Christianity and the End Times

Although written by a man who is obviously selling the idea, this free e-book is written using the scriptures to lead the way.
It is at least worth a lookthrough. The author uses scripture to make his case, though one may argue that he is biased, having graduated from Bob Jones University. The Coming EpiphanyHe states:

quote:

---

Scripture and scripture alone is the standard by which everything
must be judged. Unfortunately, many approach end-times scriptures with a
predetermined theological mindset and then try to make scripture fit into
their theology. What sets this book apart from all the rest is that it attempts
to approach the topic with all of scripture, and scripture alone, as its basis.
A theological belief is then formed on the basis of what all of the
scriptures dictate.

​

In this book, scripture will be interpreted according to the following
principle: When the plain sense of scripture makes common sense, seek
no other sense; therefore, take every word at its primary, ordinary, usual,
literal meaning unless the facts of the immediate context studied in the
light of related passages and axiomatic and fundamental truths indicate
clearly otherwise.1 In other words, scripture will be interpreted literally
unless it is evident that a symbolic interpretation is warranted by the text.

---

So are you saying that all of the prophecy folks simply make up a starting date and ignore the other dates? Or is this your own observation?

I can see Pauls(and also jars) argument concerning what the Bible actually says and (in their mind) logically what it also means. I disagree but admit that I want it to mean different things than critical (and usually atheist) scholars interpret it to mean. I will give you the argument that many Christian apologists attempt to have the text mean what they believe, but my question--in a broader context---is what the critical scholars want. Is it a goal to defang (or attempt to defang) the Bibles message? Is the overall goal to show a picture of reality that is the opposite of what the fundamentalists want?Honestly, I am having trouble picking out the heroes from the villains.

So let's apply marketing to Endtimes Christianity. We can agree that "end times" preaching has virtually always been with us. Can we also agree that everyone of us is, in fact, marketing an idea...an interpretation of what Christianity is all about?If so one could argue that end times Christianity is preached in order to market product--driven by the fear and uncertainty in this modern world. On the other hand, quite a few Christians...more than a mere cult...believe in a second coming. What do you make of it?Finally...the reason that I cling to the so-called dogma is that first of all I cannot believe that all of these people are either maliciously marketing an idea for profit nor that they are willfully ignorant. Granted they may be selling a book or two...(though some give them away) and the bottom line is the widespread
belief that Jesus will return and fix this thing once and for all.

but you seem to make it out to be an either-or proposition. Jesus is not simply a cosmic bellhop---we all know that. And I do not see where mainstream Christianity teaches that He is, either.My problem with your belief is that you see Jesus as Once a great teacher.Or am I again misrepresenting you?AddbyEdit: When you were a kid you believed that God and your parents would help you. Do you still believe that God can help?(while admitting that there is no way to explain how?)

quote:

---

I remember on the drive home, all of us packed together in the car, mom and dad in the front seat and IIRC at the time, about 4 kids stuffed in the back, one of my parents asked me, Well, how do you feel now?
I think I can do what I need to do. I said, I know that you and GOD will help.

---

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I'll admit that this is a valid question.But who said that the truth is a lottery and that every chance is equally probable?Granted you will argue that I just so happen to believe that my belief is the winner.And is it not ironic that the followers are not measurably or noticeably any different than the rest of the people on the planet.I'll give you this point.The apologists would argue, however, that Christians are no better than anyone else and that despite our weakness, His strength shines through. We have yet to see a widespread demonstration, however.

Note what scripture says, however: (and yes, you will likely criticize me for taking "pieces parts" out of context! Oh well...) After all of these years, I am beginning to anticipate your counter-arguments rather well.
You are going to urge me to read all of 2nd Peter. So I will. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

You and PaulK have no expectation of finding anything (or Anyone) in the scriptures...you simply read them critically and take them as fallible. No wonder you ask how do I know it is God? You admit that you have never found out how it is possible to know God (or Jesus). Why is it so hard for people to accept what Jesus says and come to Him?
Evidently, you believe that the expectation is not for you to get "saved" or "rescued" but to simply try and do your best on a daily basis... Which I respect. However, I agree with Faith and am in the first group.I am reading 2nd Peter and see an entirely different interpretation than what you mentioned. I will continue this argument in a new post.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Edited by Phat, : argument continues in latest post

For the purposes of this argument, I will state that you and PaulK are in the second group and that Faith and I are in the first group. The particular steak which we are examining is 2nd Peter and also Daniel. Let's start with 2nd Peter. Let the audience note what jar is marketing. Nowhere on google can I find any scholars who agree with jars assessment. Jesus is never seen as a failed Messiah nor is it even suggested that Jesus was wrong in what He said. Let the steak speak for itself, however. (You will experience the sizzle once we turn up the heat! )First off, who is the book addressed to? Critics would argue that the book was only addressed to a specific audience in a specific time yet those same critics will attempt to change the meaning of the book (or the Bible itself) to market their own conclusions in this day and age. I will argue that the letter could be addressed to you or me today.
Often, jar asks the hypothetical question of "how do you know its God and not just a bad burrito?" 2nd Peter makes it clear that the knowledge of God begins with faith...not evidence. The 2nd group fails to acknowledge this point and instead insists on picking apart scripture to support evidence which they themselves seek to market.Note that the corruption of the world is a theme that runs through the entire Bible. It is central to our arguments even today over what scripture means or should mean. Critics argue over this whole idea of sin in general and we all often point fingers at each other as being the villains in any argument. Suffice it to say that people in both groups fall short of the mark. Logic and evidence alone will never take away one's sins.Getting back to the author, note what he says: Is it not ironic that in 2018 we are in fact able to remember (and critically examine) the points which the author intended? Critics would say that the books of the NT are also cleverly invented stories designed to market a particular belief or idea, but I personally believe that the stories are not invented but recounted and that the only thing being sold is the idea that God is alive and real. I suppose it is fair to acknowledge that critics will ask how one would know they are being carried by the Holy Spirit vs indigestion from their morning burrito, but I'll simply let the text speak for itself! We may well ask ourselves if there are any false teachers among us. I have mentioned Richard Carrier before...this is an excellent article which highlights a controversy between him and an apologist: Refutation Of Richard Carrier The first group believes that the Bible speaks to us today. The Gideons have stated it quite succinctly: The second group believes that the bible is mythos. I agree. I respect the idea of logic, reason, and reality as well as evidence-based thinking. I would argue, however, that scripture itself and its message is evidence. Supporting this belief does require a lot of work, however. Comments so far?

OK, let me research the term.
WEbsters says this: Perhaps I thought we were talking about the first definition whereas you mean the term more along the lines of the 2nd definition. Comments? Does this mean that we should give as much weight to what is written in the Gospel of John as we do to your beloved Matthew 25? My beef with you and PaulK is that you attempt to drag the Bible down to a level where it is simply another book and in no way a conduit to GOD, Creator of all seen and unseen. There is a good article at Tektonics.org regarding Why We Cannot Have Inerrant Bible Copies whereby the apologists make a valid argument: So again, the real issue is whether human nature needs outside help and whether this outside help is possible or whether we are self-correcting mechanisms expected to make ourselves better without the need of a Savior.Another issue is whether the additional messages which you detect from the editors and redactors agree or disagree with what you claim the original message actually is.One group needs God to be real and interactive and will admit this. I will concede that we expect God to be as we have imagined Him to be, through the reading of scripture and through the common consensus of mainstream Christianity.The other group expects no such outside help...even if GOD exists and is more similar to the One we market.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

This is one of your favorite sayings but it is blatantly dishonest. I will admit that there are many Pastors and apologists who are dishonest. I would be more hesitant to accuse most of them being that way. Palming the Pea is a deliberate shell game where the operator willingly and knowingly cons the audience. We could argue that Gene Scott and perhaps Ken Ham are the same way, though it would take a lot more proof that these men are knowingly selling a product which they do not believe to be the truth. We could also assert that some of the leading televangelists are willfully misdirecting their audiences attention so as to make the money that allows their lavish lifestyles. They are marketing a product and they know that the product sells.While most apologists earn a living off of their profession, I would argue that they are in no way attempting to misdirect anyone's attention. They genuinely believe in what they are saying.Finally...show me how I myself unwittingly attempted to misdirect the audience's attention except to reinforce my belief that scripture speaks to us today? Your argument is not persuasive. I am in the group that desires a certain result, I'll give you that. Show us the proof that this was the authors motive? Why when I google this accusation that I get so few hits? It seems that only jar makes this stuff up.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Going further with this analogy..... Are you suggesting that the motive for writing 2nd Peter was essentially job security within a new religion? And you guys think we are the loons!Yes, we could be wrong. But so could you. You do not see scripture as we see scripture. You have no need or expectation for Jesus to return. Even if such a global event happened, the secular scientists would likely write it off as a UFO visitation or some such drivel.Im with Faith on this one. You claim that *we* misdirect the audience. I say that it is you who misdirect the audience. You teach them to critically examine the Bible to such a degree that they are taught essentially what you believe---that humans make up gods and are essentially responsible for their own future.In our minds, this is exactly what is prophesied to happen. We believe that God communicated with humanity through the Bible...and though the books were written by men, they were men who were inspired to encourage, edify, teach and warn others about the coming judgment. These authors were not marketing a product in order to earn a living or to start a new religion, though jar makes a well-presented case that they did.jar prefers Jesus to be a Jewish son who was a good teacher and yet who never changed Judaism...probably because his Mama was Jewish and he gained a great deal of common sense, logic, reason, and reality through learning from that point of view. Additionally, jar grew up seeing the conmen of Christianity so much that it became ingrained into his belief that they all were trying to market and sell a sizzle to replace the hard work and responsibility of Judaism. (he will likely claim I am misrepresenting him, only because he likes to frame the lesson and have the last word)Most apologists are not con men.

We believe that reality shows us two imaginations.
Gods imagination which will come to pass.And human imagination. Vain. Self serving.If the source of any given prophecy is the authors own imagination, it will fail.If the source of any given prophecy is God Himself, it *will* come to pass. Period.

Point taken. And you will again ask me how I know that my interpretation is any closer to the truth than any other.Essentially I am saying that humans will never self-correct their future.You are saying that they have no choice. You do not see that a relationship with God is possible.jar will go a step further and ask me to explain how it is possible.But am I right in that you market personal responsibility and the idea that humans alone will change the world or die trying? Am I right in that you market that there is no rescuer...no bailout...no hope outside of ourselves?If so I rest my case. We disagree.

Until a messiah returns, he is still a failed messiah according to you.Some folks wouldn't even want Him back. They would rather try and succeed (or fail) on their own merits. It is how they were taught.