|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,766 Year: 4,023/9,624 Month: 894/974 Week: 221/286 Day: 28/109 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christianity and the End Times | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Firstly on this whole thing the Christian church has always said that Jesus was wholly man and wholly God, and then very often ignored the wholly man part. I understand how people come to the conclusion that Jesus had supernatural knowledge of the future and remembers times before His birth where He was with the Father. But I just don’t get that from the scriptures.
Yes I’m Trinitarian in my beliefs but I don’t see the divinity of Jesus in His life but through the what God has done with the resurrection. I largely understand His divinity metaphorically through the accounts of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 and through John 1 where John writes that the Word becme flesh. On that basis I Jesus’ understand eschatological message to be about the renewal of all things at the end of time. At that point it would be clear to all creation that Jesus has been established by God as Lord of all creation. Here is a chapter from the book of Mark that is often used to portray eschatological or end times theology. Mark 13 quote: This is not an eschatological message. This is a political message. Jesus was very much opposed to the Jewish revolutionaries who were ascending in strength in those days. It was clear to at least Jesus that if they didn't stop going down the revolutionary route that there would be tremendous suffering and great political upheaval. All this did happen in 70AD as the result of a Jewish revolution, within the life time of some of the folks Jesus would have been talking to. I don’t see that this is the result of Jesus having supernatural knowledge of the future. I simply see it as Jesus be aware of and understanding the situation at the time. He warns against messianic leaders who would lead them down this path of destruction. When Jesus says, But in those days, following that distress, ‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light;25 the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken. He is talking about great political upheaval. It is a bit like saying that somebody celebrated a landslide victory. We would know that there was no actual land slide involved. Certainly Jesus had an eschatological message but it is something of an open question as to whether the end of time refers to something happening to all of creation, (boy I’m going to be in trouble with Faith here ), or to us individually when we die. Personally, in opposition to most Christian scholars that I have read I’m inclined more towards the latter position. I agree that the first disciples including Paul probably expected Christ’s return in their lifetimes, but it was no different then than it is now, with Faith expecting it to happen in the near future. People have always looked on the dark sides of things and figure that it’s about time to shut the project down. Edited by GDR, : typoHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: Well aside from the fact that they probably didn’t write in Greek, if they did it would have been decades later and they would have had time to learn.What sense does it make to assume that people who spoke Aramaic as their native language would use any other language in speaking among themselves ? This argument about time and language maybe is missing a major point. The Gospels are really compilations of earlier material whether it be Q or not. Here is the first couple of verses of Luke, one of the synoptic Gospels.
quote: So, obviously the writers of the Gospels were not using original material but were using what had been previously recorded and quite likely translating it into Greek. Luke even mentions that others have used the material that had been handed down to them which makes it very reasonable to assume that the other Gospels are, like Luke, compilations of material recorded by the eyewitnesses and the first Jesus followers. Edited by GDR, : typosHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes:
I even gave you the quote from Luke where he says quite clearly that it came from previous sources, and those sources came from eyewitnesses of the events and/or early followers. All that stuff like tht there ever was a "Q" or any other precursor doctuments to the current text of the Bible is nothing but the wild imaginings of so called "scholars." They have no evide3nce, it's all their own speculations. The Bible was written as we find it, by the people it is attributed to, or under their authority in the case of Moses, and who cares if parts of it were cop0ied from other parts, that does not change the basic facts. The "scholars" should never have been allowed to get their filthy profane hands on it. I also say thank you Lord for the Christian scholars who can make sense of the Scriptures in their historical context, so that we don't twist them into something they were ever intended to be by 21st century readers with only a 21st century understanding of language.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: No, Luke does NOT say he got his material from others. What he says is that a lot has already been written and it's well known among people, but he thought he would ALSO write his own account, since he believed he had a specially good understanding of it, much of which he'd heard from eyewitnesses among other things. If he was saying he'd taken it from others then that would have been recognized all along but as far as I know nobody had such an idea about it until the scholars you admire. OK. Let's look at what Luke says.quote:He clearly states that others have written up accounts, (likely the other synoptic Gospels included), "JUST" as they were handed down by the eyewitnesses and the first Jesus followers. He carefully investigated everything from the beginning so that he could write an orderly account. It is likely he used his own wording or he may have copied verbatim the earlier material but that isn't the point. I would add that some discount the Gospel accounts as they were written later in the first century but the material in the Gospels comes from much earlier accounts. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
What i can't understand is why you are arguing against Luke being a compilation of previous material. Luke was written decades after the resurrection. If it was all original material out of his own head it would have far less credibility than if it is taken, (which he says it is) from something recorded by eyewitnesses and the first Jesus followers. It doesn't argue against your belief that the Bible is inerrant.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: The facts themselves wouldn't be a big deal, I wouldn't really care if Luke did happen to be a compilation, I just do not think it is true, for which I've given some good reasons, and it's offensive that modern scholars are always taking It upon themselves to change everything about the Bible as it had previously been understood. Who do they think they are? Both scholars and believers down the ages deserve more credit. Luke also wrote the book of Acts, right after his gospel I think, and it covers the life of Paul, with whom he traveled. Paul is still alive at the end of Acts. He is believed to have died under Nero's persecutions and that puts the timing of the writing of Acts in the 60s AD. That puts the gospel earlier than that. I've never heard anyone question the fact that the writer of Luke and Acts traveled with Paul. It is pretty much agreed that Paul was executed in the mid 60's. The general consensus seems to be that Luke was written sometime after 80AD, but I agree that it could have been anytime after Paul's death. At the very least then it would have been more than 30 years after the crucifixion. He clearly indicates that he used the testimonies, written or oral, of eyewitnesses and early Jesus followers and then carefully validated them before doing his best to put them in chronological order. He may himself have been an eyewitness, but if that is the case then it is very strange that he doesn't include himself with the eyewitnesses that he references. I think it is safe to say that he wasn't an eyewitness. Also it is generally conceded that Luke was a gentile or possibly a Hellenic Jew and wouldn't have been in Judea at the time of the resurrection. There is the strong possibilty that Luke would have been with Paul during Paul's sojourns back to Israel where he would have spent time with people like Peter and James, gathering and validating the material in the Gospel.The fact that he as a gentile or Hellenic Jew became a Christ follower after listening to the eyewitnesses and Paul for that matter, is very supportive of the validity of his message. If it was strictly wriotten out of his own head it would have far less validity IMHO.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: I thought that was the point I was trying to make. Luke wasn't an eyewitness but used accounts both oral and written by eyewitnesses and early Jesus followers to compile the Gospel. I think we are in agreement.
Nobody says it was "written out of his own head," whatever that could possibly mean. Did all the other gospel writers "write out of their own heads"L Or if you think they relied on other written material, did the writers of THOSE accounts "write out of their own heads? If any did, then any of them could have, the events being so noteworthy they would have been strongly impressed on the minds of those who experienced them. But none of them needed written accounts even if some were made use of here and there. They talked to each other, the gospel was being preached everywhere, the facts were being constantly rehearsed in their hearing and also preached by themselves. Luke wrote it the way people write about events they know about from eyewitnesses or their own experience. He probably had notes. He certainly HAD read many eyewitness accounts. He was probably keeping a journal during his travels with Paul. No writer tries to rely exclusively on his own memory. And all the traditionalists say he had to have interviewed many of the people who were eyewitnesses to the events he recounts.
Faith writes: Just as you are subjectively criticizing them. Also, I would add that various scholars are far apart on many issues. You can't lump them all into a like-thinking group. I might also add that it might be an idea to listen to Biblical scholars whose views may differ greatly as opposed to non-scholars whose views also may differ greatly. It is a faith and not a science. And do note the comment of the blogger I posted about how the "scholars" area all relying on their own subjectivity rather than objective critical thinking, objective facts, anything they actually KNOW. As far as I know, I'm the only one whose theology is 100% correct. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes: Tangle has no interest in any of this. If you really think he read me to say it is impossible for him to be saved rather than that his own behavior prevents it, then you can clarify for him. How about this quote from Luke chap 6.quote: By focusing on who is in and who is out completely misses the point of Christ's message. Jesus' message was clear. It is all about love of God and His goodness and love of our neighbour. We choose lives that are based on love of self even at the expense of others, or iove of others even at the expense of the self. I suggest that we should stop worrying about whether we are saved or not and get on with spreading God's gift of love to our neighbours, and let God worry about who is in or out. Once again just follow what is in my signature. Frankly I'm not feeling the love.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
NoNukes writes: I wouldn't go so far as the Open Theism argument. I don't see the need to apply any limits to what God can do. But God appears to choose to allow humans to determine at least their earthly destiny and does not appear to pre-determine every flutter of a butterflies wing. I recently read a very good book on this subject. The writer holds a PHD in philosophy and religious studies from McGill, (Montreal) and, as well masters degrees in humanities, social sciences from the University of Toronto and a math degree as well. He has written a book called Freedom All the Way Up in which he talks about God creating a world using randomness with enough possible outcomes that allows for a sufficiently high degree of probability that given sufficient times it would produce creatures capable of choosing agapic love. I found his argument quite compelling. Here is a quote from this web site.
Randomness in Creration and God's Plan for Agape Love quote: He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Faith writes: Thanks. No, I have lousy discipline. Maybe partly because I became a believer on my own by reading books and got in the habit of depending on external inspiration rather than personal discipline. Thanks though, that is good advice.I got so enthused about the Rapture in the last few weeks the idea of missing it is too depressing to contemplate. What if it happens on this coming Rosh Hashana, just a few weeks away? All the signs are in place. Though it could be next year or the next I suppose. Well, all I can do is pull myself together and spend every day seeking Him harder than ever. I know there are reasons to believe it won't be the entire Church that is raptured, but on the other hand when Paul tells the Thessalonians that "we" will meet Him in the air he's talking to ordinary Christian believers. I have to admit that as a Christian I find this whole discussion very discouraging. Jesus said that He didn't know when the Father would do whatever it was that the Father would do, yet here you are trying to suggest that you can figure it out when Jesus couldn't. Paul tells us that we shouldn't judge, as if we do we will be judged. Why not just let God do what He is going to do and instead focus on what we are called to do and it is very simple. We are called to love others as we love ourselves. We are called to humble kindness and justice. Essentially we are called to love sacrificially and to reflect God's love into the world which He created, and even gave us the Holy Spirit to be with us in that, and yet here is another case of humans trying to insert themselves into God's business.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
PaulK writes: Absolutely. For that matter all four Gospels are compilations of previous material either written or through the oral tradition as passed on from the disciples and eye witnesses. (Just read the start of Luke’s Gospel.)
Luke 17 has so much text in common with Matthew 24 it is apparent that it is the same material.PaulK writes:
I don’t think that either of these conclusions are correct depending on what you mean by Second Coming. And Luke 17:30 tells us that this, too, is about the Second Coming, not a Secret Rapture. Jesus had a very political message for His fellow Jews and by extension for the world. He often referred to Himself in the third person and usually it was to refer to Himself as the Son of Man. The question then is why that and not Messiah even though He clearly saw Himself as just that. The answer to that question is clearly in Daniel 7, a relatively recent prophet. Daniel 7 writes this: quote:In this we can see a number of things. Firstly it says that Jesus is coming to the Ancient of Days ,(obviously Yahweh), So often when it refers to Jesus coming it is referring to this. Also it talks, as it does in Exodus, about the clouds of Heaven so we can see that when it talks about Jesus ascending into a cloud it is talking about Jesus coming into the presence of God and not about ascending into a physical cloud. A major part of Jesus’ message was about the establishment of the Kingdom Obviously in this passage from Daniel it shows that the Son of Man has been given dominion over all kingdoms and that that kingdom is eternal. We can see clearly that the Kingdom is not just for some time in the future but it is for the world then and now as well. Jesus preached a Kingdom message which was full of political overtones but at the same time was both personal and corporative. The Kingdom of God’ (or the Kingdom of Heaven as Matthew uses the term), is made up of those who have truly taken Jesus’ message of love of neighbour, and even enemy, into their hearts. This is the connection between Jesus’ kingdom message and His political message. The Romans were brutal occupiers but Jesus was telling them that they should love them, turn the other cheek, go the extra mile etc. Essentially he is saying that the enemy is evil itself and that the Romans embodied that evil. He says then that the way to defeat evil, and by extension their Roman occupiers was through his message of love. It was about being the vehicles of God’s love for us in the world to change hearts including those of the Romans. It is easy to see why this message wasn’t well received by the majority who expected the Messiah to lead them militarily against the Romans. The Messiah was expected to defeat the Romans and rebuild the Temple. (It is easy to see why Judas, on the assumption that he was a revolutionary, was prepared to betray Him.) Jesus however said that the Romans were to be defeated by seeing their hearts changed and that the Temple would be rebuilt in the hearts of those who followed His message.Paul gets this when he writes in Ephesians 6 quote: So when Jesus talks about the sun being darkened, the stars falling etc He is talking about what will happen when the Revolution takes place. He can see that it is imminent enough to happen in that generation. (Which of course it did in 70 AD.) The Jewish nation was crushed and the Temple destroyed. This explains why He would say that they run to the hills as that would be the only place to hide from Roman soldiers.
PaulK writes:
Once again, it is about Jesus coming to the Father, (The Ancient of Days), as in Daniel 7.
Revelation 3:10 does not mention how any will be preserved - and it is in a message to the Church in Philadelphia. Verse 3:11 says that Jesus is coming quickly - so it clearly reads as referring to the current membership of that church.PaulK writes: This is kinda obscure so it could simply be a message that one should always be hearing and acting on Jesus’ message of love as you never know when this life will come to an end.
Revelation 3:3 only repeats the warning to watch for the signs.PaulK writes: If it was about the so-called rapture why would he suggest leaving the city and going to the hills, or that they would have strength to escape what was going on. It is obviously about fleeing the Romans when the revolution takes place.
Luke 21:36 does not say anything about how the disaster may be escaped. However it might well refer to fleeing from - or staying away from - Jerusalem as advised in verse 21.Paulk writes: Right you are!! So, still no secret rapture.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Faith writes: The trouble is that isn't what scripture intends. It is like reading a book that says it was raining cats and dogs and understanding that our pets had been swept up by a tornado and were falling out of the sky. Well, I'll still be convinced that a Rapture of the Church is going to happen because scripture says so, I'll just have to wonder why I was having such a strong sense of its imminence now. You are reading ancient texts with a 21st century mind set without considering the target audience and the idioms and the culture of that target audience. You pull information out of the texts that was never intended based upon your pre-conceived doctrine, and then you either rationalize or ignore the Scriptures which don't agree with your basic assumptions. The end result is that you have wound up with a doctrine which is very different from the message of Jesus, who embodied the Word of God.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
You quoted this:
quote:..and then said this. Faith writes:
When you read that, with a 21st century understanding and a pre-conceived doctrine, (not to mention a single verse taken out of context), you would see it that way. Looks pretty straightforward to me. There are other passages that imply the rapture but this one directly describes it.This letter is being written to the Thessalonians as a letter of encouragement. He tells them in one section that they are sons of light and sons of day and that they are not of light or darkness. The verse you quote is a part of the section that is meant to qualm the fears about loved ones who have died ahead of Christ’s return. The language that he uses, especially in verse 17 is typical of much early Jewish expression using colourful language and hyperbole to make the point. The idea that he is talking about physical clouds is simply an add on by people centuries later in totally different cultures. Once again as I have pointed out before the language of clouds goes back to the Exodus story including God leading them in a pillar of cloud, as well as other examples of God such as this verse from Exodus 19: quote:The cloud is not meant to be a physical cloud but simply about the presence of God, as is made clearer in the last part of the quoted verse from Thessalonians. As far as meeting the Lord in the air is concerned this goes back to both the Hebrew Sheol or the Greek Hades. Both referred to a kind of underworld for the dead. If those separated from God were in an underworld then the language that is used for those that go to the Lord would obviously be in the other direction as we see here. ..and about your sense of immanenceJust a couple of thoughts on that. You live in a situation with food, shelter and freedom. Do you think that others over the centuries who have been tortured for their faith, others who have been in POW camps, living through the great plague etc. didn’t think that this would be a good time to wrap things up? It seems to me that as Christians we should pray that this world goes on for millions of years. The longer this world goes on the more people there will be that get to have life and have the opportunity to know and serve the Lord. Why would we hope and pray for the end of this world to come and see them denied that opportunity. It seems to me that to pray for God to close this down sooner rather than later is a pretty self centred POV. Also, in understanding the scriptures we can look at the whole idea in another light. Just maybe Jesus comes to us, as and when, we as individuals die. That may well be the second coming and would be consistent with the scriptures and more consistent with the belief that in the next life we will be in a world that is eternal, and as a result a world that experiences change,(time) differently than we currently experience. Sometimes in my church we use a modern creed that has what I consider a great line. "So complex so simple, so clear so mysterious, our God ever three yet eternally one."He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Faith writes: I can just as easily say that I don't figure it was read that way.
I read it as a real cloud and figure it was read that way in the first century too and all the time in between.Faith writes:
But that is exactly what your are doing Faith. You are using a 21st century understanding of language and its use, to understand what was written to audiences 2 to 3 thousnd years ago. I suspect this is in fact a modern prejudice being imposed on the text.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Faith writes:
That they have gone into the presence of God, or into God's dimension. Jesus after resurrection would appear and disappear moving between God's dimension and our own. So, "caught up together with them in the clouds" suggests what other possible reading to you than that people are to rise up into the sky and be lost in clouds?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024