Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malachi151 · 11-27-2006, 12:19 PM

The more you study Christianity the more messed up you realize it really is

The popular secular view seems to be that the "end times" meant the destruction of the Roman Empire.

This doesn't seem quite right, or, actually, it depends.

It seems that Mark was writing about the destruction of Judea as the "End of the Age", but that the author of the Revelation of John was perhaps writing about the destruction of Rome.

This brings up another interesting point. I've always been led to believe, and thought, that Christianity was an anti-Roman religion, I guess because of the Roman persecution stories, but it seems just the opposite, it was an anti-Judea religion and a generally pro-Roman religion, EXCEPT for possibly Revelations.

So, does anyone have any meaningful insight as to what the hell the "end times" is talking about? What did the authors themselves mean by this?

Was it metaphorical? Did they really believe that all earthly life was going to end? Were they talking about the end of Jewish independence? What the hell was all this about?

jgibson000 · 11-27-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The more you study Christianity the more messed up you realize it really is

Could you please provide some good evidence that you've actually studied Christianity, let alone, as you imply you have, in a sustained and in depth fashion?

Have you taken courses in its history? Have you read through the early fathers? Have you made a good effort to become familiar with, say, the standard reference works on Creeds, Councils, Controversies or the recognized authoritative histories of the Early Church or the introductions to the NT, let alone the histories of the Inter-testamental period, the Greco-Roman world, and formative Judaism ? Done any slog work in the critical commentaries on the books of the NT?

What is/are/have been the source(s) of your knowledge of the subject that allows you to make the claim above that you have been carrying out a deeper and deeper study of Christianity?

Jeffrey Gibson

Toto · 11-27-2006, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

. . .
The popular secular view seems to be that the "end times" meant the destruction of the Roman Empire.

This doesn't seem quite right, or, actually, it depends.

I've never heard this before. The end times meant THE END - the end of the natural world and a supernatural reign of Jesus the returning King.

Quote:

It seems that Mark was writing about the destruction of Judea as the "End of the Age", but that the author of the Revelation of John was perhaps writing about the destruction of Rome.

It might help if you listed your sources for this "seems."

Mark 13 has a heading "Signs of the End of the Age" and starts with what is taken to be a prophecy (or history) of the destruction of the Temple. But if you read further you see:

26 "At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

Matthew 13:39 (New International Version)

39. . . . The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

Destruction and war are only signs of the impending end of the world.

Perhaps you are confused because secular scholars see the predictions as reflecting the destruction of the Temple, and use that to date Mark. But those who wrote (and still write) about the end times clearly mean the end of the world.

For background reading, you might try Wikipedia on Christian eschatology. Or pick up A History of the End of the World (or via: amazon.co.uk), by Jonathan Kirsch.

Malachi151 · 11-27-2006, 01:25 PM

Quote:

I've never heard this before. The end times meant THE END - the end of the natural world and a supernatural reign of Jesus the returning King.

Yes, but I thought that the viewing of this as a metaphor for the destruction of Rome was a pretty common view, see for example:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...evelation.html

Quote:

The end of the Book of Revelation sees a new heaven and a new earth coming down and a new Jerusalem being established ... . What John seems to be suggesting in the original meaning of this work is that when the triumph of God comes over the dragon, over the forces of the devil, and the Roman Empire is toppled, a new heaven and earth will be created ... and that's the kingdom coming on earth. ... [He] anticipated a rebuilding of the real city of Jerusalem as part of this eschatalogic expectation. So John is looking for Jerusalem to be re-established soon, a new Temple to be built soon, and for this to be the symbol that God's kingdom is finally being established on earth, a pure kingdom of goodness in contrast to the kingdom of Satan that has been destroyed in the person of the Roman emperor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

Quote:

The view of Preterism holds that the contents of Revelation constitute a prophecy of events that were fulfilled in the 1st century. This view depends critically on an early date of Revelation, c. 68, since any later date makes the "prophecy" postdate the events prophesied. Even accepting that date leaves a narrow margin of one to two years before the fulfillment occurs. Preterist interpretations generally identify Jerusalem as the persecutor of the Church, "Babylon", the "Mother of Harlots", etc. They see Armageddon as God's judgment on the Jews, carried out by the Roman army, which is identified as "the beast". Some preterists see the second half of Revelation as changing focus to Rome, its persecution of Christians, and the fall of the Roman Empire. It sees the Revelation being fulfilled in 70, thereby bringing the full presence of God to dwell with all humanity.

http://forerunner.com/beast/X0002_Ge...ast_of_Re.html

Quote:

Most New Testament scholars recognize that the seven mountains represent the famous seven hills of Rome. The seven hills of Rome are mentioned time and again by both ancient pagan and Christian writers.

John wrote to be understood: "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand" (Rev. 1:3). In fact, he specifically points out here that the wise one will understand: "And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth" (17:9). The referent is beyond doubt: Rome is alluded to in this vision of the seven-headed Beast. The original recipients of Revelation lived under the rule of Rome, which was universally distinguished by its seven hills. How could the recipients, living in the seven historical churches of Asia Minor and under Roman imperial rule, understand John's vision as anything other than this geographical feature?

Etc., just using these to show the prevalence of the view, not the merit of it.

I think that both "Mark" and "John" meant the literal end of the world and a new literal kingdom in heaven, I was just wondering if that was the only interpretation of this. Perhaps it is.

It seems thought that Mark is discussing signs that relate to the destruction of Judea, while John is discussing signs that relate to the destruction of Rome.

It seems to me that "Revelations" doesn't follow the same "logic" as the gospels concerning the "end of days".

judge · 11-28-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jgibson000

Have you taken courses in its history? Have you read through the early fathers?

Jeffrey Gibson

Maybe a little harsh. The Church fathers are confused, in that they contradict one another on "endtime" ideas.

None of the mainstream approaches to eschatology seem to mesh with the words of the gospels..how ealse could one describe this situation?

WishboneDawn · 11-28-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The more you study Christianity the more messed up you realize it really is

The popular secular view seems to be that the "end times" meant the destruction of the Roman Empire.

This is the view I'm familiar with. It's pretty standard in liberal christian interpretation though I'm becoming more convinced that secular and liberal christian bible study are pretty much the same thing.

Quote:

This doesn't seem quite right, or, actually, it depends.

It seems that Mark was writing about the destruction of Judea as the "End of the Age", but that the author of the Revelation of John was perhaps writing about the destruction of Rome.

Most of what I've heard about end times was in reference to John, not Mark. Do you have the specific Mark quote?

Quote:

This brings up another interesting point. I've always been led to believe, and thought, that Christianity was an anti-Roman religion, I guess because of the Roman persecution stories, but it seems just the opposite, it was an anti-Judea religion and a generally pro-Roman religion, EXCEPT for possibly Revelations.

Anti-Roman? I'm not sure what you mean by that but it doesn't seem accurate. Neither does anti-Judea but could you elaborate a bit on what you mean with those terms?

Quote:

So, does anyone have any meaningful insight as to what the hell the "end times" is talking about? What did the authors themselves mean by this?

Was it metaphorical? Did they really believe that all earthly life was going to end? Were they talking about the end of Jewish independence? What the hell was all this about?

From religioustolerance.org;

Quote:

Allegorical approach: The events in Revelation will not happen literally. They are to be interpreted figuratively and symbolically. This approach leads to a great variety of conflicting scenarios.
Historical approach: Most of the events in Revelation have already happened, perhaps during the persecution of Christians during the reign of Emperors Nero or Domitian before Christianity was tolerated early in the 4th century CE.
Futuristic approach: This is the approach taken by almost all Fundamentalists and other Evangelical Christians. The events in Revelation have yet to occur, but are anticipated in our very near future. The end times will unfold exactly as specified when the world as we know it comes to an end.

So in other words, 'damned if I know."

Malachi151 · 11-28-2006, 05:21 PM

Well, take a look at what "Mark" states in his gospel:

Quote:

1As he was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!"

2"Do you see all these great buildings?" replied Jesus. "Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4"Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?"

5Jesus said to them: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 6Many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am he,' and will deceive many. 7When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

9"You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.

12"Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.

14"When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15Let no one on the roof of his house go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 17How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again. 20If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. 22For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible. 23So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

24"But in those days, following that distress,
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

26"At that time men will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

28"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Note, the bold quote references this text:

Quote:

Daniel 9:24-27:
'Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy. Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. After the sixty-two week, the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. He will confirm a covenant with many for one week. In the middle of the week he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.'

I take Mark's end of times prophecy as describing the destruction of Judea, and it seems to be saying that the destruction of Judea was the sign that the "TOTAL" end of times was coming.

judge · 11-28-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Malachi151

The more you study Christianity the more messed up you realize it really is

The popular secular view seems to be that the "end times" meant the destruction of the Roman Empire.

This idea might owe more to the book of Daniel and subsequent christian interpretations.

You know the verse with the statue with the head of gold and feel of clay.

jgibson000 · 11-28-2006, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Maybe a little harsh. The Church fathers are confused, in that they contradict one another on "endtime" ideas.

Please note that I was not speaking to what Malachi151(sheesh!) said about "end times". I was speaking to his (implicit) claim that he's been engaged in a deep and sustained study of "Christianity".

I see nothing in what he posts that warrants accepting this claim as true, especially since he (1) shows no contact with the works I mentioned, contact with which are requisite if one wants to claim that one has been engaged in such study; (2) evinces no desire to make such contact; (3) has apparently not taken what most would consider to be the steps necessary to actually study Christianity, let alone claim that one has been engagd in such study (i.e. to take some courses at a university in the subject); and (4) gives no indication that he has ever expended even a minimal effort to do any serious research into the topic, but (5) seems to have limited his "study" of Christianity to what he finds in second rate pages on Christianity and its beliefs and background that he chances upon on the web.

Quote:

None of the mainstream approaches to eschatology seem to mesh with the words of the gospels..how ealse could one describe this situation?

Um .. and just what are the "mainstream" approaches to eschatology, especially among the Biblical scholars -- like Caird and Collins and Wright and Charles and Allison and Beasley-Murray and Reiser and Rossing and Witherington and Crossan and Borg a host of others -- who have been writing on the topic?

Jeffrey Gibson

Malachi151 · 11-28-2006, 07:10 PM

I would add that the whole idea of the Revelation of John is really quite silly.

The gospels are supposedly giving us what "Jesus" has to say about the "End Times", so who is John to come along and give a different account?

Doesn't the whole idea of John's Revelation belittle Jesus' own message?

11-27-2006, 12:19 PM	#1
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	The "End Times" (Rome or Judea?) The more you study Christianity the more messed up you realize it really is The popular secular view seems to be that the "end times" meant the destruction of the Roman Empire. This doesn't seem quite right, or, actually, it depends. It seems that Mark was writing about the destruction of Judea as the "End of the Age", but that the author of the Revelation of John was perhaps writing about the destruction of Rome. This brings up another interesting point. I've always been led to believe, and thought, that Christianity was an anti-Roman religion, I guess because of the Roman persecution stories, but it seems just the opposite, it was an anti-Judea religion and a generally pro-Roman religion, EXCEPT for possibly Revelations. So, does anyone have any meaningful insight as to what the hell the "end times" is talking about? What did the authors themselves mean by this? Was it metaphorical? Did they really believe that all earthly life was going to end? Were they talking about the end of Jewish independence? What the hell was all this about?

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

11-28-2006, 07:10 PM	#10
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	I would add that the whole idea of the Revelation of John is really quite silly. The gospels are supposedly giving us what "Jesus" has to say about the "End Times", so who is John to come along and give a different account? Doesn't the whole idea of John's Revelation belittle Jesus' own message?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.