims when he doesn't feel inspired because it is what his intellect tells him to conclude from the inspiration after the actual inspiration.

For example;
If by inspiration I get "1 2 3 4" then I'm tempted to write "5" also. But this may not have to be the case, if I was inspired after the "4" then it could just as easily been "6" (like "1 2 3 4 6") or it could be that there wasn't meant to be anything after "4", maybe the sequence has stopped there?

It's easy to conclude things based on our idea of reality, even though some concepts were new to the inspired prophets, they may have been tempted to further the ideas by making claims based on the before concepts.

If that is the case, then you are claiming that the reports of the prophets were subjective, meaning that they were outright lying for claiming "Thus sayeth the Lord", since they had bended it to their reality and not what God had said. The Bible very clearly says

Deuteronomy 18
21 You may say to yourselves, "How can we know when a message has not been spoken by the LORD ?" 22 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

Therefore we see very clearly that all your word spinning amounts to nothing by the claim of the Bible. Since the testimony of the prophet is not "true", we can be sure by the Bible's claim that the prophet is a liar.

The writer that said that Jesus said that He would come before "this generation has passed", may have wanted this to be true, maybe he wanted to give hope to the people, it can be various reasons. Also there can be that the actual words were altered when it was passed on mouth to mouth.

In that case Jesus' claims about His divinity may have also been altered by the oral tradition. Again, all your speculation does is to dig a deeper hole. If the writer also wanted to give hope to the people, then we can be assured that he was a liar and that we cannot expect any of his testimony to be true. I will however excuse all your speculation to say that this is not the case, since even the disciples believed in their writings that the earth in it's present form was "passing away". You should stop speculating and admit that not only did Jesus believe it, but His disciples believed it too.

However, the feeling that is given by that message (that Jesus would come before the generation would pass) is very similar to the feeling of being alert and ready for His arrival cause it can happen anytime. It may be that the audiance had misinterpreted that message to mean that He would come in their generation, while He was actually telling them to be ready and alert.

That is simply more speculation because we know that Jesus SPECIFICALLY said that some of the people standing before Him would not have died when He came back. That quite obviously points to the immediacy of His return, something you cannot ignore.

The only thing I know is that there may be reasons that is above our understanding, and there are alternative explanations for everything.

If the reason is above your understanding, then you wouldn't have any reason to believe it in the first place so we can safely dismiss that assertion.

Some things may have been altered, and it's a great sorrow if anything is. But I don't think that the whole message has been altered, I think that if there is changes then they haven't been made with intention and I think that there are still a relation to the original message (often misunderstandings carry at least some of the original intention).

If somethings have been altered then you understand that it is not your business to go on believing in erroneous texts. Do you have any reason at all for believing that the original writers themselves did not deify Jesus because of their respective understanding of Him? Do you have any reason for believing that the altered texts remain valid enough for edification?

Because those religions doesn't appeal to me, and I like Jesus and the teachings He had (has).

So you are basing your ignorance of other viewpoints on your feelings towards a religion that said it's savior would come 2000 years ago. Do you now see what I mean when I say I feel sorry for Christians?

Í said that I realise the problem with the passage, thus I'm not being ignorant about it.

I just don't conclude that the rest of the teachings are wrong because of it.

I also have the option that there might be explanations as to why Jesus said that, or even the option that the peopled that carried His message might have misunderstood what He originally meant.

It appears from my reading of your post that you are actually being naieve to the evidence and have abandoned reason. If Jesus claimed to be God and yet He was wrong about when He was coming back, surely you understand that it is stupid to assume that any of His other claims are any more valid.

Besides, if it is the fault of the oral tradition, then it can also be the oral tradition that is responsible for conjuring the reports of His miracles, the Nativity, and the resurrection. You do understand that this is also a possibility but you choose to ignore it and go on believing. This doesn't seem like you "realise" the problem at all, rather that you shut your eyes to it.

 

[okinrus]

First, God's prudence and infinite wisdom would not reveal the final date of someone's life, because that would produce endless worry. If God would not reveal even the final day of someone's life, then why would he reveal the final hour of the world? And why would He not want us to cherish each day as if it was before the last?

Take a look at the link I provided somewhere up top. If the so-called prophets claimed God was responsible for their prophetic vision, then obviously there should be nothing erroneous about their visions either. It is quite indisputable that if a man were to come in the skies, as Jesus claimed, the only way for His prediction that every eye would behold Him is if the earth is flat.

No, we all see the sky. Are you suggesting that God could not reveal himself to everyone. He is able to translocate as well, being several places at once. How else would we claim that he is within our hearts yet also the within someone else's?

You can try to twist it out of context and give it a more suitable interpretation, but I am basing what I say strictly on what the Bible says, not what I want it to say.

This is your own interpretation of the Bible. The verses don't say anything without an interpretation.

The Word is necessary, contrary to what you say. Jesus time and time again spoke about believing in His Word and Paul said:

None of the passages indicate anything of the written word. The gospel means only the good news.

As Paul clearly says, they cannot hear UNLESS someone preaches the word to them. Since they have all turned away from God, your claim that we can listen to God directly and not the Bible is baseless, especially considering the differing interpretations of things. Or do you plan to say that your interpretation of things is what God has spoken to your heart and that He has given another a skewed version of things? The difference in opinion is so great that any claim that we can commune with God directly is invalidated. After all, didn't even Jesus study the Scriptures as it is written? Therefore what base do you have for making such a fantastic claim?

You're bringing up contrived examples when it's plainly said that all things are possible with God. If everyone was able to hear God, and listen only to God, then there would be no need for the written word. But because this is not the case, there is a need for the writings to be written down. Hence, Jesus would study the Scriptures not for his own benefit but for our benefit.

Justification by works or by faith or by both is a perfect example. The writers could not even agree on which is which. I am sure the only excuse you can come up with however is "just because it says by faith alone does not necessarily mean works are excluded".

Southstar, it is obviously both. We do good works through faith. There is no mention of "faith alone" in the Scripture. This was phrase putforth by Martin Luther's translation, which was more or less what Martin Luther felt that the verse meant. Now most translations Bibles don't use "faith alone." We do good by faith but this does not by any stretch undermine the good that we do. There is of course two Laws. There is the Torah, which was given to the Jews, and the Law written upon our hearts.

I think you and I can at least agree that it would be intellectually dishonest and really quite stupid to resort to the excuse that Jesus was speaking of fig trees in his reference.

No, its an interpretation of the passage, one of the several I've mentioned.

Mark 9:1 (Matthew 16:28; Luke 9:27) And he said to them, "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God come to power."

Clearly this refers to the transfiguation of Jesus following this passage.

I Thessalonians 4:15
For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep.

There's no indication of what Paul means here by "we." Clearly Paul's writings towards the end of his life fortell his death, so it's unlikely that Paul meant himself by this passage.

I Corinthians 7:29
What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have wives should live as though they had none; those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as though they are not; those who buy something, as if it is not theirs to keep; those who used the things of the world, as if not engrossed in time. For this world in its present form is passing away.

This is consistent. The world is passing away.

Again, you are twisting the words around to suit your own respective belief, saying it is "dependent" on each one's interpretation. The reference to the Father knowing the day and hour OBVIOUSLY refers to the exact time that Jesus would arrive. That is absolutely indisputable. The issue however is Jesus' failed prophecy of returning "quickly". I don't know about you, but only a fool would wait for over 2000 years and still call it "quickly". Each generation has supposedly been the generation which showed times of the endtimes (wars, famine, earthquakes) and each time, disappointment followed. When will you actually look at what Jesus said, instead of what you want Jesus to have said?

Of course it is. Even if I was to write something on this board, who would know the exact meaning but the me? Thus unless if Jesus tells us directly, I'll take what I think is the most likely explanation. The meaning and intention of what Jesus says is very difficult to determine sometimes. For example, John writes "When Peter saw him, he said, Jesus, 'Lord, what about him?' Jesus said to him, 'What if I want him to remain until I com? What concerns is it of yours? You follow me.' So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just 'What if I want him to remain until I come?'

 

[anonymous2]

There's no indication of what Paul means here by "we." Clearly Paul's writings towards the end of his life fortell his death, so it's unlikely that Paul meant himself by this passage.

I'm curious where exactly he foretells of his death (outside a general "I'm going to get killed by preaching the gospel"). Notice that Paul says "we who are alive AND REMAIN." Paul does not need to be saying that he himself thinks he's going to be alive to see Jesus. All the passage is saying is that those who were alive then and CONTINUED LIVING until Jesus comes back will not meet up with Jesus (in the clouds) before those dead Christians are resurrected and meet up with Jesus. Paul says AFTER the dead in Christ have been raised, THEN "we who are alive and remain" would meet up with the resurrected Christians in the air. When did that ever happen?

 

[okinrus]

I'm curious where exactly he foretells of his death (outside a general "I'm going to get killed by preaching the gospel").

"For I am already being poured out like a libation, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have competed well; I have finished the race..."(2 Timothy 4:6)

Notice that Paul says "we who are alive AND REMAIN." Paul does not need to be saying that he himself thinks he's going to be alive to see Jesus. All the passage is saying is that those who were alive then and CONTINUED LIVING until Jesus comes back will not meet up with Jesus (in the clouds) before those dead Christians are raised from the dead and meet up with Jesus.

Well, what we know is that Paul did not know the exact time of Jesus' coming. Thus he could use "we" because he does not even know whether he himself will remain on earth. Most likely "we" just means the collective human race. But Paul indicates that the last days were not there yet in some of his writings. For example, "But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days. People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious, callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as they make a pretence of religion but deny its power. Reject them." Paul, of course, also quotes Isaiah that says the gospel mus be proclaimed to the whole earth, to all the nations. Since Paul did not accomplish this completely, no indication exists that Paul believed judgement day would happen too soon. What happended, I think, is that Paul received further prophesies concerning judgement day; but not having received the date of judgement, he assumed that the times were "near."

 

[anonymous2]

Well, what we know is that Paul did not know the exact time of Jesus' coming. Thus he could use "we" because he does not even know whether he himself will remain on earth. Most likely "we" just means the collective human race..

I don't agree. Where, from the context, would you get the idea that he's referring to the collective human race? Paul is clearly talking about fellow Christians, that those who were alive then AND continued living UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD, would not meet up with Jesus (in the air, when he comes back with a shout, the voice of the archangel, and a trumpet), UNTIL the dead in Christ were raised. That never happened as far as I can tell.

But Paul indicates that the last days were not there yet in some of his writings. For example, "But understand this: there will be terrifying times in the last days. People will be self-centered and lovers of money, proud, haughty, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, irreligious, callous, implacable, slanderous, licentious, brutal, hating what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, as they make a pretence of religion but deny its power. Reject them." Paul, of course, also quotes Isaiah that says the gospel mus be proclaimed to the whole earth, to all the nations. Since Paul did not accomplish this completely, no indication exists that Paul believed judgement day would happen too soon. What happended, I think, is that Paul received further prophesies concerning judgement day; but not having received the date of judgement, he assumed that the times were "near."

These types of things were happening since the beginning of Christianity almost. And keep in mind, he's talking about last DAYS, not YEARS, not CENTURIES, not MILLENNIA, but DAYS. 1 John 2:18 says it's the last HOUR. That doesn't lend itself to an interpretation of thousands of years, imo.

Also, the Bible DOES say that the gospel had ALREADY BEEN preached to the whole earth. Romans 10:17,18 says "their voice has gone out to ALL THE EARTH, and their words to the ENDS OF THE EARTH", and in Col 1:23 the author says that the gospel "has been proclaimed to EVERY creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant." I'm not sure the authors were aware of very much outside of the Roman Empire and areas relatively close to it (Like, were they aware China existed? And I don't know why I should think they knew of the "New World"). If so, then that might explain why they apparently thought the gospel had pretty much already been preached to the whole world.

So, from those two passages, it sounds like it was thought that the gospel had pretty much already been preached to the world.

Not very much room for thousands of years, unless one believes that verse in 2nd Peter, imo.

 

[§outh§tar]

First, God's prudence and infinite wisdom would not reveal the final date of someone's life, because that would produce endless worry. If God would not reveal even the final day of someone's life, then why would he reveal the final hour of the world? And why would He not want us to cherish each day as if it was before the last?

As I said to Cyperium, the final date is not what was revealed. Jesus did not know the day and hour (only the Father did) but He certainly made it clear that He was aware of it's nearness. Besides the point, it is rather silly of you to say that God revealing the final date would cause "endless worry". In fact it seems stupid. After all Jesus went about crying "Repent, the kingdom is at hand", if that was the case then just saying that would have produced your so-called "endless worry". As we see that is not the case, the purpose of saying the coming was near was rather to assure the believer and make their joy full. How on earth you plan to explain why the believer would be "endlessly worried" by knowing that Jesus is coming "quickly" is beyond me. And of course the entire reason of being a doomsday prophet was that the sinners would be quickened to repent, if Jesus had instead said or even implied that the coming was 2000 years into the future do you think any of the tax collectors would have budged? But rather it is because of the threat of an imminent judgement that such fervor was experienced.

See here as a cross reference: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=86

No, we all see the sky. Are you suggesting that God could not reveal himself to everyone. He is able to translocate as well, being several places at once. How else would we claim that he is within our hearts yet also the within someone else's?

Wow, I can see you really do enjoy twisting my words. God being in our hearts obviously has nothing to do with a physical appearance so that is a really stupid analogy. And now you are saying Jesus was going to appear in the sky all over the globe at the same time as the same person? Surely even you don't believe that? Simply accept the tradition of the time, that all eyes seeing the same event was possible because the earth was "flat".

This is your own interpretation of the Bible. The verses don't say anything without an interpretation.

What I mean to say is that we should not force figurative meanings on a literal text unless the Bible specifies otherwise. A good example would be your statement that Jesus was going to "translocate" and appear all over the globe in the sky (where is He coming from, outer space?). Again, simply accept the culture for what it is. Because the earth was flat, the heavens (being the place of God) would logically be above.

None of the passages indicate anything of the written word. The gospel means only the good news.

The good news of the Gospel is the word that Jesus spoke. Obviously for us that means the written accounts since that is the only record available.

You're bringing up contrived examples when it's plainly said that all things are possible with God. If everyone was able to hear God, and listen only to God, then there would be no need for the written word. But because this is not the case, there is a need for the writings to be written down. Hence, Jesus would study the Scriptures not for his own benefit but for our benefit.

If "all things are possible with God" was meant to be understood along with what Paul was saying, he would obviously have made that clear. Again, you are forcing an external passage into his writ. That is like saying since God can do all things, He shouldn't have sent His Son to die when He was perfectly capable of purifying us regardless. Obviously God works through a plan, so what you are saying is Paul is wrong about the hearing of the Word being the way to faith. It has to be one or the other so make up your mind and cease to import foreign passages to interpret the meaning of the text.

Southstar, it is obviously both. We do good works through faith. There is no mention of "faith alone" in the Scripture. This was phrase putforth by Martin Luther's translation, which was more or less what Martin Luther felt that the verse meant. Now most translations Bibles don't use "faith alone." We do good by faith but this does not by any stretch undermine the good that we do. There is of course two Laws. There is the Torah, which was given to the Jews, and the Law written upon our hearts.

Again I look to Paul in Romans 2:14 and Romans 3:10 to show that the Law of our hearts is of no effect since the epistle clearly says we have ALL turned away so whatever you are talking about is baseless. Besides that, Paul says by the Law (or in your case the "two Laws) no flesh will be justified so your claim is again proven baseless.

No, its an interpretation of the passage, one of the several I've mentioned.

Show me any evidence at all in the text (or even in the original language) that shows Jesus was talking about fig trees. I am sure you can't and will continue to say it is just an "interpretation" (read idle and baseless speculation). The text provides absolutely NO evidence whatsoever of that claim and it is unfortunate that is the best you can come up with. Even in that case, it would mean that Jesus had purposely misled His disciples into going on a mission warning all of His second coming. But then again, I look to you to first show me any internal evidence.

Clearly this refers to the transfiguation of Jesus following this passage.

This is the most intensely stupid of all your speculations so far. If Jesus was referring to the transfiguration then why would He say there would be some who would not taste death? It is utter foolishness to suppose that, but we can only look to the previous verse to disprove your erroneous view. Jesus says previously that the Son of Man will come WITH angels to reward EACH according to His works. OBVIOUSLY to any who reads this text, Jesus did not reward EACH according to His works at the transfiguration, neither did He "come in the glory of His Father" with angels at the transfiguration. It's nice of you to take it out of context as if He was referring to the transfiguration, but the very context and details of His prophecy make it all too evident He referred to something epochal.

There's no indication of what Paul means here by "we." Clearly Paul's writings towards the end of his life fortell his death, so it's unlikely that Paul meant himself by this passage.

I really am losing respect for you as you continue to take passages out of context. Firstly, the book makes no reference to your claim that Paul was dying. Secondly, any statement by a person including "we" obviously refers to the person as well. There is no example you can give me contrary to this, and even if you did, it would be so farfetched that it would never parallel Paul's rationale. I can only look to the context to help you see your grave error. In the later verses, 16 and 17, Paul first speaks of those who are dead in Christ being raised up, and THEN he talks about "we who are alive and remain". There is absolutely NO question that "we who are alive and remain" did not refer to Paul. You can ask ANYONE on these forums or any grammarian for that matter, your case makes me sick.

This is consistent. The world is passing away.

Can you be any more naieve? The "world in it's present form" has been continually passing away for over 2000 years and still nothing? Paul specifically says "The time is short", obviously not alluding to 2000 years later, but if you persist in folly then we look to the overall context: Paul says having a wife is of no value BECAUSE "the time is short" and it might as well be that they did not have one. The way with which you twist words out of context when all internal evidence points to the contrary really makes me sad.

Of course it is. Even if I was to write something on this board, who would know the exact meaning but the me? Thus unless if Jesus tells us directly, I'll take what I think is the most likely explanation. The meaning and intention of what Jesus says is very difficult to determine sometimes. For example, John writes "When Peter saw him, he said, Jesus, 'Lord, what about him?' Jesus said to him, 'What if I want him to remain until I com? What concerns is it of yours? You follow me.' So the word spread among the brothers that that disciple would not die. But Jesus had not told him that he would not die, just 'What if I want him to remain until I come?'

By this claim of yours, which actually goes to prove nothing, we can then by your logic claim that all of Jesus' claims - no matter how plain they are - are "very difficult to determine". The very fact that Jesus said that strengthens the overall argument that He presumed He would be coming within the lifespan of that generation.

 

[§outh§tar]

I don't agree. Where, from the context, would you get the idea that he's referring to the collective human race? Paul is clearly talking about fellow Christians, that those who were alive then AND continued living UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD, would not meet up with Jesus (in the air, when he comes back with a shout, the voice of the archangel, and a trumpet), UNTIL the dead in Christ were raised. That never happened as far as I can tell.

I tried to tell him, it is absolutely moronic of him to suppose that the pronoun "we" does not involve Paul. What greater evidence is there? If I said, "We are going to the mall soon". I firstly do not mean that you alone (and not me) is going to the mall and I certainly DO NOT mean that we are going to the mall 2000 years from now. I am continuously baffled by his stubborn persistency in twisting the words to suit him when they are by all evidence meant to be interpreted literally.


See here also, a rather nice, long article on when Jesus meant to come: http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=86

 

[Bells]

Ah South, now you know what some of us have been seeing and trying to point out to many in the religious forum.

 

[okinrus]

I still don't see what the big fuss is about. The date was not revealed, so Paul out of necessity warned the early Christians. Tell me if any of these sentence refer to myself? We will invent a new spaceshift. We will fly to mars. None of the sentence refer to myself, but it's perfectly alright to use "we."

As we see that is not the case, the purpose of saying the coming was near was rather to assure the believer and make their joy full. How on earth you plan to explain why the believer would be "endlessly worried" by knowing that Jesus is coming "quickly" is beyond me.

Assuming the believer is able to resist the Antichrist....

And of course the entire reason of being a doomsday prophet was that the sinners would be quickened to repent, if Jesus had instead said or even implied that the coming was 2000 years into the future do you think any of the tax collectors would have budged? But rather it is because of the threat of an imminent judgement that such fervor was experienced.

The threat of physical punishment in Hell is not a valid repentence. Notwithstanding, our lives on earth are far shorter than 2000 years.

These types of things were happening since the beginning of Christianity almost. And keep in mind, he's talking about last DAYS, not YEARS, not CENTURIES, not MILLENNIA, but DAYS. 1 John 2:18 says it's the last HOUR. That doesn't lend itself to an interpretation of thousands of years, imo.

The days are used as a figure of speech.

Wow, I can see you really do enjoy twisting my words. God being in our hearts obviously has nothing to do with a physical appearance so that is a really stupid analogy. And now you are saying Jesus was going to appear in the sky all over the globe at the same time as the same person? Surely even you don't believe that? Simply accept the tradition of the time, that all eyes seeing the same event was possible because the earth was "flat".

Every mass Jesus is physically present in the Eucharist. I don't know how, but I'm sure several masses are said at once across the country, even in my state.

Surely even you don't believe that? Simply accept the tradition of the time, that all eyes seeing the same event was possible because the earth was "flat".

I don't have any specific opinion on this matter. I know that Jesus is going to appear, that all will see him, but I certainly don't know how this will be done.

That is like saying since God can do all things, He shouldn't have sent His Son to die when He was perfectly capable of purifying us regardless.

This is an assumption.

Obviously God works through a plan, so what you are saying is Paul is wrong about the hearing of the Word being the way to faith. It has to be one or the other so make up your mind and cease to import foreign passages to interpret the meaning of the text.

I've already made up my mind. I said that if God spoke to everyone and everyone listened perfectly, then the Bible would be unnecessary. You responded by quoting from the Bible, which for that reason is an immediately circular argument, an interpretation that neither Paul nor Jesus said. The "Bible" did *not* exist at the time of Paul. The books that Paul and the Christians used for the Old Testament were the Septuagint and the Hebrew transcripts. At that time not all of the New Testament books were written. So Paul certainly does not refer to "gospel" as the NT but what he speaks through the Holy Spirit.

Show me any evidence at all in the text (or even in the original language) that shows Jesus was talking about fig trees. I am sure you can't and will continue to say it is just an "interpretation" (read idle and baseless speculation). The text provides absolutely NO evidence whatsoever of that claim and it is unfortunate that is the best you can come up with. Even in that case, it would mean that Jesus had purposely misled His disciples into going on a mission warning all of His second coming. But then again, I look to you to first show me any internal evidence.

Fig trees have very important to Israel because Adam and Eve covered themselves with fig leaves. Whenceforth it became a sign of decadence and flesh. Since Jesus had let one of the fig trees dry up, this sentence may have been parallel the other fig tree.

Again I look to Paul in Romans 2:14 and Romans 3:10 to show that the Law of our hearts is of no effect since the epistle clearly says we have ALL turned away so whatever you are talking about is baseless. Besides that, Paul says by the Law (or in your case the "two Laws) no flesh will be justified so your claim is again proven baseless.

Why? The Law is so that someone does not corrupt or defile themselves. The Law does not make someone clean, though.

The way with which you twist words out of context when all internal evidence points to the contrary really makes me sad.

This is not what I meant. It's reasonable to suggest that Paul thought the time was going to be soon; it's not resonable to suggest Paul was given a prophesy that the time was going to be in the next hundred years or so.

 

[okinrus]

Also the transfiguation refers to the the vision given to the disciples of Jesus, Moses, and Elijah(the passage directly below the one you quoted from.) At this point "some" of those standing were able to see Jesus in power, fulfilling the quote you gave.

 

[anonymous2]

Okinrus, I see no reason to continue on this track. The fact of that matter is that the author of that passage states "we who are alive and remain...unto the coming of the Lord" meant those who WERE alive and CONTINUED to live until Jesus literally came back (as the context says, since it mentions the raising of the Christian dead, a trumpet sound, a voice of the archangel, a meeting in the sky). Those people who Paul referred to died out and never saw that literal coming of Jesus. It's very simple. You can deny it if you wish, reinterpret it, etc. You can say that the "last hour", "I am coming quickly", etc really means thousands of years, or are a figure of speech, or that black REALLY means white if you like. If God really means something else than what the words appear to mean, how are you assured at all about ANYTHING the Bible says? In my opinion, you have not provided a logical rebuttal. You have just asserted that what the words appear to mean REALLY mean something else in order to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion. A figure of speech is still supposed to impart a meaning; it's not supposed to be meaningless. Just what were the phrases "I'm coming quickly", "These are the last days", "This is the last hour" supposed to convey if not for the IMMINENT RETURN OF JESUS? About 2 millennia or so is NOT IMMINENT!

You're certainly within your right to believe otherwise, but I'm certainly within my right to believe that the general belief of the NT authors was expecting Jesus' return within their lifetimes (or thereabouts), and to conclude that this expectation was wrong.

 

[DoctorNO]

I am the Christian depicted in the quote. I can no longer honestly defend my faith and relinquish my all so glorious title, Defender of the Faith. After an objective inspection of the Bible, I can simply find no reason to believe either in it's historicity or theological claims. I can not in good faith deny my ability to reason and continue to believe in what other people have told me to believe. I have heard only one side of the story for all my life, so long so that I even spewed much of that garbage on these forums and was puzzled when I was ridiculed for my beliefs. At first, ignorantly believing that these disbelievers were simply minions of Satan, sent to rob me of my faith, I squeezed my advise to their objective counsel and assured myself that I would rather trust in God than in man. Despite my fervent efforts to disprove any arguments against my beloved Christ, I fatigued myself and sought to find out just why the heathen were so equally ardent in their denouncement of Jesus when all I saw when I opened the Bible was unparalleled truth and majesty.

Those were my words too a little more than a year ago. Welcome to reality, southstar.

 

[okinrus]

No, what I've said was that "we" does not necessary refers to Paul. Besides, even if I was supposed that the "we" only refered to Paul and the church he was writing to, clearly Paul would be leaving out the christians in the other churches. So you must admit that the "we" here is quite general? I think the posts mentioned above show that "we" may also refer to future descendents.

 

[anonymous2]

Okinrus, "we" HAD to refer to Christians at that time. I didn't say a single thing about him only referring to Corinthian Christians. It's painfully obvious he is referring to Christians as a whole, but LIVING AT THAT TIME, as he mentions the "dead in Christ", not the "Corinthian dead in Christ."

WE WHO ARE ALIVE are those Christians Paul was speaking to. AND REMAIN means those Christians Paul was speaking to AND WHO CONTINUED TO LIVE UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD.

I'm done. Believe what you want.

 

[okinrus]

Again, you're reading into Paul's writings with a preconceived notion that that was what he meant. There are plenty of passages which state otherwise. For example, 2 Thessalonians 2:1 "We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him, not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a 'spirit,' or an oral statement, or a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god--do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work. But the one who restrains is to do so only for the present, until he is removed from the scene. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will kill with the breath of his mouth and render powerless by the manifestation of his coming, the one whose coming springs from the power of Satan in every mightly deed and in signs and wonders ....

 

[anonymous2]

And did whoever write that passage in any way infer that the time between his writing and when the man of lawlessness, etc, would come, would be almost 2000 years or even more? NO! He did not. Did that passage at all imply that the man of lawlessness couldn't show his face within the lifetimes of the readers of that passage? NO! It doesn't. Nowhere does it have any idea whatsoever of thousands of years. The ONLY passage that tries to say this is 2nd Peter.

And there is the possibility, that the term "temple of God" could have been a reference to the Jewish temple, but that was destroyed in 70 AD (after this passage was supposedly written). Okinrus, are you a Roman Catholic? If so, what do you think of this website: http://www.catholic.com/library/the_antichrist.asp, which says some of the church fathers interpreted "temple of God" as being a Jewish Temple, although they believed it would be a rebuilt one?

What does "I'm coming quickly", "the end times", "the last hour", etc mean if not the IMMINENT RETURN OF JESUS!? Please answer that. Don't quote 2nd Peter. That's sheer rationalization.

I'm not reading anything into Paul's writings. You're not reading the context of Paul, but instead trying to drag in other passages of the Bible to try to reconcile the failure of Paul's prediction that his generation would see Jesus return. Even if one passage in the Bible says "What Paul really meant was..", it doesn't matter, because the passage stands or falls by itself, and I don't care how many rationalizations like 2nd Peter you find to try to absolve Paul. Paul was wrong. Anyone who can read can see that.

 

[okinrus]

And did whoever write that passage in any way infer that the time between his writing and when the man of lawlessness, etc, would come, would be 2000 years or so or even more? NO! He did not.

True. I already admitted that Paul did not know when the man of lawlessness would be revealed. But he is in the spirit, as it were, and may take flesh if allowed.

Did that passage at all imply that the man of lawlessness couldn't show his face within the lifetimes of the readers of that passage? NO! It doesn't.

Yes, this is consistent with my thoughts. But note that the man of lawlessness may show himself; it just must not be in the flesh. Because Paul did not know the day of judgement, he could not faithfully make statements reasuring the church that the Antichrist would come well after their lifetimes. But he knew that certain things must be done, and that he told them.

Nowhere does it have any idea whatsoever of thousands of years. The ONLY passage that tries to say this is 2nd Peter.

A "day" in hebrew means a period of time.

In fact, the passage is CLEARLY TALKING ABOUT THE TEMPLE THAT WAS DESTROYED IN 70 AD. The man of lawlessness did not show up, did he? This was supposed to happen before 70 AD, that's when the temple was destroyed.

When you say shown up, you are mistaken. The temple deals with what is within our hearts.

What does "I'm coming quickly", "the end times", "the last hour", etc mean if not for the IMMINENT RETURN OF JESUS!? Please answer that. Don't quote 2nd Peter. That's sheer rationalization.

God must not only tell the truth; he must tell the truth at the right moment. It's simply not in our best interest to know the date, so it is kept secret from us.

I'm not reading anything into Paul's writings. You're not reading the context of Paul, but instead trying to drag in other passages of the Bible to try to reconcile the failure of Paul's prediction that his generation would see Jesus return.

No, this was a letter written after the letter quoted from. It's possible that the Thessalonians took the previous letter the wrong way, and so Paul wrote another letter explaining precisely what he meant. Paul is a human being. You're acting like it's simply not possible that someone could take that passage the wrong way. It is possible, that is why Paul wrote in the second letter clearing the passage. Also very few passages are meant to be taken in isolation. Paul had spoken to the church before about this issue; they knew the full context of which he said it.

Anyone who can read can see that.

An indepth look at this would require knowledge of Greek. But I understand the use of "we" to be primarily instructional. The passage that follows this, 2 Thessalonians 5, suggests an alternate explanation, that perhaps "asleep" means something other than physical death. Thessalonians 5:4 "But you, brothers, are not in darkness, for that day to overtake you like a thief. For all of you are children of the light and children of the day. We are not of the night or of darkness. Therefore, let us not sleep as the rest do, but let us stay alert and sober. Those who sleep go to sleep at night, and those who are drunk get drunk at night..."

 

[anonymous2]

Ok, I'm done with this discussion of that 1 Thess passage, Okinrus. Like I said, believe what you want, and I will believe what I want. Have a nice day/night.