The Bible Says So....

[Sntrose]

This is directed to my Christian friends here, coming from an atheist. I have been reading through some of the posts here, and I keep running across the same thing. It's got me very confused. Why is it that when asked a moral question, the answer is "because it is in the Bible." ? The line of logic seems to stop there.

Usually, it is accompanied by a quote from Scripture, and then something along the lines of, "it's clearly in the Bible. So that's why it's a sin. The Bible says so."

What it is about this book that I'm not getting? What kind of book is there that could possibly be so infallible that you would never question it's contents? Nothing can be wrong? Not even a translation error? As long as it's in the Bible, you can relax...it must be right! It's in the Bible. So we don't have to think any more?

I sincerely do not intend this to be insulting. I mean it as a question. Read this in a happy voice...not a sarcastic one. That is the tone I intend...and would prefer the answers to be in....

[Stan]

He also said:
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Matthew16:28
"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." Luke 9:27

Yes that happened when He rose from the dead. That is when His Kingdom was established.

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." Matthew 23:36

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Matthew 24:34

Jesus is talking about the generations that will see these things happen, NOT the generation of those He was speaking to.

You actually have to KNOW the context you are reading IN the Bible before you can comment on it. First rule of Hermeneutical Exegesis.

[Stan]

[Replying to Danmark]


You didn't point out nor demonstrate a contradiction Danmark. How can I not be personal when I'm addressing you. Would you like me to refer to you in the second or third person? Your very first post on this thread was personal, so how do you justify complaining about being personal?

Again you err. This was my first post on the thread:

As you can see by the 'explanations' from your 'Christian friends,' logic is of no use whatsoever. The answer to their explanation is nothing more than tradition. We can easily see the truth of this by reviewing the % of various religions in various nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

What one finds, no matter what source is consulted, is that whether the religion is Islam, Buddhist, or Christian, the percentages in many countries approach 100%.

If logic an truth were more powerful than tradition, we would not have one country that is 99% Christian and another that is 99% Muslim.

This single fact demonstrates with a clarity beyond argument that religious belief does not depend upon logic, truth, or reason. Religious belief is almost entirely dependent upon each person's and each culture's tradition. Where we see diversity and even abandonment of these religious traditions is in countries where their is greater cultural diversity and education.

There is nothing personal or condescending here. I suppose it could be considered 'condescending' to point out the obvious, that the rule against making personal remarks does not require one to use the 'second or third person,' but you've asked for that clarification.

If you think you are the victim of personal, insulting remarks, you can use the '!' at the top right of the offensive post to alert the moderators.

Yes and it was personal and condescending, and NOT appropriate given the OP was not addressed to you, regardless as to whether you acknowledge it or not. At least I didn't go running to the moderators.

Apparently you don't even know what "your ilk" means.

[Goat]

I've explained this to you twice. I'll try again.
I wrote: "we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (1 Thessalonians 4:15"17) contradicts not only the notion that we do not know the time [Matthew 24:36], but contradicts the idea that 2000 years should pass before the 2d coming, since Paul claimed it would happen while he was still alive ['We who are still alive.']

Jesus supposedly said you cannot tell the time, yet Paul clearly says the 2d coming will be when he is still alive: "we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds...."

That is a contradiction. Some Christian scholars claim Paul was merely making a hypothetical. But your response is simply to deny a contradiction, and you did so without analysis. You plead for explanations, then when you receive them you pretend the explanation does not exist or you claim you are being condescended to.

Respond to the contradiction without personal remarks or withdraw your claim.

Finally!

The WE WHO ARE STILL ALIVE Paul uses in 1 Thess 4:15-17 refers to the entire Body Of Christ or the Church, not just him or his followers. I am part of the WE that Paul refers to here. He wasn't talking personally, he was speaking collectively. There will obviously be many members of the Body of Christ who are alive when Christ returns. The problem with "cherry picking" verses, which is what you have done here, is that the Bible interprets itself with ALL it has to say about ANY subject. Paul had a sense of immanency just as John did when he wrote Revelation, as well as many other writers of the NT.

Gosh, it's amazing how hermeneutics work. You can make words say what it doesn't say, by reading into it, and twisting it. From the context, it doesn't look like that is what Paul meant, but retrofitting the fact all those people died, and the church is sort of there, let's people twist the words.

Sorry.. but that explanation doesn't make sense in context.

[Stan]

Gosh, it's amazing how hermeneutics work. You can make words say what it doesn't say, by reading into it, and twisting it. From the context, it doesn't look like that is what Paul meant, but retrofitting the fact all those people died, and the church is sort of there, let's people twist the words.
Sorry.. but that explanation doesn't make sense in context.

It is ONLY amazing to those who don't know what it is or how to use it.

Paul offers more teaching on this in 2 Thess 2: 1-4, but I doubt you will understand that either.

[Nickman]

He also said:
"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." Matthew16:28
"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God." Luke 9:27

Yes that happened when He rose from the dead. That is when His Kingdom was established.

"Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation." Matthew 23:36

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Matthew 24:34

Jesus is talking about the generations that will see these things happen, NOT the generation of those He was speaking to.

You actually have to KNOW the context you are reading IN the Bible before you can comment on it. First rule of Hermeneutical Exegesis.

Actually, in the Olivette Discourse found in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, Jesus was asked three questions in a private conversation with his disciples.

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. Tell us, they said, when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?

Jesus answered chronologically using these exact words:

All these are the beginning of birth pains.

9 Then you will be handed over

So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation


See, I have told you ahead of time.

29 Immediately after the distress of those days


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

Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it [e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

I have made many discourses on this forum about the Olivette Discourse. There is no possible way Jesus can mean anything other than his disciples actually being a part of the end days and his own return. The words huotos genea aka this generation (namely huotos) used many times in the Greek NT. They are used in context here for the generation alive at that time. They are present perfect. They are used in a private conversation with his disciples after they ask him specific questions. Jesus gave them exactly the answers they were asking for. They asked when. Jesus told them when, this generation. He also told them in a private conversation to be ready and watch. He also told them what they will see. All context tells us he was warning them to be ready because this generation would experience the things he said. Other scriptures also confirm this when he tell Ciaphas that he would see the son of man coming in the clouds, and when he tells his disciples that some will not die before he returns.

Here is a list of all 1397 occurences of the word huotos and not one time does it mean past or future tense.

The etymological and contextual evidence is against you. [/b]

[Goat]

Gosh, it's amazing how hermeneutics work. You can make words say what it doesn't say, by reading into it, and twisting it. From the context, it doesn't look like that is what Paul meant, but retrofitting the fact all those people died, and the church is sort of there, let's people twist the words.
Sorry.. but that explanation doesn't make sense in context.

It is ONLY amazing to those who don't know what it is or how to use it.

Paul offers more teaching on this in 2 Thess 2: 1-4, but I doubt you will understand that either.

That's what they say. To me, that seems like one big excuse. I looked at that, and again, that seems like trying to make the words fit the theology rather than the other way around

[Artie]

Here is a list of all 1397 occurences of the word huotos and not one time does it mean past or future tense.

The etymological and contextual evidence is against you. [/b]

If I understand you correctly, he supposedly came back in his kingdom, walked about a bit for 40 days, left again, haven't been seen since and Christians are still waiting for him to come back after 2000 years? That is faith!

[Nickman]

Here is a list of all 1397 occurences of the word huotos and not one time does it mean past or future tense.

The etymological and contextual evidence is against you. [/b]

If I understand you correctly, he supposedly came back in his kingdom, walked about a bit for 40 days, left again, haven't been seen since and Christians are still waiting for him to come back after 2000 years? That is faith!

Yep, and all the rest of us are fools because we say there is no God. Plus we are going to hell.

[Stan]

Actually, in the Olivette Discourse found in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13, Jesus was asked three questions in a private conversation with his disciples.

3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. Tell us, they said, when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?

Jesus answered chronologically using these exact words:

All these are the beginning of birth pains.

9 Then you will be handed over

So when you see standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation


See, I have told you ahead of time.

29 Immediately after the distress of those days


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

Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it [e] is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

I have made many discourses on this forum about the Olivette Discourse. There is no possible way Jesus can mean anything other than his disciples actually being a part of the end days and his own return. The words huotos genea aka this generation (namely huotos) used many times in the Greek NT. They are used in context here for the generation alive at that time. They are present perfect. They are used in a private conversation with his disciples after they ask him specific questions. Jesus gave them exactly the answers they were asking for. They asked when. Jesus told them when, this generation. He also told them in a private conversation to be ready and watch. He also told them what they will see. All context tells us he was warning them to be ready because this generation would experience the things he said. Other scriptures also confirm this when he tell Ciaphas that he would see the son of man coming in the clouds, and when he tells his disciples that some will not die before he returns.

Here is a list of all 1397 occurences of the word huotos and not one time does it mean past or future tense.

The etymological and contextual evidence is against you. [/b]

What Jesus discusses in Matthew 24 as it relates to His disciples is the end times tribulation and what happens to Israel. It is NOT the same as what Paul addresses although they occur simultaneously. In context, Jesus was dealing with repercussions from His disciples about the warnings to the Pharisees in chapter 23. In context, Jesus's earthly ministry was ONLY to the Lost Sheep of Israel. The beginning of chapter 24 is Jesus' prophecy about the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD, and the rest of chapter 24 is about the tribulation that the unsaved Jews WILL go through in the end times which obviously has still not occurred.

Jesus speaks both in the past, present and future in these verses, although it is definitely a prophecy, God and Jesus do not perceive time as we do and therefore do NOT relate to it as we do. As they talk of the future they can be there or in the present and as such their dialogue would reflect that. V23 reads; If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened." This is being spoken in future, past and present, in terms of tense. Revelation teaches the Jews WILL be saved out of the tribulation as does Daniel.

Jesus was describing the generation that would experience the tribulation and as such THIS GENERATION refers to THAT specific generation, NOT the generation of the disciples.
The only people that believe this has happened are Preterists.

Now as a generation was 35-40 years in Jesus' day and He died in 27 AD, then His generation did NOT see Jerusalem destroyed so it has to be the generation he is describing, not the current one.

[Stan]

That's what they say. To me, that seems like one big excuse. I looked at that, and again, that seems like trying to make the words fit the theology rather than the other way around

WHO is THEY? One is exegesis and one is eisegesis. The former is the proper way to read and study the Bible.