Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith&Co. · 02-19-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

A good con never wears out...

And neither shall the Truth.

No, sorry. The Truth gets sacrificed by agendas every day. And by ignorance, misinformation, misunderstanding and a tendency to misapply 'common sense.'
Just check the average AOL inbox. Untruth flies farther, faster and is better received than the Truth is any day.

Doug Shaver · 02-20-2008, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaymack2

But why was an embarrassing statement like this left in the text, even after it didn't come true? Is it possible that the leaders were convinced Jesus really did say this, and they didn't want to change his words? Just wondering what everybody else thinks.

You're assuming that it would have been obvious to the leaders that it hadn't come true. Have you seen apologist efforts to prove that Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy came true? Once a dogma becomes established, its advocates become quite immune to any evidence contradicting it.

No matter when the gospels might have been written, the surviving evidence strongly suggests that they were not widely known about within the Christian community until well into the second century. Therefore, whoever was pushing their acceptance as authoritative documents must have already needed, and presumably had handy, an explanation for the discrepancy between Jesus' statement and what was already known of Christianity's history.

andrewcriddle · 02-20-2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaymack2

But why was an embarrassing statement like this left in the text, even after it didn't come true? Is it possible that the leaders were convinced Jesus really did say this, and they didn't want to change his words? Just wondering what everybody else thinks.

You're assuming that it would have been obvious to the leaders that it hadn't come true. Have you seen apologist efforts to prove that Ezekiel's Tyre prophecy came true? Once a dogma becomes established, its advocates become quite immune to any evidence contradicting it.

No matter when the gospels might have been written, the surviving evidence strongly suggests that they were not widely known about within the Christian community until well into the second century. Therefore, whoever was pushing their acceptance as authoritative documents must have already needed, and presumably had handy, an explanation for the discrepancy between Jesus' statement and what was already known of Christianity's history.

I think we should distinguish between the Gospels as written documents (which I agree were probably not very widely known until say 100 CE) and the traditions they contain, some of which may have been widely known among Christians much earlier.

IE oral traditions about 'this generation' might well have been widely known among Christians at a time when the written Gospels either had not been written or at least were not yet widely known.

Andrew Criddle

Ben C Smith · 02-20-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

IE oral traditions about 'this generation' might well have been widely known among Christians at a time when the written Gospels either had not been written or at least were not yet widely known.

Agreed, and I think the tradition took several different forms, many of which involved speculation about who would and who would not be alive at the time of the parousia:

1. Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians and in 1 Corinthians about we who are alive (as opposed to those who have died) at the time of the advent, but then in 2 Corinthians he seems to group himself among those who would possibly be dead.
2. The synoptics record the saying about some of those standing here who would still be alive.
3. John 21 record speculations about whether the beloved disciple would be alive or not at the advent.

All of these mirror the generational prediction; it is presumed that some contemporaries will still be alive, while others will be dead.

Ben.

gregor · 02-20-2008, 09:04 AM

It seems clear to me that the Olivet discourse was sufficiently embarrassing by 150 +/- CE that 2 Peter had to be written as an excuse.

Would you suspect that by this time (150 CE) the written story had been circulated sufficiently to be the primary basis for the parousia story and thereby preclude an editorial removal of the story.

WVIncagold · 02-20-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

So then you are predicting that "Aremegeddon" is to take place 60 years from now? 1948+120=2068
Sill wearing that moldy old William Miller, Charels T. Russell, JW, SDA, et.al holey robe of doom and gloom?
This is the tradition that "sugarhitman" is yet again espousing;

www.religioustolerance.org/end_wrl2.htm

'Hitman, Didn't your mommy ever read you the story of Chicken Little?

No, but she did read me the story of the little boy who cried wolf which many of these false prophets like Charles T. Russell remind me of.....but regardless in the end....the wolf came. :wave:

was it that wolf or the great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandpapy of that wolf? over two thousand years and counting the hubris of the special ones. Hey sugar your a special unique one of a kind individaul.....just like everyone else. My recollection is the wolf came back in its life time when everybody still remembered it. Not 2000+ years after the boy cried it. where is my second counter? anyways ever second goes buy your wrong. your wrong again. wrong again. yet you want people to believe your right?

WVIncagold · 02-20-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

Sugarhitman,

Are you saying that the words AFTER and UNTIL and BEFORE all have the same meaning?

If there was a typo please edit it, but that is what your quote and post above says to me. That can't be what you meant.

Not surprising since sugar regularly points out words do not mean what they say and when convenient they do not say what the mean as well. it all matters on the gospel according his lord high mighty sugarhitman!

WVIncagold · 02-20-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayrok

I'm convinced that sugarman is merely fishing here on this site to see how many people he or she can get to bite the stinky bait and argue.

His or her silly response to John Kesler in post #14 is evidence enough for that.

sugarman takes this passage and does the typical mental gymnastics to turn it away from Jesus talking to the disciples he's sending out to towns and gives it to Jesus talking to the 144K Jews in Revelation in a desperate attempt to put a bandaid on the gaping wound the John Kesler points out in sugar's flawed reasoning.

It isn't convincing, mind you, but amusing none the less. It looks like he or she has been reading JPH or G. Miller websites (say anything to squelch a contradiction).

While it may seem annoying to some here, I don't think it has the same effect that sugarman wants. If there are christian lurkers here from time to time and they read his or her crap and lame excuse after lame excuse they may take another look at these stories and begin to question if they really believe them as truth.

It was lame christian apologetics and mental gymnastics used to explain away difficult issues that furthered me along the path away from the faith.

I can see sugarman's motives backfiring for many christians reading from the fence on some issues.

"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, but you were not willing! See! Your house (city) is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see ME UNTIL THE TIME COMES when you say, Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord." In other words Jerusalem will be destroyed because it rejected it's Messiah, now compare it to this:

"Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, saying 'If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, and level you, and your children within you, to the ground, and they will not leave in you ONE STONE UPON ANOTHER, because you did not know the time of your visitation."

Jesus here is referring to the destruction of the city by the Romans because Israel rejected and crucified Him compare with Daniel 9. "And after the sixty-two weeks MESSIAH SHALL BE CUT OFF (KILLED), BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF. AND THE PEOPLE (ROMANS) OF THE PRINCE (ANTI-CHRIST) WHO IS TO COME SHALL DESTROY THE CITY AND THE TEMPLE." Two things are mentioned here the Messiah would be killed and the city and temple destroyed by the Romans. Jesus said of His crucifixion: "Behold we are going up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man will be accomplished. For He will be delivered to the Gentiles and will be mocked and insulted and spit upon. They will scourge Him and Kill Him. And the third day He will rise again."

In the Gog Magog war of Ezekiel (Aremegeddon, The judgement against the Anti-Christ and the Gentiles.) We read that Gog comes against a restored Israel: "After many days you will be visited. In the latter years you will come into the land of those brought back from the sword and gathered from many people on the mountians of of Israel, WHICH HAD LONG BEEN DESOLATE...."Ezekiel 38. The longest desolation of Israel was for 1900 years after Rome destroyed them which ended in 1948.

The prophets and Jesus are clear.

1. Israel rejects their Messiah
2. Israel destroyed by Rome
3. Israel restored after a long desolation
4. Anti-Christ and Gentiles come against Israel
5. The Messiah returns

You didnt understand because you did not study. Jesus knew that Israel would be destroyed and desolated by Rome and that the desolation would be long. He was not talking about the then generation (because they would be dispersed by Rome)....but the generation in which the signs appear in....mainly when the "Abomination that causes desolation" appears "standing in the Holy Place" Now the abomination can not do this if Israel is not a nation. And neither can the signs take place if Israel is destroyed. :wave:

Hey Sugar are these the same Magog that are going to attack Egypt with bows and arrows and with chariots?
Also doesn't it just piss on your parade that a Muslim shrine sits atop the temple mount even though Xtains send millions of dollars every year to help build the Jewish Temple? Explain why god has let a Muslim shrine be built on the temple mount buddy. It has been brought up allot here and you have NEVER addressed it.
Temple Mount Temple Mount Temple Mount Temple Mount Temple Mount Temple Mount Come on everybody let me hear you chant!

Toto · 02-20-2008, 11:03 AM

A bit more decorum, please. No group chants, cheerleading, or personal comments.

WVIncagold · 02-20-2008, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Quote:

Originally Posted by GenesisNemesis

Not quoted word for word? Did you get lazy all of the sudden? Curiosly, Google came up with no hits on that particular quote. Google. Did you make it up?

Of course you can, but that is no support for the Bible. They do not say "I am the Beast in the flesh". The Bible doesn't even say "and thus, there shall be a world government two-thousand years from now!"

Try Googling David Rockefeller world government conspiracy confession book of Memoirs. I bought the book then loaned it to a friend of mine. I also have a book written by John Perkins title "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" which is also very revealing stuff. Anyways who said anything about these people saying that they are the beast? I did find something interesting though. Benjamin Creme. Who says that Lord Matreya is about to appear. Benjamin Creme works very closely with the U.N. (I know very nutsy stuff, but they are serious), Benjemin says this is the World Leader who is to come to bring peace to the world. Crazy stuff, but the U.N. certainly believes him. Mere coincedense?

The Bible does say that there will be a World Government, it does not give us the date because even Jesus does not know the day or hour when he will return. This is why He did not single out any specific generation to witness His return, He only knew that the generation in which the signs appeared would be that generation to witness His return. And the signs could have appeared in any generation and age (but they didnt, it appears that they are in ours).
This also may explain why bible prophecy symbols are not literal (like "sword" which means war. Arrows, bows, chariots are used to represent weapons. It does not mean that they will be the weapons used) Because noone (Except God the Father) knows the age and day and hour when all is fulfilled. :wave:

Yup bible doesnt mean what it says but it says what it means right sugar? predictable. so since it isn't literal then we can take the word messiah and replace it with liqueur or wine salesman and instead of being crucified he was actually just inebriated. And isntead of raising from the dead in three days he woke up with a hangover in three hours.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-20-2008, 09:04 AM	#95
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	It seems clear to me that the Olivet discourse was sufficiently embarrassing by 150 +/- CE that 2 Peter had to be written as an excuse. Would you suspect that by this time (150 CE) the written story had been circulated sufficiently to be the primary basis for the parousia story and thereby preclude an editorial removal of the story.

02-20-2008, 11:03 AM	#99
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	A bit more decorum, please. No group chants, cheerleading, or personal comments.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.