• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The New Testament as a guide for living for atheists

What does inserting the 'before" mean ?
It means Jesus will return before( at least some of) the audience dies.

This isn't difficult, based on a plain reading of the text.
That the NT commonly contradicts itself, as well as the Original Text, simply indicates that it was created by people with a goal other than telling the truth.

I once heard an interesting and pithy quote.
"The best fiction is Truer than truth"
Tom
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT
Unfortunately that notion of "still waiting 2000 years" and as you put it, "still in the works", can be a fawlty perspective of the bible often brought up by atheists. Basically... It's not an argument you can use, IF the conceptual understanding is .. 'NO person' is expected to wait 2000 years to see the second coming.

You see.. the point to remember, 'once we die it's judgement', everyone sees Jesus after death, instantly on Judgement day. So the concept is... If one lives to be 30... that's how long it takes you to see Jesus - but no more than the longest life span that's possible for humans, say, 120 years at the most.
This made me laugh right out loud.


That’s a great interpretation of
”this generation shall not pass, some standing her shall not die before they witness that event....”

This generation shall not pass - and since that whole generation definitely passed, we get, “yeah well, they all saw the event, privately, in a secret screening. I’m totally sure of it! And you should be, too!”


I am laughing because - I ask you - do you think that’s what his listeners thought he meant? Is he a trickster god?

Really?


You people twist and flip so hard to hang on to a meaning that is just not there.
And your god, knowing what he was trying to accomplish! that is, everyone believing in heaven, THIS is the best phrase he could come up with? This is your god!? It didn’t even take basic communiccations classes at the 101 level?


Think about it. Really deeply. Why would a god, who is supposedly all powerful, who supposedly wants everyone to believe, why would he be so achingly bad at communicating?


It’s not even the heaven story that is so impossible to believe. It’s the communication plan!
 
Unfortunately that notion of "still waiting 2000 years" and as you put it, "still in the works", can be a fawlty perspective of the bible often brought up by atheists. Basically... It's not an argument you can use, IF the conceptual understanding is .. 'NO person' is expected to wait 2000 years to see the second coming.

You see.. the point to remember, 'once we die it's judgement', everyone sees Jesus after death, instantly on Judgement day. So the concept is... If one lives to be 30... that's how long it takes you to see Jesus - but no more than the longest life span that's possible for humans, say, 120 years at the most.
This made me laugh right out loud.
Lol..but that would be quite normal for atheists to find Christian beliefs funny anyway. What's new? But It's a false illustrative perspective to say, "we are waiting and nothing is "still" happening after 2000 years". No one waits that long.
That’s a great interpretation of
”this generation shall not pass, some standing her shall not die before they witness that event....”

This generation shall not pass - and since that whole generation definitely passed, we get, “yeah well, they all saw the event, privately, in a secret screening. I’m totally sure of it! And you should be, too!”
But but ..Jesus hasn't been crucified yet. So He bypasses and ignores, not mentioning the important fundamental event of His 'first return' the ressurection?

I am laughing because - I ask you - do you think that’s what his listeners thought he meant? Is he a trickster god?

Really?
I should be laughing at this (but I'm not) because like the other posts..you've got so used to this feeble notion for ages, that you've tricked yourselves into into thinking this one verse causes harm against many other verses that says otherwise.

You people twist and flip so hard to hang on to a meaning that is just not there.
And your god, knowing what he was trying to accomplish! that is, everyone believing in heaven, THIS is the best phrase he could come up with? This is your god!? It didn’t even take basic communiccations classes at the 101 level?
You people (atheists) twist meanings to suit your arguments too then. Very simply: The layman believes the Gospels and understands the language of emotion. You see ...you've tricked yourselves into thinking that emotions have no good significance, in the sense that emotional quotients are not based in logic.

Think about it. Really deeply. Why would a god, who is supposedly all powerful, who supposedly wants everyone to believe, why would he be so achingly bad at communicating
That's a misleading perspective. Christians don't need to be debaters by knowing everything about the bible That's not the goal to become a believer. The communication is successful because there are millions of Christians in the world.

It’s not even the heaven story that is so impossible to believe. It’s the communication plan!
Like the above with the layman.. it's easy to understand Jesus's message even children understand the language of love & compassion etc..
 
Last edited:
Nothing is being twisted. A description of an event is given and a timeframe for that event to happen is provided. It's there for anyone to see and read.
 
Nothing is being twisted. A description of an event is given and a timeframe for that event to happen is provided. It's there for anyone to see and read.
What do you mean by 'time frame'? The second coming? What verse is that? Or do you mean I was suggesting people who died at different times, would see Jesus on different days?
 
The mystic sees everything, in Spinoza's phrase, sub specie aeternitatis, under the aspect of eternity. The far future seems immediately present.
 
The mystic sees everything, in Spinoza's phrase, sub specie aeternitatis, under the aspect of eternity. The far future seems immediately present.

How does one distinguish between the mystic, the delusional, and the fraudster?
Tom
 
The mystic sees everything, in Spinoza's phrase, sub specie aeternitatis, under the aspect of eternity. The far future seems immediately present.

How does one distinguish between the mystic, the delusional, and the fraudster?
Tom
Christ was questioned on this point several times. I won't bother repeating his answers.

Wouldn't impress me if you tried, since I know that you can't quote Jesus.

The closest you can get is quoting people who probably never even met Jesus. People whose writings were edited and curated by elitists centuries later.

I can totally understand why you'd prefer to dodge my question.
Tom
 
The mystic sees everything, in Spinoza's phrase, sub specie aeternitatis, under the aspect of eternity. The far future seems immediately present.

How does one distinguish between the mystic, the delusional, and the fraudster?
Tom
Christ was questioned on this point several times. I won't bother repeating his answers.
Why won’t you? You’re here to discuss, aren’t you? If you aren’t going to answer, why make a post telling us you’re not going to answer? What was the point you intended us to take from your post? And could you just say that instead of a word game?
 
The mystic sees everything, in Spinoza's phrase, sub specie aeternitatis, under the aspect of eternity. The far future seems immediately present.

How does one distinguish between the mystic, the delusional, and the fraudster?
Tom
Christ was questioned on this point several times. I won't bother repeating his answers.

Wouldn't impress me if you tried, since I know that you can't quote Jesus.

The closest you can get is quoting people who probably never even met Jesus. People whose writings were edited and curated by elitists centuries later.

I can totally understand why you'd prefer to dodge my question.
Tom
I'm not dodging shit, dude. Here, then, is what he said:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.

The real problem in his view, though, is that there are those who are unable or unwilling to use their own discernment, who are impervious to the manifest evidence of good works coming from genuine spirituality. For these, there is no redemption:

Therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
 
Can you discern how this passage can be disambiguated?

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.

For example, if the Tree is Christianity, and the Fruit is the Inquisition… what does Jesus tell us about Christianity?
 
Can you discern how this passage can be disambiguated?

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit.

For example, if the Tree is Christianity, and the Fruit is the Inquisition… what does Jesus tell us about Christianity?
Christianity as it developed would definitely displease him. He continues:

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
 
Here, then, is what he said:

He continues:
You keep saying "he" as though it's obvious who that is.

It's not. It's at least second hand, almost certainly third hand, and quite plausibly fourth or fifth.

You keep referring to the canon as if Jesus wrote it. Clearly it was written long after he was gone.
Tom
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT
Here, then, is what he said:

He continues:
You keep saying "he" as though it's obvious who that is.

It's not. It's at least second hand, almost certainly third hand, and quite plausibly fourth or fifth.

You keep referring to the canon as if Jesus wrote it. Clearly it was written long after he was gone.
Tom
As I've said before, you seem to have no idea how literature was transmitted in that time and place. The entire Talmud was entirely oral for centuries before and after the time of the composition of the New Testament, yet no one hesitates to quote Hillel.
 
As I've said before, you seem to have no idea how literature was transmitted in that time and place. The entire Talmud was entirely oral for centuries before and after the time of the composition of the New Testament, yet no one hesitates to quote Hillel.
I can understand why you'd dodge my post.
Again.

I don't claim to know, for sure, if there even was a Jesus of Nazareth. I think it most plausible that He did exist. But confidently asserting that "He said...", with so little corroboration, looks entirely like self indulgent arrogance to me.
Tom
 
  • Like
Reactions: DBT
As I've said before, you seem to have no idea how literature was transmitted in that time and place. The entire Talmud was entirely oral for centuries before and after the time of the composition of the New Testament, yet no one hesitates to quote Hillel.
I can understand why you'd dodge my post.
Again.

I don't claim to know, for sure, if there even was a Jesus of Nazareth. I think it most plausible that He did exist. But confidently asserting that "He said...", with so little corroboration, looks entirely like self indulgent arrogance to me.
Tom
Here is Constantin Brunner on the reliability of the New Testament:

It is astounding enough that people such as these were able to hand on such words. They were homines sine litteris et idiotae (Acts 4:13), ignorant and limited ammé haaretz; this is how I see them, in spite of the critics; they were genuinely inadequate and lacking in understanding. Genius did not descend upon them, nor was it parcelled out among them. Yet, because of their involvement and their memory—and memory, at that time and under those conditions, had an entirely different role, use and power (cf. p. 177)—these so imperfect people were able to repeat these words so perfectly that thought and its expression are never in conflict, that the magnificent content is not diminished nor the cutting edge dulled. Thus they repeated the spoken words which have had an incomparably greater effect than all the other written words of the world taken together, and which have shaped mankind's history more powerfully than the elemental forces of nature. With very few exceptions, these words are the words of Christ; and as far as the words of Christ are concerned, the evangelists are as entirely reliable as they are in regard to their portrayal of Christ's character, which is inseparable from these words. All this must have been possible; these ammé haaretz must have handed it all down—otherwise it would not be there. Soon, of course, the principal words, sayings and parables were written down by those who could write, but who were evidently no more gifted intellectually than those who carried out the oral transmission. For the books are not called the Gospel of Matthew, of Mark, etc., but the Gospel according to Matthew, according to Mark, κατα Ματθαιον, Μαρκον etc. (which could imply that the title was added later by others, but with the purpose of showing that Matthew, Mark, etc., were the original authors). These chief sayings of Christ (λογια κυριακα) which were first to be written down formed a nucleus around which elements of genuine tradition, along with additions, crystallized, forming what we now have as the New Testament, a whole branch of the Jewish literature in the time. Compared with the rabbinic literature in which practically all the sap had gone into the leaves, this branch of am haaretz literature was heavy with luscious fruits. So we must not always be criticizing these men for the inadequacy of their transmission; rather, we should be astonished and praise them for so faithfully having kept these words in their purity. What critic or expert among us—quite apart from the fact that he would have neither the taste, the sense of truth, nor (least of all) the will for such a task—which of our experts would be able to reproduce such spoken words in all their greatness?! These fishermen, tax-collectors, sinners and harlots, however, were not as limited as our experts, and thus they deserve the greater glory which they enjoy in the world. They had not been fattened up on an erudite diet, they lacked the limitation imposed by specialization; unlike the experts, they had no self-erected fence in front of their eyes to obstruct their vision.
Attempts by the reactionary curmudgeons to cast doubt on the reliability of the New Testament in order to somehow vitiate its power is nothing but vanity.
 
Constantin Brunner on the reliability of the New Testament:

I barely remembered the name Constantin Brunner. I had to Google. He was a wealthy German Jew, who died in 1937.

I'm not big on arguments from authority. I don't care how important someone is when evaluating the strength of their assertions. Frankly, I found Richard Dawkins books boring after a few pages. Never finished a single one.

Y'all help me finish this joke:

"Elie Wiesel, Constantin Brunner, and Martin Luther King Jr walk into a bar..."

Tom
 
Nothing is being twisted. A description of an event is given and a timeframe for that event to happen is provided. It's there for anyone to see and read.
What do you mean by 'time frame'? The second coming? What verse is that? Or do you mean I was suggesting people who died at different times, would see Jesus on different days?

No, again, we have a description of an event: Jesus returning in power and glory for all the tribes on earth, to gather the elect, to judge and rule the world, and a timeframe for that event to happen is said to be within the lifetime of those present, that generation. The first generation Christians were told that they would live to see the described event, that they would be alive to witness the return of Jesus in power and glory.
 
The mystic sees everything, in Spinoza's phrase, sub specie aeternitatis, under the aspect of eternity. The far future seems immediately present.

What is described is not a mystical event, we are told of a literal, objective event "for all the tribes on earth to see."
 
Back
Top Bottom