Rational BAC

I don't think it is possible that early Christians took the "this generation" part literally.

Assuming the early Christians were not complete dummies, if they had taken it literally, then Christianity would have died out along with "that generation". And for the same reasons that Biff proposes. (Nobody likes to be lied to.) I would say there would have been a tremendous abandonment of Christianity in the early part of the 2nd century if that were true.

That abandonment did not happen. Christianity did not decline in the early part of the 2nd century. It grew and has been growing ever since. Why? Obviously Biff may take "this generation" seriously and literally if that is what he chooses to do -----------but it is also just as obvious that the early Christians did not do that. And throughout all these intervening centuries until the present time Christians have been able to justify what Jesus said through interpretation==exactly what Magus does.

Or is Biff saying that all those early Christians were complete ding-a-lings who could not see the obvious? As have been all Christians in the last 2000 years? ----------just have some sort of reading cognition problem?

If this was such a problem for Christianity then ---assuming athiests are correct in that the Scriptures were corrupted many times over the first 3 centuries to "correct problems"--- then the words of Jesus on this subject would have been "corrected" long, long ago. And we would not even be discussing it.

I think the only ding-a-ling literalists in this controversy are atheists like Biff. Christians have no problem with what Jesus said in this case.

Jinto

I can't speak for Biff, but if the shoe fits... after all, the fact that the Watchtower keeps predicting the end of the world and the world keeps not ending doesn't seem to be affecting JW membership. Why should people be any less stupid 2000 years ago?

Darth Dane

Why do humans scorn what they view as stupid or inferior?

I've been at the site, I was banned.

All I know is that attitude towards these and other people reflect upon who I Am.

I don't like this attitude in myself. If they live in happiness as they do, and act as a generous human being, I will be happy, as their acts are more important than their words and beliefs.







DD - Love & Laughter

DMB

Magus! Magus!Magus! Magus!

Why are you ignoring me?

For your convenience, I will repost my question to you (and remember that the words in question were quoted by you in one of your posts):

"Since, Magus, you seem to think you have superior interpretative abilities when it comes to the bible, would you please elucidate for us the mysteries of the line:
What does this mean to you? -- in as much detail as possible, please."

Or can it be that Diadectes is correct when he posts:

mike_decock

The success of Christianity was not the quality of doctrine, it was the organizational skills of the church fathers who created the catholic (universal) church. I'm just about done reading The Gnostic Gospels which provides a very insightful look at the development of orthodox doctrine, politics and church structure during the first two centuries in contrast with the Gnostic Christians.

Saying that "this generation" was not taken literally by the masses is just silly considering that they were mostly illiterate . The bishops would either have glossed over those difficult passages or they would have provided a Magusesque interpretation along with it before it became a problem.

The general populace didn't really start critically examining Christian doctrine until after the printing press was invented and literacy rates increased. Before Martin Luther dealt the symbolic blow that began the Reformation, all doctrine and interpretation was strictly established and maintained by the clergy. It was not for a common man to interpret it themselves. Even when the KJV was translated, they chose to do it in the Court's English to discourage the common man from reading it for themselves.

-Mike...

Magus55

I never saw your question, and didn't get around to answering it.


That means that the dead who were saved by Christ, are ressurected from the grave, and changed from sinful and corrupt, to perfect and incorruptible. Believers already are changed on the inside through Jesus. This verse describes the change that Jesus performs on the outside, by giving us new heavenly and eternal bodies.

mark9950

You give up.

Stars cannot fall from the sky.

And the moon reflects light from the sun,the moon does not have light to give.

Jesus is a liar.

mark9950

because those christians did not read their bible and thought that the concept of eternal life was a good idea.

DMB

I am not sure what either being "raised" or being "resurrected from the grave" means. It certainly sounds as though reference is being made to the corpses of the dead. Does this apply to a physical body? You suggest that Jesus gives us "new heavenly and eternal bodies". Where are these bodies located, and what relation do they have to our previous corruptible (=rottable) bodies?

Biff the unclean

I don't think it is possible that early Christians took the "this generation" part literally.
The point isn't if anyone took it literally (they did by the way. That Wandering Jew story I posted is an actual European folktale) The point is that this undenyably false phrophecy of Jesus is in the bible. It's there and it's repeated over a dozen times and it's a lie.

Assuming the early Christians were not complete dummies, if they had taken it literally, then Christianity would have died out along with "that generation".
Don't be silly. How many times in your life have you read about or heard preachers who predicted the end of the world on such and such a date. It never ends, and their congregations never turn on them. I remember one radio minister predicted three different dates after each one failed. He's still on the radio, still fund raising to beat the band.

And for the same reasons that Biff proposes. (Nobody likes to be lied to.) I would say there would have been a tremendous abandonment of Christianity in the early part of the 2nd century if that were true.
First, early Christians were forbidden to read the bible. The bible was the sole readership of the priests.
Second, just how complete of a dummy are you talking about? You aren't a complete dummy, you read the bible. You read theses same verses. You know the world didn't end. But instead of abandoning Christianity you say to yourself "these verses say one thing but they must mean something other than what they say because what they say isn't true and I know the bible doesn't lie" That's a pretty astonishing thing to do. Why would you think that early Christians would be less prone to doing mental and moral contortions than you yourself are?

It grew and has been growing ever since. Why?
Because it was adopted as a political tool by the Imperial Roman government and the emperor Theodosius the Great made it a capital offence not to be a Christian.

Obviously Biff may take "this generation" seriously and literally if that is what he chooses to do -----------but it is also just as obvious that the early Christians did not do that.
Obviously you understand that "this generation" is a lie or you wouldn't say that it means something other than it says, and says again so many times.
The rest of the rapture story is ridiculous also. Dead people raising from their graves, anti-christ, Xians floating in the air, multi headed beast, four flying horsemen. A bunch of complete nonsense left over from caveman days. Magus would lead us to believe that this wacky stuff should be taken literally. He fully expects to suddenly disappear. So to complain that Christians aren't "dummies" enough to believe obvious lies just doesn't sinc with observation. When they see something is a lie they simply lie about the lie, exactly what you are doing when you claim "this generation" isn't "literal."

And throughout all these intervening centuries until the present time Christians have been able to justify what Jesus said through interpretation==exactly what Magus does.
By lying about the bible.

Or is Biff saying that all those early Christians were complete ding-a-lings who could not see the obvious?
Since you are in the midst of denying the obvious are you sure that you want to call these people "dind-a-lings" They at least have the excuse of living in primitive demon haunted times. You do not. They were forbidden to read the bible, you have read it, you have no excuse.

I think the only ding-a-ling literalists in this controversy are atheists like Biff. Christians have no problem with what Jesus said in this case
So what you are saying is don't believe the bible, believe you because you know better than the bible. It doesn't matter that the bible makes this claim in plain language, that it doesn't use metaphor. It doesn't matter that it restates the claim multiple times, each time using clear and simple language. It doesn't matter that the rest of the asinine story is to be taken literally. Don't look at all these many quotes in the NT listen to Rational BAC instead. He has the secret decoder ring. He knows that when Jesus said THIS generation we set our Ovaltine secret Jesus decoder on X25. That's X25 for all you boys and girls Jesus Rangers decoding along at home. Now we see the in word THIS each letter means a different number, we add them together and get…..80!!!…That's right Jesus Rangers. The secret code says 80 generations.

My, my, my…who could ever think that Christians were dummies or ding-a-lings for believing something like that?