|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 14:27:35 GMT -5
P1)Jesus died on the cross for man's sins P2)The bible says that the end of times was due before the deaths of Jesus' followers C1)Jesus did not expect us to exist C2) Jesus died for the people up until 33 CE, not anyone after that.
Edit: My friend meant P3 to be C1, and C1 to be C2. .
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 1, 2006 16:26:58 GMT -5
Lost me here. Where are you seeing that?
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 18:12:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 1, 2006 18:58:52 GMT -5
Great, thanks. I went verse by verse here. Let us know if you have further questions on this.
This verse is referring to the transfiguration of Jesus, not the second coming.
Same as above
Could you help me out with the relevence on this one? This really wasn't referring to the second coming.
These were Jesus' words and during this time the word generation also referred to race. I believe that Jesus was referring to the Jewish people in the case. You are in good company though. It appears to me that this may have caused some confusion for the followers of Christ as it would appear that many of them assumed this meant that the second coming would happen before the end of their lifetime.
This was Jesus talking to His accusers and telling them, "Yes, I am the son of God. He was then reinforcing his answers by applying two Messianic prophecies in Ps 110:1 and Dan 7:13. Check those out (particularly Daniel 7:13) and this makes much more sense.
Again, speaking of the transfiguration.
See comments on Matthew 24:34
See comments on Matt 26:64
See comments on Matt 24:34
This one was interesting. The cliff notes version is that Peter is asking Jesus if John is going to suffer a horrible death. Jesus was basically saying "Don't worry about him. It wouldn't matter if John lived until I came back, you need to worry about following me."
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 19:17:12 GMT -5
Ah, but there's more.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 19:34:48 GMT -5
And more:
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 19:35:04 GMT -5
LAST POST CONTINUED HERE!! But this resignation, though tragic in itself, is not the worst effect of apocalyptic belief. Instead, that distinction belongs to the people who take the other tack and see themselves, not as passive witnesses of the end, but as God's agents actively working to bring it about. Belief in the apocalypse has always inspired some to commit acts of violence and oppression against those whom they hate, out of the belief that their actions are a necessary run-up to the final battle between good and evil. One of the more dangerous manifestations of this belief is the movement commonly known as "Christian Zionism", which encourages the nation of Israel to take all the land it wants, advocates the destruction of Muslim holy places such as the Dome of the Rock, and holds that any withdrawal from occupied territories or movement towards peace in the region is contrary to God's plan. (One member of this movement matter-of-factly explained on national television that the assassination of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was God's punishment on him for entering into peace talks with the Palestinians.) Such dangerous false beliefs put us all at risk by encouraging religious divisiveness and fueling hatred and terrorism worldwide. Despite all these negative effects, it is easy to see why belief in the imminent end remains so popular. In a way that few other beliefs do, it offers religious believers the promise of being special, of being privileged. (As one poster on the Rapture Ready thread put it: "We're about to see [Jesus], in person and interacting in the world at such a grand scale, and we're the first generation to see that since the resurrection and ascension!") In addition, it holds out the promise that the world as we know it may pass away at any moment, creating a sense of constant excitement that is a powerful inducement to faith. However, though the expectation and the hope may be palpable, the evidence supporting it is nonexistent. All relevant biblical verses show that the second coming is now two thousand years overdue, and the deadlines set for its occurrence have long since lapsed. It is not going to happen. There is no longer any reason to continue chasing after this mirage, no longer any reason to view the world as a sinking ship - instead, we should face up to the fact that we are in this together and will be here for the foreseeable future, and use that knowledge to direct our actions. Instead of giving up our problems as insoluble, we should concentrate on working to solve them, and instead of focusing all our attention on trying to escape the world, we should take what happiness we can from it while we are here. The apocalypse is not an inevitable doom, but a possible future that we can either bring about or avert by our actions, and it is a tragic irony that belief in such an event has the potential to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more fervently people believe in it and regard it as inevitable, the more likely it is to occur. In these troubled times, the balm of atheism offers a soothing alternative to this fever, and gives us a reason to hope that the future may be bright after all. Footnotes [1] Of the synoptic gospels, Matthew and Mark have Jesus give this sermon on the mount of Olives, while Luke places it in the Jerusalem temple. Therefore, the term "Olivet Discourse" is technically only applicable to Matthew and Mark. For purposes of simplicity, this essay will refer to that particular sermon in all three synoptics by this name. [2] See www.abhota.info/index.htm for an excellent roundup of failed apocalyptic predictions. [/quote] From, www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/2000years.html
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 1, 2006 19:42:49 GMT -5
Oh Good grief.....do you have ANY idea how long it took me on the other post? Don't I even get a attaboy for all that work??? Ok, I'm joking ;D Here we go. Actually these are a little easier, as for the most part they can be answered together. It was pretty obvious that the writers of the scriptures that you have shared here felt that Jesus was coming back at ANY time. I believe that they believed that his return was imminent so you can see the reason for the urgency in their writing. Today we believe the same thing. Jesus was clear that he can return at any time and that it is our job to share his message with as many possible and be ready for his return at all times. It's important to keep in mind that time in God's eyes is going to be much different than it is in ours. For a eternal God a couple of thousand years isn't a real long time. The question is asked of me all the time, "Well, why doesn't he just come back already?" I believe that he hasn't because of how merciful he is. He is giving us chance after chance after chance to surrender ourself to Him before bringing his wrath down on us. God doesn't want us to go to Hell. He will do it because He can't lie and He is more just than we can ever imagine, but he is giving us opportunity after opportunity to accept His free gift of salvation through his son......make sense?
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 19:48:37 GMT -5
Doesn't that mean the time is very very soon?
What you said doesn't fit together.
But attaboy for all those other ones =D.
Skim through that article as well, it is a little biased, methinks, but it does have a message in there.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 1, 2006 20:00:57 GMT -5
Absolutely. What very very soon means to God is something that I don't have my hands around
I think it does. Keep in mind that quote 1 refers to God and quote 2 comes from my understanding of how the followers felt. I don't think it's beyond reason for them not to have understood time in God's eyes.
Gracias ;D
I did actually read it, admittedly not slowly and didn't soak everything said in. I applaud you for considering that the article is a little biased. I think the author wrote and researched it with the intent to prove the prophecies wrong, just as I have done the same to prove that it is true based on my faith that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. My prayer is that this at least gives you something to ponder and consider from both sides of the fence. While I admit that I put this together with presuppositions of the Bible and it's prophecies being correct, I also believe that I have been rational and reasonable and that it will be some food for thought for you.
[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 20:12:09 GMT -5
But, seeing how this book is written by man, for man, can we not say that it is written in man's time frame?
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 20:15:09 GMT -5
That was something from the article I somewhat agree with.
|
|
|
Post by rebecca01 on Jun 1, 2006 20:20:09 GMT -5
Eternity is a very long time.It's hard to imagine forever.Two thousand years is really a drop in the bucket compared to eternity.Since God has always been a thousand years is minuscule in His eyes.It's also hard to imagine that God has always been.These kinds of questions are so far above our little brains.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 20:23:12 GMT -5
Also, pieces of the prophecy were "fulfilled." I.e. the temple being destroyed. Why not the whole thing?
Secondly)
In every single version of the bible (ie NIV,KJV etc.) it says generation. But in any case, what happened during the holocaust?
Now, the transfiguration. The essay up there makes a very powerful argument against this:
And if generation really means race, then wouldn't the infallible word of god say the right meaning? What if it was infallible then but quite fallible now? Then wouldn't you be damned for following the fallible version?
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 20:27:15 GMT -5
Don't let it be above your brain. Question it. Answer it. Debate it. Think about it.
By putting it off as just above you, you go nowhere. I know anyone here will agree with me there.
But in any case, why not just say, "3000 years from now" instead of, quickly? Why decieve everyone? And aren't we agreed that the bible is written by man? Doesn't that mean that a man would use HIS sense of time to say how long it would be until our doom? And don't we trust Matthew, Luke, Peter, and John, the supposed writers of the gospels of which we speak?
Those 4 writers were men, and would use their time scale.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 1, 2006 20:51:25 GMT -5
I think the fact that the wall remained through all of that destruction and chaos is a testimony all by itself. The prophecy had not yet been fullfilled. No argument. Just saying that the word, like many others, have multiple meanings. Not sure what you are asking about the holocaust....all of the Jews weren't killed during the Holocaust. Could you expound on that for me? Now, the transfiguration. The essay up there makes a very powerful argument against this: It was a good argument, and I can see how a person with little or no faith would have difficulty with that. The authors tactic here is kind of underhanded. Basically, " It says x here and x here. Therfore x must mean the same thing everywhere. Of course not. We don't do that today, nor did the Bible. Reading both of these areas in context (this verse, and verses talking about the transfiguration) easily convey the difference. I do take notice, that the author didn't also list the verse(s) dealing with the transfiguration side by side with that one. Back to multiple word meanings again. Using that rule, he couldn't use the word race either as it would be confused for an athletic event. Sorry, being a little sarcastic there, but you get my drift. Wouldn't I be damned for following the fallible version? LOL? No, I don't think so. No doubt that you have read some of the pretty spirited opinions on what Bible we should use on this board. My comments on that subject are there for review, but in short.....Understanding God's word comes from the Holy Spirit giving me the ability to understand it. I think that can be accomplished with other Bible versions. Oh man, don't think I haven't. I finally got some perspective on this by comparing my life to that of a fly. A fly's life span is somewhere around 24 hours. His whole life, his entire existence is 24 hours. I compare that to us with a lifespan of 80 years. If a fly could comprehend it would make no sense to him if I said, "I'll feed you later fly" Later? Later would mean seconds to a fly. Later to me could mean several hours from now, but the fly could never get that. Ok, I know it isn't perfect, but it helped my little brain start to understand This is what I (and I only speak for me) belive regarding Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I do believe that they thought Christ was going to return during their lifetime. They were the fly, Jesus was the Human (please forgive the comparison) The point was that we are to serve God just like he was coming back 5 minutes from now. That was conveyed very well I think. Signed: Tony the Fly ;D
|
|
|
Post by biblethumper on Jun 1, 2006 20:52:56 GMT -5
P1)Jesus died on the cross for man's sins P2)The bible says that the end of times was due before the deaths of Jesus' followers P3)Jesus did not expect us to exist C1) Jesus died for the people up until 33 CE, not anyone after that. You REALLY believe that? ??
|
|
|
Post by rebecca01 on Jun 1, 2006 21:02:20 GMT -5
How would the world react if we knew the exact day that Jesus was to come back? Jesus said "no man knows the day but the Father." Jesus doesn't even know the exact day because it is only for God the father to know.I know there is a reason.Maybe there is an explanation in the bible but maybe not.Even for a believer it's a fearful thing to stand before a holy God.I don't believe any of us would be sleeping very well, I don't care how holy you are.The bible says God is not the author of confusion but of peace.There would be alot of pandemonium if we knew the exact day.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 21:20:13 GMT -5
All right buddy, rebeca and tom here have something constructive to say. As for you, you don't I would seriously consider shutting the beep up before making myself look like more of a fool, if I were you.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 21:20:58 GMT -5
BTW you two, I'll get back to what you were saying in a bit.
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 21:25:19 GMT -5
That, sir, is something I can agree with. It may not be literal, but it fits well. Good job =D.
I'm sorry, this is off-topic, but I must refute this.
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
|
|
|
Post by HSTN2983 on Jun 1, 2006 21:43:05 GMT -5
...and they call him the prince of peace.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 1, 2006 22:00:55 GMT -5
Oh, I'm going to get you reading in context yet Take a look at the entire thought from Jesus. He was making a point that He is to be first. Before your family,and before your friends. He was making it clear that there would be times that your wife, son, mother, father, etc would come be against Jesus and his teachings and that it is our responsibility to stand firm for him regardless. He certainly doesn't want us to go around whacking our families head off as God already has said for us to honor our parents and to love our wife like Christ loves the Church....but that we still must put Him first. Kind of a funny story, my wife is also a believer and early in my Christian walk we had some disagreements concerning methods of evangelism. I brought this verse up and sternly warned her against "coming up against me". Learn from my mistakes people....Never do that ;D I think she was about to go look for that sword that Jesus was speaking of
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 1, 2006 22:01:46 GMT -5
All right buddy, rebeca and tom here have something constructive to say. As for you, you don't I would seriously consider shutting the f**k up before making myself look like more of a fool, if I were you. Good conversation going on here...play nice guys. Blessings!!
|
|
|
Post by Miles Lewis on Jun 1, 2006 22:14:30 GMT -5
Tony, attaboy!
Miles
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 22:28:36 GMT -5
Luke 12:51 Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Luke 22:36 He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make wa
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 1, 2006 22:29:16 GMT -5
^^
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 2, 2006 0:24:29 GMT -5
Man, you have made me read my Bible more tonight than I have all week. Thank you!!!!! Think we covered that above, yes? Was there additional comments? Sure, Jesus knew what was coming and asked for this for defense, though as soon as the swords started swinging he said, stop, enough of this. I'll be honest here...I'm not sure why He didn't just say, "no weapons guys" Maybe some of the smarter guys here can answer that one. Don't let my lack of knowledge there disprove the whole Bible for you though Yes, war against the antichrist and his army. By the way, he wins
|
|
|
Post by atheistbibleburner on Jun 2, 2006 0:33:56 GMT -5
So clearly I need to prove that generation has nothing to do with the word race.
That'll settle this matter.
|
|
|
Post by tonyholland on Jun 2, 2006 0:37:41 GMT -5
So clearly I need to prove that generation has nothing to do with the word race. That'll settle this matter. You know, at some point it's ok to say, "Ok, maybe thats right" Maybe? Possibly? ;D
|
|