• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The End Of The World

Johnny Marseilles said:
Historically speaking the immortal soul can be found to have influenced Jewish thinking about the time of Alexander the Great, though Babylonian in origin many of the teachings of modern day Christianity were later introduced to Jewish / Christian thinking through later historical persons. The immortal soul through the philosophy of Socrates, the Trinity through Plato, hell through Milton and Dante, the cross through Constantine, Easter from Astarte, the pagan goddess of fertility and consort of Baal, and Christmas through the winter solstice celebrations.

Lets take the immortal soul. Read Ezekiel 18:4. The soul dies. The question then becomes, what is the soul? A somewhat unhapy translation into English, but the soul, according to the Bible, is the blood or the life of any breathing creature.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I have found a much better translation:

[URL="http://nlt.scripturetext.com/ezekiel/18.htm"]New Living Translation
Click to expand...
(©2007)
For all people are mine to judge--both parents and children alike. And this is my rule: The person who sins is the one who will die.
Click to expand...
[/URL]

No mention of souls at all. Care to comment? :(
 
Johnny Marseilles said:
Who, me? What is true, the pagan influence of modern day Christianity?
Click to expand...
The skeptical often think...
Click to expand...
Revelation 1:1, 3; 3:11; 22:7, 12, 20 may undoubtedly amuse the skeptic...
Click to expand...
I'm just saying that you are poisoning the well by defining skeptics in a narrow way.
I'm saying you are begging the question by arguing from the Bible, when I do not accept it as other than fiction.
And the larger picture is a strawman, where the role of skeptics is to ponder the vast intricacies of the Bible.

Skeptics might very well ask the question that I did - what makes you think it is true?
 
Religious believers. So obsessed with the end of the world and the death of everything we've ever known.

I'll stick with being an atheist, thanks. We tend to prefer that life go on without all the fireballs and smiting you faithful salivate over.
 
Unless you are reading it in Aramaic or ancient Greek, you should probably not try to interpret Scripture based on subtleties in the text.
 
Johnny Marseilles said:
1 Thessalonians 5:23 refers to the presence of Jesus Christ. The Greek noun parousia is used. It means "being alongside." In his work on The Parousia, Israel P. Warren, D.D., wrote: "Had our translators done with this technical word 'parousia' as they did with 'baptisma,' - transferring it unchanged, - or if translated using its exact etymological equivalent, presence, and had it been well understood, as it then would have been, that there is no such thing as a 'Second Presence,' I believe that the entire doctrine would have been different from what it now is. The phrases, 'second advent,' and 'second coming,' would never have been heard of. The church would have been taught to speak of The Presence Of The Lord, as that from which its hopes were to be realized, whether in the near future or at the remotest period, - that under which the world was to be made new, a resurrection both spiritual and corporeal should be attained, and justice and everlasting awards administered."

The word occurs 24 times in the Christian Greek scripture: Matthew 24:3, 27, 37, 39 / 1 Corinthians 15:23; 16:17 / 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7; 10:10 / Philippians 1:26; 2:12 / 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23 / 2 Thessalonians 2:1, 8, 9 / James 5:7, 8 / 2 Peter 1:16; 3:4, 12 / 1 John 2:28.
Click to expand...
Parusia is used all these times to indicate a coming and once where it seems clear to me that it should be translated as presence, which was Paul talking about himself but even that could have been referring to his coming to visit those particular people of Thessalonica.
So I can rationalize it to zero, when it does not mean coming.
I find your argument to be worse than just weak but borderline deceptive.
 
Last edited:
PGH said:
Religious believers. So obsessed with the end of the world and the death of everything we've ever known.
Click to expand...


I also think it's pretty silly to argue about how to interpret passages in a book that also includes talking snakes, a talking bush, 900-year-old men and a zombie who woke up three days after death, to name just a few items of biblical nonsense.
 
Last edited:
The skeptical often think that, according to the Bible, the end would come within the lifetime of Jesus' listeners.
Click to expand...

well i belief the inventors of your religion had no clue when the world will end. especially considering that they messed up knowing when the world formed.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Hmm. I have found a much better translation:

http://nlt.scripturetext.com/ezekiel/18.htm

No mention of souls at all. Care to comment? :(
Click to expand...

Same thing. The person is the soul.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Vol. XIII, p. 467 - Nepes [Hebrew nephesh] is a term of far greater extension than our 'soul,' signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the OT means not a part of man, but the whole man - man as a living being. Similarly, in the NT it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37)

The New Encyclopædia Britannica (1976), Macropædia, Vol. 15, p. 152 - The Hebrew term for 'soul' (nefesh, that which breathes) was used by Moses . . . , signifying an 'animated being' and applicable equally to nonhuman beings. . . . New Testament usage of psychē ('soul') was comparable to nefesh.

The Jewish Encyclopedia (1910), Vol. VI, p. 564 - The belief that the soul continues its existence after the dissolution of the body is a matter of philosophical or theological speculation rather than of simple faith, and is accordingly nowhere expressly taught in Holy Scripture.
 
Last edited:
Johnny Marseilles said:
Also at this point some clarification should be made as to what exactly is the "end of the world." The Bible says that Earth was given to man for him to fill and subdue it, that the meek will inherit the earth and live forever upon it, and that it will last forever. (Genesis 1:28 / Psalm 37:29; 115:16 / Ecclesiastes 1:4) The end of the world is the end of the present system of things and all that involves. Of Satan's influence and sin, which, when concluding brings much destruction, but when ended, allows peace.
Click to expand...
Ecclesiastes 1:4 could be translated as long time. It is comparing the life of a man to the life of the earth.
How about the Last Day, when Jesus comes in person to raise us up from the dead, how does this figure into your end time?
It looks like you don't have Jesus coming back.
Seems you are leaving out something rather important.

It looks to me that you are essentially saying that the world will continue on a lot like it is but there will be a period of worse wars, followed by peace. Like they repeat in Mass in the Catholic Church which is a dogma it seems, World Without End. So maybe the title would more appropriately be named, The Non-End of the World and Why We do not Allow Jesus to be Held Accountable for Our Own Misinterpretations.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
You apparently know this. Would you care to explain your reasoning that allows you to reach these conclusions because it seems to me that you are making some gigantic leaps in thinking that I don't see any support for in the Bible. :confused:
Click to expand...

In the gospel of Mathew after Jesus dies on the cross:
Mathew 27:50-53
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.​

This and Revelation indicate that the dead will stay in their graves until the END TIME.

Read revelation properly and you will see. Also many other parts of the NT.

Generally speaking the OT says nothing about the afterlife. Only some of the later Prophets talk about heaven in a very vague way.
 
AdMan said:
I also think it's pretty silly to argue about how to interpret passages in a book that also includes talking snakes, a talking bush, 900-year-old men and a zombie who woke up three days after death, to name just a few items of biblical nonsense.
Click to expand...



INDEED...:clap:
 
Leumas said:
In the gospel of Mathew after Jesus dies on the cross:
Mathew 27:50-53
Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost. And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent; And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.​

This and Revelation indicate that the dead will stay in their graves until the END TIME.

Read revelation properly and you will see. Also many other parts of the NT.

Generally speaking the OT says nothing about the afterlife. Only some of the later Prophets talk about heaven in a very vague way.
Click to expand...

In De viris inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says: "Matthew, who is also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of those of the circumcision who had believed." So this (Matthew having been the first gospel) might be a reason for the others having not included the dead people emerging from their graves.

Any serious scholar of the Bible could tell you that at Matthew 27:52-53 the Greek egeiro means simply raised up rather than resurrected back to life, and in addition to this "they" (meaning the bodies that were walking around) is a pronoun, and in Greek all pronouns have gender and "they" is masculine whereas bodies" (the bodies that were lifted up) is in the neuter. They are not the same.

Adam Clarke: "It is difficult to account for the transaction mentioned in verses 52 and 53. Some have thought that these two verses have been introduced into the text of Matthew from the gospel of the Nazarenes, others think the simple meaning is this: - by the earthquake several bodies that had been buried were thrown up and exposed to view, and continued above ground till after Christ's resurrection, and were seen by many persons in the city."

Theobald Daechsel's translation: "And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up."

Johannes Greber's translation: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried there were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city."

ETA - Similar events have taken place in recent times, as in Ecuador in 1949 and Bogota, Colombia in 1962 when 200 corpses in the cemetery were thrown out of their tombs by a violent earth tremor. - El Tiempo, Bogotá, Colombia, July 31, 1962.
 
Last edited:
Marduk said:
so your faith is a bit mix and match then
;)
Click to expand...

Faith? My faith is based upon knowledge and I think for myself, though, of course I use the resources of the organized religion. Surely you don't expect anything original from a discussion on a 4-2 thousand year old text or 2,000 years of its obvious transmogrification.
 
Johnny Marseilles said:
Faith? My faith is based upon knowledge and I think for myself, .
Click to expand...
Your earlier claim that the origins of the bible are not based on pagan belief suggests a lack of knowledge. Thats the problem with basing faith on knowledge, you never know if you know everything
;)
Johnny Marseilles said:
though, of course I use the resources of the organized religion. Surely you don't expect anything original from a discussion on a 4-2 thousand year old text or 2,000 years of its obvious transmogrification.
Click to expand...

what part of the bible dates back 4000 years ?
:confused:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom