The Problem with Christian Apocalypticism

[BluePhantom]

No, the Bible is not as crystal clear as we might like it to be. The Scriptures concerning where Jesus stated that there would be some standing there who would not taste death before they saw Him coming in His kingdom is most often explained as being those who accompanied Him to the Mount of Transfiguration where in a vision, they saw Him change and taken up into Heaven. Modern Christianity most often expects the return of Christ when Israel becomes threatened by the Islamic and Russian armies at some unknown future date. This is, as you stated, spoken of in Revelation and elsewhere in the Scriptures. It is the time Christians believe when Christ returns and establishes His millennial reign upon the earth. The conditions expected to exist during Christ's millennial reign are depicted in Isaiah Chapter 35 and in other Scriptures.

I hope this helps a mite.

I am familiar with the Transfiguration explanation, but I do not find it satisfactory. To me...and just to me...speaking only for myself....it's "weaseling out of the problem". I am not saying that if someone else accepts that argument that they are wrong, I am just saying that for me....that one aint gonna cut it.

Well, that's up to you of course but then you have no explanation at all yourself, do you?

Well my explanation is that Jesus is not depicted accurately in the Bible...at least in regard to certain situations

 

[BluePhantom]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

But you have to recall the critical point about the timeline. By definition, an apocalypticist believed that God's good kingdom would be established on Earth in their lifetime or very shortly afterwards. Not thousands of years later. Yet Jesus is quoted in the gospels discussing the establishment of God's good kingdom and saying 'some of you will not taste death until these things come to pass'.as well as other similar statements. Those are very apocalyptic statements and are an absolute bullseye for what ancient apocalypticism was all about. So either Jesus was wrong (yikes), it happened in a way no one can recognize, or Jesus never said that and thus the Bible is wrong.

I just don't see how one can have their cake and eat it too on this one.

Disciples themselves didnt understand much of what they were taught, why is odd you, and I dont either.....doesnt make Bible wrong

I never claimed to understand everything. If I did I wouldn't be asking this question. This is a very uncomfortable question for Christians because there doesn't seem to be much wiggle room here. We, as Christians, are stuck in a situation where there are no good options.

Consider the death of Judas. According to Matthew he hanged himself, but according to Luke/Acts he fell (presumably off a cliff or a high embankment of some kind) and split open. Well which was it? I have heard some Christians argue that he hanged himself from a tree that was overhanging a cliff. After hanging himself the rope broke and he fell off the cliff splitting open and thus there is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke/Acts. In my mind, I cannot imagine a more ridiculous explanation for the contradiction. I mean I simply cannot fathom someone embracing that explanation.

My efforts to come up with a solution to this problem of apocalypticism wherein the Bible is accurate and Jesus remains the Messiah is pretty much on line with the "Judas hanged himself over a cliff" theory. I got nothing here to explain this.

I am not lecturing....I am asking if anyone has a way to reconcile this problem...cause I dont

Actually, what's the point since you have already dismissed my Mount of Transfiguration explanation. I really think you're an atheist just hunting something to argue about.

Oh dude...knock it off. I have been on USMB for years arguing in favor of faith and Christianity. I have battled the atheists over and over and with only rare exceptions do I lose the debate. Just because you have a question about faith and scripture and recognize a dilemma that you can't seem to figure a way out of does not mean you are an atheist. I have been called a lot of things on these boards....been called just about everything but "a man". But this is the first time someone suggested I was an atheist. Wow.

 

[kjw47]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

Jesus is the son of the true living God=YHWH(Jehovah) Jehovah is the Father--only he knows the day and hour. The son does not know.

Ah, but according to Matthew 16, Mark 9, and Luke 9 Jesus was quite clear....this was coming in their lifetime. In the undisputed Pauline epistles, Paul is VERY clear that he expects this to happen any day. His letters are filled with that timeline. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul tells people not to change their status because of the impending resurrection and ascension. 'What is the point of getting married, starting a family, seeking freedom from slavery since we are all going to be ascending shortly anyhow? Why bother?' he writes (paraphrasing).

Look, I am a Christian. I have no answer to this that will allows both conclusions to be true. Either Jesus is incorrectly depicted by the authors of the NT, or He wasn't who we believe Him to be. If you can find a way around that, I all am ears because any explanation I have come up with amounts to nothing more than trying to "weasel my way" out of an uncomfortable set of conclusions.

Many teachings in the bible are partial, and need other scripture to make it a whole truth. Some teachings are symbolism. Yes I do believe back in his day, after he died, they believed it would come then.
Many hidden truths are disguised--they keep satan and his angels in spiritual darkness, and yes mortals as well--Even Gods angels are desiring to peer into the hidden truths. 1Peter 1:12)--Many truths were hidden until these last days-Daniel 12:4) they are now abundant.

Here is an example---- Jesus taught back then---Many of you standing here now, will never taste death.---- Yet they all died--the many standing there was reference to true followers, not to those followers at that point--During the tribulation--the remaining little flock( Luke 12:32) will be changed in the twinkling of an eye and brought to heaven--the great multitude will be safely brought through Har-mageddon( Matthew 24:22, Proverbs 2:21-22) into Gods kingdom( new earth)--it these that will never taste death.

 

[kjw47]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

Jesus is the son of the true living God=YHWH(Jehovah) Jehovah is the Father--only he knows the day and hour. The son does not know.

Ah, but according to Matthew 16, Mark 9, and Luke 9 Jesus was quite clear....this was coming in their lifetime. In the undisputed Pauline epistles, Paul is VERY clear that he expects this to happen any day. His letters are filled with that timeline. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul tells people not to change their status because of the impending resurrection and ascension. 'What is the point of getting married, starting a family, seeking freedom from slavery since we are all going to be ascending shortly anyhow? Why bother?' he writes (paraphrasing).

Look, I am a Christian. I have no answer to this that will allows both conclusions to be true. Either Jesus is incorrectly depicted by the authors of the NT, or He wasn't who we believe Him to be. If you can find a way around that, I all am ears because any explanation I have come up with amounts to nothing more than trying to "weasel my way" out of an uncomfortable set of conclusions.

Alas, even the Apostles themselves were confused and told the believers to go and sell all they had. It must have been a real mess. The Apostles were human and were mixed up about a lot of things. They had a big debate with Paul over circumcision and allowing Gentile believers in. Christians are still confused. Paul's teaching still has a lot of the Church confused. A lot of Churches claim Paul's 1 Thes. said the Church was to be raptured away seven years before the end of the age. Paul wrote 2Thes. to straighten them out but they didn't get it right even then.

Actually here in these last days--truth has become abundant( Daniel 12:4)--it is not found in churches--they have become a divided house--they will not stand-Mark 3:24-26--

 

[kjw47]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

Jesus is the son of the true living God=YHWH(Jehovah) Jehovah is the Father--only he knows the day and hour. The son does not know.

Ah, but according to Matthew 16, Mark 9, and Luke 9 Jesus was quite clear....this was coming in their lifetime. In the undisputed Pauline epistles, Paul is VERY clear that he expects this to happen any day. His letters are filled with that timeline. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul tells people not to change their status because of the impending resurrection and ascension. 'What is the point of getting married, starting a family, seeking freedom from slavery since we are all going to be ascending shortly anyhow? Why bother?' he writes (paraphrasing).

Look, I am a Christian. I have no answer to this that will allows both conclusions to be true. Either Jesus is incorrectly depicted by the authors of the NT, or He wasn't who we believe Him to be. If you can find a way around that, I all am ears because any explanation I have come up with amounts to nothing more than trying to "weasel my way" out of an uncomfortable set of conclusions.

Alas, even the Apostles themselves were confused and told the believers to go and sell all they had. It must have been a real mess. The Apostles were human and were mixed up about a lot of things. They had a big debate with Paul over circumcision and allowing Gentile believers in. Christians are still confused. Paul's teaching still has a lot of the Church confused. A lot of Churches claim Paul's 1 Thes. said the Church was to be raptured away seven years before the end of the age. Paul wrote 2Thes. to straighten them out but they didn't get it right even then.

Well I think this speaks directly to my point. The authors of the NT didn't agree on many things, did not understand a lot of what Jesus taught...even the apostles screwed it up and most of them knew Jesus directly. I agree that it was a total mess. Just reading the undisputed Pauline epistles, so many times I imagine Paul slapping his forehead and throwing his hands up in the air screaming 'Stimpy you eedeot!' and Peter saying the same thing about Paul.

A good study of critical scholarship can help...applying form criticism, source criticism, etc. Using good criteria; the criterion of multiple attestation, the criterion of dissimilarity, etc...those things are helpful but all they can do is really narrow it down and increase our odds of finding what Jesus actually taught. Many Christians abhor the scholarly approach, but I think that's a mistake. I believe that if you want to follow the teachings of Jesus it might be a good idea to figure out what He actually taught in the context of His culture and society.

I think this thread is a perfect example. I would argue that very few Christians understand what 1st century Judeo-Christian apocalypticism was all about and the problem is that it is absolutely central to the perspectives of the early Christian authors upon which our modern form of Christianity is based.

The authors of the NT are in harmony--the only exceptions are the errors found in trinity translation, but they have been corrected in the New world translation. Otherwise this wouldn't be true-Daniel 12:4--or this John 4:22-24--but they are truth and truth is here in abundance. Most reject--truth.

 

[BluePhantom]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

Jesus is the son of the true living God=YHWH(Jehovah) Jehovah is the Father--only he knows the day and hour. The son does not know.

Ah, but according to Matthew 16, Mark 9, and Luke 9 Jesus was quite clear....this was coming in their lifetime. In the undisputed Pauline epistles, Paul is VERY clear that he expects this to happen any day. His letters are filled with that timeline. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul tells people not to change their status because of the impending resurrection and ascension. 'What is the point of getting married, starting a family, seeking freedom from slavery since we are all going to be ascending shortly anyhow? Why bother?' he writes (paraphrasing).

Look, I am a Christian. I have no answer to this that will allows both conclusions to be true. Either Jesus is incorrectly depicted by the authors of the NT, or He wasn't who we believe Him to be. If you can find a way around that, I all am ears because any explanation I have come up with amounts to nothing more than trying to "weasel my way" out of an uncomfortable set of conclusions.

Many teachings in the bible are partial, and need other scripture to make it a whole truth. Some teachings are symbolism. Yes I do believe back in his day, after he died, they believed it would come then.
Many hidden truths are disguised--they keep satan and his angels in spiritual darkness, and yes mortals as well--Even Gods angels are desiring to peer into the hidden truths. 1Peter 1:12)--Many truths were hidden until these last days-Daniel 12:4) they are now abundant.

Here is an example---- Jesus taught back then---Many of you standing here now, will never taste death.---- Yet they all died--the many standing there was reference to true followers, not to those followers at that point--During the tribulation--the remaining little flock( Luke 12:32) will be changed in the twinkling of an eye and brought to heaven--the great multitude will be safely brought through Har-mageddon( Matthew 24:22, Proverbs 2:21-22) into Gods kingdom( new earth)--it these that will never taste death.

It's a good point. I would like to bring Indeependent in on this discussion as I believe his input will be helpful.

I have many reactions. First, I want to point out something you said about the "tribulation". The "tribulation" was a word used in apocalypticism to describe the current age and the transition into the future age. Many Christians skim over this when they read scripture. They read a Pauline epistle, or Hebrews, or a gospel and they read where it says things like "...this present age..." or "...the tribulation...." or "...the future age..." or similar language and they don't really understand that the author is making an apocalyptic reference. When those authors wrote using those terms they were making very specific points that readers and listeners in those days would automatically understand and put into proper context, but we frequently overlook today from our 21st century perspective. So I want to make sure you understand that you are speaking in apocalyptic language by referencing the tribulation.

The reason why I wish to bring Indeependent in on this is because of the word "death". This is another thing that has been buzzing in my mind for some time now that I have not had the opportunity to fully research. In Paul's undisputed epistles one of his main themes is that Jesus beat "death". Now Jesus was a Jew so we have to look at Jesus' comments on death from a 1st century Jewish perspective and not a modern day Christian perspective.

1st century Jews and modern Christians thought of "death" very differently. Now I have something in mind. There is a point I am working toward but I do not want to influence anything so I would like to ask Indeependent to take some time and comment on the Jewish concept of death...specifically what happens when you die, what the future will bring after you die, and if possible try to keep it within the perspective of a 1st century Jew.

Just bear with me a bit and be patient. There is a point I am getting at but I want to hear what Indeependent has to say first to establish a baseline

 

[the_human_being]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

But you have to recall the critical point about the timeline. By definition, an apocalypticist believed that God's good kingdom would be established on Earth in their lifetime or very shortly afterwards. Not thousands of years later. Yet Jesus is quoted in the gospels discussing the establishment of God's good kingdom and saying 'some of you will not taste death until these things come to pass'.as well as other similar statements. Those are very apocalyptic statements and are an absolute bullseye for what ancient apocalypticism was all about. So either Jesus was wrong (yikes), it happened in a way no one can recognize, or Jesus never said that and thus the Bible is wrong.

I just don't see how one can have their cake and eat it too on this one.

Disciples themselves didnt understand much of what they were taught, why is odd you, and I dont either.....doesnt make Bible wrong

I never claimed to understand everything. If I did I wouldn't be asking this question. This is a very uncomfortable question for Christians because there doesn't seem to be much wiggle room here. We, as Christians, are stuck in a situation where there are no good options.

Consider the death of Judas. According to Matthew he hanged himself, but according to Luke/Acts he fell (presumably off a cliff or a high embankment of some kind) and split open. Well which was it? I have heard some Christians argue that he hanged himself from a tree that was overhanging a cliff. After hanging himself the rope broke and he fell off the cliff splitting open and thus there is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke/Acts. In my mind, I cannot imagine a more ridiculous explanation for the contradiction. I mean I simply cannot fathom someone embracing that explanation.

My efforts to come up with a solution to this problem of apocalypticism wherein the Bible is accurate and Jesus remains the Messiah is pretty much on line with the "Judas hanged himself over a cliff" theory. I got nothing here to explain this.

I am not lecturing....I am asking if anyone has a way to reconcile this problem...cause I dont

Actually, what's the point since you have already dismissed my Mount of Transfiguration explanation. I really think you're an atheist just hunting something to argue about.

Oh dude...knock it off. I have been on USMB for years arguing in favor of faith and Christianity. I have battled the atheists over and over and with only rare exceptions do I lose the debate. Just because you have a question about faith and scripture and recognize a dilemma that you can't seem to figure a way out of does not mean you are an atheist. I have been called a lot of things on these boards....been called just about everything but "a man". But this is the first time someone suggested I was an atheist. Wow.

OK. I am truly sorry. You came off as just another person seeking to deny the truth of the Scriptures. This board is chock full of those.

OK Judas. Let me explain it this way:

How Did Judas Die?

1. By hanging (Matthew 27:3-8)--"Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6And the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7And they counseled together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day."
2. By falling (Acts 1:16-19)--"Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17"For he was counted among us, and received his portion in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood)."
3. There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. The Second Law of Logic, the Law of Non Contradition, (LNC) says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. It is not a contradiction to describe something differently: Judas was hanged, and Judas fell down. Both are possible since neither negates the possibility of the other. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are said to be true. So, what happened here is that Judas went and hanged himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight, and his body fell down, and his bowels spilled out.

Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died--by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.

We must realize that the Bible is a series of books or letters written by men. The New Testament authors were men close to Christ and inspired by God to write. Some of their accounts are eyewitness accounts while other of their writings were simple told to them by others and they then put it to writing. The resurrection of the saints at the time of Christ's resurrection is only recorded in one book or letter. The accounts of Christ's resurrection was seen by Mary and the other women but their accounts differ in the accounts written by the different authors.

 

[BluePhantom]

Let me just follow up a bit for Indeependent so he can provide what I am looking for in regard to my request for information. In 1 Thessalonians, Paul is responding to concerns that the congregation of the church at Thessalonika has. Specifically, they appear to be concerned that those who have died prior to Jesus' return will not ascend to heaven. Paul writes that the dead who were believers will ascend first following by the living faithful.

This is very different from modern Christian belief where at the moment of death you are immediately sent to heaven or hell (or sometimes purgatory depending on your faith). But it's a critical point. In Chritianity, reward or punishment is immediate, but Paul's writing suggest that the 1st century Jewish concept of death did not involve immediate judgement. This was one of Paul's main points about "beating death". Paul argued that through the resurrection of Jesus, death had been defeated. So my question to Indeependent is to give us some perspective on that.

 

[WheelieAddict]

......is that they keep projecting it and it doesn't happen. Not much credibility.

 

[BluePhantom]

OK. I am truly sorry. You came off as just another person seeking to deny the truth of the Scriptures. This board is chock full of those.

OK Judas. Let me explain it this way:

How Did Judas Die?

1. By hanging (Matthew 27:3-8)--"Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6And the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7And they counseled together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day."
2. By falling (Acts 1:16-19)--"Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17"For he was counted among us, and received his portion in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood)."
3. There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. The Second Law of Logic, the Law of Non Contradition, (LNC) says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. It is not a contradiction to describe something differently: Judas was hanged, and Judas fell down. Both are possible since neither negates the possibility of the other. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are said to be true. So, what happened here is that Judas went and hanged himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight, and his body fell down, and his bowels spilled out.

Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died--by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.

Well as I said....that's pretty much the same explanation as he hanged himself over a cliff. Occam's Razor also says that the simplest explanation is usually correct and the simplest explanation is that one of those authors got it wrong. Believe me, I am not trying to disparage your beliefs or explanations, it's just that I am not buying it. He may have hanged himself, he may have fallen...heck he could have lived to old age and died of natural causes for all I know, but to me....just to me...trying to force both accounts together by arguing that he hanged himself and then fell....ugh...you know....it just seems to me to be trying to concoct a fantastic explanation in order to make sure both accounts are accurate instead of simply saying "well at least one of the accounts is wrong". See what I am saying?

Think of it like this. Neither account says he hanged himself AND fell as well, so to make that argument you are taking a position that neither source agrees with. You are in effect writing your own Bible. See what I mean?

Again I am not trying to insult you by saying that...just personally, I can't accept that explanation. It's too forced.

 

[the_human_being]

OK. I am truly sorry. You came off as just another person seeking to deny the truth of the Scriptures. This board is chock full of those.

OK Judas. Let me explain it this way:

How Did Judas Die?

1. By hanging (Matthew 27:3-8)--"Then when Judas, who had betrayed Him, saw that He had been condemned, he felt remorse and returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." But they said, "What is that to us? See to that yourself!" 5And he threw the pieces of silver into the sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. 6And the chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." 7And they counseled together and with the money bought the Potter’s Field as a burial place for strangers. 8For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day."
2. By falling (Acts 1:16-19)--"Brethren, the Scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus. 17"For he was counted among us, and received his portion in this ministry." 18(Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness; and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. 19And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood)."
3. There is no contradiction here at all because both are true. A contradiction occurs when one statement excludes the possibility of another. The Second Law of Logic, the Law of Non Contradition, (LNC) says that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense. It is not a contradiction to describe something differently: Judas was hanged, and Judas fell down. Both are possible since neither negates the possibility of the other. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are said to be true. So, what happened here is that Judas went and hanged himself and then his body later fell down and split open. In other words, the rope or branch of the tree probably broke due to the weight, and his body fell down, and his bowels spilled out.

Also, notice that Matt. 27:3-8 tells us specifically how Judas died--by hanging. Acts 1:16-19 merely tells us that he fell headlong and his bowels gushed out. Acts does not tell us that this is the means of his death where Matthew does.

Well as I said....that's pretty much the same explanation as he hanged himself over a cliff. Occam's Razor also says that the simplest explanation is usually correct and the simplest explanation is that one of those authors got it wrong. Believe me, I am not trying to disparage your beliefs or explanations, it's just that I am not buying it. He may have hanged himself, he may have fallen...heck he could have lived to old age and died of natural causes for all I know, but to me....just to me...trying to force both accounts together by arguing that he hanged himself and then fell....ugh...you know....it just seems to me to be trying to concoct a fantastic explanation in order to make sure both accounts are accurate instead of simply saying "well at least one of the accounts is wrong". See what I am saying?

Think of it like this. Neither account says he hanged himself AND fell as well, so to make that argument you are taking a position that neither source agrees with. You are in effect writing your own Bible. See what I mean?

Again I am not trying to insult you by saying that...just personally, I can't accept that explanation. It's too forced.

Well, again when you consider that it was pretty much taboo for anyone to touch a corpse back in those days and that he was pretty much despised by even the Sanhedrin, it's not hard to think he may have hanged there for some time.

It doesn't matter then for you will never receive the answers you seek for none of us alive today were eyewitnesses to anything and the Bible will not change. The Bible is already written and already says all it will ever say on any subject. You are looking for answers that you will never find.

 

[Agit8r]

They keep letting polluters put tons of mercury into the air, because they think the rapture is coming and it won't matter.

 

[Meriweather]

Consider the death of Judas. According to Matthew he hanged himself, but according to Luke/Acts he fell (presumably off a cliff or a high embankment of some kind) and split open. Well which was it? I have heard some Christians argue that he hanged himself from a tree that was overhanging a cliff. After hanging himself the rope broke and he fell off the cliff splitting open and thus there is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke/Acts. In my mind, I cannot imagine a more ridiculous explanation for the contradiction. I mean I simply cannot fathom someone embracing that explanation.

When Matthew used the word "hang" could he have been describing something other than a rope around the neck? After all, in scriptures of the same time we read the words, "Hanging him on a cross" without picturing Jesus dangling from the arms of a cross with a rope around his neck.

It turns out that back in ancient times, impalement was recorded or described as "hanging." One example of this is that some translate Esther 5:14 as a call to hang Mordecai, whereas others as a call to impale Mordecai. We can imagine Mordecai "hanging" from the pole that was raised to impale him upon. In other words, in ancient times, "hanging" conveyed a different image than the image we picture today.

Could it be that Judas, falling headlong, impaled himself (i.e. 'hanged' in the language of the day) and his intestines spilled out?

I have not been able to do a study on how often someone killed by being impaled was also said to have been 'hanged.' I've come across a few incidents where this theory seems possible, but I wouldn't say that this has nailed it. I simply offer it for consideration.

 

[The Irish Ram]

There are several problems with the definitions.
There are 2 future ages. Christ's return will usher in 1,000 years of relative peace. < (thus the need for the iron rod, when Satan is chained.
There will be another war with Satan who will be unchained for a short and final period. That age will include a White Throne Judgement, followed by eternal peace.
If God's Kingdom is already here, then Satan's on an awfully long chain, and we could meet with Jesus in the Temple. There is no Temple. The Lion of the tribe of Judah's return to the Mt. of Olives will cause an earthquake. I guarantee you won't miss Him when He shows up.
And yes, He absolutely meant to give the Gentile an Age equivalent to the other Ages of mankind on earth, from the Age of Innocence, to the Age of the Law the time frame for all of them is approx. 1,500 to 2,000 years. The Age of the Gentile is at an end.

The end time prophesies had nothing to do with the age in which they were written. Daniel knew the exact day that Israel would become a Nation, and that was in the 20th century. John's prophesies were written before the destruction of the Jewish Temple. And yet he wrote about a new one being built and defiled 3 and 1/2 years later. And of a one world government, of no buying and selling without a mark... None of those things happened in his time, or even shortly afterward. The fact that we are heading in that direction, but have not realized those events yet should tell you that those prophesies are to come.

 

[Meriweather]

This is a very complex issue but I am going to try to keep it as short as possible. First let me give some definitions that are critical to the issue.

By "apocalypticism" I mean in the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, not as we view it today. What was that tradition? Again it's very complicated, but I will try to give a brief summary of the main points. Apocalypticism was a message of hope and encouragement. It basically said that the "present age" (or sometimes "the evil age") would be replaced by the "future age". The present age was where the world was controlled by Satan or evil forces and Jews and Christians were experiencing oppression from these evil forces. The future age was when those forces would be defeated by the forces of God and God's good kingdom would be established on Earth, wherein the people could live in harmony with God, have direct contact with God, worship in direct communion with God, etc.

Opinions varied on how this transition would happen, but apocalypticists were united...and this is absolutely critical....that it would happen in their lifetime or very shortly thereafter. Remember, the basic message was 'I know you are suffering now and are dealing with a lot of oppression from evil, but just hang in there because God is going to win and these fuckers that are oppressing us are going to get what is coming to them'. It was a message of encouragement, comfort, and hope. There would be no value to a message that said 'just hang n there because in several thousand years things will get good again'. No. The message was intended to apply directly to the people living at the time when apocalyptic literature was written.

Now, it's hard to argue that the authors of the New Testament were not mostly apocalypticists. In fact the entire basis for Christianity is apocalyptic. The second coming of Jesus is what Christians wait for to usher in the aforementioned future age. The gospels and epistles on the NT are full of apocalyptic statements and messages and, of course, the final book, The Revelation, is an apocalypse. In Greek it is titled "apokálypsis" or "Apocalypse".

So who cares?

Well it creates a problem because according to those definitions we are forced to conclude that a) the kingdom of God has already come, but presumably it came in a form which we have not recognized, or b) the early Christian authors were wrong. If they were wrong that creates a huge problem.

But what about Jesus? Was He an apocalypticist? There are certainly lots of apocalyptic statements that are attributed to Him in the gospels. If Jesus was, in fact, an apocalypticist then we have an even bigger problem because then it means that Jesus was wrong and if Jesus was wrong then He was not what we, as Christians, believe Him to be. If He was not an apocalypticist, on the other hand, we still have a problem because then the apocalyptic scriptures attributed to Him in the gospels cannot be accurate and suddenly the Bible becomes unreliable.

I will be honest...this is a problem that has haunted me for a LONG time. IF we argue that the Bible is accurate then, by definition, Jesus was an apocalypticist and by further definition He could not have been what we think He was. If we argue that Jesus was what we believe He was, then He could not have been an apocalypticist, and therefore we must conclude that the Bible is inaccurate.

Personally, I have concluded the latter; that the Bible does not give a completely accurate depiction of Jesus and His teaching. But I really don't see any other way around this. You can't have Jesus as the Messiah and still have an accurate Bible according to the definitions of antiquity when scripture was written.

Anyone else see a way around this problem?

And that was the brief version.

I think the remnant also needs to be considered. Prophets of old also saw God preserving a remnant of His people--about twenty-five percent is the usual number. From the remnant of those faithful to God and His ways, order would be restored--in the near future, within the lifetime of some who lived during times of upheaval. Jesus words that some living in his time would live to see the change makes me wonder if this is how he saw God working.

Apocalyptic Literature, popular at the time of Christ painted a more vivid, exaggerated image. First, everything would have to be destroyed, and even then, goodness could last only so long (a thousand years) before things would get so bad again that ultimately the only solution would be for God (not just His ways) to create a new earth and to come down and rule over it. Remember, this was Apocalyptic Literature, not the true prophecy of God being able to work with the remnant, so that within a generation or two, peace might be restored.

Some see the troubles of today it terms of apocalyptic literature that was popular around the time of Christ. They believe troubles are so great, we are close to end times. I, on the other hand, tend to go with what actual ancient prophets advised people of their day: God will work with the remnant, and in a generation or two, we will see a change for the better. I think that's how Christ saw it as well.

 

[HaShev]

quote: "we could meet with Jesus in the Temple."
Where do I start with this nonsense.
1)there was no historical Jesus and none of the christs used for his image will ever live again or are coming back. Which is why nobody dared to touch my last post about the false prophets who claimed a quick return.
2) a bastard child is not permitted into the Temple according to Deut. Not to insult people born out of wedlock, but to show you The Harlot Son is not the one.
3)the Temple (Mikdash)is in the name of Moshiach carrying the name, that disqualifies Jesus and the many christs making his image because the Temple is not called Yeshudash, Yehudash,Theudasdash, nor Jesusdash.
4)Dan tells you who Moshiach is in the name of the temple. Dan 12:1-4 and first and last name in Dan 10 when you read the Hebrew. That last name in the name of the holy city in it's original Canaanite language as also required the city would carry the name.
The city is not called YeruJesus.=Epic Fail

 

[The Irish Ram]

He is as real as you or I. And He's coming back.

 

[HaShev]

Then you would have no trouble using his Hebrew name and tell us what era he lived in right?

Everyone note the little fishy never ever address the problems that arise from their selection of the wrong prophet. They avoid stuff they can't refute like it doesn't exist=dishonest with themselves and others.

 

[waltky]

The Problem with Christian Apocalypticism

Granny says ya gonna feel different...

... when ya miss out onna Rapture.

 

[hobelim]

Well it creates a problem because according to those definitions we are forced to conclude that a) the kingdom of God has already come, but presumably it came in a form which we have not recognized, or b) the early Christian authors were wrong. If they were wrong that creates a huge problem.

When Jesus said that there were some standing around listening to him who would not taste of death until they saw the kingdom of God in power, it does not mean that they would not die or that the kingdom of God is yet to come as some insist or that Jesus was wrong because everyone died and life continues unchanged.. it means that some of them would see that the kingdom of God is already in existence before they died. Who can say that they didn't?

After Nebuchadnezzar lived like a beast for seven years his eyes were opened and he said, "But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation." Daniel 4:34.

This shows that the kingdom of God has always been in existence and has always been in full power and still is even now..

The problem is that when most people are living like unthinking beasts they have no ability to be rational and cannot perceive what is actually happening and consequently they can have no awareness of being under the condemnation of God or even if God exists at all and cannot grasp that their degenerate state of mind, subsequent confusion and blindness is evidence that the kingdom of God has already come and is already in complete control..