Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Cen taurus · 23-03-2015 03:26PM

silverharp wrote: »

I can't post links or text at the moment but Mat 16:28 or Mat 10:23 both talk about Jesus coming back in their lifetimes.

Now I'll be looking for clear arguments , not ones where I get the feeling that the conclusion is arrived at thus justifying any other explanation rather than admiting there might be an error. So I'm looking to see what someone at the time might have made of the text. Not a hindsight interpretation assuming it must have meant something else.

Ok, lets take a look at that :

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” - Matt. 16:28

The very next line in scripture, and six days later, is :

Chapter 17

The Transfiguration

Six days later, Jesus took with him Peter and James and his brother John and led them up a high mountain, by themselves. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his clothes became dazzling white. 3 Suddenly there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. 4 Then Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here; if you wish, I/SIZE][URL="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017&version=NRSVCE;NIV#fen-NRSVCE-27977a"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]a[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2 will make three dwellings/SIZE][URL="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017&version=NRSVCE;NIV#fen-NRSVCE-27977b"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]b[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2 here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah.” 5 While he was still speaking, suddenly a bright cloud overshadowed them, and from the cloud a voice said, “This is my Son, the Beloved;/SIZE][URL="https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2017&version=NRSVCE;NIV#fen-NRSVCE-27978c"][SIZE=2][COLOR=#0066cc]c[/COLOR][/SIZE][/URL][SIZE=2 with him I am well pleased; listen to him!” 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell to the ground and were overcome by fear. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Get up and do not be afraid.” 8 And when they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.
9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus ordered them, “Tell no one about the vision until after the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” 10 And the disciples asked him, “Why, then, do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?” 11 He replied, “Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things; 12 but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them about John the Baptist.

RikuoAmero · 23-03-2015 03:45PM

So Cen, let's take a look at the context of Matt 16. Jesus is talking to at least a bunch of disciples (there is an implication that it's the Twelve Apostles alone, but it's not stated flat out whether it's just them or them plus other disciples) (not just a small handful of people, as you imply). In fact, with 16:9-10, he seems to be talking about TWO different occasions of conjuring up food for a crowd (five thousand and four thousand people). That has me scratching my noggin. I thought there was only the one event.
So at the end of 16, he says

some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

I notice oddly enough that for an all knowing God, he doesn't say which of them won't taste death/die. Why the ambiguity? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't part of Church tradition that ALL/most of the apostles died agonising deaths?
So just to make clear, are you, Cen Taurus, saying that "coming into his [God's] Kingdom" = Jesus dying on the cross and resurrecting? If so, how do you reconcile that with my earlier quotation from Luke, which says that, before these people die, Jesus will pull a Goku?
These are the images I get from reading Luke
Super+saiyan+jesus_f7481c_5460152.jpg

As an aside, I have discussed with other people the roots of Dragonball in Asian myths, specifically the tale of the Monkey King, Sun Wukong. Some Christian theists I talked to had the wacky notion that the fact these myths mention a powerful hero flying on a cloud prove Luke true. How could the myth authors have told this story unless the only possibility is that the Christian God told them about the Luke "prophecy"?
What they conveniently don't realise is that this means God apparently told the Asian myth authors only the details of a hero flying on a cloud, but not anything else and that people can NEVER come up with similar story details independently.

silverharp · 23-03-2015 03:49PM

Cen taurus wrote: »

Ok, lets take a look at that :

“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” - Matt. 16:28
:

I'll get back this evening when I have my computer but are you suggesting this is to do with his first rising?
The theme continues after the gospels, in 1 Cor 1 7-8 or 7 :29 talks about time being short.

RikuoAmero · 23-03-2015 04:10PM

In reading Matthew 14 and 15, I've learned that there are in fact TWO accounts of Jesus feeding a crowd. Matt 14 is him feeding the crowd of 5,000, this is the story that is widely known, but 15 has him feeding a crowd of 4,000 people.
However, the stories are almost word for word identical

Matthew 14:17-21

17 And they said unto Him, “We have here but five loaves and two fishes.”

18 And He said, “Bring them hither to Me.”

19 And He commanded the multitude to sit down on the grass, and took the five loaves and the two fishes; and looking up to Heaven, He blessed and broke the loaves and gave them to His disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

20 And they all ate and were filled. And they took up the fragments that remained, twelve baskets full.

21 And those who had eaten were about five thousand men, besides women and children.

Now Matthew 33-38

33 And His disciples said unto Him, “From whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness as to fill so great a multitude?”

34 And Jesus said unto them, “How many loaves have ye?” And they said, “Seven, and a few little fishes.”

35 And He commanded the multitude to sit down on the ground.

36 And He took the seven loaves and the fishes, and gave thanks, and broke them and gave to His disciples, and the disciples to the multitude.

37 And they all ate and were filled. And they took up of the broken pieces that were left, seven baskets full.

38 And those who ate were four thousand men, besides women and children.

I notice first, that the stories are virtually identical almost word for word, both contain more or less the same events. I also notice that the 4,000 and 5,000 figures only count the men, not the women and children because who cares about them?
It really causes me some confusion as to why two virtually identical stories are there, literally right next to each other. Did God not have an editor on hand, to tell him to cut this?
If these stories are in fact true, if they are historical events, then this means that the people who followed Jesus and who Jesus accepted as his followers were complete and utter idiots, for not bringing enough food. Either that...or God messed with them and somehow caused them to forget to do it, simply so he could show off his conjuring powers.
Neither scenario makes me want to worship this guy.

katydid · 23-03-2015 04:17PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

In reading Matthew 14 and 15, I've learned that there are in fact TWO accounts of Jesus feeding a crowd. Matt 14 is him feeding the crowd of 5,000, this is the story that is widely known, but 15 has him feeding a crowd of 4,000 people.
However, the stories are almost word for word identical

Matthew 14:17-21

Now Matthew 33-38

I notice first, that the stories are virtually identical almost word for word, both contain more or less the same events. I also notice that the 4,000 and 5,000 figures only count the men, not the women and children because who cares about them?
It really causes me some confusion as to why two virtually identical stories are there, literally right next to each other. Did God not have an editor on hand, to tell him to cut this?
If these stories are in fact true, if they are historical events, then this means that the people who followed Jesus and who Jesus accepted as his followers were complete and utter idiots, for not bringing enough food. Either that...or God messed with them and somehow caused them to forget to do it, simply so he could show off his conjuring powers.
Neither scenario makes me want to worship this guy.

God didn't write the Bible. People did. Matthew's gospel was one of the synoptic gospels, based on Mark which was based on other, unknown sources. They are reportage, and have been translated and mistranslated throughout the centuries. It wasn't until the fifth century that the church decided for once and for all what was going into the Bible.

There are few Christians who take the Bible as fact. It can't be, as it's full of contradictions, like the one you refer to. It's a man made document, flawed, as are all man made things. Those who wrote it were, Christians believe, inspired by God, but no one thinks God was moving the hands of some saintly scribe...

RikuoAmero · 23-03-2015 04:20PM

katydid wrote: »

God didn't write the Bible. People did. Matthew's gospel was one of the synoptic gospels, based on Mark which was based on other, unknown sources. They are reportage, and have been translated and mistranslated throughout the centuries. It wasn't until the fifth century that the church decided for once and for all what was going into the Bible.

There are few Christians who take the Bible as fact. It can't be, as it's full of contradictions, like the one you refer to. It's a man made document, flawed, as are all man made things. Those who wrote it were, Christians believe, inspired by God, but no one thinks God was moving the hands of some saintly scribe...

So what does "inspired by God" mean if NOT "moving the hands of some saintly scribe"? How and why would this perfect God allow something he "inspires" to be so full of problems as yourself, the Christian follower, recognize? (this is the biggest problem I have with the christian side: this notion that a perfect entity can create something imperfect...and then later blame it for being imperfect)
What I think is likely to have happened is that the author of Matthew (whoever he was), and/or an editor of the gospel later on, heard these stories that were two accounts of a purportedly single event (I honestly cannot believe that there were two separate events of Jesus feeding a crowd, not with that level of similarity between them), wrote them down and collected them, then put them in the gospel. The problem comes that the gospel of Matthew presents them as two separate events, one occurring in one chapter, the other in the next chapter and at no point has a disclaimer or anything saying *These are the same event guys, in case you don't realise, apologies for any confusion*.

katydid · 23-03-2015 04:32PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So what does "inspired by God" mean if NOT "moving the hands of some saintly scribe"? How and why would this perfect God allow something he "inspires" to be so full of problems as yourself, the Christian follower, recognize? (this is the biggest problem I have with the christian side: this notion that a perfect entity can create something imperfect...and then later blame it for being imperfect)
What I think is likely to have happened is that the author of Matthew (whoever he was), and/or an editor of the gospel later on, heard these stories that were two accounts of a purportedly single event (I honestly cannot believe that there were two separate events of Jesus feeding a crowd, not with that level of similarity between them), wrote them down and collected them, then put them in the gospel. The problem comes that the gospel of Matthew presents them as two separate events, one occurring in one chapter, the other in the next chapter and at no point has a disclaimer or anything saying *These are the same event guys, in case you don't realise, apologies for any confusion*.

It means that people were inspired and motivated to write what they wrote. But they wrote it as humans, with all that entails. Everyone writes in their own way, in their own style, and each gospel writer wrote with a slightly different agenda. John, for example, was writing long after the others, and independently, and his agenda was to address the early Christians and to develop the new theology of God. So his writing is full of symbolism and theological musings. Mark, the first gospel, is much more direct and in your face, because he had a more immediate story to tell.

These are ancient, multi-layered texts. You can't treat them like some kind of fairy tale. Your explanation as to the contradictions in Matthew are probably spot on. It doesn't take away from what the essence of the gospel message is.

RikuoAmero · 23-03-2015 04:37PM

But they wrote it as humans, with all that entails.

Which includes the possibility that none of what they wrote is true, and leaves NO possibility at all for these unsupported stories full of magic and monsters to be believed because of "divine authorship" or something.
I'm being serious there. If someone presents to me a story like the gospels, one involving magic, monsters and men rising from the dead, all with no evidence, the only possible angle that could convince me it's true is that maybe it was penned by a divine author. Which is something I'm not convinced of, and which you have very neatly prevented yourself from using.
Thanks for leaving me nothing at all to use that might convince me of the truth of your religion, but then that's par for the course here...

silverharp · 23-03-2015 07:39PM

Below is Mark on the second coming , Matthew 24 and Luke 21 relates similar , Jesus second coming is picked up again in Corinthians where the implication is time is short so dont even bother getting married. 2 Peter seems to indicate that the early church is getting flack because the second coming hasnt happened and starting to come up with alternate explanations

I guess the interesting thing is christianity surviving by reinterpreting scripture and reducing the role of prophesy by broadening out a theology

Mark

13:23 But take ye heed: behold, I have foretold you all things.
13:24 But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light,
13:25 And the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken.
13:26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory.
13:27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.
13:28 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near:
13:29 So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
13:32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

I Corintians 7

7:27 Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.
7:28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.
7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

1 Thessalonians 4

4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

James 5

5:8 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

2 Peter 3

3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
----
3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

RikuoAmero · 23-03-2015 07:44PM

3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

Oh Christ, that describes me to a T, there I am walking around debating Christians and scoffing at them, with a massive hard-on the entire time. Do you think it'll go away if I stop scoffing?

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness

Oh so that explains it! What we as humans think is slackness, why that doesn't apply at all! Why didn't any of the Christians here tell me that God speaks a completely different language? One where we have to ditch what we understand of language.

silverharp · 23-03-2015 07:45PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Oh Christ, that describes me to a T, there I am walking around debating Christians and scoffing at them, with a massive hard-on the entire time. Do you think it'll go away if I stop scoffing?

2000 years later I think you have every right

, it would be cruel not to

Delirium · 23-03-2015 07:58PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Oh Christ, that describes me to a T, there I am walking around debating Christians and scoffing at them, with a massive hard-on the entire time. Do you think it'll go away if I stop scoffing?

MOD NOTE

Please try to avoid using vulgur language when posting.

Thanks for your attention.

lazza14 · 23-03-2015 08:00PM

Why do you waste your time debating these people folks ?

They won´t change their mind.

I have an opinion on this, buy really the above can apply to both sides.

lifes too short for pointless arguments.

I know which is correct and just like I would take no notice of a homeless guy ranting and raving about the end of the world ... I take no notice of DARWINISTS/CREATIONISTS .....

ABC101 · 23-03-2015 08:21PM

silverharp wrote: »

That's not fair , you seem to ignore lots of stuff on the way. I'll give it a try. The thought for today is christianity disproves itself. Firstly Jesus claimed in the nt that he would come again before the first generation of followers died out, Paul took a similar view. It didn't happen , so Jesus is by definition a false prophet.

What you and Rik understand to be a "Generation" is not what Jesus is talking about here.

When you or I use the word "Generation" today... we understand it to mean about 30 years.

Normally there are 3 generations a century.

In Luke 21:25 The coming of the Son of Man is about the end times of humanity.

The first Generation is seen / understood / talked about as the Time of Israel. It is the time of the Nation of Israel. Luke is dividing history into two ages. One corresponds to the Old Testament.... that was the time when Sacred history was almost the same as the history of Israel.

The second age... which Jesus talks about is the generation of the NON Jewish nations. This happened with the destruction of the Jewish Nation.. and the dispersal of the Jewish people.

Hence a new era was inaugurated. This era is about the Christian Church... evangelization and education of the nations by the Church.

This new era or "Generation" can be called part of the New Testament, which will end with the great crisis concluding humanity.

Generation is used here to talk about Era's or ages... not a timeline of 30 years approx.

I warned you guys before about NOT TAKING THINGS LITERALLY when interpreting the Bible.

RikuoAmero · 23-03-2015 08:26PM

ABC101 wrote: »

What you and Rik understand to be a "Generation" is not what Jesus is talking about here.

When you or I use the word "Generation" today... we understand it to mean about 30 years.

Normally there are 3 generations a century.

In Luke 21:25 The coming of the Son of Man is about the end times of humanity.

The first Generation is seen / understood / talked about as the Time of Israel. It is the time of the Nation of Israel. Luke is dividing history into two ages. One corresponds to the Old Testament.... that was the time when Sacred history was almost the same as the history of Israel.

The second age... which Jesus talks about is the generation of the NON Jewish nations. This happened with the destruction of the Jewish Nation.. and the dispersal of the Jewish people.

Hence a new era was inaugurated. This era is about the Christian Church... evangelization and education of the nations by the Church.

This new era or "Generation" can be called part of the New Testament, which will end with the great crisis concluding humanity.

Generation is used here to talk about Era's or ages... not a timeline of 30 years approx.

I warned you guys before about NOT TAKING THINGS LITERALLY when interpreting the Bible.

So what about the other things Lurker posted, the phrases that don't use the term "Generation" but say in other ways "Those who are alive today"...? You've got a point with generation (kinda), but this doesn't solve the problem of all the other verses.

Look at it from the point of view of people hearing this in that time period. Do you think it likely that they would have thought Jesus would have meant an era, 2,000 years plus or did they think, as per the gospels, that it was a short time, a handful of years or decades? When each "milestone" comes and passes, don't you think that people then would have said "The guys earlier were clearly wrong, it's going to be a few years from now!" and have this repeat every few decades or century.
To me, this is a constant moving of goalposts coupled with what appears to be intentional ambiguity. There's no set date given, so it's useless to try and call this a prophecy.

ABC101 · 23-03-2015 08:49PM

RikuoAmero wrote: »

So what about the other things Lurker posted, the phrases that don't use the term "Generation" but say in other ways "Those who are alive today"...? You've got a point with generation (kinda), but this doesn't solve the problem of all the other verses.

Look at it from the point of view of people hearing this in that time period. Do you think it likely that they would have thought Jesus would have meant an era, 2,000 years plus or did they think, as per the gospels, that it was a short time, a handful of years or decades? When each "milestone" comes and passes, don't you think that people then would have said "The guys earlier were clearly wrong, it's going to be a few years from now!" and have this repeat every few decades or century.
To me, this is a constant moving of goalposts coupled with what appears to be intentional ambiguity. There's no set date given, so it's useless to try and call this a prophecy.

I cannot speak for the other believers or what they would have / could have thought.

There will always be people entertaining fantasy's about the end of the world / Friday the 13th, stocking up on cans of beans, taking to the hills, nuclear bunkers in the back garden etc etc.

I think your comment about moving of goal posts is unfair.

No goalposts (i.e.. timeline or date was ever given).... so how can they be moved from one position to another..... if there was never a definite position in the first place. Jesus never said the world would end in 1984 or 2000 or what ever.

Luke 21: 8-24 is about the end of Jerusalem. Luke 21:25 onwards is about the conclusion of human history and the coming of Christ The Judge.

People should not be tying themselves up in knots trying to second guess God's plan.

You only have one opportunity at life, people only die once and are judged.

TheLurker · 23-03-2015 09:31PM

ABC101 wrote: »

What you and Rik understand to be a "Generation" is not what Jesus is talking about here.

When you or I use the word "Generation" today... we understand it to mean about 30 years.

Normally there are 3 generations a century.

In Luke 21:25 The coming of the Son of Man is about the end times of humanity.

The first Generation is seen / understood / talked about as the Time of Israel. It is the time of the Nation of Israel. Luke is dividing history into two ages. One corresponds to the Old Testament.... that was the time when Sacred history was almost the same as the history of Israel.

The second age... which Jesus talks about is the generation of the NON Jewish nations. This happened with the destruction of the Jewish Nation.. and the dispersal of the Jewish people.

Hence a new era was inaugurated. This era is about the Christian Church... evangelization and education of the nations by the Church.

This new era or "Generation" can be called part of the New Testament, which will end with the great crisis concluding humanity.

Generation is used here to talk about Era's or ages... not a timeline of 30 years approx.

I warned you guys before about NOT TAKING THINGS LITERALLY when interpreting the Bible.

Is there anything to support that? Other than the fact that the end times didn't happen and people had to come up with an excuse?

I mean you can say "oh that word means something different" to excuse ANYTHING if you want to

When ever a dooms day cult gets it wrong they always say that they must had misunderstood some word or some date.

The simplest explanation is they had no idea what they were talking about in the first place

ABC101 · 23-03-2015 09:43PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Is there anything to support that? Other than the fact that the end times didn't happen and people had to come up with an excuse?

I mean you can say "oh that word means something different" to excuse ANYTHING if you want to

When ever a dooms day cult gets it wrong they always say that they must had misunderstood some word or some date.

The simplest explanation is they had no idea what they were talking about in the first place

If you don't want to take my word / understanding of Luke then that is fine.

However I did not dream this up, it is based on what I have studied / have been thought.

Go ahead and ask any RC priest / Christian Bible Scholar.... other than one who has a tendency to take things literally / out of context .;)

katydid · 23-03-2015 09:47PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Is there anything to support that? Other than the fact that the end times didn't happen and people had to come up with an excuse?

I mean you can say "oh that word means something different" to excuse ANYTHING if you want to

When ever a dooms day cult gets it wrong they always say that they must had misunderstood some word or some date.

The simplest explanation is they had no idea what they were talking about in the first place

The point about the Bible is that it is totally open to interpretation; it's not a factual report, and very few people think it is. Strangely enough, it's non-Christians who think that Christians think it does, but must Christians don't...

TheLurker · 23-03-2015 09:59PM

ABC101 wrote: »

If you don't want to take my word / understanding of Luke then that is fine.

I don't. That is why I asked is there anything to support this peculiar interpretation

ABC101 wrote: »

Go ahead and ask any RC priest / Christian Bible Scholar.... other than one who has a tendency to take things literally / out of context .;)

Any that don't have a vested interest in Christianity not being a doomsday cult 2000 years over due?

katydid · 23-03-2015 10:00PM

TheLurker wrote: »

I don't. That is why I asked is there anything to support this peculiar interpretation

Any that don't have a vested interest in Christianity being a doomsday cult 2000 years over due?

So scholars can't be objective?

TheLurker · 23-03-2015 10:05PM

katydid wrote: »

So scholars can't be objective?

Sure they can. Do you have any objective scholars who say that is what 'generation' means?

katydid · 23-03-2015 10:14PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Sure they can. Do you have any objective scholars who say that is what 'generation' means?

How can anyone say for sure what it means, when it's a matter of interpretation?

TheLurker · 23-03-2015 10:15PM

katydid wrote: »

How can anyone say for sure what it means, when it's a matter of interpretation?

Well ABC seemed pretty sure

"What you and Rik understand to be a "Generation" is not what Jesus is talking about here."

silverharp · 23-03-2015 10:17PM

katydid wrote: »

The point about the Bible is that it is totally open to interpretation; it's not a factual report, and very few people think it is. Strangely enough, it's non-Christians who think that Christians think it does, but must Christians don't...

we can look at it in terms of what the 1st century christians thought about it. Paul had to write letters correcting people who thought the second coming had already happened., due to the ropey communications initial stories of Jesus were being passed around as second coming stories. DId first century christians think they were involved in a 2000 year project? I dont think so

katydid · 23-03-2015 10:18PM

TheLurker wrote: »

Well ABC seemed pretty sure

"What you and Rik understand to be a "Generation" is not what Jesus is talking about here."

It's an interpretation. When one speaks about the Bible that goes without saying.

ABC101 · 23-03-2015 10:19PM

TheLurker wrote: »

I don't. That is why I asked is there anything to support this peculiar interpretation

Any that don't have a vested interest in Christianity not being a doomsday cult 2000 years over due?

I don't find anything peculiar about it, this is Luke's writing. Written over 2000 years ago etc.

Phrases, languages change with time. For example... Gay used to have a different meaning 50 years ago. Today Gay means something other than being happy / joyful.

The destruction of Jerusalem / scattering of the people of Israel for almost 1900 years is not a fantasy of Christian Scholars or doomsday cult. It's a fact.

The role of the Church in education of Europe during the Middle Ages is also a fact, locally we have the Irish missionaries and the work they have done in other continents ie Africa, Asia, St America etc.

If you regard Christians as a cult of doomsayers who move the goal posts to suit their own agenda, then it is pointless for a Christian to explain anything to you because of your bias against them.

TheLurker · 23-03-2015 10:20PM

katydid wrote: »

It's an interpretation. When one speaks about the Bible that goes without saying.

It seems to be an interpretation based on wishful thinking.

Jesus tells everyone get ready judgement is coming, it doesn't come, so his followers re-interpret what he said as not really meaning coming any time soon

Doesn't that seem to be the most reasonable and likely explanation. Happens literally all the time

katydid · 23-03-2015 10:24PM

TheLurker wrote: »

It seems to be an interpretation based on wishful thinking.

Jesus tells everyone get ready judgement is coming, it doesn't come, so his followers re-interpret what he said as not really meaning coming any time soon

Doesn't that seem to be the most reasonable and likely explanation. Happens literally all the time

It's an interpretation. Jesus spoke in parables and symbols all the time. Do you really think that when he said he would rebuild the temple in three days, he meant that literally? It's only natural and normal to look at what is attributed to him and look beyond the seemingly obvious.

katydid · 23-03-2015 10:25PM

silverharp wrote: »

we can look at it in terms of what the 1st century christians thought about it. Paul had to write letters correcting people who thought the second coming had already happened., due to the ropey communications initial stories of Jesus were being passed around as second coming stories. DId first century christians think they were involved in a 2000 year project? I dont think so

No, they didn't. Because they were just as confused as we are now! At least we have the perspective of 2,000 years.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments