Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mike(ATL) · 11-19-2003, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
All he's saying here is that he doesn't know the day or the hour. He isn't saying that he has no idea of the approximate timescale: he's already given that!

The known world wasn't very large in those days. Preaching the gospel in all the then-known nations seems quite feasible in 30 years.

This is the context: "So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." He's specifying signs, and a timescale. How does "this family shall not be extinct till these things be done" fit in? Which family? The Israelites? Why are they likely to be going extinct?

Just quoting the words before that phrase does not mean the context supports your claim. All you've said is He's specifiing timescale. Well if it weren't for how you interpret this "generation will not pass away" you would have no context to support that claim. When you consider my interpretation it fits with the rest of the passage. He was just talking about a horrible time of tribulation where many will die. He is then saying the Israelites will survive the period of tribulation, this race will not pass away. And after that it's not just that we won't know the hour or day, He goes on:

Mark 13:33-37
33 Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come.
34 "It is like a man away on a journey, who upon leaving his house and putting his slaves in charge, assigning to each one his task, also commanded the doorkeeper to stay on the alert.
35 "Therefore, be on the alert--for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning--
36 in case he should come suddenly and find you asleep.
37 "What I say to you I say to all, 'Be on the alert!'"

He goes on to say we have no idea when the appointed time will come except for that we can recognize these signs. He even says at the end "What I say to you I say to all." Every indication aside from your interpretation of "this generation will not pass away" points to a much larger timescale.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
The problem isn't with the English language. The claim is in the original Greek of the texts, both of the gospels and of Paul. It's also evidently in the Aramaic of the oral tradition of the early Christians, or why would the Christians be getting impatient in 2 Peter?

The Christians would be getting impatient because people are impatient. Even we today like to think the end times are coming soon (not that I'm saying they aren't). What was said in 2 Peter was something that certainly needed to be said, it still applies today.

Quote:

gregor: what part of "some standing here not tasting death" did not mean a return within +/- 30 years?

Good question but you must've missed that I've already addressed that.

Quote:

Me: Javaman gave a few verses speaking about a more immanent coming of the Son of Man. In all of those verses He said that at a time very close to His crucifixion. When Jesus died and was resurrected he conquered death and Satan and ushered in the time of Christ. He described his death as His coming to power Himself when He was on trial.

Matthew 26:64 (NASB, capitalized to denote OT reference)
Jesus said to him, "You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see THE SON OF MAN SITTING AT THE RIGHT HAND OF POWER, and COMING ON THE CLOUDS OF HEAVEN."

mark9950 · 11-19-2003, 11:53 PM

Quote:

why would the Christians be getting impatient in 2 Peter?

I would speculate that THEY BELIEVED jesus was coming in their generation as the statement says as the point of my post points out.

The response was a day is as a 1000 years which really means they do not know why he did not come back in their generation AND EXPLAINED IT AWAY instead of CLARIFYING the understanding of what was said.

They would not have to question anything if they knew that it WAS NOT THEIR GENERATION in the first place,would they?

Jack the Bodiless · 11-20-2003, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Just quoting the words before that phrase does not mean the context supports your claim. All you've said is He's specifiing timescale. Well if it weren't for how you interpret this "generation will not pass away" you would have no context to support that claim. When you consider my interpretation it fits with the rest of the passage. He was just talking about a horrible time of tribulation where many will die. He is then saying the Israelites will survive the period of tribulation, this race will not pass away.

...Using a phrase that's guaranteed to mislead his audience!

Quote:

And after that it's not just that we won't know the hour or day, He goes on:

Mark 13:33-37
33 Take heed, keep on the alert; for you do not know when the appointed time will come.
34 "It is like a man away on a journey, who upon leaving his house and putting his slaves in charge, assigning to each one his task, also commanded the doorkeeper to stay on the alert.
35 "Therefore, be on the alert--for you do not know when the master of the house is coming, whether in the evening, at midnight, or when the rooster crows, or in the morning--
36 in case he should come suddenly and find you asleep.
37 "What I say to you I say to all, 'Be on the alert!'"

How is this inconsistent with an imminent second coming?

Yes, be alert. Be ready. It's gonna happen in YOUR lifetime, but YOU do not know when the appointed time will come.

To use a modern analogy: don't drive too fast, because you cannot know the time or place of mobile police radar units. If you did, they'd be less effective at making us drive safely at all times. This doesn't mean that no mobile police radar units will be deployed in your neighborhood for the next 2000 years.

Quote:

He goes on to say we have no idea when the appointed time will come except for that we can recognize these signs. He even says at the end "What I say to you I say to all." Every indication aside from your interpretation of "this generation will not pass away" points to a much larger timescale.

You haven't given ANY pointers to a "much larger timescale". There is nothing in the passage that even implies to the audience that this will take more than 30 years or thereabouts.

Only one hint of a timescale is given: "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done."

As DOctor X said, "the author could not be more specific". If you assume that the author DID expect an imminent return: how ELSE would he have phrased it?

Doctor X · 11-20-2003, 01:32 PM

Indeed, to reiterate, the author was not stupid enough to fix a date . . . could be wrong. He may have been sincere in his belief, but he allowed enough space. It is a bit like me predicting TEOTWAWKI in "the next thirty years" knowing that most of you will have forgotten or not be around to say "aha!"

--J.D.

Mike(ATL) · 11-20-2003, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Indeed, to reiterate, the author was not stupid enough to fix a date . . . could be wrong. He may have been sincere in his belief, but he allowed enough space. It is a bit like me predicting TEOTWAWKI in "the next thirty years" knowing that most of you will have forgotten or not be around to say "aha!"

--J.D.

Theory and conjecture. You say the author didn't want to fix a date cause He wasn't stupid enough. I say Jesus did not give a date because we couldn't handle a date. Imagine if Jesus said the end of the world is coming in 30 years, everyone would be going nuts. People can't handle that kind of information. The best possible message he could give was the message he gave. That He could come at anytime so be alert. Don't be lazy, be ready, live as if Jesus could be coming back at any moment.

Jack, I think we've pretty much exhausted that scripture. It seems to me that you are eager to believe that Jesus was a liar. I'm eager to believe Jesus was not a liar. I believe I've demonstrated pretty well my take on that passage. You've demonstrated pretty well your take on that passage. Anyone else reading this can decide for themselves.

Doctor X · 11-20-2003, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Theory and conjecture.

"People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones."

Quote:

I say Jesus did not give a date because we couldn't handle a date.

"Theory and conjecture." Perhaps "unreasonable apology" proves more apt. That Mt did not know Junior is the standard of scholarship. It is therefore far more likely that Mt simply did not want to pin down a prediction than for Junior to have been imprecise. Given that Mt and Lk cannot agree on a birth date, the burden of proof remains with those who wish to argue that this statement actually happened.

And what if it did? Despite attempts to torture the words otherwise, the passage clearly indicates that Mt expected the return within the lifespan of those there. Given the dating of Mt it is reasonable to believe that he may have felt "the end is near."

Quote:

Imagine if Jesus said the end of the world is coming in 30 years, everyone would be going nuts.

"Theory and conjecture." I rather prefer "ipse dixit and wrong" since 30 years is a long time for those who expect the end. I refer to any apocalyptic cult in history.

Quote:

People can't handle that kind of information.

Ipse dixit and wrong given what apocalyptic cults have shown us.

One should not misrepresent:

Quote:

Jack, I think we've pretty much exhausted that scripture. It seems to me that you are eager to believe that Jesus was a liar.

No, he has demonstrated that Mt was a "liar" in that what he wrote did not happen. When Mt wrote it he may have believed it. I believed the Red Sox would win a World Series before the Patriots would ever win a Superbowl. That is not a "lie" as an "error" to paraphrase the Vulcan.

Now, if one believes the historical Junior made this prediction . . . if he was not deluded then he did, indeed, lie. At best, he was wrong.

That is that.

--J.D.

Mike(ATL) · 11-20-2003, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
That is that.

LOL, oh, well then! I'm "torturing words" and you only describe what is "clearly indicated." Your argument is flawless. Like I said, the evidence has been presented, I'll let people decide for themselves, I've said what needed to be said.

Bob K · 11-21-2003, 02:28 AM

Mike(ATL): [Please] for the sake of my sanity do not resort to that lame "God should've known how all languages and translations would make these words appear so it's His fault anyway" argument.

If you were a god, would you not intend that your written words be absolutely/perfectly clear--because you are absolutely perfect?

And, if you were a god, would you not intend that all translations of your original written words be absolutely/perfectly clear--because you are absolutely perfect?

If we do not create and use standards for the evaluation of so-called holy/sacred books then all is lost, anything goes, and your interpretation is as valid as mine, and anyone else�s holy book is just as valid as yours, or mine.

Here is a set of standards for the evaluation of holy books:

http://www.bobkwebsite.com/stndrdsholybks.html

Quote:

Without standards for analyzing/evaluating/judging [A/E/J or a/e/j] people/things/events [P/T/E or p/t/e], anything goes, emotionalism reigns: if it feels good, it must be true/if it feels bad it must be false; if it is wanted, it must be true/if it is not wanted, it must be false; etc.

Here is a list of standards for the analysis, evaluation and judgment of holy books:

1. The gods, if they exist, must be subject to the same laws of logic as are men.

2. Holy books not only in their original form but all copies and translations must be inspired, written, guided, etc. by gods, not written by men.

Eyewitness books/reports ought to be separate from holy books, clearly marked, and their authors clearly biographed.

As men write, we might expect them to make mistakes; but when the gods inspire/write/etc., we should be able to expect that they should not make any mistakes.

3. The presence of contradictions of any kind in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Contradictions shall include (1) differences of temporal sequences; (2) exclusions/inclusions wherein details excluded in one story or account are included in another story/account, and vice versa.

Holy books should not contain multiple stories of the same people/things/events existing/occurring at the same timepoints and in the same locations. Multiple stories are unnecessary; one story should be sufficient to give all the details which are true.

The presence of multiple stories containing contradictions concerning the details of the same p/t/e's existing/happening at the same timepoints and location logically means (A) one story is true and (B) all others are false or all stories are false, because all (C) stories which contain conflicting/contradictory details could not possibly be true. Thus, the presence of conflicting/contradictory multiple stories shall be proof/evidence that they were written by men and not inspired by gods.

4. The presence of historical inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

5. The presence of archaeological inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

6. The presence of hypocrisy by the gods in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Hypocrisy shall be (A) saying one thing [setting standards/guidelines/commandments/etc.] and doing another or (B) doing one thing in one situation and something else in other similar situations.

Gods should be logical and free of hypocrisy. They should be consistent in all that they say and do. Inconsistencies shall be clear and obvious evidence of the hypocrisy of the gods, or else that the stories/accounts in which inconsistencies of the gods are presented are written by men and not inspired by gods.

7. The gods should inspire/etc. the writing of holy books in a simple form comprehensible to all people of all cultures/ethnic groups [so any translations would have the exact meaning] so that any possibility of having to be a scholar of ethnic literary devices as a qualification for who should be able to read accurately and effectively holy books is eliminated--so normal people [nonscholars] would be qualified to read the holy books, not just priests/scholars.

Thus, from #7, necessary for the evaluation of holy books, your claim that Standard #7 annoys you and is therefore invalid is itself an invalid claim.

If the gods are absolutely perfect, then everything supposedly done by them should be absolutely perfect.

Zero defects.

No confusions = No misinterpretations.

No contradictions = No contradictions to use as justification for judging an holy book to be unholy/nonholy.

No factual errors = No factual errors to use as justification for judging an holy book to be unholy/nonholy.

As soon as we excuse the confusions and contradictions and factual errors then we give up/lose our standards and anything goes, including absurdity and stupidity.

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

11-20-2003, 01:32 PM	#44
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Indeed, to reiterate, the author was not stupid enough to fix a date . . . could be wrong. He may have been sincere in his belief, but he allowed enough space. It is a bit like me predicting TEOTWAWKI in "the next thirty years" knowing that most of you will have forgotten or not be around to say "aha!" --J.D.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.