Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I definitely wouldn't believe it because the Bible doesn't teach that he will return in that way. My biggest complaint against atheists is that, for all of their arrogance they haven't a clue about what the Bible says.
What the bibles says is as relevant to the existence or non-existence of a god as any other non-peer reviewed book.
Most atheists know more about the bible than theists do. And there are a lot of atheists who used to be xtians. Does Teresa McBain not know the bible?
There are many theories about these things and you seem to have picked one, which is fine. I don't say that it's true or untrue as I haven't had the time to delve into it for myself.
I’ve spent twenty years studying the subject in question.
Are you interested in a theory based on archaic texts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
However, I don't see any substantive difference other than in details of myths, etc., between any religions I'm familiar with that have held sway over the past several hundred years and it seems to me that it all plays into human frailties and blind spots that I assume have always existed.
The history of all ancient and archaic religions is identical. The history of the religion of the ancient Greeks, however, had a chance to be recorded and so we do now realize that a line must be drawn between traditional religions and philosophical or theological religions.
In your post you make reference only to the religion of the philosophers so, even though you may know very well how the ancient Greek philosophers treated the religion of their forefathers, I would like to repeat the recorded story for the sake of those who may be reading our conversation.
The traditional myths of the Greeks, which reflect their beliefs and the way people felt about their gods, were put into writing by the epic poets.
There is nothing in those poems that justifies the following that you wrote:
Humanity has, historically, invented gods -- largely god(s) of the gaps, to explain scary things that current human understanding can't explain or control, like thunder and lightning.
Philosophers did not like at all those myths and invented the allegorical interpretation of the myths so they could summon their own wisdom and explain to the people what the supposed hidden meaning of their own myths was!!
Thus when the myth was describing Zeus’ penetration of a virgin while raping her, the philosophers taught that it was not the penis of Zeus that did the penetration but a blade of grass as it emerged to the surface of the earth and the light of the day.
The famous Plato, however, did not fall for the allegorical interpretation and explicitly forbade the teaching of Homer’s poems in his imaginary republic.
Yet, what remained of the myths is only the philosophical fraud. It was the philosophers who endowed gods with the power to command the elements of nature and not the layman.
It was the Egyptian theologians who said to the people that the gods of their forefathers, those wicked, criminal gods, escaped to the heavens by climbing a ladder.
There were no heavenly gods before they were invented, most probably by chance, by the famous Angels: the persons exclusively licensed to communicate with the... nonexistent gods. With gods that were already gone but the people continued to believe that they still lived on Mount Olympus or the Cedar Forest up in the mountains.
The ancient texts relate a story that even today’s theologians do not want people to know. And, please forgive me for saying that, they are happy with what you believe of this subject.
I’ve spent twenty years studying the subject in question.
Are you interested in a theory based on archaic texts?
The ancient texts relate a story that even today’s theologians do not want people to know. And, please forgive me for saying that, they are happy with what you believe of this subject.
I'm always interested in knowledge, so say on. Tell me the story that today's theologians don't want me to know.
It is my understanding that Atheism, by definition, is the denial of the existence of a God or gods.
You really should have figured out before you posted this that there are several definitions of atheism, similar but slightly different. The definition you have articulated is sometimes referred to as positive or affirmative atheism. I tend to identify with negative atheism. Rather than spell each you, you can look them up. It only takes a few seconds.
Quote:
The question then becomes what is a God or gods and do they exist.
It seems, that there is no more unstable position than to deny the existence of a thing.
The obvious: what is a god, does a god need exist in order to be a god, and in the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and English how do the definition of gods is there to deny?
I find it amusing that it seems to you that to deny the existence of Zeus, leprechauns and Darth Vader is the epitome of unstable positions.
My biggest complaint against atheists is that, for all of their arrogance they haven't a clue about what the Bible says.
"
Since I'm one of those non-believers who doesn't have clue, can help me understand two questions that I've had for many years. How many people came to the tomb of Jesus to learn of his resurection? I've been told that the bible infallible, but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ALL have different answers as to the number.
Secondly,According to Matthew, Jeus made a post-resurection appearance where he was reunited with eleven of the remaining diciples. According to Paul, this reunion is in front of all 12 deciples even though Judas had died earlier. (Corinthians 15:5)
However, according to John's story, there were only ten diciples there at the same reunion, with Thomas being absent (John 20:24).
I definitely wouldn't believe it because the Bible doesn't teach that he will return in that way. My biggest complaint against atheists is that, for all of their arrogance they haven't a clue about what the Bible says.
I can show you the chronology of the Bible from the time of Adam to the flood in a few short verses. Over a thousand years. I can show you where Egyptology makes a laughing stock of modern historical dating, I can prove it using the far more accurate Bible along with astronomical charts, I can show you the math of the ancient Jews by which they knew when the Messiah would come and I can show you the math of when he returns. He already has, just as the Bible said he would. Almost a century ago. But not physically. He was never meant to return as most see his return.
Israel P. Warren, D.D., in his work The Parousia, Portland, Maine (1879), pp. 12-15: "We often speak of the 'second advent,' the 'second coming,' etc., but the Scriptures never speak of a 'second Parousia.' Whatever was to be its nature, it was something peculiar, having never occurred before, and being never to occur again. It was to be a presence differing from and superior to all other manifestations of himself to men, so that its designation should properly stand by itself, without any qualifying epithet other than the article, - THE PRESENCE.
"From this view of the word it is evident, I think, that neither the English word 'coming' nor the Latin 'advent' is the best representative of the original. They do not conform to its etymology; they do not correspond to the idea of the verb from which it is derived; nor could they appropriately be substituted for the more exact word, 'presence,' in the cases where the translators used the latter. Nor is the radical idea of them the same. 'Coming’ and 'advent' give most prominently the conception of an approach to us, motion toward us; 'parousia' that of being with us, without reference to how it began. The force of the former ends with the arrival; that of the latter begins with it. Those are words of motion; this of rest. The space of time covered by the action of the former is limited, it may be momentary; that of the latter unlimited . . . .
"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."
Your arguments seem quite familiar, maybe a reinvention of the poster called Mickiel, because I can't perceive two individuals having the same debate style.
Since I'm one of those non-believers who doesn't have clue, can help me understand two questions that I've had for many years. How many people came to the tomb of Jesus to learn of his resurection? I've been told that the bible infallible, but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John ALL have different answers as to the number.
First of all anyone who says that the Bible is infallible doesn't know the Bible very well. There are no two translations the same, and there are none that are infallible. The inspired word of Jehovah God is infallible, but the translations are not.
You would have to give me some specific information. This sounds a lot like the Dan Barker's Easter Challenge which I answered ages ago on the Skeptic's Annotated Bible Forum. Here
Who were the Women?
Some Bible writers mentioned the names of certain women, others do not. The various accounts do not indicate any of the women were not present, they only vary in which names are given.
Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
Angels are spirit form and so in order for them to be seen by humans they have to assume physical form, so some see them as men and others know that they are actually angels. They are, in a sense, both angels and men.
(Genesis 29:1-5) Many of the details of the account given by the four writers of the gospel differ in a way that depends upon who is telling the account to them. There were people coming and going over an indeterminate amount of time, and where one person would see one thing another would see something different from their own perspective of where they fit in the stream of time.
For example, the guards were there during the night, and some of the women were there. The women left first and then the soldiers left sometime not long before the women returned. The soldiers left when the angels arrived and moved the stone. Mary arrived but left to tell the others what had happened; the apostles arrived - John being younger and faster arrived first, before Peter. The arrival of the others isn't specifically mentioned but they were there. If the Bible skeptic, who seems to expect all four of these accounts to be identical thus defeating the purpose of giving a varied witness account, was set down at any given point within my brief description of a part of what happened it would differ from any other point. Was Mary there or not? Depends upon when you got there. The same applies to Peter and John, and the angels and the guards and Jesus. And their positions.
Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
Mark: One young man (16:5)
Luke: Two men (24:4)
John: Two angels (20:12)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Data1000
Secondly,According to Matthew, Jeus made a post-resurection appearance where he was reunited with eleven of the remaining diciples. According to Paul, this reunion is in front of all 12 deciples even though Judas had died earlier. (1 Corinthians 15:5)
However, according to John's story, there were only ten diciples there at the same reunion, with Thomas being absent (John 20:24).
Your arguments seem quite familiar, maybe a reinvention of the poster called Mickiel, because I can't perceive two individuals having the same debate style.
If I had a nickel every time I heard that I would probably have about $3.50.
You really should have figured out before you posted this that there are several definitions of atheism, similar but slightly different. The definition you have articulated is sometimes referred to as positive or affirmative atheism. I tend to identify with negative atheism. Rather than spell each you, you can look them up. It only takes a few seconds.
I'm aware of those, and I think they are nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mictlantecuhtli
I find it amusing that it seems to you that to deny the existence of Zeus, leprechauns and Darth Vader is the epitome of unstable positions.
Then perhaps you are unaware that there are, not unlike atheism, various definitions of gods.
What the bibles says is as relevant to the existence or non-existence of a god as any other non-peer reviewed book.
[Laughs] You gotta hand it to the "science minded atheists." Never as clever as they are confident but they at least seem to try.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Colonial Girl
Most atheists know more about the bible than theists do. And there are a lot of atheists who used to be xtians. Does Teresa McBain not know the bible?
I've said that here myself, but considering what the average theist knows that isn't saying a hell of a lot. I don't know who Teresa McBain is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
