Jesus is coming, and boy is he pissed

Post Reply New Topic

Jesus bled and died, yet He is God in human flesh. He came back to life and showed His power over the natural order of death. Difference between those false messiahs and Jesus is that the false ones aren't coming back.

iamnotaparakeet: If you'll lok very closely at the scriptures (the original text, not the updated one), Mark says that the return was expected 'shortly', which mean in the 30-40 years after Jesus' death. The gathering together happened before the Roman invasion of the temple in around 66 CE, and the invasion of Masada around 70-73 CE. The 'fire and brimstone' thing was Versuvius destroying Pompeii, and to a lesser extent the fall of Rome when it burned under Nero. Now, because Christ never actually made an appearance, the texts were revised to go from 'soon' or 'the time is near' to be any time. I don't think Jesus actually said those words anyway, they were included to give the 'endtimes' meaning more punch. Remember, in the first century CE, the area we are talking about was only a fraction of what we know of the world today, and the writings were more for the people of then and the Romans than for today. The 1000 years thing ended around the time of William the Conqueror, or maybe 100 years later. Then the crusades happened so as to convert the rest of the non-believers to the faith. Then the Catholics had the Inquisition, and then the Reformation and the advent of the Protestant movement happened in the 16th century. It's only been recntly that the evangelists have changed the meaning of the endtimes to mean that it is supposed to be for the present day. Really, it all depends upon what is 'read' into it, and the way I see it, none of us have anything to worry about. You only have to look at those so-called prophecies of Nostradamus to show that he couldn't possibly have been talking about things that were 400 years in the future. So there is no way anyone could make a prediction for 2000 years in the future.

Give chapter and verse please.

I am a pagan, so therefore do not believe in your god, or read the bible. You obviously do, so grab your bible, and look it up yourself. Also, get hold of someone who can explain it objectively, instead of subjectively. Also, get hold of 66AD: The Jewish Invasion, shown on History Channel, and anything on the fall of Rome and Masada.

I doubt whether there is anything in a superannuation fund's documentation that allows for roll-overs into heaven....

So all this saving for retirement seems a bit futile, if you believe th end is nigh....

What's wrong with people questioning and putting forward alternate views to what is seen by plenty of people as dogma? The bible was never meant to be taken as literally as it has been by fundamentalist groups, but because of those MAN-MADE teachings (as opposed to your god's teachings), a lot of variance and misinterpretation has come out in those teachings. When the bible was originally written, it was basically meant as a historical account, and a 'constitution' of laws for people to obey. That didn't mean that it had any more weight than the laws of the land, but obviously those that followed the belief in their god, and what was written in the scriptures applied equal weight to it. Also, up until the time of Constantine, there was no connectivity between the scriptures, and the multiple translations from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin may have changed the meaning. Imagine a game of Chinese whispers, where the story becomes distorted in the retelling. So therefore, what was originally folklore has become fact to believers. Now, I don't see anything wrong with gaining information via secular education, or via networks like the Discovery channel, National Geographic or the History channel, because to me they are at least objective. Not accepting an opposing viewpoint may strengthen your beliefs in your faith, but it makes you very insular too, and everyone needs to be able to discuss and accept the possibility that there may be more than one explanation for an event. I've heard all the religious stuff before on the 'endtimes'; I can also see that the 'prediction' may have just been a retelling of events, and the fact that those events happened in very scary times meant you had to be careful what you said. If you were Mark, for eg, would you have gone around Rome saying that Nero was the antichrist and that everything was going to end by the time Rome burned? Of course not, because YOU would have been crucified for it. That's why it was all coded, and that's why those 'predictions' were not predictions but an account of what was happening. Also, don't forget that the Romans were busy throwing the Christians to the lions, and killing them off left, right and centre, so any prophecy of doom would have caused more trouble than it was worth. Also, if people back then were like they are now, no-one would have known what was happening, and they would have thought the end had come. Confirmation would have been Pompeii. When Constantine commissioned the bible to be amalgamated and rewritten between 312 and 327 CE, that's when the 'Christian' movement really took off.

Anyway, you can believe what you want, whatever happens I won't have any worries.

Even though it's not specifically in the list, I think the neo-pharisees would be first in line for a smiting.

neo-pharisees? i don't think i'm familiar with them...

There the ones that just moved into the house down the block.... you know, number 54.

Not before Rome but before the events.

I get you. It was coded so that the writer wouldn't have been dragged off and crucified for heresy.

could have been written after the events as well... the oldest manuscripts (or rather, fractions of manuscripts) that exist date to the time of Constantine...