Some problematic Bible verses

[ed]

Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Matt 16:28

This is pretty clear. A simple declarative sentence of 26 words.

Apologists say things like:

Cimg1043 Don Whitley Husband, father, grandpa and a Christian.

If Jesus had been wrong about this, then His deity would come into question for the same reasons a prophet's would come into question. For a prophet to prophesy something that did not come to pass would disqualify him from being a prophet of God, but instead would be a false prophet.

Christ here is referring to His church and on the day of Pentecost, following His resurrection, His church was established. He was referring to His spiritual kingdom that the apostles and others at first thought would be a new earthly king (like King David) and earthly kingdom.

So, this would be a matter of less than 2 months after Christ's death which many and most all listening to Christ would certainly still be alive.

https://ebible.com/questions/11748-what ... is-kingdom

The highlighted part is where a lie occurs. That is not what Jesus says (assuming that the translation is correct). Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. Tis clear as the summer sun ...

Another person says

Bible scholars believe that this event was meant to straighten the disciples faith and to give them a taste of Christ glorious Second Coming. Moses was a representation of the law and of those who died and were resurrected; Elijah was representing the prophets and those who are translated without seeing death. God the Father comes in a cloud and says: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him!" (Matthew 17:5)

That experience, called the Mount of Transfiguration, was the fulfillment of what Jesus told them six days earlier: "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."

Mark 9:1, describes the same event, The translation from Greek is slightly different, which makes it a little easier to understand:
'And He said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.”
On that mount, the disciples saw exactly what Jesus promised them, "the kingdom of God present with power.”

Now this is thin gruel. I promise you Disneyland and I send a postcard. That is what this person is saying. And has to appeal to another version to support his contention.

This verse to me is a killer.

Thoughts

[shemp]

What Jesus meant by "coming in his kingdom" was anal sex with his believers. He meant that he was going to buttfuck his believers and everyone could watch!

Who cares? The whole book is nothing but a fucking piece of bullshit, lies and garbage. I have a better chance of seeing a flying rainbow-colored unicorn puke gold coins than of seeing anything in the Bible come true.

[Doctor X]

Mark 9:1 is the source text and I believe I posted this a long time ago but I might as well update:

There are two passages from Mk where Junior predicts the eschaton within the life-times of the audience in the story.

In Mk 9:1--Copied by Mt in Mt 16:28 and Lk in Lk 9:27--Junior states the eschaton will happen in the lifetime of those "standing here"--his audience in the story:

And he said to them, "Truly I tell you (p), there are some standing here who will not know death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power."

καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει.(SBLGNT)

Mk 13:30-31--Mt 24:34-35 and Lk 21:32-32 : this is the infamous prediction that the eschaton will happen in the life time of his audience's generation:

ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη μέχρις οὗ ταῦτα πάντα γένηται. ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται, οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρελεύσονται. (SBLGNT)

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. The heaven and the earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

I removed the textual critical markings since the minor variant deals with the order of three words that do not change their meaning: The Society for Biblical Literature Greek New Testament (SBLGNT) differs from the one I usually use--the Nestle-Aland Greek NT (NA-GNT 27--in Mk 9:1a in word order--ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων--rather than τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων--and agrees completely with it in Mk 13:30-31.

Apologists try to redefine a "generation," but with Mk 9:1 above and the fact that both Mt and Lk accept it, they all expected "it" to happen in their individual lifetimes.

These are the sort of passages those who feel the early Christianities were eschatological point to. Paul was also similarly eschatological and had to explain why "it" had not happened yet.

--J.D.

[ed]

But how can you "explain away" a simple statement of fact?

Seems to me that if a religion were the real deal, it would not need apologists.

[ed]

Those guys seem to have zero self awareness.

[shemp]

Mark 9:1 is the source text and I believe I posted this a long time ago but I might as well update:

There are two passages from Mk where Junior predicts the eschaton within the life-times of the audience in the story.

In Mk 9:1--Copied by Mt in Mt 16:28 and Lk in Lk 9:27--Junior states the eschaton will happen in the lifetime of those "standing here"--his audience in the story:

And he said to them, "Truly I tell you (p), there are some standing here who will not know death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power."

καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς· Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων οἵτινες οὐ μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐληλυθυῖαν ἐν δυνάμει.(SBLGNT)

Mk 13:30-31--Mt 24:34-35 and Lk 21:32-32 : this is the infamous prediction that the eschaton will happen in the life time of his audience's generation:

ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη μέχρις οὗ ταῦτα πάντα γένηται. ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται, οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρελεύσονται. (SBLGNT)

"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. The heaven and the earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

I removed the textual critical markings since the minor variant deals with the order of three words that do not change their meaning: The Society for Biblical Literature Greek New Testament (SBLGNT) differs from the one I usually use--the Nestle-Aland Greek NT (NA-GNT 27--in Mk 9:1a in word order--ὧδε τῶν ἑστηκότων--rather than τῶν ὧδε ἑστηκότων--and agrees completely with it in Mk 13:30-31.

Apologists try to redefine a "generation," but with Mk 9:1 above and the fact that both Mt and Lk accept it, they all expected "it" to happen in their individual lifetimes.

These are the sort of passages those who feel the early Christianities were eschatological point to. Paul was also similarly eschatological and had to explain why "it" had not happened yet.

--J.D.

Yes, but most believers just throw up their hands and say "It's all Greek to me!"

[Anaxagoras]

But how can you "explain away" a simple statement of fact?

Seems to me that if a religion were the real deal, it would not need apologists.

There's a wandering Jew who's still alive who saw Jesus say that!! :wink:

I heard that theory somewhere. Of course, that would seem to imply that God is playing silly mind games with his followers.

[Doctor X]

There's a wandering Jew who's still alive who saw Jesus say that!! :wink:

I heard that theory somewhere.

From someone Humble--Yet MagNIfIcent. [Those passages are the source of that myth.--Ed.] Oh hush!

The problem is fundamentalists use the "because I said so!" apologetics. The source of "fundamentalism" is the "fundamentals" that arose partly in response to textual and higher criticism which included inerrancy by declaration: "every word true." This is why I compare it to Sport Fandom. Imagine any fan:

Squeelers Fan: Steelers best!

GREATEST DYNASTY IN NFL HISTORY WORLD CHAMPION PATRIOTS FAN: Your Mom is better!

Regrets Fan: I hate my life.

Cleveland Fan: We got a tie! A TIE!

Ha! Ha! Joke and all of that, but imagine if that thinking is serious. Hell, imagine if my "Your Mom" [Pat. Pend.--Ed.] jokes were serious. Well, they are with Gram's Mom.

She is seriously dirty.





Where was I?

Oh yeah, just as you cannot convince a Jets fan that he sucks, no amount of evidences--you are welcome--changes such minds. However, coordinating conjunction, sometimes it works. I have seen . . . things . . . you people . . . wouln't belie. . . SHINY! Oh yeah, I have seen the very religious relax with the introduction of actual information. You cannot defeat it, you can only accept it or try to ignore it. But like . . .

. . .

*Snicker! Snicker!*

. . .

. . . Your Mom! when you ignore her the STDs do not go away.



Even in the rain.

--J.D.

[ed]

OK. My point is that it requires a certain intellectual dishonesty to argue vociferously from a conclusion that is unsupported by evidence.

Cutting thru the clever rhetoric I suspect that a believer would say something like "well, the existence of God is manifest so we need to look deeper into the verse to ascertain it's true meaning". Not unlike a sports fan who finds some irregularity in a game that his chosen team lost as a straw to insist they won. Or a Hillary supporter.

But if the basic evidence for belief is suspect, how can they argue from such a conclusion?

This isn't an argument on my part, just incredulity. Particularly since this isn't a little issue. It is the core essence of the religion. the second coming. And even at the time, people weren't idiots. They must have seen that the thing was built on sand so how did Christianity get legs?

[ed]

Another thing that is comical but telling is the way the god of hosts is treated. The worship, adulation, falling on ones' face etc etc. It seems to me that the old jews who wrote this stuff said "yeah, God is a big man, bigger than Neuvadnezzar even. So he needs LOTS of people and angels and stuff worshipping, not just worshipping SINGING and stuff. Yeah, thats the ticket."

Its like some poor bastard that thinks gold fittings in a bathroom denote "class" so thats what he installs. So the god of the Israelites became a bigger version of what they knew. And that is very telling since it is simply a reflection of the time and knowledge of the writers.

Which leads me to the biggest killer, IMHO. There is nothing in any holy book (anywhere or anyone's) that reflects any knowledge beyond that of the writer. That is to say that these books are mundane in the truest sense of the word.

Think of it this way. If any one of us here was magically transported back 10 years, it would be virtually impossible to communicate with the inhabitants of that time without exposing a knowledge way in advance of what was known at the time.

Now imagine being transported back 50 years or 100. You could not open your mouth without betraying an advanced knowledge.

There is no evidence of that in any religious book. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

[ed]

It is not so among isolated groups.

Only in retrospect are ancient Jews anything but a cultural backwater of their time.
At least up until the Greek conquest (toward the end of "Old Testament times").

What exactly are you going on about? What is "not so"?

[Witness]

And even at the time, people weren't idiots.

As soon as the people heard Paul say a man had been raised from death, some of them started laughing. Others said, "We will hear you talk about this some other time."
– Acts 17:32

Variously translated, often with the nuance "we want to hear you".

Seems the Greeks didn't really buy into the miracle stuff.

They must have seen that the thing was built on sand so how did Christianity get legs?

All religions are built on sand (I'd rather say "thin air"), but Christianity happened to suit the Emperor for his political control/unification project, amidst all the various sects swarming in the Roman Empire at the time. The West could as well have turned to Mithraism:

https://i.imgur.com/XebI1n5.jpg

[Doctor X]

מלאתך ודמעך לא תאחר
בכור בניך תתן לי
כן תעשׂה לשרן לעאנך
שבעת ימים יהיה עם אמו
ביום השׁמיני תתנו לי

--J.D.

[ed]

And even at the time, people weren't idiots.

As soon as the people heard Paul say a man had been raised from death, some of them started laughing. Others said, "We will hear you talk about this some other time."
– Acts 17:32

Variously translated, often with the nuance "we want to hear you".

Seems the Greeks didn't really buy into the miracle stuff.

They must have seen that the thing was built on sand so how did Christianity get legs?

All religions are built on sand (I'd rather say "thin air"), but Christianity happened to suit the Emperor for his political control/unification project, amidst all the various sects swarming in the Roman Empire at the time. The West could as well have turned to Mithraism:

https://i.imgur.com/XebI1n5.jpg

Constantine was 300 years later. How did the silliness last 300 years?

[Doctor X]

Your full produce and wine you will not withhold.
Your first-born son you will give to me.
Thus you will do with your ox and sheep.
Seven days he shall remain with his mother,
On the eighth day you shall give him to me.

--J.D.

[ed]

Your full produce and wine you will not withhold.
Your first-born son you will give to me.
Thus you will do with your ox and sheep.
Seven days he shall remain with his mother,
On the eighth day you shall give him to me.

--J.D.

Thats the exit fee for the lake ed campground. Many pay willingly.

[Fid]

First born son? Dafuck bros? I only got so much gizz left, Don't tell Caleb about this.

He has his mothers eyes.

Probably way too much information.

[Fid]

I probably should delete this post but nope.

[Doctor X]

You only have to delete your first post.

--J.D.

[Pyrrho]

Link:

[Doctor X]

It will buff out:

https://camo.derpicdn.net/0171c38748ee1 ... OMO-2-.jpg

--J.D.