Christian questions

[The Apologist]

Durandal... I try to be polite, but that was just awful.

First, a verse was requested in which Christ allegedly states that He will return during His apostles' lifetime, a subject you broached yourself. However, the reference you provided had absolutely nothing to do with this.

Second, the SAB gravely misunderstands Matthew 10:23, as do you, since you seem to approve of their misapprehension. I assume this is because of neglect to consider context. Right before He says, "I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes," Jesus anteriorly says, "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another." Obviously, then, the verse as a whole says that Christians will not run out of places to abide in Israel before the Second Coming; this concerns fleeing, not simply traveling.

If you want to ignore all context, you can save us a lot of time with this - the Bible says "there is no God" in Psalm 14:1.

Third, I see no contradiction between 10:23 and 24:14, even if we use the SAB's misinterpretation of 10:23. Perhaps you could show the contradiction to me?

[Darth Wong]

Will you stop nitpicking from the safety of your unstated position, for fuck's sake?

If you are going to get involved in this discussion, then state what you believe and prepare to defend it. In other words, shit or get off the pot.

[Vympel]

For the Son of Man is about to come [mello] in the glory of his Father with His angels; and will recompense every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. [Mat 16:27-28]

The disciples ask him:

...When will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age? [Mat 24:3]

He then lays out the events and signs that would occur, after which he says:

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place. [Lk 21:32]

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. [Mat 24:34 = Mk 13:30]

The meaning is QUITE clear.

Therefore be on the alert, for you [his listeners, circa 30 A.D.] do not know which day your Lord is coming...at an hour when you do not think he will [Mat 24:36,42,44]

Don't tell me days and hours means 2,000 years hence?

Now then- not only is Jesus quite clear about his imminent return (not 2000 years hence), but tell me, how did the 'inspired' Gospel writers understand it?

Revelation

The revelation...which God gave to show... the things which must shortly take place. [1:1].

He [Jesus] is coming with the clouds, and every eye shall see him, even those who pierced him...Repent therefore; or else I am coming to you quickly, and I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth... hold fast until I [Jesus] come...Because you have kept the word of my perseverance, I will keep you from the hour of testing which is about to come upon the whole world...I am coming quickly...hold fast what you have. [1:7; 2:16; 2:25; 3:10-11]

God...sent His angel to show... the things which must shortly take place...I am coming quickly...do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near...I am coming quickly, and my reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done...Yes, I am coming quickly...Come Lord Jesus

James

Come now, you rich [those living at the time this letter was written], weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you...It is in the last days that you have stored up your treasure...Be patient, therefore, brethren, until the coming of the Lord. Behold, the farmer waits for the precious produce of the soil, being patient about it, until it gets the early and late rains. You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand...Behold, the Judge is standing right at the door

In these last days...He [Jesus] would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.[4]...As you [the first century Christians being addressed] see the day drawing near... For yet a very little while, He who is coming will come, and will not delay. [1:2; 9:26; 10:25,37]

Well the delay is 2,000 years, I'm still waiting- some 'little while'.

...The rulers of this age...are passing away ['will not last much longer' - Today's English Version]...Do not go on passing judgment before the time [i.e., 'before the time' of final judgment which he predicted was near at hand], but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men's hearts...' The time has been shortened so that from now on both those who have wives should be as though they had none [i.e., Paul preached that the time was so 'short' that married Christian couples 'from now on' ought to abstain from having sex! ; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it [i.e., there was no time for marriage or buying or selling - only in a state of holy celibacy could the Elect remain pure while awaiting the soon return of Christ]; for the form of this world is passing away ['This world, as it is now, will not last much longer' - Today's English Version]...These things were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come...Proclaim the Lord's death until he comes [i.e., Paul did not say, 'Proclaim the Lord's death until the day you die,' but rather, 'until he comes,' which means that he considered Christ's coming to be nearer than the time when the believers he was writing to would all be dead]. We [Paul and the first century believers being addressed] shall not all sleep...At the last trumpet...the dead will be raised...and we shall be changed. Maranatha [='Come Lord'] [1 Cor 2:6; 4:5; 7:29-31; 10:11; 11:26; 15:51-52; 16:22]

...The sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is soon [mello] to be revealed to us...The whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now...We...groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body...Knowing the time, that it is already the hour for you to awaken from sleep; for now salvation is nearer to us than when we believed! The night is almost gone, and the day is at hand...The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. [Rom 8:18,22-23; 13:11-12; 16:20]

So Apologist. To repeat the question that got me banned from CreationWeb- who was wrong- Jesus, or the inspired writers of the Gospel? Pick one.

[The Dark]

Vympel: Since you asked directly of Apologist, I won't try to answer any of the questions. Just a comment that using a Today's English Version is bad, since it's a paraphrase of a translation. Personal suggestion is try to use an NRSV, that's the most widely accepted "scholarly" Bible.

[Vympel]

Vympel: Since you asked directly of Apologist, I won't try to answer any of the questions. Just a comment that using a Today's English Version is bad, since it's a paraphrase of a translation. Personal suggestion is try to use an NRSV, that's the most widely accepted "scholarly" Bible.

It doesn't matter what translation it is- they all have the same message. You won't find me a translation difference that gives the impression that the 'inspired' gospel writers DIDN'T think Christ was coming quickly, or that Christ DIDN'T mean what I just quoted.

[Gricksigger]

Sure, translation matters. The NWT is bogus, for example.

[Coyote]

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place. [Lk 21:32]

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. [Mat 24:34 = Mk 13:30]

Looks like more thin ice, Apologist.

I'm curious. You never answered my points about the geneaologies; in fact the only real commentary I got was from Gricksigger, who seems to have folded his cards.

I also didn't hear anything about how Elija the Prophet was able to perform miracles and not be mistaken for the Messiah or proclaimed a god; or confronted the warning to the Jews that false prophets who could perform miracles would come and that the Jews should not give them loyalty-- and this warning label prevented the growth of the Church within its original Hebrew context. It was able to grow only after abandoning Jewish law and adapting some Pagan observances and holidays...

You never even brought up the archaeology question again.

But perhaps you don't want to hash over old bones. Perhaps you'll say that you answered my questions with devastating efficiency, although I'm sure any local witnesses will say otherwise. Perhaps you'll insist that you made your position clear, although those same witnesses here might say otherwise...

So how about this?

Some Christian claims are objectively unverifiable. For example, two of the most important are the virgin birth and the Resurrection. Let's face it, we have only Mary's claim that the birth was indeed divinely conceived or that Mary was a virgin. Bear in mind, she would have a vested interest in preserving her 'female honor' in a society where liscentious women were stoned to death.

In regards to the geneologies, if Jesus's birth was indeed virgin, then the argument that one lineage represented Joseph is meaningless, and Jesus's claim to Davidic heritage rests on Mary, a possibility not mentioned anywhere in the Christian Bible. The geneological line linking Jesus to King David supposedly passes through Joseph.

And remember my pal Rabbi Kelemen? I mentioned that he did some research into the New Testament and the quotes about geneologies were not the olny questions he raised. Regarding the Resurrection, Rabbi Kelemen went again to the oldest depository of Christian knowledge and history, the Catholic church (again-- regardless of denomination, they were the ones who had access to all the records).

Rabbi Kelemen talked with former president of the Catholic Biblical Association Raymond E. Brown, who said, "The New Testament does not make claim that anyone saw the resurrection," and therefore "the reality of bodily resurrection hinges on the missing body or the empty tomb and, above all, on the validity of the experience of the men who claimed they saw Jesus risen." According to Christian tradition, all twelve of the disciples and Mary Magdalene saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion, and "the apostles" saw him ascend into heaven (as Elija did, btw, but he was not proclaimed god/messiah/king/etc). (ref.: see Mark 16: 1-20; Matthew 28: 1-20; and John 20. The Gospels disagree over whether Jesus appeared in Jerusalem only, or in the Galilee, or both sites.)

Luke, John, and the Marcan Appendix state that Jesus appeared only in Jerusalem. Matthew and Mark, however, place him squarely in the Galilee. Catholoc Theologian Raymond Brown notes the contradictions that "The Galilee accounts seem to rule out any prior Jerusalem appearances (see commentary: "The Resurrection of Jesus", The New Jerome Biblical Commentary [Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1990]). Brown states in an essay carrying the approbation of the Catholic Church's Pontifical Biblical Commission that the apsotles probably "adapted to the respective local setting the tradition of a basic appearance to the twelve".

So much to contemplate, but I believe your combo plate is full o' tacos right now. Come back to the buffet when you have digested this, and the previous questions as well, if you don't mind.

After all, you wouldn't want folks to think that you're dodging the questions or have no basis to stand on, eh, "Eusebius"?

[Gricksigger]

Gricksigger, who seems to have folded his cards.

huh?

I also didn't hear anything about how Elija the Prophet was able to perform miracles and not be mistaken for the Messiah or proclaimed a god

He never claimed to be the Messiah or God.

For example, two of the most important are the virgin birth and the Resurrection.

Yep. Those are important.

Both Mary and Joseph were Davidic descendants, I believe.

The New Testament does not make claim that anyone saw the resurrection

No duh. But people saw the resurrected Jesus.

[Vympel]

Sure, translation matters. The NWT is bogus, for example.

Then by all means, demonstrate the devastating translation error I just made

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. [Mat 24:34 = Mk 13:30]

To head the apologists off at the pass-

The word, genea, means exactly what 52 Bible translations, Bible dictionaries etc. say it means- generation- more so, Jesus refers to 'this generation' (note- not THAT generation as in some future, but THIS as in the one he's speaking to) more than once. SBollinger, that Nazi from CreationWeb, tried to make it out to mean 'age', when the correct word for that is aion- and one particular Biblical dictionary cautioned the reader SPECIFICALLY against making such an error. I was banned for pointing that out.

C.S. Lewis, who wrote the book 'Mere Christianity' IIRC, fully admitted that Jesus was mistaken when he said this. Of course, he wasn't nearly as much a rabid fundamentalist as some people today, his rather odd explanation was:

The answer of the theologians is that the God-Man was omniscient as God, and ignorant as Man. This, no doubt, is true, though it cannot be imagined. Nor indeed can the unconsciousness of Christ in sleep be imagined, not the twilight of reason in his infancy; still less his merely organic life in his mother's womb

Another much-smarter-than-some-dumb-fundies Christian theologian, Dewey M Beegle:

All attempts to reinterpret 'generation' are armchair approaches to solve our difficulty in understanding the passage. As [previously] noted, the clear-cut testimony of the rest of the New Testament is that the disciples, Paul, and the early church understood Jesus literally.
If Jesus really referred to events more than 2000 years in the future, then he was playing word games with his disciples. When we look at the problem honestly there are two basic options: either Jesus was leading his disciples to think something different from what he had in mind, or he was mistaken. The latter is far more preferable because it was done in innocence and shows his true humanity

[Vympel]

huh?

When someone doesn't respond to rebuttals, that's called folding your cards.

He never claimed to be the Messiah or God.

[Fundie logic] Ah, so the important thing is that the person claims to be the Messiah[/Fundie logic]

Both Mary and Joseph were Davidic descendants, I believe.

Please learn the difference between the House of David and the House of Levi.

No duh. But people saw the resurrected Jesus.

If four people told you they saw Elvis, and also claim that '500' people saw him with them, would you believe em?

EDIT: I'm being rather generous here, no one who wrote the Gospels saw Jesus at the 'empty tomb' at all, and the Gospels can't even agree as to who the witnesses were!

[Darth Servo]

Will you stop nitpicking from the safety of your unstated position, for fuck's sake?

If you are going to get involved in this discussion, then state what you believe and prepare to defend it. In other words, shit or get off the pot.

Do you think The Apologist might be Lord Edam and he's determined not to make the same mistake twice?

[Vympel]

I don't think so. He was also on CreationWeb.org and it would be a huge coincidence for Lord Edam to frequent there at the same time.

[Darth Servo]

I don't think so. He was also on CreationWeb.org and it would be a huge coincidence for Lord Edam to frequent there at the same time.

They do act a lot alike though, don't they?

[Vympel]

I don't think so. He was also on CreationWeb.org and it would be a huge coincidence for Lord Edam to frequent there at the same time.

They do act a lot alike though, don't they?

Bloody oath. I have yet to hear him present a position on anything.

[jenat-lai]

Technically, this should be OT, but I want the apoligist to see it. Anyway, this is where you ask all those nagging questions about christianity and God, like... ...

If Christianity is moral, then why do people need to apoligize for being Christians? Don't ask me. But I notice Islamics don't apologize for much at all. In some extreme cases including setting off bombs, and hijacking aircraft.

Why does the pope wear such a rediculous hat? Maybe he likes what it looks like LOL.

Why does God need to sacrifice himself to himself in order to change a law he made himself? interesting way to put it. interesting indeed.

Okay, so God created the universe, but what has he done since then? maybe 'he' is the universe. 'he' created himself, and then sacrificed himself to himself in order to change the law he himself made.

Why do Christians work so hard for someone that never shows them any respect? Who do they work so hard for? God? Half the christians don't even obey his basic laws.

Why does God think it more important to build churches than to help starving kids in Africa? God doesn't. The people who build churches do. Last time I checked, the people who build churches arn't God.

If no one can find God without faith, then what happens when God loses faith in himself? God isn't a single being, you must stretch out with your feeling, Feel the God around you, between you, me, the rock, the tree, err... oops wrong religion

[Wicked Pilot]

Could God microwave a burrito so hot that not even He could eat it?

[The Dark]

<snip>
C.S. Lewis, who wrote the book 'Mere Christianity' IIRC, fully admitted that Jesus was mistaken when he said this. Of course, he wasn't nearly as much a rabid fundamentalist as some people today, his rather odd explanation was:

The answer of the theologians is that the God-Man was omniscient as God, and ignorant as Man. This, no doubt, is true, though it cannot be imagined. Nor indeed can the unconsciousness of Christ in sleep be imagined, not the twilight of reason in his infancy; still less his merely organic life in his mother's womb

Actually, this makes sense theologically. Under Christian doctrine, Jesus was both fully God and fully human. As fully human, he was not omniscient, and could make errors in predictions, since not everything was known to him. It is hard to imagine, but not impossible.

Another much-smarter-than-some-dumb-fundies Christian theologian, Dewey M Beegle:

All attempts to reinterpret 'generation' are armchair approaches to solve our difficulty in understanding the passage. As [previously] noted, the clear-cut testimony of the rest of the New Testament is that the disciples, Paul, and the early church understood Jesus literally.
If Jesus really referred to events more than 2000 years in the future, then he was playing word games with his disciples. When we look at the problem honestly there are two basic options: either Jesus was leading his disciples to think something different from what he had in mind, or he was mistaken. The latter is far more preferable because it was done in innocence and shows his true humanity

Good theology there. However, I believe it would be more proper to say that Paul understood Jesus literally at the beginning of his writings, and switched over to a more symbolic view near the end, as shown by his letter (Galatians, I believe? I'm only reading OT right now so I don't confuse myself before my exam) in which he states that nobody knows when the second coming will be.

[Durandal]

Could God microwave a burrito so hot that not even He could eat it?

"Flanders, I was running some equations and accidentally proved that there is no God."

Then, there's the ever-classic Jeebus episode.

"If God is all-powerful, why does he care whether or not we worship him?"
"You see, God is powerful ... but insecure."

[Vympel]

Good theology there. However, I believe it would be more proper to say that Paul understood Jesus literally at the beginning of his writings, and switched over to a more symbolic view near the end, as shown by his letter (Galatians, I believe? I'm only reading OT right now so I don't confuse myself before my exam) in which he states that nobody knows when the second coming will be.

It's argued that Paul only believed in a spiritual rather than a physical resurrection- many apologists (Bill Craig for example) reject this out of hand though.

[Coyote]

Where do they go for such long periods of time? The unanswered challenges are piling up.

[Vympel]

Probably running back to CreationWeb to see if SBollinger can provide them with any arguments

[The Dark]

Good theology there. However, I believe it would be more proper to say that Paul understood Jesus literally at the beginning of his writings, and switched over to a more symbolic view near the end, as shown by his letter (Galatians, I believe? I'm only reading OT right now so I don't confuse myself before my exam) in which he states that nobody knows when the second coming will be.

It's argued that Paul only believed in a spiritual rather than a physical resurrection- many apologists (Bill Craig for example) reject this out of hand though.

It is, like everything else, debatable. Paul never does mention a physical resurrection, for which there are two explanations that I have heard. While he does mention "resurrection of the dead," the phrasing is such that it is not possible to say whether a physical resurrection or a spiritual resurrection is meant.

1. Paul has not heard the "empty tomb" legends. This is possible, that Paul is not part of the society which has the empty tomb oral traditions incorporated in Matthew and Luke. Given that Paul's letters were written before these Gospels, it is entirely possible.

2. Paul has heard the legends, but does not consider them important. In actuality, the physical resurrection is not necessary. All that is needed is for the essence of the person (their thought patterns) to survive in some manner.

Since the Judeo-Christian resurrection beliefs stems in part from Zoroastrianism, from the Exile in Babylon, it is likely that a physical resurrection is expected. Zarathustra spoke explicitly about Ahura Mazda (or Orhmazd in some translations) using the bones of the dead to create new bodies at the end times. As is often the case in theology, the evidence is ambiguous at best, and can be interpreted either way.

[AdmiralKanos]

A spiritual resurrection is a self-contradictory idea, since the soul is supposedly immortal and cannot die. If you don't die, you can't come back. Any prophesied resurrection is obviously a physical one.

[The Dark]

Ah, but there is no soul. Within Christian theology, those who mention souls are talking about a non-Biblical idea, and technically could be considered heretics or apostates. Resurrection is not coming back to life, but being given new life (it sounds like a play on words, but there is a difference). Rather than returning to our old bodies, we are given new bodies by God to house our ability to think. We just covered this in my Basic Christian Beliefs course (which I'm studying for the final right now...10 hours and counting). Only the two derivative synoptic Gospels mention what could be taken as a physical resurrection of the original body (with Jesus eating and being touched by Thomas). The letters of Paul mention appearances, but do not explicitly state a physical resurrection. The original synoptic Gospel (Mark) does not mention anything after the tomb story (unless you choose to believe in one of the endings of Mark, neither of which appear in the oldest manuscripts). I am a Christian, but I do not believe in a physical resurrection. I believe when a person dies, they are dead and gone until the eschatological end times, when new bodies are made and our thought patterns (if you choose to call it a soul, I suppose you could, but it's not immortal away from the body) are placed within those bodies. It sounds like semantics, but the essence of what's important changes from a physical resurrection to a spiritual resurrection.

[Durandal]

The Catholic belief is that when you die, your soul goes to either Heaven or Hell. On Judgment Day, the souls in Heaven will gain physical form, and gain physical pleasure in their bliss. Consequently, the souls in Hell will gain physical form and take on a physical element to their suffering, since God is so loving and merciful.