Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Where's Jesus?

Entry 493, on 2007-03-13 at 14:52:20 (Rating 4, Religion)

Recently I have been involved in some quite involved discussions with some creationists regarding the relative merits of creationism, religion, and faith compared with evolution, science, and logic. One of the topics related to the rapture: the event some fundamentalist Christians believe will happen when Jesus will return to Earth and all true believers will ascend to heaven (or something along those lines anyway, the exact interpretation varies according to which part of the Bible you read, and what type of Christian you are).

I made the comment that people had been predicting the second coming of Christ ever since he allegedly was last on Earth (I say "allegedly" because I don't think there is good evidence that he even existed the first time, which really calls into question the idea of him appearing again!) The Christian I was debating with said no one knows when it will happen (how convenient) but I was sure there was somewhere in the Bible that did make a prediction. Here it is: Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Sounds like he was supposed to turn up before some of the people he was (allegedly) talking to died. Presumably this indicates a maximum of 100 CE. Seems that old JC is a bit late then!

This also reminded me of a rather amusing document I have had for many years which predicts the end of the world. Here are a few predictions from it...

AD 30, According to Matthew 16:28, Jesus himself predicted his second coming and the end of the world within the lifetime of his contemporaries.

AD 247, Christian prophets declare that the persecutions by the Romans are a sign of the impending return of Jesus.

AD 500, Roman theologian Sextus Julius Africanus (ca. 160-240) predicted the second coming of Jesus in the year 500. And the theologian Irenaeus predicted the second coming of Jesus in the year 500.

AD 800, Sextus Julius Africanus predicted the second coming of Jesus in the year 800.

AD 1533, Anabaptist prophet Melchior Hoffman predicted the end of the world in 1533. He also predicted that Jesus would reappear in Strasbourg, to save 144,000 people from the world's end.

AD 1583, Several astrologers and clergy cite a conjunction of Jupiter with Saturn as a sign that the second coming of Jesus will occur in London at noon on Apr 28, 1583.

AD 1992, Rapture, October 28, 1992, Jesus is coming in the Air. Full page add in the October 20, 1991, issue of USA Today, placed by followers of the Hyoo-go (Rapture) movement, a loose collection of Korean "end-times" sects.

AD 1998, Larry Wilson, a former Seventh-day Adventist pastor, predicted four massive global earthquakes beginning around 1994 and ending in 1998 with the Second Coming.

The thing about many religious people is that their faith, which they prize so highly, stops them from using their common sense to see that they have been deceived. Still, maybe I'm wrong, Jesus could turn up any day now... yeah right!

Comment 1 (485) by Anonymous on 2007-03-17 at 09:10:33:

Most of those rapture predictions are from people outside of the Bible. NOBODY CAN PREDICT WHEN HE IS COMING BACK! ONLY GOD KNOWS! I want you to tell me where you got this information.

Comment 2 (488) by OJB on 2007-03-17 at 11:47:31:

What about the quote from Matthew? That's straight from your holy book which is the unerring word of God!

Comment 3 (492) by Anonymous on 2007-03-17 at 12:56:17:

I said most, anyway, answer my question.

Comment 4 (497) by OJB on 2007-03-17 at 19:07:51:

Actually I can't remember where I got it. It is a file I stored on my computer many years ago and I can't remember where it came from. There are plenty of sources of this information though, and I have checked the accuracy of some of it.

And you're right, you did say "almost". But how do you explain how this seems to contradict other parts of the Bible. Of course, its not the only place the Bible contradicts itself...

Comment 5 (498) by Anonymous on 2007-03-19 at 06:49:29:

I said "most" and show me where the Bible contradict itself?

Comment 6 (502) by OJB on 2007-03-19 at 07:55:33:

Where does the Bible contradict itself? In many places - I can give you a list later. But within the context of this discussion I was referring to the quote above which says Jesus will return soon (he didn't) which contradicts the parts elsewhere which say no one knows (except God).

Comment 7 (506) by Anonymous on 2007-03-19 at 12:11:30:

No one knows except God and that quote is from somebody "guessing" when He is coming back. That doesn't mean it is going to happen then, because we don't know.

Comment 8 (507) by OJB on 2007-03-19 at 12:24:04:

Hmmm, interesting. So when he says "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." The "verily" just means "I'm guessing". So how much more of the Bible is just a guess, and how do we tell what's a guess and what isn't?"

Comment 9 (511) by Anonymous on 2007-03-19 at 12:57:37:

Well, when I looked up verily in the dictionary, it says "in truth, really or indeed."
Anyway, that verse is something to be taken into consideration. When I read it, when Jesus died on the cross, He resurrected in three days. Mary and the disciples saw Him come back and leave to go see His Father in Heaven. But, maybe I am interpereting it wrong. Give me what that verse is and I will make sure I am doing it right. I don't want to give you any wrong information.

With your last question, the Bible is not a guess. If you look in the Old Testament, you will see that all of the prophecies were fulfilled in the New Testament. So, we know that they are not a "guess." I have a list of them if you want them.

Comment 10 (515) by OJB on 2007-03-19 at 13:21:00:

Of course that's what it means - that was the point I was trying to make! The prophecies in one work of fiction (the OT) were fulfilled in another work of fiction (the NT). You'll excuse me if I'm less than totally impressed by that!

Comment 11 (518) by Anonymous on 2007-03-20 at 06:14:03:

How can that not impress you? Something written hundreds and thousands of years earlier came true later on. Not just one, but alot!

Comment 12 (525) by OJB on 2007-03-20 at 09:22:57:

Maybe I'm looking at different prophecies than you are. The one's I see vary from pathetic (at worst) to unconvincing (at best). Maybe you would like to give me the best Biblical prophecy you know of, and see if I find that more impressive.

Comment 13 (526) by Anonymous on 2007-03-21 at 01:21:02:

Well, for example, Jesus' coming, and if that was one of your pathetic or unconvincing ones, tell me the ones you are talking about.

Comment 14 (535) by OJB on 2007-03-21 at 08:27:06:

Yes, the Jesus prophecy is particularly unconvincing. Not only is there debate about whether Jesus has anything to do with the original prophecy (amongst religious people as much as atheists) but we don't even know if Jesus even existed.

What you are really saying is that a story in one fictitious book (the Old Testament) is confirmed in another book of fiction (the New Testament). If the writers have the freedom to write whatever they like, that hardly proves anything.

Do you have any prophecies which are supported by reality?

Comment 15 (540) by Anonymous on 2007-03-22 at 00:25:53:

Well, I am thinking with you they would all be the same. The writers really didn't have the freedom to write what they wanted to, God told them what to write.

Comment 16 (545) by OJB on 2007-03-22 at 09:02:20:

So you are admitting there are no real prophecies then? I mean, are there any which are independently verified outside the Bible? Can you see why I would be skeptical about this?

Comment 17 (547) by Anonymous on 2007-03-22 at 09:08:06:

No, I am not admitting there aren't any prophecies. I am just saying that if you think the greatest prophecy is unconvincing that you would think they all are.

Comment 18 (550) by OJB on 2007-03-22 at 09:17:19:

OK, so the only confirmation of prophecies in one part of the Bible is in another part of the Bible. Do you accept that isn't a very strong argument in support of the prophecies? I mean, I can show you predictions in book 1 of the Lord of the Rings which come true in book 3. To me, your prophecies aren't any better than that!

Comment 19 (553) by Anonymous on 2007-03-22 at 10:26:01:

The prophecies in the Bible are meaningful and they prove what has happened and that things predicted are going to happen.

Comment 20 (555) by OJB on 2007-03-22 at 10:28:35:

Yeah sure. I believe you. If there are no facts let's just resort to making a personal statement and pretending its true. Great debating technique!

Comment 21 (559) by Anonymous on 2007-03-23 at 02:39:11:

There are plenty of facts and really, I don't need all of the facts. I know what you are going to say, you are going to say that I place my faith in something without doing any research on it, but do you know what? I place my faith in it wholeheartedly and I have already devoted my life to it.

Have you ever heard of homology?

Comment 22 (564) by OJB on 2007-03-23 at 07:43:33:

Well good for you. I hope you enjoy your life of superstition and isolation from the truth. And if there are plenty of facts why don't you give me just one. Is that too hard?

Yeah I know what homology is: its the study of similar biological structures between species which shows shared ancestry. In other words it proves evolution. Is that the particular type of homology you were referring to, because there are also other meanings.

Comment 23 (568) by Anonymous on 2007-03-23 at 10:19:26:

Nope, that's the one. I was just wondering if you thought that it proved evolution right.

Comment 24 (569) by OJB on 2007-03-23 at 10:29:31:

I was being a bit "loose" with my wording when I said it proved evolution. It is evidence for evolution, along with a large number of other sources of evidence. But, as I have said before, the only real proof is in logic and maths. I thought you might be referring to the sociological or anthropological meaning. Anyway, what was your point?

Comment 25 (570) by Anonymous on 2007-03-23 at 10:39:28:

I was just seeing if you knew, I was just doing some research on it lately.

Comment 26 (571) by OJB on 2007-03-23 at 11:10:02:

You still haven't told me about any of the "facts" you mentioned above. Its been a consistent theme of these discussions that my opponents keep referring to facts or proof but never show me what they specifically are. Please note: facts are not verses from the Bible. They are pieces of information with some sort of objective evidence supporting them.

Comment 27 (815) by 12345 on 2007-08-30 at 14:46:11:

Nobody can guess when Jesus is going to come, in the Bible it says nobody will know, not even Jesus. So, those people that are making their "predictions" are wrong.

Comment 28 (817) by OJB on 2007-08-30 at 20:53:14:

Well, just like it does in many places, the Bible contradicts itself. Matthew 16:28 seems to clearly indicate that Jesus thought he would be back within the lifetime of the people alive then.

Matthew 16:28 (KJ) Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Comment 29 (818) by 12345 on 2007-08-30 at 23:06:08:

If you read further, you will notice that Jesus hasn't died yet. When Jesus does die, He comes back three days later, known as the Ressurection. When He says none of them will taste death until they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom, I am pretty sure He means when He is ressurected. They all saw Him come back!

My advice to you is that when you quote things in the Bible that "seem" to contradict other parts of the Bible, why don't you read further so that you can understand what God is trying to say.

Comment 30 (819) by OJB on 2007-08-31 at 08:04:54:

I find it a bit insulting that you didn't think I researched this a little bit better than that! :) And I think my interpretation is more realistic, especially when considered in conjunction with other passages such as Luke 21:6 to 21:32.

Comment 31 (820) by 12345 on 2007-08-31 at 10:20:35:

What I have said was not meant to insult you, I just wanted to let you know that the verses you are pointing out, including those in Luke, are before Jesus died the first time. He comes back three days later after He dies. How is my interpretation unrealistic?

Comment 32 (821) by OJB on 2007-08-31 at 14:49:01:

I wasn't really insulted - hence the :) after that comment. The passages I have seen suggest the reference is to far more than just Jesus reappearing after a few days. We are talking about some sort of end of the world, or final judgement type scenario. At least, that's the way I (and many others) read it. Of course, Christians have tried to change the meaning to cover the embarrassment of the fact that nothing happened.

Comment 33 (822) by 12345 on 2007-09-02 at 04:17:30:

Nope, I believe you are wrong again, we do not change the meaning. How could we? Anyway, If you want to look at some references about the world ending and not before Jesus died, then look at Matthew 24. I know it is hard for people out of the faith to understand when Jesus came back to life and all, so I will be patient, but you do need to understand what you are talking about before you come off at other people. Otherwise your arguments won't be taken seriously.

Comment 34 (823) by OJB on 2007-09-02 at 08:39:18:

My reading of that supports my theory and negates yours. Jesus raves on about all sorts of "end of world" events and then says they will happen during the current generation. Doesn't that prove my argument? If you have another interpretation then let's hear it.

Comment 35 (826) by 12345 on 2007-09-05 at 17:30:12:

Did you get my last comment or have you not posted it yet? [The answer is that I didn't get it. This blog is now running on a new server, so that might have caused the problem. Please repost it here. Thanks - OJB]

Comment 36 (827) by 12345 on 2007-09-06 at 11:41:19:

Okay, thanks, I appreciate it. Well, anyway... what I said earlier was that if you want to find Jesus talking about the end times, look at Matthew 24. I have already told you my interpretation. How does it disprove my theory? How does it prove yours?

Also, let us go back to the start. What is your foundation of your belief?

Comment 37 (830) by OJB on 2007-09-06 at 14:07:00:

Matthew 24 predicts all sorts of dire events such as "...kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, ..." and "...great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be..." and "...shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet..." and concludes with "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." It sounds like some sort of end-of-world event before the end of the life of the listeners. Didn't happen, did it?

Comment 38 (831) by 12345 on 2007-09-07 at 08:08:29:

I might have accidentaly missed it, but I did not see "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Tell me what verse in Matthew 24 that is so I can have it for future reference. Also, I asked you what your foundation for you belief is. Do you have one?

Comment 39 (832) by OJB on 2007-09-07 at 08:44:23:

Matthew 24:34. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (King James version).

I'm not sure what you mean when you ask for the foundation for my belief, but I'll try to answer your question...

The "foundation of belief" makes it sound like I have some fixed belief system like a religious person would. If I do have a belief system it is that we should base our beliefs, behaviour and philosophy on what makes the most sense through objective evidence and logic.

I have always been interested in science, but when I was "young and naive" I took some pseudo-sciences a bit more seriously, eg UFOs. When I went to University and studied psychology one of my lecturers was a leading paranormal investigator who showed that paranormal phenomena tend to have no basis in fact.

Also while I was at University I was invited to some churches where speakers were talking about evolution, faith healing, etc. I saw what a load of nonsense it all was and that extended my skepticism to religion. So I've been a skeptic ever since!

Comment 40 (833) by 12345 on 2007-09-07 at 13:42:47:

What I meant by foundation was what you based your beliefs on. For example... reason, logic, love, etc... As far as beliefs go, I just meant what you are believing in right now.

Comment 41 (834) by OJB on 2007-09-07 at 14:52:16:

Do you see my point with the passage from Matthew? Maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but it really sounds like Jesus was saying something like "the end of the world is nigh".

Well I think my beliefs are based on logic and reason, of course. At least, my beliefs related to my understanding of the world. When it comes to more subjective things like family, art, music, etc I allow myself the luxury of some emotion. Hey, I'm a complex person, not a robot!

Comment 42 (835) by 12345 on 2007-09-09 at 11:34:51:

I do see where you are coming from in Matthew but I don't think you quite understand it yet. According to Jesus, the end of the world is nigh and that is what I was trying to tell you, but nobody knows when, only God.

Ha ha, yeah I know you aren't a robot :), thank goodness. That would be interesting, anyway, about the reason and logic. My faith is also founded on reason and logic. How could both of our beliefs be founded on the same thing if we both disagree so much in so many areas? Well, where I am getting with this is to start from the beginning so we can get things straight.

Here is a question. There are many types of atheists. People that believe in different parts of one thing. Now, are you one that thinks that people who kill others are just doing what nature intended them to do or what is your view on those types of things? (I hope I am not confusing when I am asking this question).

Comment 43 (838) by OJB on 2007-09-09 at 14:31:54:

But if no one knows when the world will end why does Jesus say "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled". If that isn't a specific prediction then what is it?

How can faith be based on reason and logic? Faith: (n) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. Reason: (n) Process of thinking, understanding, and forming judgments by a process of logic. Sounds like faith involves abandoning reason.

I don't think there are really many types of atheists. We're just people who don't think there's good proof a god exists. What's so difficult about that? You don't believe in the Hindu gods. Hindus don't believe in yours. I don't believe in either.

There are opposing behavioural forces in all people. There is aggression, and there are social interactions and benevolent behaviours. These are a natural consequence of biological and behavioural evolution of a social species. Most people manage to live with others without resorting to violence too often, but others don't. What's your point?

Comment 44 (841) by 12345 on 2007-09-11 at 11:45:21:

Elaborate on perspective filters and elaborate on why can people murder. Survival of the fittest? Also, elaborate on benevolent behaviours.

Comment 45 (842) by OJB on 2007-09-11 at 19:30:07:

You still haven't explained the clear "end of world" prediction made by Jesus. And you still haven't justified your claim that your beliefs are based on logic. And you still haven't explained the idea that there are many types of atheists.

How can I elaborate on perspective filters when I haven't even mentioned them? What exactly is a perspective filter anyway? People murder for many reasons but the fundamental fact is that humans have natural aggression. Survival of the fittest is a rather outdated concept. Modern evolution theory has moved beyond the simplicity of that idea. What benevolent factors do you want me to elaborate on?

Comment 46 (845) by 12345 on 2007-09-16 at 09:54:44:

What I am trying to do is to make you get more in detail with what you are saying to me. For example, you tell me what benevolent factors you were talking about. Then, elaborate on them.

Also, Jesus did explain the end of the world and He said that it was coming soon, but if you read other parts of the Bible, they say what needs to happen before Jesus comes back again.

If you are still confused on why He hasn't come back if He told us about the "generation" thing, let me know and I will explain further.

Comment 47 (846) by OJB on 2007-09-16 at 10:31:25:

In a social group it is beneficial to cooperate with other members of your group. It is to the individual's and group's advantage to share food, cooperate in hunting, and reduce conflict by having rules of behaviour. At the same time individuals naturally tend to do what's best for themselves and aggression is an advantage in a hunting lifestyle. So both self-centered and social behaviours exist.

Is this not clear and obvious? What we call "morality" arose from evolutionary pressures for cooperative behaviour when our ancestors started living in groups, especially after they settled in one spot and agriculture began.

Maybe you are confused because you have this rather naive idea that evolution requires "survival of the fittest". Darwin never used that phrase and no modern evolutionary biologist would either. The interactions between the individual, group, and environment are far more complex and subtle than that. Unfortunately creationists use it as part of their campaign of misinformation (is lies).

Another favourite lie is that evolution is random. Darwin didn't say that, and no biologist ever believed it, yet creationists keep on claiming it is a problem with the theory. If it was part of the theory it would be a problem, but natural selection definitely isn't random - its shaped by natural forces.

As far as Jesus returning is concerned. Here's how I see it. He lists all the bad things that will happen and then he says he will return, right? Then he says all of this will happen in the lifetime of those listening. Its fairly clear isn't it? Do you have an alternative explanation?

Comment 48 (927) by sbfl on 2007-10-15 at 04:50:20:

Man, that was a painful thread. I did well to hang in there till the end (albeit with skim reading). Anyway, OJB - I am disappointed you have taken such a literal view to a Bible passage - something you criticise the Christian fundamentalists for. You seem more obsessed with the initial appearance of a mistake and trying to challenge others to explain your initial interpretation... why don't you expend that effort trying to find out more about what it means?

I'm no expert on it but a quick Google search gave this good overview of interpretations: "Some view the entire text as referent to the end of time and believe Jesus simply was mistaken. Others believe it is speaking of his resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Holy Spirit. Still others believe the Transfiguration is the subject. Finally, some believe that Jesus was referring to his coming in judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem. Among amillennialists the traditional view holds that verse 27 speaks of the end of time while verse 28 speaks of the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost."

Comment 49 (932) by OJB on 2007-10-15 at 10:12:28:

In a more recent blog entry I talked about how Christians require convoluted rationalisations to make the facts fit their beliefs. This is yet another example. I'm not saying that the rationalisations might not be true, but after a while you begin to suspect that they indicate a deeper problem inherent to the belief system itself.

For Christianity to be true there have to be hundreds of arbitrary, unsupported excuses made for why the facts don't fit and in any other area the theory would be thrown out. For example, the Steady State Universe can be made to fit the facts if several arbitrary assumptions are made, but we don't accept that because there is a better explanation. Its the same with Christianity: a pile of bizarre excuses could be true, but there's a better explanation: its all a myth.

Comment 50 (949) by sbfl on 2007-10-17 at 07:26:27:

Or perhaps you just don't understand, or more likely, you refuse to understand. Your current opinions are typical to 'face value' to a question. So why don't you do some research and try and find out. Even if you don't agree at the end, you may at least appreciate how others do.

Can you not see that because of you extreme anti-Christian bias that you actually refuse to explore the may questions man cannot answer. You keep falling back on the need for physical black and white evidence, which is not wrong in it self, but it restricts yourself to what can be absolutely proven to an idiot! I know you are cleverer than this, so at least make the effort to expand you mind (not by drugs) even if you do end up at the same point. I know you have not done this because in the post you referred to above you asked the question 'Why does God not heal amputees?". Oh dear.

Comment 51 (967) by OJB on 2007-10-17 at 15:32:58:

I cannot accept anything on faith and I don't think I should have to. That means I need evidence. I will accept many types of evidence: not just black and white, or physical, or 100% proven. What I won't accept is an assertion which conflicts with the evidence I do have already, unless it has even better evidence supporting it.

And I have researched the "facts" of Christianity quite thoroughly. That's why I feel confident in dismissing it as mythology. I know there is no good evidence to support most of the Christian stories. But there are areas where I am less certain, for example I think there is a fair chance the Jesus myths are based on the life of a real person.

As I keep telling you, just show me the evidence. It doesn't have to be physical, absolutely certain, or anything else, but it can't be just faith. Faith is a certain way to get the wrong answer, not the right one.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.