Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Godless Wonder · 11-12-2003, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Magus55
Why is that not a valid explanation? Because you don't like it?

Reread my post. Did I say it wasn't valid? Actually I think it's pretty clever. I don't happen to think that it's true, it smacks of after the fact rationalization. But, I do think it's a clever rationalization.

nermal · 11-12-2003, 09:36 PM

Thing is, some of them are still alive. Yep, they've been changing their identities every seventy years or so, and moving about, blending in, but they're still wandering about waiting for Jesus. I wonder if they're getting impatient.

"There can be only one."

Ed

mark9950 · 11-13-2003, 09:19 AM

Quote:

I wonder if they're getting impatient.

They were getting impatient in 2 Peter 3:4

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-14-2003, 06:11 AM

It's hard to see how they could have made it any clearer that they believed Jesus would physically return real soon and "put the world to rights" (just as many modern fundies do).

How else would they have phrased it?

There are basically two possibilities: either they DID expect the return to be imminent, or they DID NOT. If they DID NOT, then they should have anticipated the problem their remarks would cause, and specified clearly that they weren't talking about an imminent physical return. And if they DID believe in a physical return in the distant future, they should have said so.

Why did they NOT clarify what they meant?

...Because they did not foresee this problem. This delay was not supposed to happen.

judge · 11-14-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
It's hard to see how they could have made it any clearer that they believed Jesus would physically return real soon and "put the world to rights" (just as many modern fundies do).

How else would they have phrased it?

Hi can you explain just how "they" made it so clear Jesus would "physically" return?
What is the phrasing that indicates this?

spurly · 11-16-2003, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mark9950
Lets make one thing clear,I know of this contraversy and must say that whether Jesus said or meant it is really unimportant of my point.

Jesus followers believed that he was coming back in many more verses of the Bible in their generation.

This puts to rest what jesus said and meant with this paragraph "This Generation" His followers believed that he was coming quickly which discredits the bible as the INFALLABLE word of God because either jesus lied or someone made an error.

Take your pick

Yes, people misunderstood Jesus. Jesus did not even know when he was coming back (Acts 1:7). So when Jesus said, "Some who are standing here will not die until they see the son of Man coing in his kingdom", he could not have been talking about his final return - because he did not know when that would happen. He was either talking about the transfiguration, or him coming in the glory of his kingdom - the church.

Kevin

mark9950 · 11-16-2003, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Jesus did not even know when he was coming back (Acts 1:7).

That is really irrelevant because HIS BELIEVERS believed he was coming back then.

What jesus meant was his own understanding,but what his followers believed he was coming back then was a different matter.

Which makes the bible as having a lack of credibility.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-17-2003, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Hi can you explain just how "they" made it so clear Jesus would "physically" return?
What is the phrasing that indicates this?

I can see why Christians would prefer to believe that references to the "return" are actually addressing either the resurrection or a symbolic "coming of the Kingdom of God".

But the "coming of the Kingdom of God" Is supposed to be a huge and obvious event:

Quote:

Mark 13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.

13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,

13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.

13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.

13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.

13:28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:

13:29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.

13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

This did not happen.

But neither of these excuses will work with the verses in Paul. Paul was writing after the resurrection and the supposed appearance of the "Holy Spirit". The Second Coming was so imminent that there was no point in seeking a wife if you didn't already have one: be celibate and prepare yourselves!

Quote:

1 Corinthians 7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

He was referring to an event which hadn't happened yet, but would happen within the lifetimes of Paul and his audience:

Quote:

1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

There are many such verses in the books of the New Testament that refer to events AFTER those of the gospels. Something was GOING to happen (it wasn't already happening, hence it wasn't the rise of Christianity) and it was going to happen SOON.

Quote:

Hebrews 10:37 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

judge · 11-17-2003, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
I can see why Christians would prefer to believe that references to the "return" are actually addressing either the resurrection or a symbolic "coming of the Kingdom of God".

But the "coming of the Kingdom of God" Is supposed to be a huge and obvious event:

This did not happen.

This certainly did happen.
If one examine the various times that Yahweh "came in judgement" in the old testament writings we see what it means.
Yahweh came in judgement on Jerusalem on clouds of glory.
This was a huge and obvious event for those in jerusalem. Josephus records that at one stage 500 were crucified each day and that they ran out of wood to make crosses with!

Compare this with the other times Yaweh "came" in the writings of the prophets.

Compare this with the other times that the prophets said the sun would be darkened and the satrs would fall from the sky! This is exactly the same language used by the OT prophets to foretell earthly judgements.

Jack the Bodiless · 11-17-2003, 04:31 AM

You're referring to the sacking of Jerusalem in AD 70?

THIS was Jesus returning, the arrival of the "Kingdom of God"? An assault by pagan Romans?

I rather strongly doubt that this was what the authors were referring to!

Quote:

Compare this with the other times Yaweh "came" in the writings of the prophets.

Compare this with the other times that the prophets said the sun would be darkened and the satrs would fall from the sky! This is exactly the same language used by the OT prophets to foretell earthly judgements.

Yes, they got it wrong then as well.

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

11-12-2003, 09:36 PM	#12
nermal Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 1,969	Thing is, some of them are still alive. Yep, they've been changing their identities every seventy years or so, and moving about, blending in, but they're still wandering about waiting for Jesus. I wonder if they're getting impatient. "There can be only one." Ed

11-14-2003, 06:11 AM	#14
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	It's hard to see how they could have made it any clearer that they believed Jesus would physically return real soon and "put the world to rights" (just as many modern fundies do). How else would they have phrased it? There are basically two possibilities: either they DID expect the return to be imminent, or they DID NOT. If they DID NOT, then they should have anticipated the problem their remarks would cause, and specified clearly that they weren't talking about an imminent physical return. And if they DID believe in a physical return in the distant future, they should have said so. Why did they NOT clarify what they meant? ...Because they did not foresee this problem. This delay was not supposed to happen.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.