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.
The Newsweek author stated:
"Then there is what many fundamentalist Christians hold to be the most important of all elements of the Bible: the Second Coming of Christ and the end of the world. What modern evangelicals want to believe cannot be reconciled with the Bible. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says of the Apocalypse, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be done”—in other words, the people alive in his time would see the end of the world."
And I would add that Jesus said "no one knows the hour or the day, not the angels, not Me, only the Father knows."
So the Newsweek author is obviously not understanding what Jesus said to His audience.
Also, Paul said Jesus would come when the complement of the nations enters:
Romans 11:25-26 "For I am not willing for you to be ignorant of this secret, brethren, lest you may be passing for prudent among yourselves, that callousness, in part, on Israel has come, until the complement of the nations may be entering." (26) And thus all Israel shall be saved, according as it is written, Arriving out of Zion shall be the Rescuer. He will be turning away irreverence from Jacob."
So it is when the last person from the nations completes the church or body of Christ, then Christ returns.
Also, the author states when Jesus comes it will be "the end of the world." That too is false. When Jesus returns it will be the end of the eon. Then Jesus sets up His 1000 year kingdom in Israel.
Mat_24:3 Now at His sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? And what is the sign of Thy presence and of the conclusion of the eon?" AIWN is used at the end of verse 3 and not KOSMOS (world).
I'd like to know what the true motive of the writer is. He used quite a lot of fallacies, one being guilt by association and another poisoning of the well.
Would you be willing to point to some specific examples of the fallacies you found?
Would you be willing to point to some specific examples of the fallacies you found?
What you will find is Eusebius claiming that when the author says, "when" certain things happen we need to reevaluate he is claiming that ALL fundamentalists do those things all the time.
What you will find is Eusebius claiming that when the author says, "when" certain things happen we need to reevaluate he is claiming that ALL fundamentalists do those things all the time.
How about you let him respond first before drawing any conclusions. Close-minded much?
I read the article and found it quite informative and accurate. My experience has shown that the more fundamentalist someone is, the less open their mind is. One thing they can do better than anyone though is proof-text. Find that exact quote to condemn what they want condemned, while at the same time ignoring that which does not agree with them.
Would you be willing to point to some specific examples of the fallacies you found?
I noticed that some of the comments about Constantine are erroneous.
Constantine never "proclaimed" himself to be a Christian. In fact he refused to be baptized until he was dying (and then by an Arian bishop!) Constantine was wise enough not to subject himself to any external authority, a mistake Theodosius later came to regret. The tales about Constantine's miraculous 'conversion' come from Eusebius, whose glorification of his benefactor should be taken in the same fashion as the imaginative histories traditionally assigned to Roman emperors.
The observance of Christian services on Sunday dates to at least the early 2nd century and possibly earlier. Constantine did not invent this. His proclamation that Sunday, already holy to Christians, was to be an official day of rest was likely part of his support of Christianity as a weapon against his political rivals, the old guard pagan Roman nobility.
A not uncommon theme among the anti-Christian crowd is false allegations about Constantine. But then a not uncommon theme among the pro-Christian crowd is false allegations about Constantine.
Also…
The interpretation the author gives to Paul’s warnings against dissension is misguided, likely intentionally so. It is not debate that is to be avoided but argument within the community that should be settled peacefully. This also applies to lawsuits, which are not forbidden, but which should not be undertaken without first trying to settle the issue peacefully. Likewise it is not criticism of government that is wrong, but refusal to obey the legitimate laws of a legitimate government, a reasonable caution to the community in Rome already in ill favor with the government.
Unlike the Constantine issues, which are generally misunderstood anyway, these and similar criticisms are simply incorrect on the face of it and clearly blatantly politically motivated.
OTOH IMO many of the comments about the non-inerrancy of the Gospels are substantially correct.
Since the elections are on the horizon, I wouldn't be the least surprised that Democrats paid Newsweek to run that story to try to make all Republicans look like crazed idiots as well as fundamentalists.
In the Newsweek article they have a big photo of Republican Governor Rick Perry. And write about Sarah Palin, have a picture of Pat Robertson, wrote about Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. So the people behind Newsweek most likely used this piece about the Bible to get the message to American voters that Republicans are all a bunch of crazed idiots just like those "crazy" fundamentalists. Hopefully the American public will see the writer is ignorant about the Bible and see the guilt by assocation fallacies he used by linking Republicans with snake handling, poison drinking fanatics.
Sounds like Newsweek is prone to political motives. What an investment for our great Counties people to make. I believe the term is Lobbying for the favor. Well I think it's sad. Guess newsweek was in some financial trouble and sold their virtual shareholders soul to profit no gain. For them to be so blatantly in the open about there corrupt motives is kinda like a spit in the face to all the hard workers how print and write and photograph. Sure they have a large pool of employees that are getting ready to leave the cesspool. A little stockmarket forecast. Do not invest in newsweek. probable gonna crash and burn. But what I know being a Christian Baptized by Fire.
I noticed that some of the comments about Constantine are erroneous.
Constantine never "proclaimed" himself to be a Christian. In fact he refused to be baptized until he was dying (and then by an Arian bishop!)
Thanks for your insights. I'm not a Bible scholar or medieval historian, so I'm not going to try to argue over the fine points of any of this. I will, however, say this: So far I have not seen anyone convincingly uncover any serious fallacies or falsehoods in the Newsweek article. Despite some nit-picking around the edges of the article, it seems that all of the central points remain intact. I know, of course, that every time someone points to a contradiction in the Bible, there are people who will go in to extensive song & dance routines to explain how the seeming contradiction is not really a contradiction. To me these efforts generally seem suspiciously intricate and, in the long run, just not very convincing. The process seems like patching a 1000 leaks trying to keep the boat afloat.
A few general observations (not aimed at anyone in particular):
People have a tendency to announce facts to support their claims without giving any references for their facts. Historical facts are often matters of dispute. Does the author of the Newsweek article make any claims that are just plain wrong according a consensus of historians? Or claims that are utterly indefensible insofar as historical records are concerned?
I've noticed some people attacking the motivations of the writer, or the motivations of the staff of Newsweek for publishing the articles. You are free to do this, of course, but here is a word of advice: To people who don't already think like you, this ad hominem type of approach makes you sound weak. You would be better off using your keystrokes to offer solid logical arguments with credible reference sources to back up your factual claims.
And one final thought: Why does faith in Jesus require that the Bible be a flawless historical document? It seems to me that Jesus was a liberal interpreter of OT laws; why can't modern believers follow his example and look for evidence in their heart, rather than on paper? I think the article made a great point: A lot of people pushing Christianity today really do seem more like the Pharisees, than like Jesus.
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.
