Christianity and the End Times

quote:

---

If the source of any given prophecy is God Himself, it *will* come to pass. Period.

---

The Bible disagrees. In places. Jeremiah says as much.

Jeremiah 18:8-10

Good point, though lets look at that in a broader context:

Jeremiah 18:5-11 writes: Then the Lord told me to say: 6 People of Israel, I, the Lord, have power over you, just as a potter has power over clay. 7 If I threaten to uproot and shatter an evil nation 8 and that nation turns from its evil, I will change my mind. 9 If I promise to make a nation strong, 10 but its people start disobeying me and doing evil, then I will change my mind and not help them at all. 11 So listen to me, people of Judah and Jerusalem! I have decided to strike you with disaster, and I won’t change my mind unless you stop sinning and start living right.

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.

You believe the Bible because of fulfilled prophecy and you believe the prophecy will be fulfilled because the Bible is always right. Your reasoning is circular - which is why it doesn' t produce results that fit reality.

As a matter of fact it wasn't fulfilled prophecy that made me a believe in the Bible as God's word, although that is a good reason to believe. We already have fulfilled prophecies in the Daniel passages we are discussing:

Medo Persia did follow Babylon though nbody knew it in the time of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the statue;

Greece under Alexander the Great did defeat Medo Persia and conquer all the area over which his four generals did in fact in reality govern after his death, and they were also prophesied in the four horns of the goat in Daniel 8 as well as the four heads of the leopard of Daniel 7. Two empires prophesied that became reality.

And the wars between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies, two of those generals under Anexander, are described so well in Daniel 11, and historians who don't believe in prophecy try to pretend it had occurred before the prophecy because it is so exact. But if it was prophecy, which it was, all that is fulfilled prophecy too.

And of coruse the seventy weeks prophecy that counts to Messiah the Prince was also fulfilled,

as well as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the prince of the people who were to come, the Romans.

A lot of fulfillfed prophecy there to give us reason to expect unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled.

Faith writes: A lot of fulfillfed prophecy there to give us reason to expect unfulfilled prophecy will be fulfilled.

Even if your assessment of fulfilled prophecy is correct, that's no reason to assume that any other prophecy will be fulfilled. Say there's a 40% accuracy rate to this point in time. It could just be worse than random guessing. You'd need near 100% to conclude that there was a divine origin - but of course you can' t have that because you conveniently push all of the unfulfilled prophecies into our future.

Edited by ringo, : Spelling on my fone.

You really need to stop lying about what others think and why they think.

Lying Phat.

You are simply lying even if you have succeeded in being able to lie to yourself constantly and so well you don't even believe you are simply lying.

Yet again you simply misrepresent what I have posted.

You even quoted what I said yet still misrepresented what you quoted and attempt misdirection so you can palm the pea, move the goal posts.

Of course it's meaningless, just a taste for classical architecture by somebody or other --one might ask who had that much power -- or just an accident of history or something like that, but isn't it a bit weird that our government buildings have so much of ROME in them?

Here's St. Peter's basilica in Rome with its obelisk:

And here's the US Capitol building with the Washington Monument:

And a little touch of Greece in the Supreme Court building, imitating the Parthenon which was dedicated to the goddess Athena

And that's just a tiny bit of the Roman and Greco-Roman influences that somehow got so strongly represented in our government. Oh and then there is the painting in the dome of the Capitol Building called the Apotheosis (it means deification) of Washington which has some gods and goddesses in it and a distinct Roman flavor. Maybe I'll go find a picture of that too.

Found it:

Wikipedia, The Apotheosis of Washington writes: he Apotheosis of Washington is the fresco painted by Greek-Italian artist Constantino Brumidi in 1865 and visible through the oculus of the dome in the rotunda of the United States Capitol Building.... Brumidi had worked for three years in the Vatican under Pope Gregory XVI, and served several aristocrats as an artist for palaces and villas. ……. Symbolism The Apotheosis of Washington depicts George Washington sitting amongst the heavens in an exalted manner, or in literal terms, ascending and becoming a god (apotheosis). Washington, the first U.S. president and commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, is allegorically represented, surrounded by figures from classical mythology. Washington is draped in purple, a royal color, with a rainbow arch at his feet, flanked by the goddess Victoria (draped in green, using a horn) to his left and the Goddess of Liberty to his right. Liberty wears a red Phrygian cap, symbolizing emancipation, from a Roman tradition where sons leaving the home and/or slaves being emancipated would be given a red cap. She holds a fasces in her right hand and an open book in the other.

And by the way, the Statue of Liberty also represents a goddess.

What does any of this have to do with what we always thought was the philosophical political framework of the United States? Weren't we kind of sort of founded in opposition to what all this stuff represents? Kinda sorta maybe huh? Our first President made into a god when he didn't even want to be a king?

Certainly it's at odds with the Protestant foundings of the first settlers, but it's also at odds with the supposed Enlightenment inspiration of the Constitutional period. The gods and goddesses of Rome? Or Greece either?

I don't know about you but when I first grasped all this it really gave me the creeps. Wolf in the hen house when nobody was looking, took up residence long time since already with nobody that I know of objecting, or even noticing for that matter. To me it's rather akin to The Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place. But then I have the comfort of knowing that my citizenship isn't on this planet anyway, according to Paul the Apostle.

Anyway I think the Roman Empire doesn't need a lot of reviving, we've got lots of it on hand already.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

More utter bullshit and idiocy from Faith and the Christian Cult of Ignorance.

Faith writes: Certainly it's at odds with the Protestant foundings of the first settlers, but it's also at odds with the supposed Enlightenment inspiration of the Constitutional period. The gods and goddesses of Rome? Or Greece either?

And yet another example of absolute bullshit.

The first European settlers in the Americas were Roman Catholics (or Norse Vikings). And the first English colonies were commercial ventures.

And none of that has shit to do with the fact that Christianity has been trying to explain away "this generation shall not pass ..." since 2 Peter.

Edited by jar, : recognize Vikings

Gosh, those Pilgrims sure came to the wrong place seeking freedom from European religious tyranny then, didn't they? What an odd miscalculation.

Oh and I should comment on your delightfully civilized style and your conscientious adherence to the rules of the forum. You are certainly a stellar example to us all.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Your utter ignorance is showing yet again. The Pilgrims were not the first English settlers and the Norse and Spanish were here before the first English. The first English settlements were in Virginia and North Carolina and were commercial ventures.

Plus the Pilgrims were unable to get along with any other religious groups, Protestant or Catholic. They were simply religious fanatics, the Protestant Taliban.

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.

jar writes: The author says that it is written to explain why the fact that the end did not come during that generation as Jesus said would happen should not be called the failed prophecy that it was. Jesus said that the end would come during that generation.

Some commentators argue that Jesus was talking about the end of Jerusalem, Matthew 24:34 Commentaries.

The author of 2 Peter had to make up an explanation of why that is not a failure.

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?

2 Peter 2:1-2 writes: But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them-bringing swift destruction on themselves.

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.

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.

So let me get this straight. Most prophecy failed. Is that what you mean to teach?

Faith writes: Three things for now: First, it is objective fact that the word "generation" had different meanings, I didn't invent that. The question is which applied. Second, Jesus' prophecy points in part to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70, for instance, that no stone would be left standing upon another, and the warning to those in Judea to flee to the mountains, anticipating the armies of Rome under Titus. And that specific generation did indeed witness all that. The problem is that the passage also refers to the second coming as well, and that's what needs sorting out. Third, we know He is coming again no matter what timing is implied in that particular discourse, which means His coming is yet future. There are too many other passages that make that clear.

I agree with faith, though I will admit that the counter-arguments are challenging.

jar writes: Yet until the return AND establishment of a new Kingdom Jesus is still just a failed Messiah. Remember, Jesus was never a Christian but rather a Jew.

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.

Phat writes: Are you thus teaching us that Jesus was WRONG?

He was.

Commentaries are NOT the Bible.

They are excuse makers, propagandists.

Jesus said "this generation shall not pass...". That is NOT the end of Jerusalem which as a matter of fact has not ended.

So yes, according to the Bible, Jesus was wrong!

And if you look a what you quoted me as saying and what you replied you can see that you certainly DID misrepresent what I wrote. And I don't complain about the tactic of misrepresentation but also point out how often it is all you and some others have as tools.

This is a prophecy found in the Synoptic Gospels (Mark 13, Matthere 24-25, Luke 21) - attributed to Jesus. From a historical perspective we can’t be certain that Jesus said it at all. Certainly we can be sure that the Gospels do not relay Jesus actual words, if only because they were written in Greek.

The version in Luke is significantly different, so I will deal with it in a later post. Mark and Matthew have versions so similar that copying is almost certainly involved.

Mark opens with the disciples remarking on the glory of the Temple buildings. Whatever else may be said of Herod the Great, his renovations and additions to the Temple were quite impressive - the Western - or Wailing - Wall is a remnant of his building projects. Jesus tells them that within a generation not one stone would remain upon another. Allowing for hyperbole this came true, when the Romans took Jerusalem and - perhaps accidentally - burned down the Temple.

They move on and settle down on the Mount of Olives and they ask Jesus to tell them when this would happen. Jesus never gets to describing the actual destruction, so the events given are all leading up to that. Meaning, that if we want to relate them to actual events this prophecy can’t go past 70 AD.

Jesus tells them the following, all phrased as instructions to the disciples:

Many will come in his name and say “I am he” and they will lead people astray. The disciples should not trust them

There will be wars, earthquakes and famine.

The disciples will be persecuted and there will be violence and betrayal within families. The Gospel must be spread to all nations.

The abomination of desolation will be set up in the Temple, and seeing that is a sign to run for the hills, because of the terrible events that will follow.

Jesus again predicts false messiahs and prophets.

He goes on to say that the sun will be darkened, and the moon. Then the “Son of Man” will come and send angels to gather the elect from all over the world.

There is the parable of the fig tree, which says when those things occur that the end is soon. And more to say that the end will arrive suddenly so that the warnings should not be missed.

Matthew elaborates a little but says the same, but with additions.

Matthew adds the parable of the faithful slave, of the wise and foolish bridesmaids, of the talents.

The final section of Matthew 25 is the judgement, how the Son of Man will judge men by their deeds, and those who failed to be adequately charitable will be sent to eternal punishment.

I will note just some of the problems here.

There is no good explanation of the abomination. The best attempt I have seen is the standards of the Roman legionaries. But that is a bit late to say the least. Conditions in Jerusalem were very bad before the Romans managed to get past the inner wall. By the time they took the Temple it should have been obvious to everyone that there was serious trouble. The time to run away would have been before the siege got seriously started.

I understand that some Christians believe that Jesus was seen in the skies before the destruction of the Temple. But if He sent angels to gather His elect - let alone held the Final Judgement, you couldn’t tell from history.

And it all has to happen within a generation of the discourse - with the destruction of the Herodian Temple an important part of it.

Clearly this is set in our past, not our future.

Edited by PaulK, : Fixed typo in title

Since the New Testament was written in Greek by Jesus' disciples it wouldn't make sense that He didn't also speak Greek. It was the common language of the day even if local areas had their own languages as well. And the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament, was in common use throughout the Greek lands where the Jews were scattered. We know they also had their own languages because at Pentecost the disciples who spoke in "tongues" were understood as speaking those many languages by all the Jews who had come to Jerusalem for the feast. But surely they also spoke Koine Greek. Again, since the New Testament was written in Greek by Jewish fishermen and tax collectors it had to be the common language and Jesus must have spoken it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.