Christianity and the End Times

I am pondering your question as I recall my feelings, experiences, and discussions over the past 25 years since I first became a believer. And I also am mulling over your arguments and likely counter-argument to anything I say. This is healthy...I will edit this later...the answer requires a detailed response

My ongoing argument sought to showcase the thought process of our basic two sides. As I said before, "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?"....that was my original question as I addressed Faith and ringo. My understanding grows as our discussions and arguments develop. Keep in mind that as a self-proclaimed member of the first group I am not seeking to derail what I believe...whereas ringo was so objective that he never allowed faith to grow..he now has to explain the evidence that led him to abandon using faith at all. Perhaps, though I would add this:
"be skeptical of unbelievers attempting to explain what the Bible actually means".

I think that the issue, in general, is more complex. So essentially you are taking on all of the Christianity that I have been exposed to. Here are some questions to get things started:

Are all or even most of the apologists,Pastors,teachers, and preachers simply wrong? I cannot believe this to be true. It does neatly seperate our two groups a bit more directly, however.

​

Why is the idea that Jesus rose from the dead and is alive today so troublesome to you personally when you have admitted that you are a cradle creedal Christian? Does not the Nicene Creed suggest that this theology may be true?

jar writes:

​

There are many many Messiahs in the Old Testament but Jesus is not one of them. The whole concept of the Messiah as marketed in Christianity is a post-Judaic creation that developed over time.
Jesus is not to be found in the Old Testament writings.

​

That's quite an extreme position, and though you have offered reasonable scriptural support for such a position, I hardly think that all of the apologists have failed to do so. You are taking on quite a large group of Christians...not some mere cult of ignorance from a few racist and ignorant backwater churches.

​

jar writes:

​

And the Apologists have continued to revise the story because and only because they NEED to support and excuse the fact that most prophecy in the Bible stories simply failed or were forced and faked fulfillment.

Which would indicate that they were either lying, ignorant, or both. Again...quite an accusation for such a large percentage of the membership of a religion.

​

Tangle writes:

​

Why would you think a believer has a worthwhile opinion?

Because believers are as human as you, and have as good of minds as anyone else. Their only apparant crime is in claiming that Jesus can become personal...which is why they defend what they believe. Granted some of us are dogmatic, willfully ignorant, and prone to reading what we are biased towards, but I would argue that these traits can also be found in non-believers.

ringo writes:

​

Things that are "well written" are usually edited. The quality of the final result doesn't necessarily tell us much about the author.

Again, I'm more concerned with the motive behind the writing. It would lead more credence if the authors were familiar with Jesus personally and/or alive shortly after His death. Motive is the game changer in my mind.
Not too many people get boiled in oil or thrown in prison simply for trying to make a buck.

jar writes:

​

...most chapters of Club Christian realized hundreds of years ago that the stories in the Old and New Testament were only attributed to the person named as author and that in fact they were written and edited and redacted and modified by unknown people at unknown times.

Not sure I believe this to be true. Can we trace your source to this information? I suspect that the redactors and editors are themselves the revisionists and that the motive is to discredit the belief. In any case, I dont believe that the Bible was allowed to be changed that much.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

I really don't know if deep down I doubt or not. I DO know that I question. If I ever stopped praying, it would confirm that I had doubts.

Granted, except that we seek to know the character in the books.We have been down this rabbit trail before. I will say that God and/or Jesus is knowable and you will ask me how would I ever be able to tell.I fully understand jars approach to reporting only what is written rather than what anyone wants it to say. The main reason that I find this of limited value as teaching is that jar always approaches the stories as just stories rather than the possibility that the character within the stories (OK...for the sake of argument, characters) can become personal and known---even to a limited degree. I agree to an extent, Faith. I have previously brought up the idea that I have never before seen the idea that the snake told the truth while God lied.As for the possibility that God can and does change His mind, would that not also mean that any and all end times prophecy (which my side sees, anyway) could theoretically never happen due to God changing His mind? And if so, what does the Creator expect from us?

Look! He Has No Clothes analogous to "Look! God lied! The snake was truthful!"

I've no doubt we define the character in our minds. You have defined the "god character" as well as the snake simply by reporting what was written and using that as your sole allowance towards defining belief. The claim that much of mainstream Christianity lies to itself defending their belief is arrogant. however. Unlike the crowd in Hans Christian Andersons poem, mainstream Christianity is not simply ignoring the obvious. Where they differ from you is that they have allowed themselves to believe in a character that they wanted to accept but which you wanted to reject.

​

The Emperors New Clothes Everybody had confirmation bias over his suit except for the small lad who saw the obvious....except that in this case I don't believe that you and ringo see anything obvious. You guys may deny it but you want for folks to have to do it themselves and would laugh at a God Who helped you. You too create the God that you want. You are too proud to allow Jesus to help you. You have allowed your logic to blind you to any possibility that He even can...you dont even attempt to talk with Him (correct me if I'm wrong) and you preach a gospel of social responsibility and hard work.

​

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith

well, for one thing, you could talk with God every day without feeling weird or delusional. You may find that you get answers sometimes too. On the other hand, you may claim that everyone can do this...without a need to believe.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Evidently according to the Bible Judas was doomed from the get-go.

quote:

---

"While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled." -- John 17:12 (NIV)

---

When discussing my personal belief in God with others, I never limit myself to Calvinism or even to what the Bible literally says. Everyone should know by now that any description that we have of God...whether it be the One I market or the One YOU market, we are only describing our understanding of GOD...which is by necessity limited. Where you and I disagree is that you present God as only a description---a character created by others. I try and present God as real...apart from human attempts at description. Cathy Lee Gifford did this recently on National TV (on the liberal show, The View) and I must say that I am proud of her for getting to have her say publically.
Video wont load. Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJQ-s5damZgEdited by Phat, : attempt to fix videoEdited by Phat, : No reason given.

It is always interesting to read the opinions of others...no matter who they are or with what so-called authority they speak. We are, after all, humans and everyman's opinion should be considered if not respected.
Here are some choice ones to add fuel to our predictable conversations here at EvC:

quote:

---

I believe that people in certain ROLES are created to go to hell. And the way for them to be saved is to abandon that role.
For instance, Pontius Pilate seemed to be one step away from believing in Jesus. Suppose he had taken the last step and said, "I believe in Jesus, he is a righteous man, I will not let you crucify him" (as he came close to doing).
Then the Jews would have retorted, "You are not a friend of Caesar," got him kicked out of his position of authority, and had him replaced with someone that would crucify Jesus.
But PONTIUS PILATE would have been saved, and the other man would have gone to hell.
(The same might be true for Pharoah, if he had let the Israelites go free. But then he might have been overthrown by another, more ruthless ruler. On the other hand, Pharoah's DAUGHTER protected Moses and probably earned a place in heaven.)
On the other hand, the jailer of Paul and Silas set them free, and invited them to his home, and was saved. Essentially, he had abandoned his earlier role of being their jailer.

---

And then this exchange:

quote:

---

So you're saying that if you don't believe while alive, you die and go to hell, where you're given another chance to accept Him and go to Heaven? — Nathan Wheeler Aug 24 '11 at 3:25
That is correct. There are people who will not get a chance in life to here about Christ. Or they will go against God because of false teachings. Those that end up in hell will be given the truth in such a way as to know it without a doubt. This will still be an unpleasant experience because of the realization of the sins they have committed. But they will then be able to make a fully informed choice. Only people that reject Christ at that point will be permanently destroyed after the day of judgment. — Jaguir Aug 24 '11 at 3:36
Can you provide any sort of Scriptural basis for this theory? — Nathan Wheeler Aug 24 '11 at 3:40
Here are some references: righteous spirits are assigned to Paradise (Revelation 2:7), unrighteous spirits are assigned to hell (Psalm 55:15), Gospel preached to spirits in hell (1 Peter 4:6), Christ preaches to spirits in prison (hell) (1 Peter 3:18-19), Death and hell will be will be cast into the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14) — Jaguir Aug 24 '11 at 3:53

---

OK I am now reading John 15 through John 19. This is not the only way to view John. How you describe what the Bible means is not how everyone describes how and what it means.Comments on John 15: Granted this chapter shows a different portrayal of Jesus than Matthew 25 and the synoptics. The emphasis is that apart from remaining in communion with Jesus nothing you do will be successful. This contrasts with your charge to simply go and do on your own, being imitators of Christ yet not needing to remain "in Him". Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

You might start by believing that He actually exists in this current realm rather than simply as a character in books. It means that belief does not have to require evidence. Of course, you could prefer that God as you understand Him would rather you do it yourself. We can discuss John more later...I must run off to work.

Some would argue that once a person believes, they experience a "get saved" moment which lasts. I certainly did and so did Faith. Are you suggesting we were merely brainwashed into a conformational bias? (I would defend the change I experienced though acknowledging that it is far from complete) Just drink the kool-aid already and quit demanding a chemical analysis of its contents! sheesh! (kidding... ) Once you have drank the kool-aid we can all become as one and market a God together rather than you continuing to be a stick-in-the-mud and suggesting that the Emperor is not really wearing anything! Which is fine as long as you quit arguing that the source is unimportant. (yes, ringo...message vs messenger!) I'm not feeling it.

There most definitely was a change. It was not merely internal...it manifested externally through attitude, bahavior, and works. It was, at least according to them. Not all of them were themselves believers either. I don't...but If evidence were Gods method, would not people be virtually forced to believe? Only if evidence quenches belief. In my opinion they are not mutually exclusive. A lot also depends on how open a person is to new experience. Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives | TED TalkMany of you who rejected religion did not decide simply on lack of evidence for God.

But the reality is that only by our thinking/imagining can we even be able to approach the GOD Who is. Do you have any better suggestions for believers...apart from your rant against superstition and appeal to logic?

In my opinion, your method quenches belief. You frame the entire belief within the context of human creation. Why not allow your imagination the opportunity for creative license? In my opinion, a God Who frowned upon that would be unworthy of worship anyway.Add by Edit: Yes, I see the irony in my own statement! Edited by Phat, : No reason given.