Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

Thanks Straggler. I've learned a lot from you over the years and it's good to see you back.
My apologies, but God bless

It isn't about the Son of Man returning. It is about the Son of Man coming and it's coming to the Father as talked about in Daniel 7.

quote:

---

13 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

---

I’m sorry, but that isn’t how it reads but you have your mind made up and so that’s that.I’d add this. Christianity is often so focused on Jesus as God. It forgets about Jesus the man. Wholly God and wholly man. I don’t believe that Jesus had supernatural knowledge of the future. He is constantly referring back to the Hebrew Scriptures just as He is in the passages we’re discussing. He prayerfully gained His understanding of His vocation through those scriptures. He predicted the fall of Jerusalem because He understood the militant and revolutionary ways of His people, and He knew what the Romans would do to quash any military revolution.Frankly, if the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple hadn’t happened within a generation it wouldn’t affect my faith. It would simply be like me looking at the situation and wrongly predicting the outcome of an election. Jesus understood the revolutionary and militant ways of His people. He also understood what the Romans would do in order to quash a rebellion. Jesus was predicting what was going to happen, and believed that it would happen sooner rather than later.I realize it suits your position on Christianity to be able to look at those passages and say that Jesus with supernatural knowledge Jesus was predicting the end of the world so you can claim victory because it didn’t happen. If you want to set up a straw man and knock down feel free It doesn’t talk about Jesus returning. It talks about Him coming and refers, once again, to his coming to the Father, the Ancient of Days as in Daniel 13.The destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple will be a sign of what happens when you try to defeat evil with a sword. This will be the affirmation of Jesus’ message and so they will see, (not visually), that Jesus has gone to the Father, the Ancient of Days and given dominion over the nations. That obviously is metaphoric but IMHO it is a metaphor that represents a fundamental truth. I know you completely reject all of this but I thought I’d outline my understanding of what is going on.I also would like to add that I contend that some branches of the Christian church make too big an issue of end times beliefs. If God is going to shut things down as they stand, there isn’t much we can do about that happening. However, what we can do is to prepare for, and live lives that build for, the time when all things are recreated, or in other words, when all of creation is resurrected. That is done simply by following my signature.

The whole discussion is about what Matthew 24 is about.

I'm kind of surprised that you take this position. I think Yeshua was almost certainly an actual figure who knew the Mishna and Torah quite well and did whatever he could to manufacture ways to fulfill the messianic prophecies. There are enough extra-biblical sources to assume that he was a real person even if ultimately just another failed messiah.Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian, Josephus (although much of it likely altered by Christians after-the-fact), the Babylonian Talmud, etc are all reputable sources.I think more often than not, lore almost always begins with a measure of truth before it grows.

I think there was a historical Jesus but exaggerating the evidence is not a good defence.

quote:

---

Tacitus, Pliny, Lucian, Josephus (although much of it likely altered by Christians after-the-fact), the Babylonian Talmud, etc are all reputable sources.

---

Pliny doesn’t mention the historical Jesus. Lucian doesn’t either.The references in the Babylonian Talmud are very problematic. At least one is likely a response to Christian claims with no historical validity.

And yet it actually says that the Son of Man coming to the people Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come

quote:

---

Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[c] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.[d] 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

---

But in any case that didn't happen either! It doesn't matter which way you spin it, it didn't happen! [We'd know]You, like all others believe what you prefer, it has no effect on the words written, all it does is demonstrate why there are 38,000 formal variants of what Christians believe and billions of individual ones. Because just like the original words, you're all making it up. Of course it wouldn't. Just like real in your face proof that the earth is not 6,000 years old doesn't affect Faith's. You're oblivious to evidence. Heresy! Jesus wasn't a prophet! You're kidding right? Jesus has no supernatural knowledge, 'he just a very naughty boy'. Oh come on. So he was lying when he said all that stuff, making all those future predictions?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I didn't mean that they were all that late. When I said "by the time the gospels were written" maybe I should have said, "by the time all the gospels had been written." The last one would have been written some time between 100 and 150 AD. I think that even in the very early days of Christianity when Paul was establishing the first churches that most of the converts were gentiles. The message of Paul was very different from the message of Jesus as expressed in the gospels. Paul brought a message for all mankind, not just Jews. Rather than getting into it we could probably agree that reasonable people could disagree about which gospel writers were Jewish. Are you still talking about Mark 13, because I don't see where Jesus said anything about rebuilding the Temple? Then what you believe is coming from within yourself and has no objective reality. You're repeating the exact same arguments you made before and ignoring the rebuttal. The rebuttal is unchanged and still unaddressed, I'll repeat it. Obviously the message resonated with potential converts, evangelists would have increased their emphasis on what worked, being a leader in a religious movement does have rewards, and you're objecting to things that are true of many new religions. We observe them today all the time, like embracing persecution, encouraging an "us versus them" mentality, giving up worldly things, etc. But as Tangle keeps reminding you, the evidence isn't in your book. You're just telling yourself that there must have been evidence because otherwise Paul's conversion would make no sense. But look around you at new religions that form today. Where is their evidence? They have none, right? So why do you believe people in the Bible must have had evidence that is nowhere described in the Bible? That's for sure. This is just something you believe, not something you have any evidence for. He sure didn't go to Peter. Paul's epistles predate the gospels, and the differences indicate a period of mythmaking. There's some typos or garbled syntax in this sentence that make me uncertain what you mean, so I'll just comment that the Jesus crucifixion story is straight up martyrdom. The gospels are just stories, but you're interpreting them far differently than most of the rest of Christianity who talk of how amazing it was that after Jesus's death the apostles continued to evangelize with renewed energy and confidence. You're just repeating your original failed argument. The answer hasn't changed. Many new religions make material sacrifices for spiritual gain. We observe it in real time today. How are Christian origins any different?--Percy

So some say. Others say different. Perhaps we should study and consider any science in the study of mythmaking. To me, if an event involves death, hardship, and persecution, myths won't simply spring up about how Jesus..or Santa Claus...or Osama Bin Laden...heroically saved the people and martyred themselves by leaving on a winged chariot or sleigh. Now I would tend to agree with you that there most certainly was and is mythmaking from those farther removed from the action. Every Sunday we can turn the channel and see many preachers further elaborating on what Jesus actually meant. Tangle has a good point in that everything ever written is limited to the books and that oral tradition involves a poetic license. GDR argues that because of the close proximity to the action, the Disciples were not prone to mythmaking nor poetic license...they simply retold what they had experienced. Later on, Paul was himself a victim of some persecution, and also told it as he experienced it, in my opinion.Of course, the original question was whether Jesus actually existed as a person. Additionally, was this person anywhere near his legendary status? I would argue ye, but I have my biases. Percy would argue no, that we observe religions and myths surrounding them being created every day.

Where did you look?

quote:

---

Wikipedia on Ancient Literature:
August Nitschke sees some fairy tales as literary survivals dating back to Ice Age and Stone Age narrators.

---

Did you think the stories about Egyptian Gods and Greek Gods and Norse Gods were news?

No it isn't. I didn't even notice a reference to Matthew 24 before.The only thing I'm discussing is your cherry-picking of the text. One glaring example is your dismissal of the stories about the Old Testament atrocities as "made up by men" while at the same time swallowing hook, line and sinker the New Testament stories about miracles and resurrection - even though they are just as obviously made up by men. You ignore the text when it doesn't fit your made-up ideas about a sunshine-and-lollipops God.

This gets back to my suggestion that we should study the science(if any) of legends and mythmaking and compare it to first-person accounts of major events. For a modern example, those who were in the compound when Osama Bin Laden was captured would likely have different stories concerning the actual events of that day than would Muslims and Osama supporters in far cities of Pakistan and the Muslim world. There would be myths developing around the man, for sure...but the point being that those close to the action...the actual fight...who knew the man himself...would have different narratives. Not that they couldn't or wouldn't be inclined to make something up at times...but that is our challenge...separating the myths from the news itself. Reported by men. Not necessarily made up, unless you dismiss the actual event to begin with.Edited by Phat, : added ringowocky

I think Yeshua was based on an actual figure or figures, much like Elmer Gantry was based on Billy Sunday and other real preachers. The authors who wrote about him knew the Mishna and Torah quite well.

Well, we do dismiss talking snakes because we know that snakes don't talk. So we know that the authors do make things up. Why would we not question other stories that the same authors tell?We also dismiss resurrections because we know resurrections don't happen.

Good point. You always have a contrarian point of view! Its one of the things that make debates with you so interesting! What I don't understand, however, is the default position that states nothing ever happens unless evidence is produced. It seems that what separates believers from skeptics is a need to believe.Even if the whole story was a myth, the very fact that it still occupies so much of human belief and practice is itself curious...if in fact it was all a myth to begin with.You and I never agree because you start with the assumption of no God where I start with the assumption that God exists.Granted your entire argument that there is no God to help us and that we all just need to love one another and form a universal brotherhood is logically a good all-inclusive global plea for unity...whereas religions seemingly divide us.

There need be no event at all.For example you've got the modern invention of Mormonism. Obviously a total invention but now believed by 15m people. It really doesn't take much, people are desperate for this hokum.