Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,450 Year: 3,707/9,624 Month: 578/974 Week: 191/276 Day: 31/34 Hour: 12/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Jesus: Why I believe He was a failure.
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 135 of 427 (541869)
01-06-2010 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Brian
01-06-2010 3:13 PM


authentic pen, part deux
And, conceding fictionality briefly myself for the pure fun of it
Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery, with a soldier named Panthra.
Scholars believed for centuries that the soldier in question was a cypher, invented by Celsus as a pun on the Greek parthena meaning "virgin." Until, that is, his grave was discovered in Germany.
The connection depends on the assumption that Celsus' information about Jesus' illegitimacy was correct, and so a soldier with this name, living at the right period, might be the father. Tiberius Iulius Abdes Pantera's career would place him in Judea (present day Palestine) as a young man around the time of Jesus' conception.[4]
Scholars Marcus J. Borg and John Dominic Crossan note that Celsus was antagonistic towards Christianity and that the suggestion of Roman parentage might derive from the memory of Roman military operations suppressing a revolt at Sepphoris near Nazareth around the time of Jesus' birth.
Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera - Wikipedia
Serving the faith
Abduction the oath
It lie in wait for the offering
Religion is old
For drawing the young
Purity withers and dies
-- Pantera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Brian, posted 01-06-2010 3:13 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Brian, posted 01-07-2010 2:51 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 161 of 427 (542531)
01-10-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Buzsaw
01-10-2010 1:36 PM


Re: Why Change Meaning?
You need to consider the uniqueness of this birth, having an earthly father, i.e. the son of man, yet conceived by God's Holy Spirit, i.e. son of God.
Does this mean his Y chromosome was that of Joseph? I wanted to ask about that when Son Goku was arguing, but what it would have come down to, would have been, was his X chromosome even that of Mary? Ie, if his body was a special creation in her womb, can we even infer that he shares genetic material with either of his earthly parents?
Is it possible that his genetic make-up was exactly that of a son of David, without regarding to lineage at all? God had such a genetic configuration available for this purpose, which had been allowed to come into being and then taken away before it could receive any use other than as an object lesson to David, namely that of his first conception with Bathsheba.
On the other hand, is it not possible that he could have been the earthly child of Joseph and Mary in a normal genetic sense, and still also be the incarnate God? This makes sense out of the whole virgin / maiden argument, without requiring text torture. Mary hadn't known a man when the angel spoke to her, and had no intention of knowing one, having dedicated her life to God. Her betrothal to Joseph was a technicality, to which most Temple attendants submitted as a safeguard against temptation. She would have been released from it once she graduated from novice to full sister.
But instead God had a plan for her, that didn't correspond to her original idea of what it meant to be his Bride. He needed her to be his Mother. Isn't this a good picture of how God uses us? We submit to him, thinking that that means giving up this or that. Once we submit though, he instead gives us the other thing. Mysterious ways indeeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Buzsaw, posted 01-10-2010 1:36 PM Buzsaw has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 182 of 427 (542814)
01-12-2010 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Buzsaw
01-12-2010 7:35 PM


forever is a long time
You could begin with explaining how a forever throne could be limited to a contemporary era.
This has already been covered by purpledawn pretty thoroughly in Message 173, but I thought I would just go ahead and drag out my elephant-gun and see if I can clear it up even more for your audience.
The word translated "ever" in Second Samuel 7:13 is 'owlam in Hebrew. Let's look at some verses.
Genesis 6:4 writes:
There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown.
Did these giants or mighty men reign forever, or were they in due time drowned? Did they live an infinitely long time ago, or only a few thousand years back?
Proverbs 23:10 writes:
Remove not the old landmark; and enter not into the fields of the fatherless:
Do these landmarks last forever? Or is there a danger of someone removing them? Are they all still standing, or are most of them long gone?
Ecclesiastes 3:11 writes:
He hath made every [thing] beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
Is the world in men's hearts an eternity, or is it just something that doesn't go away very easily?
Isaiah 58:12 writes:
And [they that shall be] of thee shall build the old waste places: thou shalt raise up the foundations of many generations; and thou shalt be called, The repairer of the breach, The restorer of paths to dwell in.
Do these places remain wasted forever, or are they in fact being built up again?
Jeremiah 5:15 writes:
Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from far, O house of Israel, saith the LORD: it [is] a mighty nation, it [is] an ancient nation, a nation whose language thou knowest not, neither understandest what they say.
Did Nabopolasser's Neo-Babylonian empire last forever? Or did they get totally trounced by Cyrus and Astyages in 540 BC?
In each of these cases, the wording in bold represents 'owlam. And not a tense or variation of it either, ayin vau lamed mem with the same vowel markings.
Once you actually search the scriptures and rightly divide them, in other words, it's pretty clear the word means "long-time".
Edited by Iblis, : when the stars were right again

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Buzsaw, posted 01-12-2010 7:35 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Buzsaw, posted 01-14-2010 12:51 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 206 of 427 (543065)
01-15-2010 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by purpledawn
01-13-2010 8:37 PM


What's up with Samuel
As usual, we are getting more than our fair share of gibberish in this thread. One of the ideas that is getting vigorously stressed every few pages is thusly: that God never intended us to have kings, thinks kingship is a bad idea, and in fact doesn't like any kings at all; and therefore, Jesus must have been a king.
The idea that he didn't intend the Israelites to have kings is kind of ludicrous.
Deuteronomy 17:15-18 writes:
Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.
But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book out of [that which is] before the priests the Levites
Sounds like a plan! The reason that they needed a king was because being ruled directly by God is strikingly similar to anarchy.
Judges 17:6 writes:
In those days [there was] no king in Israel, [but] every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.
Just interpreting ancient fables for themselves and counting on God to play his part didn't work.
Judges 19:22-30 writes:
[Now] as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, [and] beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.
And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, [nay], I pray you, do not [so] wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.
Behold, [here is] my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.
But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.
Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord [was], till it was light.
And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down [at] the door of the house, and her hands [were] upon the threshold.
And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her [up] upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.
And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, [together] with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.
And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak [your minds].
Trusting to the priests to help sort everything out for them didn't work either.
First Samuel 2:12-14,17,22 writes:
Now the sons of Eli [were] sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD.
And the priests' custom with the people [was, that], when any man offered sacrifice, the priest's servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with a fleshhook of three teeth in his hand;
And he struck [it] into the pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot; all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither.
Wherefore the sin of the young men was very great before the LORD: for men abhorred the offering of the LORD.
Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled [at] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
They wanted someone to look out for their own interests, and help keep them from being looted by the priests and raped by sons of bitches. You would too, if it were you. One of the things that they learned was that it isn't the best idea to just pick someone who is attractive and popular.
First Samuel 9:2 writes:
And he had a son, whose name [was] Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and [there was] not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward [he was] higher than any of the people.
What would be a good idea, would be to pick someone who already has experience and has shown they can be trusted to do the job.
Second Samuel 5:1-3 writes:
Then came all the tribes of Israel to David unto Hebron, and spake, saying, Behold, we [are] thy bone and thy flesh.
Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.
So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the LORD: and they anointed David king over Israel.
Don't get slack though, don't trust to lineages. You may think you got lucky in the next generation
First Kings 4:29-32 writes:
And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore.
And Solomon's wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt.
For he was wiser than all men; than Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol: and his fame was in all nations round about.
And he spake three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five.
but what looks like business in the front may well be party in the back
First Kings 11:1-3 writes:
But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, [and] Hittites;
Of the nations [concerning] which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: [for] surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.
and things aren't going to get any better after that.
First Kings 12:12-14 writes:
So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had appointed, saying, Come to me again the third day.
And the king answered the people roughly, and forsook the old men's counsel that they gave him;
And spake to them after the counsel of the young men, saying, My father made your yoke heavy, and I will add to your yoke: my father [also] chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.
So pick your own leaders, from your own brothers, based on their experience and ability to do the job, and hold them to it, just the way the law says. And if any posers come around talking about genealogies and divine right, don't believe them, because they are talking shit.
Matthew 22:41-46 writes:
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, [The Son] of David.
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any [man] from that day forth ask him any more [questions].

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by purpledawn, posted 01-13-2010 8:37 PM purpledawn has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 226 of 427 (543299)
01-17-2010 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by Peg
01-17-2010 4:52 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
You consistently do this with dates, and you have to stop. 1040 BC is the traditional date for the birth of David. The date you think you want would be much closer to 970 BC, the date of his death.
But even that is wrong. There is plenty of evidence that the author of Samuel is also the author of Kings. The narrative structure and wording, particularly in the portion depicting the conception, birth, life and death of Solomon, which runs from Second Samuel 11 through First Kings 11, is all one story by one author. If you assume single authorship for Samuel and for Kings, then that author must be the same person too. And Kings ends with the return of Jehoiachin (Coniah) to favor under Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk) in 561 BC. Jeremiah ends with the same event. So all three books were proofed by the same person, sometime between 561 and 538 BC. "Thus far the book of Jeremiah."
There's no "speculation" to it. All you have to do is read instead of believing the lies you have been told second-hand by people who specifically set out to undermine a truth that was being used against them by German atheists. We don't give up screwdrivers just because some nutbag kills someone with one, do we? So don't give up reason just because your opponents are reasonable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Peg, posted 01-17-2010 4:52 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Peg, posted 01-17-2010 6:15 AM Iblis has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 232 of 427 (543308)
01-17-2010 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by Peg
01-17-2010 6:15 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
"By the Rivers of Babylon" isn't in Lamentations, it's Psalm 137. Why do you keep believing this false stuff that is so easily checked? You have to stop.
If you had picked a reasonable date for the actual prophecy, like 1012 or 1013 BC, I wouldn't have bothered with you. But you had to give 1040, because you are just blindly believing sources that are setting you up to look like a liar. You did the same thing for your argument about the translation of the Septuagint, the date you gave was the very beginning of the reign of that Ptolemy. Like that was the first thing he did! The story is clear, he was already a big deal and had compiled a huge library before he got to the Jewish Law. But your sources don't care, they are already lying so why should they bother to check their work? You have to stop.
If you want to work out which parts of Samuel-Kings are by Nathan, I will be happy to help you. The reason that Samuel ends before the death of David is because it closes with around 4 chapters of Gad material, and his book does end when he dies, before David. But his stuff is stuck smack dab in the middle of Nathan, which spans both books. But look, now we really are speculating. We don't have a record as to which books are by who, we just have to read them and see what's what. The only thing we can be sure of, from the scribal markings in the text itself, is that those very markings were made by someone who finished his work between 561 and 538 BC.
So, do you want to speculate? Because if you do, you are going to have to stop believing random lies from wicked liars, and be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove. Or else "after 561" is all you've got. Decide.
PS: Jerusalem wasn't destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar until 587 BC. 607 is when Jeremiah first prophecied it. Some sources believe he may have swung by and kidnapped some boys to be eunuchs like Daniel and his pals as early as 605 BC. He wasn't king at that point, but he was fighting about 100 miles north of there and, had a fondness for boys. He didn't take young Coniah until 598/7 BC. Zedekiah reigned on until 587/6. Stop believing random crap. Please.
Edited by Iblis, : there is nothing new under the sun

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Peg, posted 01-17-2010 6:15 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Peg, posted 01-17-2010 7:08 AM Iblis has replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 234 of 427 (543310)
01-17-2010 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Peg
01-17-2010 6:45 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
Which tells you something about potential sources for Chronicles, not Kingdoms. Not that you're wrong, the Deuteronomic Historian did use those same books, though the Chronicler focused on keeping track of what was left out by him, ie not scripture. But we know that because we use our minds.
All that Chronicles actually said was that some people wrote some books. It doesn't tell you who wrote Samuel-Kings. It may mention them, as "The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel". In which case, they are separate books from Nathan and Gad anyway. Get it?
If you want to use your brain, first stop believing lies. If you want to take the word as written, first stop believing lies. If you want to look rididiculous, well, you are doing fine. Lamentations! WTF, third most famous Psalm in the book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Peg, posted 01-17-2010 6:45 AM Peg has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 237 of 427 (543314)
01-17-2010 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Peg
01-17-2010 7:08 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
You really need to explain to me why a book about king davids reign failed to include the momentous occasion of the kings Death?
Do I? Really?
Second Samuel 23:1-7 writes:
Now these [be] the last words of David. David the son of Jesse said, and the man [who was] raised up on high, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel, said,
The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word [was] in my tongue.
The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me, He that ruleth over men [must be] just, ruling in the fear of God.
And [he shall be] as the light of the morning, [when] the sun riseth, [even] a morning without clouds; [as] the tender grass [springing] out of the earth by clear shining after rain.
Although my house [be] not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all [things], and sure: for [this is] all my salvation, and all [my] desire, although he make [it] not to grow.
But [the sons] of Belial [shall be] all of them as thorns thrust away, because they cannot be taken with hands:
But the man [that] shall touch them must be fenced with iron and the staff of a spear; and they shall be utterly burned with fire in the [same] place.
All you have to do is read. Please. Stop believing lies and just read.
PS: It may help if you actually have an explanation for why you stick Samuel at 1040, the traditional date of the birth of David, as calculated by the count of reigns in Samuel-Kings and co-reigns in Chronicles and corraborated by dates in Assyrian and Babylonian records since recovered showing the rations of Coniah and the war with Hezekiah, as well as known dating for Sennacherib, Necho, and other folks the later kings dealt with. My dates are the ones everyone has.
His life may be dated to c.1040—970 BC, his reign over Judah c.1010—1003 BC, and his reign over the united Kingdom of Israel c.1003—970 BC.
David - Wikipedia
Edited by Iblis, : happy shall he be who taketh the heads of thy littlest ones and dasheth them against the stones

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Peg, posted 01-17-2010 7:08 AM Peg has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 247 of 427 (543621)
01-19-2010 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Brian
01-17-2010 5:19 AM


Son of David
While we are having our little break here in Forest For The Trees, dwelling on what a fine fellow David was, and how important it is that our lard and savour be descended from such a wonderful king as him:
Let's have a look at Sling-Boys plan for dealing with health care and the homeless
Second Samuel 5:6-8 writes:
And the king and his men went to Jerusalem unto the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land: which spake unto David, saying, Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither: thinking, David cannot come in hither.
Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same [is] the city of David.
And David said on that day, Whosoever getteth up to the gutter, and smiteth the Jebusites, and the lame and the blind, [that are] hated of David's soul, [he shall be chief and captain]. Wherefore they said, The blind and the lame shall not come into the house.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Brian, posted 01-17-2010 5:19 AM Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by purpledawn, posted 01-20-2010 4:18 AM Iblis has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 250 of 427 (543663)
01-20-2010 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Peg
01-20-2010 4:48 AM


Re: Whose Interpretation Contradicts?
blah blah blah Septuagint yadda yadda yadda Vulgate etc et al ad infinitum
And all that has what to do with the affairs of David that the Chronicler apparently claims to have found written by three separate prophets in their own words and not in the third person at all, at all?
I'm going to start quoting the 70 again any minute now. Starting with "Bel and the Dragon" I think. Or "Susanna" maybe, I'm pretty sure she has some bearing on this bloodline thingie.
PS: Don't get the idea that anyone is going to just forget about this either
Peg writes:
The fact is that 2 Samuel does not record David’s death and this has always been used as strong evidence that it was written prior to Davids death...
Or this
Second Samuel 23:1 writes:
Now these [be] the last words of David
Edited by Iblis, : keeping count

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Peg, posted 01-20-2010 4:48 AM Peg has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


(1)
Message 297 of 427 (544884)
01-29-2010 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Brian
01-28-2010 3:06 AM


Why I know Cthulhu was a success
and this is impressive in some way?
A really good example for this sort of thing would be the Lovecraft mythos. Howard Phipps pirated a very small amount of esoteric references to bolster his pulp horror stories and make his Outer Gods and Old Ones more believable, and ended up creating a very compelling fictional world. It was so compelling that in his own time several other writers tapped into it with his permission and it served as a guide to what to do and what not to do in developing horror fiction.
As a result of this "guide" status, new generations of writers have continued to pay homage to the mythos, generally tapping into minor bits of dramatic window-dressing to create whole new myths explaining those references. Thanks to August Derleth's misinterpretation of Lovecraft's ideas, a lot of these differ strongly from what the sage of Providence ever talked about or cared for.
This is very similar to the way the Old and New Testament worked out. The Pentateuch reconstruction of the thought of Moses, and the attached Prophets giving it new applicability for other situations, inspired a whole mass of very un-Mosaic literature around the turn of the aeon. These various parties of gnostics and apocalyptics and minority talmudists grab bits and pieces of Torah and Nephibim and twist them all out of shape to support whole new ideas and allegories that no one in Old Testament times would have liked in the least. Ezekiel in particular would have been horrified by the New Testament cycle.
Ezekiel 8:14,15 writes:
Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD'S house which [was] toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz.
Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen [this], O son of man? turn thee yet again, [and] thou shalt see greater abominations than these.
Jesus in comparative mythology - Wikipedia
Another reason that the Cthulhu mythos is a good model for the development of the New Testament from the old is that since the 1960s the Lovecraft entities have received a lot of usage in Magickal studies, as a demonstration that fictional deities are just as good as allegedly "real" ones. As is always the case with good magic, this has resulted in the spawning of numerous more or less deluded religions.
Some of these are awful, they essentially believe that much of the corpus is "literally true" and that the Great Old Ones are real beings from outer space who are trapped in other dimensions and can be temporarily unleashed to do the usual demonic stuff. Others are more mature, one of my favorites is a group who have pirated John Gray's ideas and essentially developed an analogical system around the theme that Men Are From Dunwich, Women Are From Innsmouth.
Some pretty interesting parallels there, aren't there? And in a thousand years or so no one will be able to see much difference between the two religious traditions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Brian, posted 01-28-2010 3:06 AM Brian has not replied

  
Iblis
Member (Idle past 3917 days)
Posts: 663
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 410 of 427 (547101)
02-16-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 405 by DevilsAdvocate
02-15-2010 7:34 PM


Re: The Throne
You may not be aware of what you are stepping into here, man. She's perfectly willing to believe nonsense.
Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses - Wikipedia
Witnesses base their beliefs about the significance of 1914 on the Watch Tower Society's interpretation of biblical chronology.[20][21] They believe this to be reinforced by world events since 1914, which they see as fulfillment of the "sign" of Christ's presence for all to see. [22][23] An example of this sign is said to be the world wars which they say fulfills Christ's statement in answer to a request for a sign. [24] They believe that their preaching is part of that sign. To support this they point to Matthew 24:14, which says "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all nations. And then the end shall come." (MKJV) [25][26][27]
Their interpretation of Bible chronology is hinged on their assertion that the Babylonian captivity and destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 607 BCE.[28] Secular historians date the event of Jerualem's destruction to within a year of 587 BC. The Witnesses alternative chronology produces a 20-year gap somewhere between the reigns of Neo-Babylonian Kings Amel-Marduk (rule ended 560BC) and Nabonidus (rule began 555BC) in addition to the intervening reigns of Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk, despite the availability of contiguous cuneiform records.[29]
And not just nonsense, but nonsense with a long track record of being wrong.
Barbour's basic eschatology was retained by Russell after they parted company, with some minor refinements. Basing his interpretations on a concept of parallel "dispensations," Russell taught that while Jesus was invisibly present here on earth he was also made its King in 1878. He claimed God had rejected the "nominal Church" (considered to be "Babylon the Great") in 1878.[70] Russell also taught that in 1878 Christ resurrected all the "dead in Christ" as spirit beings to be with him on earth awaiting a future glorification to heaven. (As each of the remainder of the 144,000 would die after 1878, Christ would resurrect them as spirit beings to join those already resurrected.) Together with Christ on earth, these invisible resurrected spirit beings were said to be engaged in directing a harvest work (running from 1874-1914) gathering the remainder of those with the heavenly calling.[71] Russell later moderated his view about the significance of 1881, stating that the "door" for the gathering of the Bride of Christ "stands ajar."[72]
He wrote that the culmination of Armageddon would occur in 1914, preceded by the gathering of all the saints (both resurrected and living) to heaven. Based on measurements from the Great Pyramid of Gizeh, this "passing beyond the vail" or rapture was expected "before the close of A.D. 1910."[73][74] Russell enumerated seven expectations for 1914 in The Time is at Hand, providing biblical evidence that the "lease of dominion" over earth by Gentiles would end in 1914, "and that date will be the farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men. He wrote that:
(1) In 1914 the Kingdom of God would obtain full, universal control over earth "on the ruins of present institutions";
(2) Christ would then be present as earth’s new Ruler;
(3) Some time before the end of 1914 the last member of the "royal priesthood, the body of Christ" would be glorified with Christ;
(4) Fom 1914 Jerusalem would no longer "be trodden down by the Gentiles";
(5) From that date, "Israel’s blindness will begin to be turned away";
(6) In 1914 the great "time of trouble" would reach its culmination in a worldwide reign of anarchy;
(7) Before that date God’s Kingdom would "smite and crush the Gentile image - and fully consume the power of these kings".[75]
At first the hopes for 1914 were stretched to "near the end of A.D. 1915."[76] A few months before his death in October 1916, Russell wrote: "We believe that the dates have proven to be quite right. We believe that Gentile Times have ended...The Lord did not say that the Church would all be glorified by 1914. We merely inferred it, and, evidently, erred."[77] He expected the war in Europe to be the beginning of Armageddon[78] and the destruction of the "nominal Church" to take place in April 1918.[79]
And not just wrong, but continually adjustable and retconnable ever since.
After the passing of 1975, the Watch Tower Society continued to emphasize the teaching that God would execute his judgment on humankind before the generation of people who had witnessed the events of 1914 had all died.[157][158][159][160] This teaching was based on an interpretation of Matthew 24:34 ("Truly I say to you that this generation will by no means pass away until all these things occur"), with the term "a generation" said to refer "beyond question" to a generation living in a given period.[161]
The term had been used with regard to the nearness of Armageddon from the 1940s, when the view was that "a generation" covered a period of about 30 to 40 years.[162] As the 40-year deadline passed without Armageddon occurring, the definition of "a generation" underwent a series of changes: in 1952 it was said for the first time to mean an entire lifetime, possibly 80 years or more;[162][163] in 1968 it was applied to those who had been at least 15 years old in 1914 and therefore "old enough to witness with understanding what took place when the 'last days' began" (italics theirs);[164] in 1980 the starting date for that "generation" was brought into the 20th century when the term was applied to those who had been born in 1904 and therefore aged 10 and able simply "to observe" when World War I had begun. The Watchtower commented: "The fact that their number is dwindling is one more indication that the conclusion of the system of things is moving fast toward its end."[162][165]
From 1982 to 1995 the inside cover of every Awake! magazine included in its statement of purpose a reference to the generation of 1914 belief, acknowledging the Creator’s promise ... of a peaceful and secure new world before the generation that saw the events of 1914 passes away". In 1985 Witnesses were reminded: "The 1914 generation is well into the evening of its existence, thus allowing only little time for this prophecy yet to be fulfilled."[166] .
Even as they taught it, however, members of the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses debated replacing the doctrine with a markedly different interpretation. In 1980 Albert Schroeder, Karl Klein and Grant Suiter proposed moving the beginning of the "generation" to the year 1957, to coincide with the year Sputnik was launched. The proposal was rejected by the rest of the Governing Body.[167]
Despite its earlier description as being "beyond question", the "generation of 1914" teaching was discarded in 1995.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 405 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 02-15-2010 7:34 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024