Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Wads4 · 08-01-2006, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuwanda

One of Logic, you've made a few assumptions that have created false conclusion. First, the disciples asked "when will these things be (the destruction of Jerusalem), and what will be the signs of your coming and of the end of the age" (Matt 24:3). His answer took both questions into consideration. The destruction of Jerusalem and His return are two separate issues as you will see when you read it in context. This is partially why He said it's coming soon, the destruction of Jerusalem was only a few decades away.

Your second assumption is that God is on our timeline. See 2 Peter 3:8 and 9, "...one day with the Lord is as a 1000 years and a 1000 years as one day. The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some consider slowness, but is longsuffering toward you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance..."

Your conclusion that the crucifixion didn't happen because He hasn't returned is a false conclusion build on faulty logic based on faulty assumptions.

I am trying to work this out:
If Jesus said he would return "soon", but has not done so for 2000 of our years, (but 1000 of our years therefore means one of his days), then his second coming must have been 2 of his days after his ascension, so he has already been and gone again in his time-frame, but not in ours,-but of course we only experience our own time-frame, so from our point of view he has not yet come again. But his time-frame is evidently incommunicable with our time-frame, so what value is there in comparing his with ours?--it makes no diference to anything.
If on the other hand one of our days is as a 1000 years with the Lord (you have not made it clear which of the two possibilities is the correct one), then
2000 of our years multiplied by 365.25 =730,500 of our days, which multiplied by 1000 =730,000 of the Lord's years; but once again if there is no communication between the lord's time-frame and ours, it seems like a rather pointless calculation. If both formulae apply,-then its seems more pointless still. Please explain.

Wads4 · 08-01-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

There's also an underlying issue that I probably shouldn't bring up because it requires a lot of explanation and examples, but there is such a thing as "double" prophesy in the Bible. Many scriptures demonstrate that a single prophesy can be telling of multiple occurrences. For instance, John the Baptist fulfilled the prophesy of Elijah coming before the Messiah, however Elijah was still to come in the end time before Christ's return (Mark 9:11-13). Same goes for the "abomination of desolation" (Mark 13:14) which Nero fulfilled in the 1st century but will also be seen at Christ's 2nd coming.

It seems to me that Jesus is purported to have done all the things Elijah did,--miracles, raising the dead, wandering about in the desert, and being taken up into Heaven. I propose that Jesus was deliberately copying Elijah's career in order to synthetically try to fulfil what they could then say was an Old Testament prophecy, -except that it wasn't one until Christians decided to make it one, so that Jesus could then "fulfil" it. Jesus was evidently acting out a sort of play in which anything that happens in the OT he will demonstrate to have fulfilled, -no matter what. I believe even some of his observers queried whether he was Elijah,-so obviously they thought he was acting as well. Suppose I take part in a play and pretend to be Mekon the Alien,-does that mean that Mekon the Alien not only existed once upon a time, but actually "prophesied" that I would one day act in a play about him? Please explain.

Wads4 · 08-01-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuwanda

"Keenly rational individual?" No, I simply said that you are at a disadvantage when attempting to understand a spiritual book with nothing more than human/physical understanding, which any scientist would admit is limited beyond measure. The problem here is that you've already decided that the God and Christ thingy is myth and therefore you discount any thought of spiritual discernment. You believe that your rational is the only source of understanding and that spiritual understanding is illogical. Under those self imposed limitations you are indeed "keenly rational." But understand that scripture is written in such a way as to involve your whole being for real understanding. "Those who have ears to hear let him hear."

But I presume you are also human and are therefore equally limited by human understanding,--so how can you be so certain that you have correctly understood what no rational human appears capable of understanding?
Please explain.

Wads4 · 08-01-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nuwanda

Do you speak in the 1st person plural because you really do represent everyone in this forum?

It's is not a matter of "believe and then understand" it's a matter of realizing that if the claims of the NT are true then you are dealing with a God that is far above your human understanding. At that point, when you start looking to His word for direction (which is what the Bible is for) you need spiritual understand as I have already shown.

It is intellectually dishonest to say "I will believe God once my rational has proven that God is real." There is no proof that God is real and to use such a measure for the athiest platform is to argue from ignorance, which is worse than your charge of post hoc.

One might ask if you speak for God, because you seem to be claiming that you have powers of understanding possessed by no rational human being.

Wads4 · 08-01-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Each of these three verses state essentially the same thing, that "some" of the observers standing there would not taste death till they saw the Son of man coming in power.

How does the qualifier "some" reverse the meaning of those passages? Apart from being excessively vague (some out of how many?),--if even "some" of those standing there shall not taste of death, that means in plain English (translated), that the Son of Man shall actually and really come again in power BEFORE THEY DIE. Unless of course you are going to suggest the "die" does not actually mean "die" because it has a special spiritual meaning, which does not mean physical death.

Wads4 · 08-01-2006, 11:49 AM

Quote:

You believe that your rational [thought] is the only source of understanding and that spiritual understanding is illogical.

Can you please explain to me why my belief that "spiritual" is an incoherent concept which is only capable of definition in terms of other incoherent concepts, like "transcendental", "other-wordly", "heavenly",--is in error?

Vivisector · 08-01-2006, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

Unless of course you are going to suggest the "die" does not actually mean "die" because it has a special spiritual meaning, which does not mean physical death.

Of course Sheshbazzar - or someone else - will suggest it. I've also heard it said that Jesus did come again, but only to a few, and that it wasn't reported (I'm not making this up). It's all very simple - just let the presumption of accuracy force the interpretation where it will.

Cheers,

V.

Sheshbazzar · 08-01-2006, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

How does the qualifier "some" reverse the meaning of those passages?

I did not say, nor even suggest that the qualifier "SOME" reversed the meaning of those passages. The passages refer back to predicted events ALL of which (with the exception of His visible coming in the clouds) must be accomplished before the generation that will be personal witnesses to His return in glory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wads4

Apart from being excessively vague (some out of how many?),--if even "some" of those standing there shall not taste of death, that means in plain English (translated), that the Son of Man shall actually and really come again in power BEFORE THEY DIE. Unless of course you are going to suggest the "die" does not actually mean "die" because it has a special spiritual meaning, which does not mean physical death.

Take time to reread and think through what I wrote, it really doesn't matter, "how many", are "SOME" two, a dozen, hundreds or more, they were / are those who "LIVE FOREVER" (john 11:24-26) some experienced death, and were brought back to life, never to die again. (as was Lazarus) and some (exceptional ones) standing there never experienced a physical death, and never will die, and they are all still with us, being His designated watchers and witnesses to all things pertaining to the Faith from the beginning.
The rest of us that believe do experience physical death, or rather all the appearances of such, but from the Evangelical perspective we are not actually dead but rather "fallen asleep" until the Day of our awakening to meet Him in Glory.
This He said, and this we hold, that "every eye shall see it" therefore there shall be a resurrection of ALL men. And they that pierced Him shall look upon Him whom they pierced, and shall mourn.

Lógos Sokratikós · 08-01-2006, 01:21 PM

That's all fun and joy, Shesh, but going back to the OP, is there any evidence of what you affirm?

Nuwanda · 08-01-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Rational thought is the only reliable source of understanding.

"Spiritual understanding" is an oxymoron and, in reality, nothing but a substitute for actual understanding. Nothing can be understood through faith. Faith allows one to accept or reject notions despite an absence of information. From the perspective of rational thought, that is no different from a guess and you cannot understand anything by guessing.

Are these rational conclusions to your post?
1) You are a believer in absolute truth, "Rational thought is the only reliable source of understanding."

2) That you thoroughly know all forms of understanding, or your statement is merely opinion.

3) That you have thorough first hand knowledge of faith, "Nothing can be understood through faith," which is a contradiction. The statement demands 1st hand experience with faith, an experience which thought you that nothing can be understood through it.

4) You use the term "rational thought," ironically, as a sheild from thinking. It is not rational to condemn all the people ingaged in faith in a god as irrational. You may not agree with them, but that does not make them illogical/irrational. The "absence of information" affect all rational people as nearly all subjects have a lack of information. Science exists because of this lack. Theories arrived at by science are not illogical due to there inherent lack of information.

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

08-01-2006, 01:21 PM	#29
Lógos Sokratikós Contributor Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virtually right here where you are Posts: 11,138	That's all fun and joy, Shesh, but going back to the OP, is there any evidence of what you affirm?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.