I’m not interested in a god who would stoop to play “Whoops! Looks like you missed out on my party! Have fun in my eternal torture chamber!”
Such a being could not be perfect (as sadism is on my list of things that disqualify you), and thus, not a god, and thus, not worth my time, worship, or concern.
If other people want to fantasize about being in the “in crowd” when God closes the bar without a last call, I suppose they can. I admit to a certain feeling of contempt for them, however.
This is not to say that I’m a totally non-spiritual person. I hope there is a God, because the thought of just winking out depresses me. I doubt it, but it would be a pleasant surprise. But a God who’s going to play mind games with me? I’ll take winking out, thanks.
1.) The author of Revelation was not the apostle John.
2.) He wasn’t having “visions” he was writing apocalyptic literature which uses coded imagery to communicate messages to an audience which cannot be understood by outsiders. In this case the author was communicating to late first century Christians in the wake of the diaspora. It was coded in such a way that it would not be readily understood by Romans, but would be by it’s audience.
3.) Revelation was about the Roman Empire at the end of the first century. It has nothing to do with our time.
The belief in extraordinary claims with extraordinarily weak evidence from a self contradictory source is. It’s a clear demonstration of the power of socialization and wishful thinking.
Jesus said to give money to the poor not to himself.
He had awful nice things to say about the widow who cast all she had into the treasury. Even today the claim is not to give to the church but “through the church.” But then I grant it to you that modern day church has little to do with the bible.
That’s pretty sophist, but just so you know, the Torah does not forbid premarital sex for men.
I’ll give you that one. Though, if you can’t have sex with maidens (apparently for their sake) and with other married women is adultery. I guess leaves slaves as fair targets. That would explain Moses comments here:
Numbers 31:15-18
And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
I don’t see how my original quote had anything to do with extraordinary claims or any quality of evidence. It’s not really a matter of dispute either that the phrase “Son of Man” meant “human being” in Hebrew and Aramaic or that that the synoptic gospels show dependency. Luke and Matthew are both dependent on Mark. That’s not really even debated by most Christian scholars anymore. What is “claptrap” about the suggestion that a particular idiom was misinterpreted (or reinterpreted) by religiously motivated writers, long after the fact, who were dealing with sayings translated from a language they didn’t speak?
He was making a point about sacrifice. He wasn’t saying, “look, she’s giving all her money to the temple, how wonderful,” he was saying look she’s giving away all her money to the temple." It wasn’t about the temple it was about piercing perceptions about the virtue of giving large sums of money when the gift of that money was not a real sacrifice. Jesus was making a point about the woman’s heart, not about the importance of giving money to the temple.
Jesus did say that anyone who wanted to follow him had to first give all his money to the poor. not the temple.
You can find worse than that in Hebrew scripture. For instance, if a man raped a virgin, he then had to marry her. The OT also endorses polygamy and the use of concubines. There’s all kinds of blood and guts stuff too. You can even find passages where God orders the murder of infants. I think passages like that are a real problem for Christians (and Jews), but I also think it’s sophist to try to extropolate that Jesus, because he told Jews to follow the law, therefore must have approved of every violent or morally contradictory word in Hebrew scripture.
I’m not sure why I feeled compelled to argue with you. I’m not a Christian and I don’t even believe in God (or any other paranormal phenomenon). I’m as hardcore a skeptic as it gets but I don’t feel the need to take potshots at the religious views of others (unless they’re really out there), and some of the people you’re talking to are not exactly fundamentalist bigots. Most of the Christians on this board are petty rational. Where physical evidence contradicts the Bible, they tend to believe the physical evidence. You seem to have an issue with any religious belief at all or with any view of the Bible as a source of spiritual wisdom. If you don’t particularly believe in any spiritual or supernatural aspect to life (as I don’t) then it seems obvious that the Bible is a flawed body of work written by humans. If one does believe in something metaphysical, however, then it is no stretch to believe that the metaphysical may be found in the physical.
To put it another way, If you don’t believe in god, then it seems clear that the Bible is an ancient collection of books written by shepherds in the desert. If you do believe in God, then there’s no reason the Bible can’t contain some information about him.
It’s easy to trip people up on Biblical contradictions, factual errors, moral inconsistency, etc. but that’s really only a problem for inerrantists. It’s also possible to adopt an attitude that God exists, and this book contains a record of Humanity’s evolving attempts to understand him. Some of them had great insights, some, perhaps, did not. All of them were human. I can read this book for the insights which speak to me and discard that which seems archaic or incorrect. Yes, this is a subjective and possibly arbitrary process, but so what? Does that make the endeavor any less worthy? Are the only two choices to read the Bible mindlessly or not read it at all?
What is it that you’re hoping o accomplish here exactly?
Let me check with my sources and see what I can come up with.
Another point to consider, while the story of Ragnarok and the Christian “End Times” mythology have similar points, I believe these are superficial. These two religions have some fundamentally different dogmatic and theological points. For example, monotheism vs. polytheism. The nature of humanity (sinfulness vs. non-sinfulness) and the necessity of a messiah.
I think that comparing them and trying to draw useful conclusions would ultimately be comparing apples and oranges, they’re simply too different.
And you know this how? Do you have written records to prove this point?
Again, how do you this. The way you’re presenting this, it sounds as if you spoke with him directly about his experience.
Again, you appear to have this ability to read the mind of a person dead for nearly 1900 years. How do you know his thoughts and feelings so well? Can you read the language he wrote in? Are you familiar with the culture he came from? By what authority do you derive these conclusions?
A nice piece of circular logic; we know the Book of Revelation is right because we’re living in the times it predicted. How do we know this? Because it was predicted in the book of Revelation. You need to take a course in basic logic, Bob the Baptist.
FYI, BTB, I’m not a Christian, I’m Wiccan. Regarding the Bible, I don’t derive my answers from within, I check historical sources. That’s what I meant by what authority do you derive these conclusions? I’m asking where you get your translation and do you refer to the historical context in which the texts were written? You claimed to know what the book of Revelation meant better than the author himself. Again I ask, how do you know that?
I believe that my system of beliefs is best for me. I’m hoping that you have the intelligence and wisdom to think thru your own belief system and decide for yourself what is best for you. If you’ll refer back to the OP, you’ll notice he asked what our opinions are regarding the concept of the Christian “End Times.”
Well, if they weren’t supposed to have sex with women (Deuteronomy 22:20-21), and they weren’t supposed to have sex with men (Leviticus 18:22), and they weren’t supposed to have sex with animals (Leviticus 18:23), that doesn’t leave them with many options, does it?
If Revelation was written “in code” for those it was meant for, and you claim it happened already (Diogenes?) then when exactly di those 2 witnesses ascend into Heaven before the Entire World watching?
And the mountains all falling down?
When exactly did this happen?
The book of Matthew was composed in Greek. It’s not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic. There is no evidence that a Hebrew or Aramaic version ever existed. The author of Matthew uses quotations from the Greek Penanteuch rather than the Hebrew, which indicates that he did not know Hebrew. Plenty of Jews spoke only Greek. The author of Matthew’s gospel was not the apsotle of that name.
Slaves, and concubines were perfectly kosher. Your first verse refers to the chastity of women and forbids a man from sleeping with another man’s wife. Premarital sex was really only a sin for the woman. Men were not punished for it as long as the woman was not married to someone else.
You’re reading it too literally. This is all poetic allegory. “Ascending witnesses” are martyrs, the geological disasters are metaphors for social upheaval and the fall of the Roman empire.
To expand upon Diogenes’s post, Eusebius, in his History of the Church (early 4th century) attributes to Papias (early 2d century), the statement “Matthew wrote down the sayings in Hebrew and each translated it as he was able” and to Irenaeus (mid 2d century) the statement “Matthew published a written gospel for the Hebrews in their own tongue, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the church there.”
However, there are indications that Irenaeus was basing his statement on that of Papias. We have no citation for this that does not come through the filter of Eusebius. In addition, it should be noted that Papias does not mention a Gospel or even a biography or acta, but a list of sayings. Finally, there is no direct link between the person who wrote the sayings and the Apostle–it is merely assumed.
Numerous scholars accept or reject that Papias meant Matthew the Apostle, that Irenaeus did or did not mean an actual Gospel (and was or was not influenced by Papias), or that the “sayings” of Matthew (according to Papias) may or may not have been the kernel of a later Gospel.
However, as Diogenes has already pointed out, the book we now call the Gospel of Matthew was clearly written in Greek, not translated from Hebrew, using the Greek (Septuagint) translation of the Hebrew scriptures, and relying on elements borrowed directly from the previously written (in Greek) Gospel of Mark.
thanks for all of your input.