Problems...

taellad

I was just wondering whether anyone here could help me out. I have been reading the Bible alot recently, and have come across certain areas which are troubling at best. The whole apocalyptic message in nearly all of the Gospels, as well as in revelation, seems to indicate that the followers of Christ, and Christ Himself, seemed to believe that the end of the world was going to be accomplished within their own lifetime. I realise you don't have to take everything literally, but if the Gospels are inspired, and if Jesus Himself believed it, and (as is clear) the apocalypse didn't come about ... what of Christianity?

I tried asking a priest, but he told me not to worry about such complex matters, and that only God has true knowledge of these things. hmm.

Excelsior

Its a fascinating question and you should be worrying about such complex questions. Unfortunately myself and most of the other people who would respond to you are in the middle of exams and so we don't have time to craft a response.

If you can keep reading the Bible and coming up with questions and save them for a week then there will be plenty of people to respond.

jesus_freak

I'd like to second Excelsior's response, but I'll take the time to point something important out.

The New International Version (NIV) of the Bible sometimes includes heading for certain groups of verses. These headings were not part of the original text. There are some places in the Gospels were this can be misleading. In three of the Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) the disciples draw Jesus' attention to the temple, and Jesus says something like

"I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."

The title added in the NIV is "Signs of the end of the age" and the verses are often taken to refer to the second coming. In fact, Jesus is clearly (once you know a little of the history) prophesying about the destruction of the Temple, in 70 AD (probably about 35-40 years after Jesus' death). When I have a little more time I'll explain this further.

JF

sanvean

as far as i can recall, it's quite clear - even in the bible - that he's referring to the destruction of the temple. interesting that it's considered 'prophecy' when the texts were mostly written twenty or so after the Temple was destroyed.

As far as I'm concerned, it's quite clear that Jesus was just part of an apocalyptic Jewish sect. Alot of the Christology is only clearly defined and strengthened in John, while the Gospels tend to downplay - or have no - christology. Alot of the ideas in the Gospels are extremely similar to the Dead Sea Scrolls - The Qumran Community were yet another apocalyptic sect. However, I don't think this necessarily takes away from Christianity as such.

Karl Hungus

Not meaning to be disrespectfull to anyone, but...


As I see it, it's the way religion is designed. It seems that nearly every other day an apocalypse is cooked up to warn non-beleivers against. "Repent now/The Lord is your only Salvation" and such things, it's all marketing. Why, not so long ago I've had a Christian fundamentalist knocking on my door telling me how the world is going to end, and that the race for souls is on.

I mean, there simply wouldn't be any Church today if they didn't have something for you to fear, or to threaten with. Where would god be if you weren't going to be burning in the lake of souls for eternity if you dont bow to him, or repent?

Couldn't very well have the almighty god who wasn't going to punish those who stray from the flock. And I think the preist who told you not to worry yourself about these complex matters is basically saying 'Try not to think to hard, or you'll stray from the flock.'

All of these end of the world predictions are simply a way of controlling through fear, and impending doom is always good for business.


Like I said though, this is just how I would see things as an outsider, looking in.
And I dont mean to be disrespectfull to anyone here.

ykt0di9url7bc3

God is coming...make sure you are wearing clean underwear...

sceptre

Originally posted by SearrarD
God is coming...make sure you are wearing clean underwear...

Heh, now that's funny:D.


OK, declarations at the start, I'm a non-believer. Which is why I'm being quite polite on this board. I'm not going to convince you (it's also your community board so I'm not going to try (IRL I don't either)) and you're not going to convince me (it's your board so you can do whatever you like)

Moving on though...

Revelations is an odd book. It doesn't quite seem to fit in with the earlier books in the new Testament, which concentrate mostly on teaching. It does play a major part in the bible though - the question of what comes at the end. It's pretty symbolic and it's pretty easy to interpret it in quite a number of ways. There are very few Christians (apart from the people who interpret every word literally) who actually believe the four horsemen of the apocalypse actually means four guys arriving on horses for example. There are a few core messages (there will be a day of reckoning/this day is coming (relatively soon)/you will be held to account for your actions and so on) that can only be interpreted in one way and these are probably the things you should concentrate on.

With regard to the time factor, it's important to remember that the books were written by men. Mortal men. Obviously the Christian belief is that they're writing and interpreting the message of God but nonetheless the book was written by men, albeit men interpreting and writing that message. Who can make mistakes or interpret some things in a way related to the timeframe in which they personally think things will happen. It's entirely possible that almost the entire book of Revelation (except the core messages mantioned above - they're central to your faith) is something to be interpreted in a figurative way. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that your faith is misplaced. Incidentally, I'd either stay totally away from the thousands of websites I'm sure exist offering interpretations of Revelation or take them with a ton of salt. Your faith, if it's important to you, is important to you.


(I'm actually still quite fascinated by religion in general and Christianity in particular, even as confirmed agnostic tending towards atheism. Mostly from a sociological (as well as historical) and psychological point of view but it's still fascinating)

McGinty

"I tried asking a priest, but he told me not to worry about such complex matters, and that only God has true knowledge of these things. hmm"

Lol, the priest didn't have the answer most likely, he probably thought Holy God, what on earth would I tell this young one? Its a good bull**it answer though, although on a serious note, he is wrong to say that to you or to anyone.

I don't know the answer to your question either, I tend not to worry about the end of the world. I also don't beleive in a vengeful God anyway. I don't percieve God as some big cop in the sky ready to strike some 'sinner', I beleive that was invented to keep people in line, by control and fear.

Maybe it means the world will end as we know it, or it will go through some change, like the transistion of where religions answered all the big questions and then science came in, and now we may move into a different type of era. But I know one thing humans don't take well to change, so that in itself can be viewed as a negative thing. I feel I might be talking rubbish here, so excuse me if I am. Just some thoughts though.

neuro-praxis

Sanvean, where did you get your information about when the gospels were written? Because your views about them being written around 110AD are not supported by Hebrew and Greek biblical scholars.

Jesus Freak is quite right: in the New testament, Jesus is talking about the destruction of the temple, symbolic of the end of the Old Covenant. He's not talking about end-times.

In Revelation, it IS talking about end-times, but it probably won't happen literally the way we read it. Or perhaps it will. Does it matter? Not to me.

However, the comments about a wrathful God being invented to keep the masses toeing the line is typically ignorant and flippant. Ever been part of a Christian community? There's just as many sinners there as anywhere else.

What God offers is GRACE. Grace is the concept that no matter what sins we commit, no matter how heinous, we are loved and forgiven.

That's not punishment, it's not even justice. It's beyond justice. Jesus Christ was sacrificed, bearing the punishment for the sins of all men, so that nobody would suffer punishment.

That's the purest example of love I can think of; not a demonstration of wrath. Surely the temptation with this is not to toe the line, but to do as I please?

Your theories are all wrong.

sanvean

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
Sanvean, where did you get your information about when the gospels were written? Because your views about them being written around 110AD are not supported by Hebrew and Greek biblical scholars.

Where did you get from what I said above that the Gospels were written in 110ce? I said that the events that they claimed Jesus prophesied to were - rathe conveniently - written 20 years or so after the Temple was destroyed. Temple was destroyed in 70ce, so do the maths neuro-praxis. That would be 90ce, a date which most scholars would agree on (depending on the gospel itself of course).

In Revelation, it IS talking about end-times, but it probably won't happen literally the way we read it. Or perhaps it will. Does it matter? Not to me.

All depends on whether you interpret the Bible literally (very hard to do) or allegorically (or any of the number of other ways you can read a text). I would seriously doubt that Revelation will occur as it says the Bible does, as Babylon doesn't exist anymore.

That's not punishment, it's not even justice. It's beyond justice. Jesus Christ was sacrificed, bearing the punishment for the sins of all men, so that nobody would suffer punishment. That's the purest example of love I can think of; not a demonstration of wrath. Surely the temptation with this is not to toe the line, but to do as I please?

What's the difference between toeing the line and doing as someone 'pleases'? Also: the idea of God as sacrificing his only son to redeem mankind does bring up connotations of Isaac and Abraham. Jesus' sacrifice is actually the one event in the whole of the New Testament that kind of links the whole thing together, not just because of what is being achieved, but more because this is the God of the Old Testament, you know, needing a blood sacrifice to redeem the sins of mankind. Not so loving when you look at it in that way.

Your theories are all wrong.

:rolleyes:

neuro-praxis

You're right on the date thing; I had it in my head that you'd said it was 35-40 years after the destruction of the temple, not 20. Apologies there. So, where did you get your information then? You haven't answered that question yet. "Most scolars" is dubious.

What's the difference between toeing the line and doing as someone 'pleases'?

I said doing as I please, not as someone pleases. I guess we've both done a little mis-hearing here, eh?

Toeing the line involves obedience, doing as I please is doing whatever I feel like doing. That's obvious.

Also: the idea of God as sacrificing his only son to redeem mankind does bring up connotations of Isaac and Abraham. Jesus' sacrifice is actually the one event in the whole of the New Testament that kind of links the whole thing together, not just because of what is being achieved, but more because this is the God of the Old Testament, you know, needing a blood sacrifice to redeem the sins of mankind. Not so loving when you look at it in that way.

Your last sentence seems, to me, apart from what you wrote before it. What "way" do you think you've examined it that makes it look unloving? I don't understand your point at all.

And regardless of your witty rolleyes entry back there, the theory that God was invented to force the masses to toe the line is all wrong; this is disproved by the introduction of grace (previously explained) into the equation.

sanvean

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
I said doing as I please, not as someone pleases. I guess we've both done a little mis-hearing here, eh?

Yeah, I thought you meant 'do as I please' as from God's point of view. apologies.

And regardless of your witty rolleyes entry back there, the theory that God was invented to force the masses to toe the line is all wrong; this is disproved by the introduction of grace (previously explained) into the equation.

Well, it wasn't supposed to be witty, I just find it laughable that in the confines of a debate, you - who are I would guess at least over 20 years old - would come up with something so childish as that. I didn't say that I agreed with this theory (that is the blood sacrifice), as it goes against everything the Christian Church has been teaching since Anselm, but it *is* a valid argument. Couldn't God, in all His infinte God-ness, just offer grace, but not through the sacrifice of His only son?

Also: the idea that God was invented to subdue the masses is not disproven by the fact that Christianity teaches us that we have the possibility of grace. Christianity still teaches us to except what we have been given in this life, as the rewards in the next will be tenfold (or, rather, the multiple of n). Christianity, as seen in America with slavery and after (the 'emancipation' of the blacks, despite them not being emancipated until well into the seventies), the Catholic Church's refusal to acknowledge the work of the liberal theologians in Central America (as their idea of 'the preferential option for the poor' is too far off the mark for the pope) shows that traditional christian thinking, at least, allows for the element of keeping the downtrodden peoples well, downtrodden.

So, where did you get your information then? You haven't answered that question yet. "Most scolars" is dubious.

Well, in trying to refute me apparently saying that the gospels were written in 110ce, you say that it isn't supported by 'most hebrew and greek scholars'. So I would say that is just as dubious. But anyway, like I said most (respected) scholars would agree with a time frame of 90ce and later for the synoptic gospels, John later still, and Paul around 60ce (could be a bit out here). These scholars would include Sean Freyne, Crossan, Murphy-O'Connor, and numerous others I can't quite think of just yet. Hope this helps.

Karl Hungus

I think I have said my peice on the topic at hand, but... I cant let a good arguement down.

Originally posted by neuro-praxis
What God offers is GRACE. Grace is the concept that no matter what sins we commit, no matter how heinous, we are loved and forgiven.

Perhaps you can explain to me how this would dissolve the arguement of the Christian Religion being constructed in such a way to gain and keep followers through fear, if God offers his Grace only to his followers?

I would also think that it could be argued that someone who would so boldly proclaim that everyone else *IS* wrong would be the ignorant party.