Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mike_decock · 07-15-2003, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
But we are talking about the 1st century. Small groups of Christians spreading "the Word" by word of mouth with the help of a few literate church leaders. But mostly just an oral tradition. That part would not have been left out or glossed over. What would have been the point before "that generation" did actually pass away?

I think it is most logical to assume that "this generation shall not pass away" was NEVER taken literally from the very beginnings of Christianity. And that was generally understood by just about everybody for the 1st 3 centuries.

RBAC, the orthodox Christian church was a political organization starting in the second century when "this generation" would have started becoming an issue. The church fathers were establishing and defining orthodox doctrine and rituals in opposition to the Gnostic Christians.

It is not a great leap of logic to assume that the bishops minimized the "this generation" and "soon" statements or spun it just like you see Magus doing today.

-Mike...

Biff the unclean · 07-15-2003, 09:53 PM

The early Christians may have been illiterate, but I doubt they were stupid.
Judging by what exactly?
When it became obvious that "this generation" WAS dying out with no 2nd coming in sight, I think there should have been a massive exodus from Christianity late in the 1st century or definitely early in the 2nd.
Why? They didn't read the bible, they weren't allowed to. Only the clergy could do that.
Anyway you have read them and you haven't quit Christianity�how stupid are you then? If you don't consider yourself to be stupid why put that label on those who behave as you are doing?

if that passage and others like it had ever been taken literally.
WTF are you talking about? The dozen or so passages are clearly written. They confirm one another. The only reason you want to change their meaning is that they are a false prophecy. You want to lie about them. Because that's what "not literally" means about such clearly written passages. Lying. And because you think that the early Xians were a bunch of lying SOB's you think it's okay for you to distort them too?

I doubt that there was any "conspiracy" by Bishops to withhold "possibly embarrassing" portions of the Gospels from the masses in the 1st century.
Why do you come to Atheists to teach you about the history of your own ridiculous superstitions? One of the main selling points of the Protestant reformation was that for the first time lay people would have bibles.

But we are talking about the 1st century.
And we are talking about a bunch of camel herders far from the centers of civilization.
Small groups of Christians spreading "the Word" by word of mouth with the help of a few literate church leaders.
With dozens of different gospels that we no longer have telling different stories from the ones you are talking about You didn't-I take it- follow Mick Decock's advise about reading up on the Gnostics

I think it is most logical to assume that "this generation shall not pass away" was NEVER taken literally from the very beginnings of Christianity. And that was generally understood by just about everybody for the 1st 3 centuries.
They did take it literally I already told you the story of the never dying always-aging wandering Jew that they concocted to explain it away.

Who would have noticed in the 4th century? Who would have cared all that much with so much of the scripture pitched out at that time? --------- Biff's problem solved.
I don't have a problem. I'm not the one who is staring at a bunch of clearly written, easy for even a Christian to understand and saying that they don't mean what they say.

That was not done. It was left in the Gospels. And the only reason I can think that it was not done was that NOBODY from the very beginnings of Christianity EVER took it literally. And nobody does today---except for atheists of course.
By "literally" you mean reading the words that are written over, and over and over again and not lying through your teeth about what they say. That's the only way you can believe this garbage tell yourself it says something different than it does. Only Theists are that dishonest with themselves and everyone around them.
--------------
You know, I keep reading Matt 24, and It makes sense to me.
You know you keep pretending that Matt 24 is the only place this is. Even after I posted over a dozen, citing chapter and verse

And whats really odd here, is for people who think the Bible is such a joke, and Jesus and God are all fake, you certaintly beat arguments into the ground.
A joke? No, I think it's a cancer with nothing funny about it.
Why not just move on, since you know for a fact you're right? Who are you trying to convince?
You!!! I'm trying to save you from your ignorance. Move on to where? This is that non-Theist web site, remember?
Certaintly not the Christians since we can understand what it means.
Obviously you haven't a clue what it means. You think it's real.
So whats the point? You don't even believe Jesus existed, yet you are bickering over what He supposedly said?
What a set of brass balls you have. Your fairytale book is a lie. You see yourself one of the lies and then you lie about this lie.
You are intellectually unfit to participate in these discussions and when you make yourself look the fool you complain that Atheists are discussing religion in the General Religious Discussion section of Internet Infidels!!!! Don't you have a cult meeting to attend somewhere?

winstonjen · 07-15-2003, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
Judging by what exactly?

[fundy voice] They have faith in Jebus, therefore they're smart. They can't think for themselves, but that's irrelevant. [/fundy voice]

Quote:

Why do you come to Atheists to teach you about the history of your own ridiculous superstitions?

Maybe he thinks he'll get the truth for a change.

Rational BAC · 07-15-2003, 10:08 PM

There is a difference between illiteracy and stupidity.

I have known quite a few very intelligent illiterates.

Somehow you think that people living in the first century had miniscule brains. Not true. They had the same brains that we have. Just as clever, just as discerning.

They would have had the same problem Biff has with being obviously lied to. Christianity would have tanked. And badly. And very quickly.

Reason that did not happen most obviously is that, even though for the most part illiterate, they were essentially much smarter and cleverer than Biff. And they never took the "this generation shall not pass away" in any kind of stick-in-the-mud literate sense as Biff is wont to do.

mark9950 · 07-15-2003, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Somehow you think that people living in the first century had miniscule brains. Not true. They had the same brains that we have. Just as clever, just as discerning.

They didnt use them.As the xtians dont use or want to use them today.

They just have a false hope of this jesus character without even questioning like joining a seductive cult.

With something everybody wants the fountain of youth or eternal life .

EstherRose · 07-15-2003, 11:34 PM

Early Christians were encouraged to read and study the Scriptures for themselves. It was only much later the catholic church convinced everyone that only the priests could interpret the bible. The following scriptures below illustrate the early Christian attitude towards reading and studying the Scriptures.

Acts 17
11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

2 Timothy 3
15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

The Wandering Jew is just like any other myth. There is also a myth about Presbyter John. Can you tell me exactly where the Wandering Jew myth originated? If not, than why do you make the assumption of church conspiracy to explain a so-called problematic text in the bible. If it was such a problem, then it would be so much easier to eliminate it, don�t you think?

winstonjen · 07-15-2003, 11:45 PM

Most likely, the "wandering Jew" myth was in one of the books that was rejected by the catholic church.

07-16-2003, 03:01 AM

Magus: What trillion said.

People who died thousands of years ago and whose bodies rotted, were eaten etc. Where were they (presumably bodiless) while awaiting resurrection?

And why do they suddenly need physical bodies again for an afterlife?
And where will these new bodies be?
And what relation will they bear to their old bodies? As trillion has pointed out, they can't be composed of the same atoms, since these will have been shared around after death.
And if you died aged 101, will your new body be that of an aged person?
And if you died aged 12 months, will you be resurrected as a baby forever? Since physical "corruption" and ageing are intimately related it is hard to see how an immortal baby could age.
And will the new body have a sex?

worldling · 07-16-2003, 03:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC

Somehow you think that people living in the first century had miniscule brains. Not true. They had the same brains that we have. Just as clever, just as discerning.

They would have had the same problem Biff has with being obviously lied to. Christianity would have tanked. And badly. And very quickly.

Reason that did not happen most obviously is that, even though for the most part illiterate, they were essentially much smarter and cleverer than Biff. And they never took the "this generation shall not pass away" in any kind of stick-in-the-mud literate sense as Biff is wont to do.

RBAC, the point has been made before but it apparently needs to be made again:

You have no problem twisting the literal meaning of the texts to fit in with your hopes and preconceived notions, so why do you think people living in the first century (or indeed any subsequent century) were any different?

Of course the early Xians thought Christ was returning within a generation. Look back at the list of quotes at the start of this thread. St Paul told the Corinthians there was little point getting married because Christ's return was so imminent!

mike_decock · 07-16-2003, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
Somehow you think that people living in the first century had miniscule brains. Not true. They had the same brains that we have. Just as clever, just as discerning.

They had no education, no news sources, no scientific knowledge and they were deeply superstitious. They put blind faith in their religious leaders and were content with the belief that they were "saved" just like so many people today. The orthodox church intentionally made it simple and easy to become a Christian. Follow a few rituals, attend a few services, repeat the apostle's creed and you're done.

The Gnostics, on the other hand, were far more concerned in gaining knowledge and understanding. Initiation could take years of study. It's no surprise that they rejected such doctrines as the second coming and the virgin birth as childish superstitions.

-Mike...

07-16-2003, 03:01 AM	#108
DMB Guest Posts: n/a	Magus: What trillion said. People who died thousands of years ago and whose bodies rotted, were eaten etc. Where were they (presumably bodiless) while awaiting resurrection? And why do they suddenly need physical bodies again for an afterlife? And where will these new bodies be? And what relation will they bear to their old bodies? As trillion has pointed out, they can't be composed of the same atoms, since these will have been shared around after death. And if you died aged 101, will your new body be that of an aged person? And if you died aged 12 months, will you be resurrected as a baby forever? Since physical "corruption" and ageing are intimately related it is hard to see how an immortal baby could age. And will the new body have a sex?

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

07-15-2003, 09:53 PM	#102
Biff the unclean Banned Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: an inaccessible island fortress Posts: 10,638	The early Christians may have been illiterate, but I doubt they were stupid. Judging by what exactly? When it became obvious that "this generation" WAS dying out with no 2nd coming in sight, I think there should have been a massive exodus from Christianity late in the 1st century or definitely early in the 2nd. Why? They didn't read the bible, they weren't allowed to. Only the clergy could do that. Anyway you have read them and you haven't quit Christianity�how stupid are you then? If you don't consider yourself to be stupid why put that label on those who behave as you are doing? if that passage and others like it had ever been taken literally. WTF are you talking about? The dozen or so passages are clearly written. They confirm one another. The only reason you want to change their meaning is that they are a false prophecy. You want to lie about them. Because that's what "not literally" means about such clearly written passages. Lying. And because you think that the early Xians were a bunch of lying SOB's you think it's okay for you to distort them too? I doubt that there was any "conspiracy" by Bishops to withhold "possibly embarrassing" portions of the Gospels from the masses in the 1st century. Why do you come to Atheists to teach you about the history of your own ridiculous superstitions? One of the main selling points of the Protestant reformation was that for the first time lay people would have bibles. But we are talking about the 1st century. And we are talking about a bunch of camel herders far from the centers of civilization. Small groups of Christians spreading "the Word" by word of mouth with the help of a few literate church leaders. With dozens of different gospels that we no longer have telling different stories from the ones you are talking about You didn't-I take it- follow Mick Decock's advise about reading up on the Gnostics I think it is most logical to assume that "this generation shall not pass away" was NEVER taken literally from the very beginnings of Christianity. And that was generally understood by just about everybody for the 1st 3 centuries. They did take it literally I already told you the story of the never dying always-aging wandering Jew that they concocted to explain it away. Who would have noticed in the 4th century? Who would have cared all that much with so much of the scripture pitched out at that time? --------- Biff's problem solved. I don't have a problem. I'm not the one who is staring at a bunch of clearly written, easy for even a Christian to understand and saying that they don't mean what they say. That was not done. It was left in the Gospels. And the only reason I can think that it was not done was that NOBODY from the very beginnings of Christianity EVER took it literally. And nobody does today---except for atheists of course. By "literally" you mean reading the words that are written over, and over and over again and not lying through your teeth about what they say. That's the only way you can believe this garbage tell yourself it says something different than it does. Only Theists are that dishonest with themselves and everyone around them. -------------- You know, I keep reading Matt 24, and It makes sense to me. You know you keep pretending that Matt 24 is the only place this is. Even after I posted over a dozen, citing chapter and verse And whats really odd here, is for people who think the Bible is such a joke, and Jesus and God are all fake, you certaintly beat arguments into the ground. A joke? No, I think it's a cancer with nothing funny about it. Why not just move on, since you know for a fact you're right? Who are you trying to convince? You!!! I'm trying to save you from your ignorance. Move on to where? This is that non-Theist web site, remember? Certaintly not the Christians since we can understand what it means. Obviously you haven't a clue what it means. You think it's real. So whats the point? You don't even believe Jesus existed, yet you are bickering over what He supposedly said? What a set of brass balls you have. Your fairytale book is a lie. You see yourself one of the lies and then you lie about this lie. You are intellectually unfit to participate in these discussions and when you make yourself look the fool you complain that Atheists are discussing religion in the General Religious Discussion section of Internet Infidels!!!! Don't you have a cult meeting to attend somewhere?

07-15-2003, 10:08 PM	#104
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	There is a difference between illiteracy and stupidity. I have known quite a few very intelligent illiterates. Somehow you think that people living in the first century had miniscule brains. Not true. They had the same brains that we have. Just as clever, just as discerning. They would have had the same problem Biff has with being obviously lied to. Christianity would have tanked. And badly. And very quickly. Reason that did not happen most obviously is that, even though for the most part illiterate, they were essentially much smarter and cleverer than Biff. And they never took the "this generation shall not pass away" in any kind of stick-in-the-mud literate sense as Biff is wont to do.

07-15-2003, 11:34 PM	#106
EstherRose Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Arizona Posts: 183	Early Christians were encouraged to read and study the Scriptures for themselves. It was only much later the catholic church convinced everyone that only the priests could interpret the bible. The following scriptures below illustrate the early Christian attitude towards reading and studying the Scriptures. Acts 17 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 2 Timothy 3 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness The Wandering Jew is just like any other myth. There is also a myth about Presbyter John. Can you tell me exactly where the Wandering Jew myth originated? If not, than why do you make the assumption of church conspiracy to explain a so-called problematic text in the bible. If it was such a problem, then it would be so much easier to eliminate it, don�t you think?

07-15-2003, 11:45 PM	#107
winstonjen Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 3,425	Most likely, the "wandering Jew" myth was in one of the books that was rejected by the catholic church.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.