Rapture - 23rd September 2015

[HansMustermann]

Am I to assume you have a more accurate interpretation of Matthew?

I'm not particularly interested in interpretations. That's the domain of theology. I'm talking about what the text says, not how I or you want to rationalize it as something more palatable.

Incidentally, as I pointed out, even most translators and theologians don't seem to agree with your interpretation. All major translations say "generation" there, not "race".

Also, you may want to be aware that it's the reason they came up with stuff like the "Wandering Jew" in the middle ages: to explain why that generation hadn't ended.

So basically even as appeal to authorities go, you're essentially talking the appearance of one word in Strong, vs thousands of theologians who dedicated their lives to studying those ancient texts. The notion that all that can be overridden, because one guy rationalized the word as meaning "race" in only one expression, is pretty silly.

If so please share it.

I think both me and Leumas already did. Plus, you'll find a couple of theological interpretations in the link I provided.

I am interested in the topic but please be aware I cannot be offended as to belief, faith or Jesus bashing. I'm really not interested in those aspects. I have no time for those with an agenda attempting to reinforce their own doubts about what they believe or not.

Similarly I'm not impressed by silly appeals to motives. I don't really care if it's Xianity or trolling or what, but just bare face postulates, appeals to motives, arguments from incredulity, and other fallacies do not a valid argument make.

 

[Pixel42]

There's more, as I will try to show.

Here's a list:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/end.html

If that wasn't how Jesus intended his disciples to interpret what he said then all I can say is that he was a very very bad communicator.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I'm not particularly interested in interpretations. That's the domain of theology. I'm talking about what the text says, not how I or you want to rationalize it as something more palatable.

Incidentally, as I pointed out, even most translators and theologians don't seem to agree with your interpretation. All major translations say "generation" there, not "race".

Also, you may want to be aware that it's the reason they came up with stuff like the "Wandering Jew" in the middle ages: to explain why that generation hadn't ended.

So basically even as appeal to authorities go, you're essentially talking the appearance of one word in Strong, vs thousands of theologians who dedicated their lives to studying those ancient texts. The notion that all that can be overridden, because one guy rationalized the word as meaning "race" in only one expression, is pretty silly.



I think both me and Leumas already did. Plus, you'll find a couple of theological interpretations in the link I provided.



Similarly I'm not impressed by silly appeals to motives. I don't really care if it's Xianity or trolling or what, but just bare face postulates, appeals to motives, arguments from incredulity, and other fallacies do not a valid argument make.

I see, so I take it you read the Bible only from a literal sense then. There's the problem. That's not how the text is designed to teach. You can choose to study and learn or you can just read thru it. There is a difference.


Sure, some do not agree with my view, but some do.

Middle Age reasoning never appealed to me. Much like Middle East reasoning today.

You mention one reference example. I gave several others as well that include "race" in the definition. I can't imagine all of them to be wrong. And you yourself have already admitted there are others that view that passage with "generation" defined as "race". So it's not like I'm in this interpretation alone.

You did seem to suggest your view is more of a literal reading of the passage. If you don't think you're mistaken to do so, that's great. I'm of a different opinion of course.

(deleted)

Chris B.

 

[UnrepentantRed]

I am interested in knowing what you think on the biblical year (360 days), which is applied to Daniels prophecies, but I have also heard criticism of this saying that the biblical year would not provide consistency with other prophecies in the bible, and the Jews use a lunar calendar which is approximately 354 days which would mean the rapture should have been in December last year, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

No it isn't. What you are saying directly contradicts the message. The Thessalonians are worried that some people have already died. Will they miss out on the coming of the Kingdom of God? Paul reassures the Thessalonians. The dead will be raised and join the living, to share in the experience. But who are the living? The still living are described in the first person by Paul. He is talking to the present generation.

If he meant it could be any time, maybe tomorrow, maybe in excess of two thousand years, he would not have used such expressions.

Paul sent the second letter to the Thessalonians to clarify the first because it had been misunderstood. Also in verse 3 Paul describes the two signs to look for. (Which these signs were not present at that time) Sorry I didn't include a reference earlier.

2 Thessalonians 2: 2 and 3

"2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,"

Why don't you cite what you refer to, of at least give chapter and verse? For contrary to what you tell us, there is a suggestion of imminence in this passage too. No reader could possibly assume the writer has any protracted period of millennia in mind.

Referenced above. In the second letter Paul gives the Thessalonians two signs to watch for. Since these signs were not present the second coming could not happen at that time according to Paul's 2nd letter. That was the whole idea of sending the 2nd letter IMO, to calm everyone that was upset by the first.

There's more, as I will try to show. This kinda funny way of reinterpreting things to suggest they don't really mean what they appear to mean in the matter of the imminence of the parousia has a very venerable history. We read a plain statement by Jesus in Matthew. OK. He's told us that truly. Sounds pretty solid to me. But then decades pass, and another evangelist picks up his pen. He comes across a plain saying of Jesus. Dear me, what'll I do? I know, I'll add a bit, "explaining" why nothing's happened yet. And we end up with this. Very ingenious.

But then even more decades pass and a later writer has got to go to even greater lengths of ingenuity to address the issue convincingly. By this time non-believers are getting really kinda cheeky about it. Even that doesn't suggest two millennia of things going on as they have.

But raving maniacs like the author of the insane Revelation care nothing for these subtleties, and blurt out Now if God sends Angels to tell his servants something, and they tell us, well you'd kinda think they'd get it right. For that passage admits of no significant delay in the coming of the Lord.

That is wrong, and the passage of time has refuted God, his angels and his servants, just as it has refuted early Marxists who predicted the imminence of World Revolution.

I suppose everyone that's a Christian is responsible to study the text and learn from it. It is a great book with much meaning written into it. Some folks will see what they want to see, true. Everyone must study in their own way and each is responsible for not being mislead. Even the text one studies should be researched to determine the most accurate translation available. It boils down to faith. I don't have it, probably never did, but the Bible is a great source of knowledge whether you're bound for Hell or not.

Chris B.

 

[HansMustermann]

I see, so I take it you read the Bible only from a literal sense then. There's the problem. That's not how the text is designed to teach. You can choose to study and learn or you can just read thru it. There is a difference.


Sure, some do not agree with my view, but some do.

Middle Age reasoning never appealed to me. Much like Middle East reasoning today.

You mention one reference example. I gave several others as well that include "race" in the definition. I can't imagine all of them to be wrong. And you yourself have already admitted there are others that view that passage with "generation" defined as "race". So it's not like I'm in this interpretation alone.

You did seem to suggest your view is more of a literal reading of the passage. If you don't think you're mistaken to do so, that's great. I'm of a different opinion of course.

(deleted)

Chris B.

Let me repeat the issue: find anywhere in the ancient texts where that word is used to mean "race" OTHER than in the translation of that particular assurance by Jesus. Otherwise I don't care how many sources you quote that cite THAT translation alone as support, it's still circular reasoning.

You can't support X being true, by X being true. Which is what your argument boils down to there. Inserting an intermediate step/source in the process doesn't change the fact that it itself cites that translation.

It doesn't matter if it's a straight "X => X" or you insert an "X => Y and Z says Y => X", the fact of the matter still remains that it's circular.

And repeating it like a broken record doesn't make it any more convincing than it was the first time. We're not in The Hunting Of The Snark, and you're not the bellman.

"Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What i tell you three times is true."
​

Also, I thought you said you weren't doing apologetics, so let's stick to what it says, and how it relates to the rapture. I'm seriously not interested in the BS faith-in-fath propaganda about how it's oh-so-useful lessons if someone reads it exactly your way and all that stuff.

 

[Craig B]

Here's a list:

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/end.html

If that wasn't how Jesus intended his disciples to interpret what he said then all I can say is that he was a very very bad communicator.

Not only that: the Corinthians and the Thessalonians didn't know when Jesus was coming back, and maybe Paul didn't know either, so he had to say to them, "watch and wait"; but presumably Jesus knows when he's coming back. So why was Paul allowed to mislead people by suggesting that a return was possible in those early days? God knows it wasn't, because He's the one who decides when it'll happen.

Is it like when the teacher has to leave the classroom? So she or he doesn't say to the kids, I'll be back in not less than a quarter of an hour; he or she says, I've got to go out for a moment, so carry on doing the sums on page 35, and no talking and when I get back, if anyone's not at their desk they'll get a punishment exercise and detention.

Is that what this is like? Is it so we don't misbehave and do Sins while we're waiting for Jesus to come back?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

I am interested in knowing what you think on the biblical year (360 days), which is applied to Daniels prophecies, but I have also heard criticism of this saying that the biblical year would not provide consistency with other prophecies in the bible, and the Jews use a lunar calendar which is approximately 354 days which would mean the rapture should have been in December last year, please correct me if I am wrong.

I agree that the year should be based on the Lunar month. Genesis 1:14 says it all.

That's the thing about those pesky Raptures, according to the Bible, nobody knows when they'll happen. So anyone's guess, check that, everyone's guess is wrong except the Big Man himself. Chris B.

 

[MikeG]

..........Middle Age reasoning never appealed to me. Much like Middle East reasoning today...........

Here you go again. The assumption that everyone in the Middle East thinks alike is beyond bizarre. Almost as bizarre as the idea that there is any such thing as "middle age reasoning", which implies that everyone on the middle ages thought alike. As you have already admitted that you don't even know which countries are in the Middle East, maybe now is the time to stop generalising about a subject you clearly know very little about.

 

[Craig B]

I am interested in knowing what you think on the biblical year (360 days), which is applied to Daniels prophecies, but I have also heard criticism of this saying that the biblical year would not provide consistency with other prophecies in the bible, and the Jews use a lunar calendar which is approximately 354 days which would mean the rapture should have been in December last year, please correct me if I am wrong.

Yes, but they intercalated an extra month every two or three years to keep the calendar in line with the seasons, for agricultural purposes.

Until the Tannaitic period (approximately 10–220 CE) the calendar employed a new crescent moon, with an additional month normally added every two or three years to correct for the difference between twelve lunar months and the solar year. When to add it was based on observation of natural agriculture-related events.

 

[HansMustermann]

Also, just to make it clear: just dropping in a "but it's not literal" in there, doesn't mean a blanket excuse to play mad-libs by replacing word meanings. Which too often is the way it's used.

Yes, I am willing to accept that some things are parables, or even that Jesus meant "down" when he said "up", or whatever, but it has to be supported.

Hence, the question: how can that other meaning be supported? Exactly which other ancient texts show the word used to mean that?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Here you go again. The assumption that everyone in the Middle East thinks alike is beyond bizarre. Almost as bizarre as the idea that there is any such thing as "middle age reasoning", which implies that everyone on the middle ages thought alike. As you have already admitted that you don't even know which countries are in the Middle East, maybe now is the time to stop generalising about a subject you clearly know very little about.

You don't seem to understand the concept of opinion. Perhaps you can educate me on the tribal societies of Muslims and how they differ.
Chris B.

 

[HansMustermann]

Yes, but they intercalated an extra month every two or three years to keep the calendar in line with the seasons, for agricultural purposes.

The problem there is, obviously, that then effectively the average length of a Jewish year is about the same lenght as a solar year. Nobody calculated any length of time by just counting fixed-length years WITHOUT the intercallar months.

And it's not even a new idea. The Egyptians or the Mesopotamians also applied such corrections, as early as we can find anything written about it.

So a doomsday calculation based on exactly how that calendar WASN'T used, is blatantly bogus.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Also, just to make it clear: just dropping in a "but it's not literal" in there, doesn't mean a blanket excuse to play mad-libs by replacing word meanings. Which too often is the way it's used.

Yes, I am willing to accept that some things are parables, or even that Jesus meant "down" when he said "up", or whatever, but it has to be supported.

Hence, the question: how can that other meaning be supported? Exactly which other ancient texts show the word used to mean that?

I really don't know where you're going with this. "Race" is in the definition of the word. Confirmed in multiple sources. Why do you need to review other texts? Unless you know of other contemporary texts that were written about the Gospels of Jesus? I'd be interested in those myself. Chris B.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

Not only that: the Corinthians and the Thessalonians didn't know when Jesus was coming back, and maybe Paul didn't know either, so he had to say to them, "watch and wait"; but presumably Jesus knows when he's coming back. So why was Paul allowed to mislead people by suggesting that a return was possible in those early days? God knows it wasn't, because He's the one who decides when it'll happen.

Is it like when the teacher has to leave the classroom? So she or he doesn't say to the kids, I'll be back in not less than a quarter of an hour; he or she says, I've got to go out for a moment, so carry on doing the sums on page 35, and no talking and when I get back, if anyone's not at their desk they'll get a punishment exercise and detention.

Is that what this is like? Is it so we don't misbehave and do Sins while we're waiting for Jesus to come back?

That's it exactly. Paul didn't know, according to the scripture Paul couldn't know (Mark 13:32) when Jesus was coming back, he only knew what signs to watch for. That's the whole concept of the "spiritual marriage" Christians are supposed to have with Jesus. He is the "spiritual husband" figure "For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:2) and so the Christians are the "spiritual virgins". When he returns, those who are found to be with child must have conceived while their "spiritual husband" was away. "Woe to them that are with child in those days!" (Mark 13:17)
Chris B.

 

[Ladewig]

All this talk about the meaning of the word "generation" is rather moot, because in Luke 9:27, Jesus says "Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God."

There's no way you can spin the phrase "some who are standing here" into meaning some future generation.

Steve S

Did ChrisBFRPKY address this post?

 

[RationalVetMed]

The new date has been set for the rapture, it is now set for the 23rd Septembe this year, the basis for this claim is that the date on the 7th June 1967 is interpreted as the Jews returning to Israel and when applying the 7 sets of jubilee years (360 days = 1 Jewish year) you come to the date 23rd September 2015 (day of atonement) as the rapture. Here is a video claiming this /watch?v=UiUrevq2Ko0 (apologies, internationalskeptics will not let me post live links.)

Anyone wishing to offer any commentary on this?

Quick - it's not too late for athiests to negotiate on fees for looking after the pets of the Holy Ones who are ascending - http://www.aftertherapturepetcare.com/



Yuri

(Separation anxiety a speciality)

 

[UnrepentantRed]

I agree that the year should be based on the Lunar month. Genesis 1:14 says it all.

That's the thing about those pesky Raptures, according to the Bible, nobody knows when they'll happen. So anyone's guess, check that, everyone's guess is wrong except the Big Man himself. Chris B.

They came to the length of the prophetic year by looking at the book of revelations timeline I believe with 42 months, although this means that other prophecies in the bible would be wrong.

 

[tsig]

You don't seem to understand the concept of opinion. Perhaps you can educate me on the tribal societies of Muslims and how they differ.
Chris B.

I understand the concept what I don't understand is why your opinion is better than anyone elses's opinion.

 

[MikeG]

You don't seem to understand the concept of opinion. Perhaps you can educate me on the tribal societies of Muslims and how they differ.
Chris B.

I think you'll find I do. Some things which you think of as opinion (Pakistan being in the Middle East, for instance), are not. You are the one who suffers from the confusion: you confuse your opinions with facts.

As to the differences between Muslim tribes.....do you not see how repugnant the idea of lumping all Muslims together into one homogeneous block is? The Muslims of the Bandiagara Escarpment in Mali could hardly be more different from those in Indonesia if they tried. As with christians, it is beyond stupid to consider discussing the "Muslim culture" as though there were only one.