Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Chili · 01-25-2010, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exbeliever

Hey Chili having been a christian I can tell you that jesus is the name and christ is the title means= 'annointed'.

However it's all a bunch of razz a ma tazz written to keep the masses under control and their money and lands in their control. So much for the church of Rome where it all got started. You are on the right board so get on the right track. Atheist is where it's at my friend so's you'll never get hurt again.

Oh sorry, did you get hurt?

Minimalist · 01-25-2010, 08:16 PM

Shouldn't it first be necessary to prove that he was here the first time?

Doug Shaver · 01-26-2010, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Shouldn't it first be necessary to prove that he was here the first time?

The debate in this thread is not about whether something happened or will happen. The debate is about what Christians of the first century believed had happened or was going to happen. If their writings show that they were expecting a second appearance, then they must have believed there had been a first appearance.

If they believed he had been here once already, we could still argue over whether they were right. But if their writings show they didn't think even that, then the case for ahistoricity gets pretty solid.

Chili · 01-26-2010, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Shouldn't it first be necessary to prove that he was here the first time?

The debate in this thread is not about whether something happened or will happen. The debate is about what Christians of the first century believed had happened or was going to happen. If their writings show that they were expecting a second appearance, then they must have believed there had been a first appearance.

If they believed he had been here once already, we could still argue over whether they were right. But if their writings show they didn't think even that, then the case for ahistoricity gets pretty solid.

. . . but if parousia is the proper word from which 'second coming' is rendered the historical component is added in the translation by a preacher with a mandate, and yes, Paul was one of those . . . but that does not exclude the metaphor.

Why don't you just take a second look at John 21:21 and see for yourself that Jesus never said that Christ would come back but that he would come back to lead the way and even there said that Peter was to follow him as the faith that motivated him.

For what it's worth, only followers of Jesus's brother James would think that Christ is coming back and they are the ones still waiting for him today.

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

01-25-2010, 08:16 PM	#12
Minimalist Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Arizona Posts: 1,808	Shouldn't it first be necessary to prove that he was here the first time?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.