Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 10-22-2009, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Wrong implication. It is a jewish idiom.

Quote:

Matthew (Mattityahu) 24:36, as it is written, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only." Because Rosh HaShanah was understood to be the hidden day, this statement by Yeshua is actually an idiom for Rosh Hashanah. Thus it should be given as proof that He was speaking of Rosh HaShanah because Rosh HaShanah is the only day in the whole year that was referred to as the hidden day or the day that no man knew.
http://www.hebroots.org/chap7.html#CHAP7

Not only that, Rosh Hashanah marks the pinnacle of the season of repentance. I believe 'the kingdom of god' was closely tied to repentance, as it was an inner state of being among early Christians, rather than a messianic dream.

Julio · 10-22-2009, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Why?
Why do we need to figure out what the "kingdom of god" was all about, AFTER 2000 years of "research"?...

This is BC&H. Most people in this subforum have an interest in Christian history, and participation is voluntary.

Quote:

We found out, meanwhile, that kingdoms are dangerous systems of despotic & tyrannical monarchs and better leave Jesus alone in the archives as the religious dinosaur that he is now, as far as kingdoms of gods are concerned.

I seems to me that "kingdom of god" had nothing to do with monarchs or earthly kingdoms in the early church.

We read Apocalypse of John [Revelation] and find the Lamb sitting on a throne in Jerusalem.
It is to be a despotic earthly kingdom.
OK, there are at least ten different interpretations for that "kingdom".
In my studying days, I had teachers who diverged sharply about Revelation interpretations.
I read at least 10 different commentaries on Revelation, and all were different.
Therefore, who has the right one?
Not even Jesus could interpret Revelation properly, I assure you.
There have been "high brains" attempting to decipher that prophetic book unsuccessfully.
It is the most weird and most VIOLENT book in the whole Bible.
It is there where the Almighty proposes to attack the human race with some Armageddon battle and later send fire from heaven to close this chapter and next incinerate the entire cosmos to make new heavens and a new earth.
It is a MAD Almighty!
What on earth was wrong with the heavens for heaven's sake?!...

spamandham · 10-23-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

We read Apocalypse of John [Revelation] and find the Lamb sitting on a throne in Jerusalem.
It is to be a despotic earthly kingdom.

Perhaps by the time Revelation was written, some Christians had begun to think of the kingdom as an earthly theocratic dictatorship.

But is that what 'kingdom of god' meant to the earliest Christians? I don't think so.

Quote:

It is the most weird and most VIOLENT book in the whole Bible.

There is no doubt in my mind the author was shrooming. IIRC, even Eusebius thought it was a crackpot book and wanted it excluded from the canon.

AtheistGamer · 10-23-2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

We read Apocalypse of John [Revelation] and find the Lamb sitting on a throne in Jerusalem.
It is to be a despotic earthly kingdom.

Perhaps by the time Revelation was written, some Christians had begun to think of the kingdom as an earthly theocratic dictatorship.

But is that what 'kingdom of god' meant to the earliest Christians? I don't think so.

Quote:

It is the most weird and most VIOLENT book in the whole Bible.

There is no doubt in my mind the author was shrooming. IIRC, even Eusebius thought it was a crackpot book and wanted it excluded from the canon.

Apparently Revelation closely parallels a story from Zoroarasterism (Spelling?). Maybe that's why Eusebius wanted it removed from the canon?

Julio · 10-24-2009, 12:04 AM

I think the manuscript Vaticanus doesn't include Revelation. Or is it Sinaiticus? One of them. It wasn't "universally accepted" [like all the rest of the canon!], if you know what I mean.

andrewcriddle · 10-24-2009, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

I think the manuscript Vaticanus doesn't include Revelation. Or is it Sinaiticus? One of them. It wasn't "universally accepted" [like all the rest of the canon!], if you know what I mean.

Sinaiticus has Revelation. Vaticanus has lost the pages after Hebrews 9:14, it probably originally included Revelation. See Vaticanus

AndrewCriddle

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

10-24-2009, 12:04 AM	#25
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	I think the manuscript Vaticanus doesn't include Revelation. Or is it Sinaiticus? One of them. It wasn't "universally accepted" [like all the rest of the canon!], if you know what I mean.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.