The Central Problem with Christianity

[Diogenes]

Jesus (and Paul) thought the world was going to end soon. This is why Jesus told people to give away their possessions, and Paul taught people should not marry. Jesus spoke very specifically about the world ending in the lifetime of those he preached to. [I won't go into the verses, because it will spawn the usual verbal gymnastics about how he did not mean what he said]

Christians, for the most part, ignore the idea of not attaining wealth. They also ignore the admonition not to marry. They ignore these basic Christian teachings because they don't like them. Instead, they claim Jesus didn't really mean what he said about the end coming soon. This provides cover for getting married and accumulating wealth.

The question for debate is, "Why do most Christians marry and try to accumulate wealth despite the very clear New Testament admonitions to do the opposite?

Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth
and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.
But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor
rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal.

__ Matthew 6:19-20

[Clownboat]

What about the rest? You are going to take your ball and go home?

Let's not forget, you started with, "You might want to scroll thru this thread before regurgitating the anti-scriptural orthodoxy of blind evangelicalism."

Really?

Had I been disrespectful to you, or anyone else, for that matter?

You want to address one line I wrote and forget the things you can't handle.

Says the person who failed to deal with even one line of rebuttal.
Trying to slay us with irony? Pot, meet kettle.

Once again for the readers:
"I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Matt. 10:23).

[Candle]

What about the rest? You are going to take your ball and go home?

Is there any point in flogging a dead horse?

It wasn't a dead horse until you had to address something that requires actual knowledge of the subject matter.

Sour grapes.

[Candle]

What about the rest? You are going to take your ball and go home?

Let's not forget, you started with, "You might want to scroll thru this thread before regurgitating the anti-scriptural orthodoxy of blind evangelicalism."

Really?

Had I been disrespectful to you, or anyone else, for that matter?

You want to address one line I wrote and forget the things you can't handle.

Says the person who failed to deal with even one line of rebuttal.
Trying to slay us with irony? Pot, meet kettle.

Once again for the readers:
"I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Matt. 10:23).

I didn't "fail to deal with even one line of rebuttal."
I dealt with EVERY OTHER line. That is entirely different. I dealt with them in great detail. That detail puts your friend at a distinct disadvantage. That's why he ignores the fact that I answered 2 out of the 3 questions. His gotcha moment would be spoiled if he addressed what I said about his remaining citations.

I dismissed line 1 because the assumption is that the men Jesus was talking to never stopped traveling, and that they lived forever. That may have happened. It may not have. We don't know. And, that is the point. His claim is based on facts that we don't have. The cities of Israel could include all the places outside the Land where Israel had been scattered. How many times was Israel invaded by Syria or the Babylonians or the Philistines? How many times were they taken into captivity and exiled to other countries? If they are captured and taken to another land, are they no longer Israel?

People who don't believe the Bible make claims that their interpretation of it, and ONLY their interpretation, can even be considered. They cite a single line, insist that they are right, and don't have any interest in any investigation of the details. That's why they don't learn anything.

[Clownboat]

I didn't "fail to deal with even one line of rebuttal."
I dealt with EVERY OTHER line.

Let us let this one sink in...

That is entirely different. I dealt with them in great detail. That detail puts your friend at a distinct disadvantage.

That's why he ignores the fact that I answered 2 out of the 3 questions. His gotcha moment would be spoiled if he addressed what I said about his remaining citations.

Perhaps they will beat the horse into a pulp again. We'll have to wait and see. You are new here afterall.

I dismissed line 1 because the assumption is that the men Jesus was talking to never stopped traveling, and that they lived forever. That may have happened. It may not have. We don't know.

We actually are very certain that humans cannot travel forever and that they cannot live forever. There is no observation to point to, that would suggest otherwise, but I am open to observations to the contrary if you have any.

Same for virgins getting pregnant.
Walking on water.
Sorcering up bread and fishes.
The days dead returning to life.
Talking donkeys.
Global flood.
Life starting with 2 humans thousands of years ago.

Once again for the readers:
"I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (Matt. 10:23).

I wonder how many towns are left as I would think 2,000 years is plenty of time. Any guess?

[JehovahsWitness]

I think the synoptic original had the idea that the destruction of the Temple signalled the Last days...

If your point is that Jesus is not recorded as suggesting he would return at all, you might like to address Diogenes as he seems to be indicating there is something in Matthew 12 that suggest he did.

[TRANSPONDER]

Wouldn't dream of suggesting that. He says pretty clearly in Matth 26.64 that he'll be popping in again later on. Which I'm sure the admirable Diogenes knows. But nice effort at trying to sow distracting dissent. though I'll leave the doctrinal disagreement to the Believers.

[oldbadger]

People who don't believe the Bible make claims that their interpretation of it, and ONLY their interpretation, can even be considered. They cite a single line, insist that they are right, and don't have any interest in any investigation of the details. That's why they don't learn anything.

This was part of a post to another member.

Do you acknowledge all opinions and interpretations about the bible? Or do you insist that only your interpretation is correct?
And do you sometimes quote single lines, insisting that you are right?
If so, that might be you, up there in your last para.

And do you know the gospels in intimate detail? Are you sure?

[TRANSPONDER]

I think the synoptic original had the idea that the destruction of the Temple signalled the Last days...

If your point is that Jesus is not recorded as suggesting he would return at all, you might like to address Diogenes as he seems to be indicating there is something in Matthew 12 that suggest he did.

This isn't the first time an apologist has tried to set atheist in conflict. My point (I gather) was that temple destruction prophecy is retrospective. It was written after the event. And , yes, I do not think the predictions Jesus is represented as making of his death, resurrection and return are any words that he actually did say. I hardly believe a single word of what he is supposed to have said is true, but all Pauline Christian beliefs stuffed into Jesus' mouth. And there's no doubt that Matthew as well as Mark and Luke all repeat the talk on the mount of Olives and the predictions of the last days. But I don't believe any of it.

[oldbadger]

This isn't the first time an apologist has tried to set atheist in conflict. My point (I gather) was that temple destruction prophecy is retrospective. It was written after the event. And , yes, I do not think the predictions Jesus is represented as making of his death, resurrection and return are any words that he actually did say. I hardly believe a single word of what he is supposed to have said is true, but all Pauline Christian beliefs stuffed into Jesus' mouth. And there's no doubt that Matthew as well as Mark and Luke all repeat the talk on the mount of Olives and the predictions of the last days. But I don't believe any of it.

The above was sent to another........ you said it......'Pauline Christian beliefs...' the Pauline Christian stuffing, if on paper, could fill a bin bag if balled up 'page by page' and dumped.

But some anecdotes ring, read and sound clear; Jesus being told that his family have come to see him (outside) and his response that his family are already with him...... these small accounts tell me about Jesus the man.

[TRANSPONDER]

This isn't the first time an apologist has tried to set atheist in conflict. My point (I gather) was that temple destruction prophecy is retrospective. It was written after the event. And , yes, I do not think the predictions Jesus is represented as making of his death, resurrection and return are any words that he actually did say. I hardly believe a single word of what he is supposed to have said is true, but all Pauline Christian beliefs stuffed into Jesus' mouth. And there's no doubt that Matthew as well as Mark and Luke all repeat the talk on the mount of Olives and the predictions of the last days. But I don't believe any of it.

The above was sent to another........ you said it......'Pauline Christian beliefs...' the Pauline Christian stuffing, if on paper, could fill a bin bag if balled up 'page by page' and dumped.

But some anecdotes ring, read and sound clear; Jesus being told that his family have come to see him (outside) and his response that his family are already with him...... these small accounts tell me about Jesus the man.

I know. I've been there myself. I was pretty convinced that the raising of Lazarus was a real thing because of all the incidental details. The note sent to Jesus in peraea - a tip off that it was time for Jesus to come to 'Save' Lazarus. After he's hung around two days before setting out. The set lines for Martha and Mary before Jesus says: 'Come on out' and Lazarus hops (or walks) out) with the Amazed crowd gawping.
Yes, I was convinced it was true. How did Martha know where to send the note? Because she'd known that Jesus would be at Peraea. And why did only John mention this amazing miracle? Because they saw how fishy it looked (even if nobody else did). And even Luke's apparently unrelated reference to Lazarus could fit as the resurrected Lazarus bringing a message from the beyond.

And it still could be true. I can't rule it out. But I just have more reasons to doubt. But not all of it. I think Paul was real, thus Peter and James were real, and so maybe Jesus was real. But whether failed messiah or reforming Rabbi, it isn't the Christian Jesus, which was reformed to fit Post Pauline Greek Christianity, damning Judaism and swooning over the Faith of gentiles.