Christianity and the End Times

Good point, though lets look at that in a broader context: But even if God told the author directly to say that and even if the prophet said it, how would we know if God changed His mind, was simply wrong, or the prophecy was the vain imagination of the author?Food for thought. Thanks, Paul.

So whenever I make a case for my interpretation I am misdirecting the audiences attention, as if their attention needs to be on what you market? Come on! You have been preaching the same song and dance here for ten years and always whine about being misrepresented. Yet you have the gall to call your opponents a culture of ignorance. Nevermind the personal attacks...lets get back to 2nd Peter. Some commentators argue that Jesus was talking about the end of Jerusalem, Matthew 24:34 Commentaries. Who do you suppose is the author? What motives can we suggest (and support) this authors intentions to be? You seem to already have your mind made up as to the motive.Apparently, it is not enough for me to go directly to 2nd Peter. Any commentary that I make is misdirecting the audience...to "palm a pea" while any commentary that you make is spared such accusation. Now where were we in 2nd Peter? You claim that I lie about you. If so, I am sorry, but all I am doing is reading scripture and quoting what you have said in other posts. You said that "Jesus said that the end times would happen before THIS generation died...By the time of 2 Peter it was obvious that jess ain't gonna happen." Are you thus teaching us that Jesus was WRONG? The commentators in my link explain differing arguments as to what the text meant. So let me get this straight. Most prophecy failed. Is that what you mean to teach? I agree with faith, though I will admit that the counter-arguments are challenging. The question is what do you teach that He is now?One thing that I always seek to discern in these discussions is the motives of the teachers. The authors. As well as our motives now as we debate openly in front of others. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I've found sources that support your assertion. Lets look at one of them and follow their footnotes.
Zondervan AcademicThis article appears well written, quoting from various sources and making a strong case that supports Greek being spoken in certain settings and contexts. Aramaic was, of course, the native language, and this article suggests that Aramaic was likely the common language of the peopleWe can conclude that Jesus likely spoke Aramaic more than Greek if He knew Greek at all.

There is a controversy for sure, and in this link, the second commentator, John Allister, BA Theology, University of Oxford (2008), seems to argue for the likelihood, whereas the first commentator dismisses it. All of us have to rely on outside sources to bolster our arguments...the only question being whether we can likely trust the academic discipline and lack of ulterior motive from these sources. In my source, I would argue that the first commentator had a bias similar to the critical thinkers here at EvC, whereas the second commentator had no motive other than to argue common sense. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

I would argue that you tend to be biased, much as I am the other way. Read my link above and compare the first comment from the second. The first sounds similar to your arguments, the second is the one I of course embrace.

You cant read it???? Odd...I never signed up...anyway this exchange encapsulates the debate so I will reprint it here:

quote:

---

From Quora

​

Question: How did the uneducated apostles of Jesus write Gospels in Greek?

​

1) (Petter Hggholm, minor encyclopedia poorly disguised as a human computer programmer.)
Most likely they didn’t.
Critical scholars are not confident that any of the traditional attributions of the New Testament writings are accurate, except for seven of the Pauline epistles. (Some scholars argue that one or two more Pauline epistles are authentic, some argue that some of the general epistles are; but only on the seven undisputed Pauline letters will you find a consensus of authenticity. Personally I find the minimalist view more persuasive: for example, while everyone agrees that 1 Peter and 2 Peter had different authors, some hold that 1 Peter is authentic. But the likelihood that a poor fisherman from a provincial backwater with a 3% literacy rate, who is even called illiterate by other biblical books, should later learn Greek literary composition, seems extremely low to me.)Keep in mind that a lot of the books don’t even claim to be written by their traditionally ascribed authors. The gospels and several epistles, and Hebrews, were anonymous. Revelation claims to be written by John, but not any particular John. If you find a modern book written by John, do you assume that you’ve found a new book by John McCain? It could be anyone with a common name. There’s no reason to think that Revelation was written by the disciple John (it doesn’t claim to be).
In particular, it’s a broad mainstream consensus among the experts that there’s no good reason to think that the gospels were written by their traditionally ascribed authors (only two of whom were disciples to begin with). They were written anonymously, circulated anonymously, became popular anonymouslyand later, when it became ‘politically’ important to lend them weight as authoritative, authors were ‘found’ to support them.
2) (John Allister, BA Theology, University of Oxford )

​

Let’s take the traditional ascriptions at face value, and see if they make sense.

​

Matthew was a Jewish tax-collector from Galilee. We’re not told which bit of Galilee he was from - some bits were Greek-speaking and others were Aramaic-speaking. As a tax collector, he needed to work fairly closely with Roman officials, who mostly spoke Greek in Israel in that period. Likelihood of being able to write Greek - high.

​

Mark was also a Jew, probably from Jerusalem, but was only a teenager at the time of Jesus’ death. He later became an assistant to various major figures (Peter, Paul, Barnabas), before apparently becoming bishop of Greek-speaking Alexandria. There are two striking things about Mark’s gospel. One is that Mark is said to have been a ghost-writer / editor for Peter, while Peter was in Rome. That fits well; Peter said that he needed help from Silas to write his first letter (1 Peter 5:12). The second is that Mark is written in low-quality Greek, obviously by someone who spoke Hebrew / Aramaic as a first language. Was Mark the most bilingual person Peter could find while in prison in Rome? Plausibility - high.

​

Luke wasn’t an apostle. He was a Greek doctor, probably from Philippi, who was converted by Paul’s missionary activity and decided to write a history of Jesus and the early church. It is easily the most literary of the gospels in styling, clearly by a fluent Greek speaker and writer with a knowledge of medical terminology. Does a Greek doctor fit the bill? Certainly.

​

John is more complex. The language is quite simple, but profound. At the same time, the question of authorship is slightly tangled by 21:24, which says that John is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. It then adds We know that his testimony is true. There’s clearly some kind of group who are involved in editing the final version of gospel. John is reputed to have spent much of his life leading the church in Greek-speaking Ephesus. Could John’s gospel be the result of a core of material by a Jew who had worked for decades in a Greek city, then tidied up and edited by native Greek speakers?
Yes, absolutely.
Conclusion - from the point of view of language used, the traditional ascriptions of the gospels make sense.

​

3) (Ian Sawyer, 50+ years as an atheist, and nothing has convinced me to believe otherwise.)

​

Let’s get something straight. The four canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not written by any claimed apostles of Jesus.

​

They were all written towards the end of the 1st century and the start of the 2nd century by completely unknown authors, almost certainly educated scribes, and they weren’t given the names we know them by today until a later date, probably towards the end of the second century. This was most likely done to increase their perceived authenticity in the eyes of the people of the time.

​

To be more specific, ‘Mark’ was the first gospel to be written, in the early 70s, some 40 years after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus. To put time into context, this was at a time in history when the average male lifespan wasn’t much more than 35 -40 years. The second and third gospels ‘Matthew’ and ‘Luke’ were both written sometime during the 80s or early 90s, whilst ‘John’ wasn’t written until around the year 110, a whole 80 years after the supposed crucifixion.

​

I say ‘supposed crucifixion’ because there’s no contemporary historical evidence that Jesus even existed, let alone how he died. Until the Romano-Jewish historian Josephus mentioned him in the early 90s, the Bible is the only source of information on him, but given the New Testament is basically a promotion for Christianity, it’s hardly unbiased and it’s certainly not verified by any other source.

​

Having said that, the majority of biblical scholars believe that the biblical Jesus was actually based on a real person, but just an ordinary itinerant Jewish preacher called Yeshua. The thinking is that he was too outspoken against the then very strict Jewish orthodoxy and was arrested, tried and crucified for so doing. He might even have started to gather a following, but we simply don’t know.

​

The only reason Yeshua came to public attention is believed to be that after his conversion from a Pharisee to a Sadducee, Paul (Saul) also came to the same views about the strict orthodoxy, and he founded a new Jewish sect, which later became the Christian religion, based on his views. He would have sought a figurehead for this sect, and (presumably) was aware of Yeshua who had been crucified some 20 years previously for holding the same views. In accordance with an established Graeco-Roman tradition, he would have posthumously deified Yeshua as his figurehead leader.

​

The gospels were written later when Christianity as it was then beginning to be called, was facing both opposition from the Jewish and Roman authorities and competition from several other religions such as the Cult of Isis and Mithraism. The gospels aren’t meant to be factual; in fact they’re entirely allegorical tales based around a number of ‘miracles’ described in the Old Testament, which were contemporized and attributed to events in the life of the figurehead for Christianity. This was a literary technique called Midrash, common at the time, and it would have been done to promote the more loving, compassionate and tolerant ethos of early Christianity to the mainly Jewish masses, still under the yoke of strict orthodoxy, who would have understood the stories because of their knowledge of the Old Testament stories on which they were based.

​

So to reiterate the very short answer to your question, the gospels were not written by any uneducated apostles, but by unknown yet educated scribes between 40 and 80 years later.

---

We most definitely have strong arguments from both sides...one side being believers and the other side critical thinking skeptics. I do not believe that either side has a monopoly on any truth, though the point can be made that each critic is on that side for a reason.Edited by Phat, : added jabberwocky

The Zondervan source is not known for revisionist thinking, though I included the Quora quotes to demonstrate that the argument is split down the middle between believers (mostly) and unbelievers. That being said, I don't agree with jars argument that most apologists have any sort of agenda---apart from trusting the Source as the originator of the truths and wisdom. Many well-known scholars were Biblical Apologists, one notable name being Henrietta Mears who had an undeniable influence in Bible study.Biblical Revisionism is hardly a fact-based conclusion. There are many assertions and an equal number of rebuttals and challenges to these assertions.

The problem in my mind with your approach is that for a believer, it eliminates any conclusion that God speaks to humanity through scripture. If I cannot find God through Jesus and through scripture, I am left either believing that He speaks to me through my intuition or faced with the cognitive dissonance that He is simply unknowable and likely a product of my imagination. Granted, this is no problem for you, Paul as you are an atheist. And yet we perhaps feel as if though anyone not promoting a living Christ is opposing Him by default. In my mind, this means that one group wants the conclusion to be that God speaks to us through scripture, while the other group sees no way to test or prove this and thus uses their own (and consensual proof through other critics) proof as to what it means.Faith and I dont even agree on what scripture says nor means, but we hopefully do agree that God speaks to those who have an ear to listen. The critics, in general, have no belief in God,(or if they do they see God as much bigger than mere time for interaction with we humans)and thus we chaff at your interpretive style. Nothing personal, Paul....but we need to have God speak to us...not some bunch of human critics who believe only in human wisdom as the solution for life.

when I say *we* I mean jars first group, of which Faith and I belong....not everyone.

More to the point, this debate in my mind is about understanding what God actually says---whether He does it through human authors of a book, voices in our head, or even through each other to each other...in some way, shape or form.You being an atheist may not see the issue framed this way, so that's our first hurdle...to have a consensus on what we are actually talking about.Let's say we "threw the Bible away" and attempted to understand God, His message for humanity and for us individually, and His teaching and edification. Without using the Bible verses as one reference, neither side could or would have an easy time with that concept. It would be highly subjective, inconclusive, and liable to take any number of rabbit trails off course.That's one reason why my side at least starts with the Bible. It is one method used to attempt to explain what God actually means.AbE: Oh and I don't agree with jars "God" as the creation of human authors. One point for consensus that I would insist on is that God is not a product of the human imagination.Granted it would be impossible for me to defend my premise.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Quite honestly, I believe that my side at least believes that we know God.Your accusation is that we create the God that we want, supported by our "cult". I believe that you and some others never experienced the internal confirmation that I believe that I have. Granted i cant explain how knowing God is possible. I can't defend what I believe nor can Faith, though she tries mightily. You gotta give her credit for chutzpah. IIRC, I never started with the Bible...apart from what I was taught by my parents and culture. I had my "getting saved" moment and felt a major change. I never questioned it or doubted it for many years.To this day I am afraid to throw all of that away and examine religion critically from a human perspective. Faith is even more dogmatic than I am on this point.

What I mean is that now...after I changed...I use the Bible to support my beliefs. It's nearly worthless to use it with you because you take it where it leads and finds value in other religious texts as well as Mark Twain...so my argument supporting the God Whom I believe in falls flat with you. You always frame the issue that says that humans basically created God and god, and that GOD is beyond all of this. My dogma asserts that GOD is knowable and is not beyond all of this, yet I cant demonstrate how this is possible. Using the Bible to support my argument never works with you for you throw counterexamples right back at me. Yet if I "threw Him away" what would we even talk about except your infamous charge to go feed the hungry and not worry about a correct religion

I value the Bible because I value God. I honestly believe that I have met God and that He accepted me, though I'm not going to simply use the Bible to find out about Him. On the other hand, what type of maze would I find myself in if I had no point of reference apart from an inner unction? And you must have gone even farther---you initially questioned your inner unction before you let your Faith blossom it into an idea and then a belief. You went with evidence and science instead...and thus remain an atheist. (or am I wrong in my assessment?)

I listened to it. Granted Dr.Moody is on our side in this ongoing debate, but he is no slouch nor carny conman. His rationality (for a believer) is sound. Unbelievers would of course attack any presuppositions as to reasonable belief in general... One group believes that a communion and inner understanding of Gods guidance is possible and that one who seeks it finds it. The other group logically asks how this is even possible and continually pushes such an idea out of their head. One group seeks confirmation while the other group vigilantly rejects it. Granted I am being overly simplistic, but if we had to place given people into one group or the other, which group would the early church fathers be placed in and why?Add by Edit: Dr.Moody even quotes Mark Twain in his sermon..

quote:

---

It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.~ Mark Twain

---

Edited by Phat, : added quote

This is a perfect example of how your group believes. If your statement were presented to my group for criticism, they would run to the Bible...our source of evidence. (Granted I'm no longer trying to convert you...nor should you try and deconvert us. It is enough for now to compile a valid argument. ) I consulted my concordance and found 268 matches in the NIV mentioning "faith" and began to read them in context. Granted I would rather trust the Bible than I do you, but allow me to give you a shot in this discussion. Can you find anything in the Bible that supports your philosophy? If not, is it because modern humanity has gotten smarter than ancient writings? OK...lets expand further: Show me two articles by any modern psychologist or teacher that confirms your philosophy regarding evidence and science opposing faith and being superior to faith. Once we have quotes, we can discuss this further. (I certainly have the biblical quotes and we can discuss them in context)