"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." -Jesus, in the book of Matthew chapter 24 verses 37-39
[/B]
So what the Bible is really saying is that robots will destroy us all and then inherit the Earth?
Oh wait, that was your last post. Too bad.
saluyamo
quote:
you've already been warned. most of you have already made your choice to reject god. and therefore you are about to get what's coming for you.
What compelete bull, pricks like you give the moderate religious folks a bad name
quote:
i am not religious.
No, you just tell people that if they dont believe in the same story as you that they're ed.
quote:
"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." -Jesus, in the book of Matthew chapter 24 verses 37-39
:haha: If there was a God out there it would be insulted that anyone would think that it would come up with such a stupid plan of flooding the World
Sushipunk
quote:
Originally posted by aquila
ROFL stu u been messin with sigs again?
Never :o
Moongoose
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
bye!
Remember the good old days, when fundies would stick around for weeks giving us apt chance to utterly destroy them.
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by saluyamo
:haha: If there was a God out there it would be insulted that anyone would think that it would come up with such a stupid plan of flooding the World
believers who say it was a good idea never think about the poor kittehs.. :(
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by sixth seal
this is going to be my last post.[/QUOTE}
I'm sure most will agree with me on this... Whew.
[QUOTE]just to clarify, i realize my words indeed sounded pompous in the original post...
you cannot and will not comprehend the truths i'm conveying to you. to be quite frank, until you grow up and can discuss in a mature manner subjects like this, you will remain ignorant.
I think you should reconsider using the past tense, as it seems you still sound pompous.
quote:
and to be honest, you will deserve fully what's about to happen.
Really, you call yourself a Christian, say something like this, then call others hypocrites?
quote:
now, consider these words from jesus:
"As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man." -Jesus, in the book of Matthew chapter 24 verses 37-39
You should try reading the whole thing; rather then just the verses you like... it's pretty clear that he's talking about the corruption of the present Jewish authorities and the striff with Rome. Perhaps more importantly though; you need to consider the writer of the story and the context... Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience and after the Romans destroyed the temple... in this context it seems much more logical that the story is meant to show Jesus as predicting Rome's crackdown and putting the blame for it on the Pharisees (a Jewish sect... likely the one Jesus was actually part of). The fact that the story blames the Pharisees for the corruption of the temple is pretty strong evidence that Matthew was crafting this story to convince Jews to abandon other sects of Judaism in favour of Christian-Judaism (Christianity really being still a sect of Judaism at this point). See, at the time of Jesus the Pharisees were not responsible for the Temple nor were they an influential sect of Judaism; rather, the Sadducees were. In 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the temple the Sadducees were also destroyed. Now, Jesus, if he were criticising any sect for the corruption of the temple it would have been the Sadducees; however, by the time Matthew starts writing there are no Sadducees, so no point in blaming them. See, in order to understand the gospels you need to consider not just the words but also who wrote them, when, and for whom. If you look at the context you'll get an entirely different view of the story. This chapter is not about the end of days to come; rather, it's about the destruction of the temple, which by the time the story was committed to paper had already happened.
So... since Jesus was not predicting the end of the world. Likely not predicting anything; rather, if this discussion with his apostles ever happened he was probably just bitching about how ed up the Sadducees had made the temple (his "father's house"). The predictions of death, distruction, et all are likely all attributable to Matthew moreso then Jesus, and they aren't predictions at all, since the events they "predict" happened 10-30 years before Matthew started writing. Anyway... since neither Jesus nor Matthew are predicting the end of the world the rest of what you had to say really isn't all that material.
If you're going to preach to people you need to take more care to understand what you're preaching.
Matt_Moor
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I think you should reconsider using the past tense, as it seems you still sound pompous.
Really, you call yourself a Christian, say something like this, then call others hypocrites?
You should try reading the whole thing; rather then just the verses you like... it's pretty clear that he's talking about the corruption of the present Jewish authorities and the striff with Rome. Perhaps more importantly though; you need to consider the writer of the story and the context... Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience and after the Romans destroyed the temple... in this context it seems much more logical that the story is meant to show Jesus as predicting Rome's crackdown and putting the blame for it on the Pharisees (a Jewish sect... likely the one Jesus was actually part of). The fact that the story blames the Pharisees for the corruption of the temple is pretty strong evidence that Matthew was crafting this story to convince Jews to abandon other sects of Judaism in favour of Christian-Judaism (Christianity really being still a sect of Judaism at this point). See, at the time of Jesus the Pharisees were not responsible for the Temple nor were they an influential sect of Judaism; rather, the Sadducees were. In 70 AD when the Romans destroyed the temple the Sadducees were also destroyed. Now, Jesus, if he were criticising any sect for the corruption of the temple it would have been the Sadducees; however, by the time Matthew starts writing there are no Sadducees, so no point in blaming them. See, in order to understand the gospels you need to consider not just the words but also who wrote them, when, and for whom. If you look at the context you'll get an entirely different view of the story. This chapter is not about the end of days to come; rather, it's about the destruction of the temple, which by the time the story was committed to paper had already happened.
So... since Jesus was not predicting the end of the world. Likely not predicting anything; rather, if this discussion with his apostles ever happened he was probably just bitching about how ed up the Sadducees had made the temple (his "father's house"). The predictions of death, distruction, et all are likely all attributable to Matthew moreso then Jesus, and they aren't predictions at all, since the events they "predict" happened 10-30 years before Matthew started writing. Anyway... since neither Jesus nor Matthew are predicting the end of the world the rest of what you had to say really isn't all that material.
If you're going to preach to people you need to take more care to understand what you're preaching.
Brilliant
pkcRAISTLIN
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down :)
Capitalizt
Moral, I think your interpretation seems to be stretching it a bit. If Matthew only wanted to discuss the fall of the temple, he could have made it a bit more explicit. Jesus isn't just talking about the fall of the temple in those verses. It's clear from a few lines before and after the verse quoted by sixth is that he is talking about the end of the world...the rapture (or whatever you want to call it)..with the heavens shaking, the sun darkening, the "stars falling from the sky", the elect vanishing from thin air and leaving others behind, etc. The plain meaning of the text is referring to the end times..not some temporary political event.
This is not the point I want to make however. What I don't understand is that you believe these stories aren't to be taken literally..that the "red letter" words attributed to Jesus himself were invented out of thin air for political reasons by Matthew..yet you still give this book credibility. Why? Why do you assume the other words attributed to Jesus (also written decades after his supposed death) are any more reliable than those invented by Matthew? I agree it is obvious that many of the NT books have political motives.. You can even see the progression in the synoptic gospels..from a humble and misunderstood teacher who wanted his teachings and miracles to be kept quiet in Mark (the earliest gospel)..to a proud God-man who told his followers to evangelize the world in the later gospels (Matthew & John). The miracles are exaggerated slightly in each retelling of the story, making it more inexcusable for the Jews to continue doubting..and only in the gospels written a few decades after Mark (when it was really becoming embarrassing for Christians that Jews were still around) do we see anti-semitic passages inserted into the crucifixion story to denigrate the Jews (such as when they say "Let his blood be on our hands, and the hands of our children".) Political motives are dripping throughout the old and new testaments..and these are things we would expect to see if the stories were being invented by biased and fallible humans..but they are an infinite mystery if a flawless god wanted to pass down an accurate message to humanity.
pkcRAISTLIN
when did you become a theologian cap? (not having a go, am genuinely interested).
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
What I don't understand is that you believe these stories aren't to be taken literally..that the "red letter" words attributed to Jesus himself were invented out of thin air for political reasons by Matthew..yet you still give this book credibility. Why? Why do you assume the other words attributed to Jesus (also written decades after his supposed death) are any more reliable than those invented by Matthew?
i think craig is more than capable of making up his own mind just as you have, yeah?
Capitalizt
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
when did you become a theologian cap? (not having a go, am genuinely interested).
studying religion has been a hobby of mine over the past few years..It's fascinating. And of course..
If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. But if you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
- Sun Tzu
;)
quote:
i think craig is more than capable of making up his own mind just as you have, yeah?
Sure. But you rarely hear a believer acknowledge that the words attributed to Jesus were not actually real..but invented by someone else for political reasons. I happen to agree with this and think it is the most rational position. I'm just wondering how moral makes it jive with his faith.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by Capitalizt
Moral, I think your interpretation seems to be stretching it a bit. If Matthew only wanted to discuss the fall of the temple, he could have made it a bit more explicit. Jesus isn't just talking about the fall of the temple in those verses. It's quite clear from a few lines before and after the verse quoted by sixth is that he is talking about the end of the world...the rapture (or whatever you want to call it)..with the heavens shaking, the sun darkening, the "stars falling from the sky", the elect vanishing from thin air and leaving others behind, etc. The plain meaning of the text is referring to the end times..not some temporary political event.
Some people think that it actually discusses both the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of time... I say just the destruction of Jerusalem. The final verses of chapter 23 Jesus declares that God has left the temple because the temple has been defiled by the Jews (your hous is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth... 23:38-39). The first three verses of chapter 24 clearly establish that he's talking about the destruction of Jerusalem, as his disiples are trying to get him back to the temple and he essentially tells them to disregard the temple as it will not be there long (there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down).... So he's told them that the temple is going to get raped... they then ask when this will happen... and he goes on to describe the political climate that ultimately happened prior to the destruction of the temple in 70AD and the total ass kicking the Jews received at the hands of the Romans. If you put yourself into the mind set of a first century Jew the whole thing makes a great deal of sense in that they had just lived through the tribulation and if they were still breathing they survived it. Additionally, they expected the messiah to save them from oppression (most of them were expecting a warrior messiah), they were also expecting false messiahs, as this is what scripture told them. During the struggle with Rome that both preceeded and followed the destruction there were revolutionaries that people thought were the messiah. Matthew's inclusion of the talk of false prophets is his statement that none of these revolutionaries were the messiah. Any first century Jew reading this would recognise that he's talking about the now very recent revolution. The line "This generation shall not pass, till these things be fulfilled" is also a good indicator that the aforementioned tribulation is about the revolution and crackdown rather then the end of the world, as Matthew is writing at the same time as Jesus' contemporaries are reaching the end of their lives; it would be a little silly for him to include this prediction if it were meant to be of the end of time knowing full well that there was little time left for this generation... especially considering Matthew is writing not for Jesus's contemporaries but for a yonger audience; why would he be trying to win over coming generations if he were convinced the world would end within 10 years (or should have already ended if you take the later estimated dates for Matthew's gospel). Now, some argue that the the line "what shall be the sign of thy coming, and the end of the world?" means Jesus is talking about the end of time; however, the actual word used in the gospel is aionios, which means era. What era is he refering too... well; first century Jews thought in terms of two eras: the Mosaic age and the age of the Messiah... the references to last days are in reference to the end of the Mosaic age, which coincides with the destruction of the temple. Essentially, Matthew is trying to convince his audience that the Messiah has come, most people failed to recognize this, the temple has been destroyed because God left it, and they are now living in the age of the Messiah.
quote:
This is not the point I want to make however. What I don't understand is that you believe these stories aren't to be taken literally..that the "red letter" words attributed to Jesus himself were invented out of thin air for political reasons by Matthew..yet you still give this book credibility. Why? Why do you assume the other words attributed to Jesus (also written decades after his supposed death) are any more reliable than those invented by Matthew? I agree it is obvious that many of the NT books have political motives.. You can even see the progression in the synoptic gospels..from a humble and misunderstood teacher who wanted his teachings and miracles to be kept quiet in Mark (the earliest gospel)..to a proud God-man who told his followers to evangelize the world in the later gospels (Matthew & John). The miracles are exaggerated slightly in each retelling of the story, making it more inexcusable for the Jews to continue doubting..and only in the gospels written a few decades after Mark (when it was really becoming embarrassing for Christians that Jews were still around) do we see anti-semitic passages inserted into the crucifixion story to denigrate the Jews (such as when they say "Let his blood be on our hands, and the hands of our children".) Political motives are dripping throughout the old and new testaments..and these are things we would expect to see if the stories were being invented by biased and fallible humans..but they are an infinite mystery if a flawless and omniscient god wanted to pass down an accurate message to humanity.
I definately recognise that the bible is heavily flawed and has been manipulated by men for the benefit of those who had the ability to manipulate it. I agree, the books of the bible need to be looked at in context (and they are way more fun if you do this); however, I don't think the fact that it isn't entirely accurate and unchanged negates it entirely. I've said before and maintain that one must hold to the themes that run throughout rather then focus on specific passages. Ultimately, I believe that those who crafted the books of the bible (for specific purposes) were working from oral traditions that were somewhat accurate and true. Do I believe particular line attributed to Jesus was actually said word for word as it later appears in the King James... nope; do I believe the core message of his ministry can be found within; yes.
