Family Man

Apparently, when Layman labels a thread XXXXX Dubious Interpretation, it is a mature assessment. When someone else labels a thread Layman's Dubious Interpretation, it is adolescent chest thumping.

Ted Hoffman

You beat me to it family man! I must be growing old! Or you are simply brilliant!

NOGO

Right, and when he points out that one cannot interpret a word in one instance differently than all other instances simply because one does not like the conclusion it leads to, he is also making a mature unbiased assessment BUT when someone else points out the same problem with his own interpretation of another word then it is adolescent chest thumping and low in his priorities.

Obviously Layman's priority is not a search for truth but the defence of Christianity no matter what.

Layman's reaction is not surprising; he had no where to go.

Tercel

NOGO,

It would be extremely helpful if you gave a one sentence summary at the start of your fist post on what you are actually arguing.

What you are arguing, I take it, is the oft-repeated "the early Christians thought the end of the world was nigh. They were wrong! ha ha ha" And you view Layman's interpretation of this verse as a way of avoiding this conclusion. Yes?

So why should I, as a Christian, care about your argument?

Ted Hoffman

You dont have to care. This is not a lobying forum.
NOGO's argument falsifies the idea that Jesus once walked on earth.
It also proves that MOST christians base their christianity on beliefs that have no historical basis - the idea that Jesus died on the cross. Indeed, it derives no adequate scriptural support.

It proves that a historical Jesus never existed.
It proves that Christianity, as most people understand it, is false.

Whether you care or not is irrelevant. We argue what we argue.

Ted Hoffman

sorry wrong post

NOGO

Hi Tercel,

First, you admit something that Layman wont admit, that is, that the NT reflect in may instances the fact that early Christians believed that the end of the world was at hand and within a generation.

They were wrong! Agreed.

So Hebrews 9:26 says that Jesus came at the end of times to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.

That was my point and you agree so I don't have a problem with you.

So Matthew was wrong, Luke was wrong, Mark was wrong, the author of Hebrews was wrong, Paul was wrong, the author of the John epistles was wrong, the author of the book of Revelations was wrong.

Why should you care?

To me it is obvious why you should care. To Layman as well since he is smart enough not to admit this giant stain in the origins of Christianity.

These are my questions to you.

If the end of the world bit did not come from Jesus who did it come from?

Since Paul and Hebrews also talks about the imminent end of the world then we can assume that this was an early belief and not something that was added later. In many places in the Gospels Jesus himself talks about the imminent end of the world. How is it possible that they got this so completely wrong?

What else did they get wrong and how do you know?

If Jesus started Chrisitianity one would have expected diversity of belief and errors (such as the present subject) to come later and not earlier. Christianity seems to have STARTED, in confusion and error, which points to a different start than "Once upon a time Jesus was born"

Basically that is why you should care but I would not be surprised if you did not care. In fact nothing would surprise me.

At any rate Layman and many other Christians seems to understand what is at stake here.

Tercel

No it's not agreed. As a Christian I see this as being irrelevant to my faith. From an academic point of view I'm unsure to what extent a belief in a forthcoming "End" was prominent among early Christians. I do not agree with you, but I'm still curious as to why you think Christians should be interested in this argument (specifically in refuting it) simply because they're Christians. You apparently seem to think this somehow ties into Jesus-Mything...

I imagine they were all wrong at least one, that's obviously a part of being human, and is likely only going to worry an inerrantist.

Well there are numerous possible explanations. For example a standard interpretation of the book of Revelation is to see its writer as inspired by the persecution of Christians taking place at his time and believing this was a sign of nothing short of the end of the world itself. An alternative theory would be to see the belief in a forthcoming end of the world as a misunderstanding of Jesus words: Perhaps Jesus only meant the "end of an era" and was interpreted later to mean the "End of the World", or perhaps (as I've seen Yuri here argue) Jesus' statement about "this generation" not passing away was meant to refer to Christians/Christianity not passing away but has lost something in the translation/was misunderstood. etc. Verses such as Mark 13:10; 13:32 and parellels would also seem to be inconsistent with the idea that Jesus taught an imminent end.
Given the various theories on how such a belief might have started I think any certainty that Jesus believed the end of the world imminent is unfounded.

Well Luke looks like he might have scewed up with the Census issue. Mark's geography appears to be incorrect in one place.

An error on one subject, by whoever it was, is not exactly a wide diversity of belief and errors.

That's a very imaginative extrapolation.

On the other hand...
If you are utterly convinced that early Christian writings really show a belief that the end of the world was imminent, then you should probably believe in early dates for the Christian writings - gospels included if you think they indicate such a belief. After all, if at the time of writing, the writer still believed that the End of the world would be within one generation of Jesus' time then obviously the writer was not writing later than one generation after Jesus' time.

I think if Layman thought anything was at stake he would have attempted to refute your argument...
I find the possibility that he was in such dazzled awe at the sheer brilliance of your post that he could not even bring himself to defend himself against your Christianity-shattering argument a very unlikely one indeed.

Ted Hoffman

Evidently, if you embrace a religion that you know is based on erroneous and unreliable scriptures, your belief is based on blind faith.
In that case, what would be the difference between a christian who believes yet he knows what he believes is incorrect, and one who believes that every loaf of bread contains a pink elephant?

Or perhaps you could tell us what being a christian, from your POV, entails (beliefwise) - what beliefs do you hold to make you qualify as a christian?

NOGO

I guess one needs to be a Christian to understand this kind of logic.



Tercel: As a Christian I see this as being irrelevant to my faith.

Facts are irrelevant to faith. I know that. I am not here to discuss faith.

Tercel: From an academic point of view I'm unsure to what extent a belief in a forthcoming "End" was prominent among early Christians.

Perhaps you should study the subject so that you would have somethinf relevant to say.

Tercel: I do not agree with you, but I'm still curious as to why you think Christians should be interested in this argument (specifically in refuting it) simply because they're Christians. You apparently seem to think this somehow ties into Jesus-Mything...

I did not say anything about the Jesus-Myth issue. I evoked the possibility that Christianity did not start with one man.


I suppose that if you were an investigator into a crime and that a witness provided information which turned out to be wrong you would still trust this witness and continue to take as reliable the rest of the information which he provided but which has not or cannot be verified.

I would not and that has nothing to do with inerrantists.


Tercel: Verses such as Mark 13:10; 13:32 and parellels would also seem to be inconsistent with the idea that Jesus taught an imminent end. Given the various theories on how such a belief might have started I think any certainty that Jesus believed the end of the world imminent is unfounded.

Col 1:23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.


So Paul believed that the Gospel was preached to everyone. People believed that world was rather small and so preaching to every nation within one generation was definitely possible. So Mark 13:10 is not what you make to be.

Mark 13:32 taken in context is rather clear and does not help your point either.

Mark 13:
30 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.
31 "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
32 "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.

So this generation will not pass until ALL these things take place.
BUT
the exact day and hour is unknown.

Why is this incompatible with the imminent end of the world?


I note the fact that you avoided the "how do you know" part of the question which relates to the reliability of witnesses.

No, there are many errors. Also Paul tells us in other "Jesus'" not preached by him. There were division right from the start and this situation continued until the fourth century when one view of Christianity was imposed by force.

I don't have the time now but I will answer this one in my next post. You know that the stated "this generation will not pass ..." has been reinterpreted many times throughout the centuries.

Even today some people believe that we are in the last generation. Believers ignore facts and continue to believe. Tercel, you should know what I am talking about, you are a Christian.


Perhaps Layman knows better than to make a fool of himself.

When you have all the cards you do not need to be brilliant. All you have to do is to show them. I note that you too, Tercel, have absolutely nothing to say about my first post.