|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christianity and the End Times | |||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yup!
2 Peter is a very important example of how the marketing changed because the prophecies failed. In 2 Peter we see the acknowledgement that what Jesus said failed to happen and a revision of the "sizzle" from "this generation" to sometime in the future. And that ambiguity has worked well as a marketing tool ever since then. 2 Peter marks another major revision of the Mythos similar to the revisionism found in the Gospel of John.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
First, you really need to learn what Mythos actually means. Before we can go much further that needs to get resolved.
Second, you actually support everything I have said regardless of your belief you present any rebuttal. One group accepts a set of dogma endorsed by their chapter of Club Christian as authoritative while the other group accepts that what is written in the Bible stories is what is actually written in the Bible stories EVEN when it refutes the dogma of a given Chapter of Club Christian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, you are creating an issue that only exists in the creations of a Chapter of Club Christian.
Even your quote reinforces the the practice of dogma versus what is actually written in the stories as well as the common apologist tactic of trying to misdirect the audiences attention so they can palm the pea. 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. The author of 2 Peter needs to create an apology; a revision to what had been recorded as authoritative as the words of Jesus. And the End Times have been a marketing tool of some Chapters of Club Christianity ever since. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: 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. Read what you write Phat. You admit that you look only for the support for your desired outcome.
Phat writes: Show us the proof that this was the authors motive? Good grief Phat. Read 2 Peter. 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. That did not happen. The author of 2 Peter had to make up an explanation of why that is not a failure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Until a prophecy is fulfilled it is still failed prophecy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Faith writes: Tradition says the New testament was written by the people whose names are on the books. Tradition that goes back to the beginning. No Faith, 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong.
Of course Apologists have an agenda; to defend their particular Christianity, Dogma and God they created. That is what "Apologist" means. It states that what is actually written should be ignored or interpreted to fit the dogma. The big difference between Christian Apologists and Jewish Apologists though is honesty. If you read the Jewish Talmuds you are immediately struck by the fact that in the Talmud each sction includes relevant quotes from a succession of Rabbis each presenting a different interpretation or conclusion with NO single answer defined as authoritative. It is the exact opposite of the Christian Apologists position that their position is authoritative.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yet Luke includes multiple mutually exclusive versions of several stories. If one is correct then the others are false.
Luke is simply an early apologist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: 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. But that is simply not true Phat; you and Faith do NOT start with the Bible but in reality simply ignore the Bible and start with the dogma of your particular Cult and with your personal desired outcomes.
Phat writes: 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. Why? Look at the description of the God found in Genesis 1 versus the description of the God found in Genesis 2&3 (remember you claim to begin with the Bible). The God in Genesis 1 is competent, sure, assured, but also aloof, having absolutely no contact, no communication, no communion, no interactions with humans or ANY of creation at all. The God in the much older Genesis 2&3 story though is in communion with humans, does interact with humans, but also is unsure, not very competent, not honest, fearful and punishes humans even though that God created the conditions that made and assured they could only transgress. Remember you claim to begin with the Bible. Which description is the God of the Bible, or are they simply creations of the authors of those stories designed to fit the plot and needs of each story? Or would you prefer to begin with the God YOU need and desire?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: Quite honestly, I believe that my side at least believes that we know God. I don't think anyone has ever doubted that you believe what you claim to believe.
Phat writes: 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. Yet just a few posts ago you claimed that you, Faith and others start with the Bible.
Phat writes: 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. Exactly. You maintain the God that you desire, need and create.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024