Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

acbytesla said:
I understand the theology. I just think it is BS. But of course I think it is all BS.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Your interpretation is presupposed on it being BS. I learned the theology presupposing that it wasn't.
acbytesla said:
The Roman Church did it to distance Christianity from Judaism is the only explanation I have for it.
Click to expand...
Seems plausible. Probably happened in one of those early ecumenical councils.
 
arthwollipot said:
Exactly. Your interpretation is presupposed on it being BS. I learned the theology presupposing that it wasn't.
Click to expand...
I'm not presupposing anything. Pretty much everything I've heard and read comes off as rationalization. A sort of having their cake and eating it.

It would make a lot more sense if Marcion's canon and dogma would have won the day. Then there would be little reason to defend the Old Testament laws and atrocities.
 
arthwollipot said:
(looks him up) Oh, that guy. Yeah. That would have made it all a whole lot simpler.
Click to expand...
There are still issues for me. But I might still be a Christian if the religion isnt tied to the first half of the Bible. For me it was an in depth reading of the Old Testament that drove me away. I couldn't reconcile the Christian God being loving and the monster of the Old Testament.

Marcion's postulation of a good and gracious God (Christ) and the Demiurge (the Jewish God of War) solves that major conflict.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
There are still issues for me. But I might still be a Christian if the religion isnt tied to the first half of the Bible. For me it was an in depth reading of the Old Testament that drove me away. I couldn't reconcile the Christian God being loving and the monster of the Old Testament.

Marcion's postulation of a good and gracious God (Christ) and the Demiurge (the Jewish God of War) solves that major conflict.
Click to expand...
For me, it was like the Old Testament provided a context for the coming of Christ. It starts with Genesis, goes into Laws, then does a deep dive into the History of the Israelites in the promised land - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles - which to me remains one of the most fun and interesting parts of the Bible to read (Sisera and Jael, anyone? Classic!). This provides a historical background to the time and the culture. In the back half of the OT it goes into the prophecies of the coming Messiah. All this as a lead-in or prelude to the real story, the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.

It's like how the first clause of the Second Amendment provides context for the second clause without being a limitation on it. I hope my clumsy attempt at a distinctively American analogy makes sense. :D

And no, obviously the Histories are not really historically accurate. But they paint a picture, without which the story is, in my opinion, incomplete. This is a part of the Bible that I believe could have originated in genuine historical events (aka wars), with later embellishment and elaboration by people with a religious agenda to push. Many legends, after all, have their origins in much simpler and less supernatural history.
 
arthwollipot said:
And no, obviously the Histories are not really historically accurate. But they paint a picture, without which the story is, in my opinion, incomplete. This is a part of the Bible that I believe could have originated in genuine historical events (aka wars), with later embellishment and elaboration by people with a religious agenda to push. Many legends, after all, have their origins in much simpler and less supernatural history.
Click to expand...
Why would these histories 'obviously' not really be accurate whereas (certainly for many Christians at least) the NT has to be accurate? I'm thinking of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:14
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

One could, at this point and in view of that verse, bring up Jordan Peterson's view of scripture - that (AFAIK anyway) it's just about all symbolic (Dawkins accused him of being 'drunk on symbolism').
 
Poem said:
Why would these histories 'obviously' not really be accurate whereas (certainly for many Christians at least) the NT has to be accurate? I'm thinking of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:14
And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.

One could, at this point and in view of that verse, bring up Jordan Peterson's view of scripture - that (AFAIK anyway) it's just about all symbolic (Dawkins accused him of being 'drunk on symbolism').
Click to expand...

While I was still a Catholic, I always assumed that Jesus was a real historical character. It never once occurred to me that this was not the case. It was only later, after I rejected Christianity, that I began to realise the complete lack of any actual evidence for much of what was said in the NT. The OT, whilst containing some actual factual events, is also seriously flawed. The whole story of Moses and the captivity in Egypt, for example, appears to be complete fiction.
I think you are creating a false dichotomy here. In my experience, at least, the whole Bible was taken as true. It wasn't a case of questioning the OT whilst accepting the NT.
 
Darat said:
Given the rest of the essay, yes.
Click to expand...
Darat said:
But he didn't conclude that "he considered Jesus erred.".
Click to expand...
Since, as has been noted already on this thread, Lewis remained a believer then it would seem that your are right and any seeming error was covered in Lewis's view by Jesus's statement that no man, angel or himself knew the day or hour - only the Father. However, Lewis does not appear to deal with the fact that Jesus does give the disciples a rough guide to the timing of his second coming - he explicitly cites 'the abomination that causes desolation' as a sign that the end is near. Jesus's admission that he did not know the day or hour does not preclude him knowing an approximation it would seem. After his 'abomination' reference Jesus continues (Matthew 24:16-21):

then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.
 
Last edited:
Cosmic Yak said:
While I was still a Catholic, I always assumed that Jesus was a real historical character. It never once occurred to me that this was not the case. It was only later, after I rejected Christianity, that I began to realise the complete lack of any actual evidence for much of what was said in the NT. The OT, whilst containing some actual factual events, is also seriously flawed. The whole story of Moses and the captivity in Egypt, for example, appears to be complete fiction.
I think you are creating a false dichotomy here. In my experience, at least, the whole Bible was taken as true. It wasn't a case of questioning the OT whilst accepting the NT.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure many Jewish scholars have not taken the creation story literally cmiiw.

I think the historicity of Jesus and proof of what was said in the NT are generally dealt with separately. Most scholars accept the historicity of Jesus - think of Tacitus's citation in his Annals.
 
Darat said:
In your opinion. Who is to say that your opinion should hold for other people?
Click to expand...
If one assumes that Jesus said the following (Matthew 7:21-23):

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
 
Darat said:
Now if you ask me for example if the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian church or not I can choose to answer either objectively or from my own religious background.

Objectively - yes they are because they claim to be, from my own religious background no they are not. That religious background says they worship graven images - icons and the crucifix - which "Christians" don't, they pray to other entities than God - the saints and Mary - which Christians don't and so on. Roman Catholics would of course disagree with my theological answer, whilst of course at the same time maintaining any other Christian religion is deficient.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this only be significant if it were peculiar to Christianity?

Are Darwinists unified in their belief that modern synthesis satisfactorily explains life? No, they aren't. They disagree - so, like Christians, they remain adherents...they remain Darwinists - but there is disagreement over the details.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
But the question "are you a theist?" has no ambiguity. That's why we usually don't ask it you are a "not-something". It can be ambiguous.
Click to expand...
I think it does. As I was suggesting - it depends on what we mean by God. Einstein had time for deism.
 
Olmstead said:
The agnostic concept that the existence of God is unknowable can be applied to every other phenomena that lacks supporting evidence. And yet, most people don't think the existence of invisible magical creatures is a possibility worth considering, except when it comes to God.

You can be agnostic both about God and about invisible unicorns, and this would be a sensible though pedantic position. It's not a particularly helpful opinion in most cases, and people generally don't seriously consider the existence of invisible unicorns.

If your agnosticism regarding God somehow differs from your agnosticism regarding invisible unicorns, then it doesn't seem to be true agnosticism.
Click to expand...
This surely comes back to the definition of God. The supposed creator of the universe need not have any part in what we call the Bible.
 
Darat said:
What we can say however is the god most if not all Christian claim exists doesn’t because the evidence is against it. For example we know that humans weren’t created instantly and singularity .
Click to expand...
That assumes Christians should take Genesis 1-2 literally and that Darwinism is fact.
 
arthwollipot said:
This is true, but the idea that the Messiah fulfilled the Judaic law is pretty universal, yeah? It's the reason there are Christians in the first place.
Click to expand...
There we are again: what does “fulfill” mean? The dictionary definitions don’t help me. Does it mean “invalidate”? How do you fulfill a law? Can I fulfill a law?
 
Poem said:
Are Darwinists unified in their belief that modern synthesis satisfactorily explains life? No, they aren't. They disagree - so, like Christians, they remain adherents...they remain Darwinists - but there is disagreement over the details.
Click to expand...
Who are the “Darwinists” you are thinking of? All biologists who are also scientists? In recent years I have only heard the word used in a pejorative sense by Christian literalists.
I am also unsure what you mean by “modern synthesis” but I guess you mean the theory of evolution, or possibly abiogenesis, for which nobody has advanced a fully plausible theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom