Repent the end is nigh

[Spud]

It does indeed, and [Matthew 16:27-28] mirrors in its details all the other prophecies mentioned, including the one given by Paul in 1 Thessalonians.

In Matthew 12:41-42 Jesus hints that AD 70 (the subject of Matthew 24) and the physical resurrection (the subject of 1 Thess. 4:13ff; 1 Cor 15) are separate events:

The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now something greater than Jonah is here. 42The Queen of the South will rise at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now something greater than Solomon is here.

[Walter]

I very much doubt those disciples of Jesus were able to repeat everything he was supposed have said off by heart even if they were still alive when the gospels were written. Besides which, even if Jesus did say what he is quoted as saying, it is pretty meaningless in reality and open to many interpretations!

Floo have a look at the post from NS in the science section if you want to get a perspective on reality, its a good read.

[ippy]

For every beast of the forest is mine,
the cattle on a thousand hills.
Ps. 50:10

The idea is that God owns all the cattle. A thousand is the number used to indicate a great number of hills.

Sounds about as realistic as any other aspect of religions.

ippy

[Anchorman]

Sounds about as realistic as any other aspect of religions.

ippy

Not really - and this was a common aspect of literature.
The Egyptians had a phrase which even knocks it into a cocked hat....
"May you live for millions of years."
Few did.

[Hope]

I reckon if Christianity is still being practised 2000 years hence some will still be predicting the end times are imminent. Of course one day our world will end through natural processes, nothing to do with any god.

Assuming, of course, that natural processes aren't all to do with a God in the first place, Floo.  As I think several people have pointed out, Christianity believes that that is the case, and that non-believers' appeals to 'natural causes' is somewhat of a misnomer.

[Gordon]

Assuming, of course, that natural processes aren't all to do with a God in the first place, Floo.

Assumptions are easy of course but whether they are correct is another matter.

As I think several people have pointed out, Christianity believes that that is the case

Ditto beliefs, so a method to demonstrate the assumed relationship between claims of divine agency and 'natural processes' is required else were stuck at beliefs based on assumptions - got such a method?

and that non-believers' appeals to 'natural causes' is somewhat of a misnomer.

Then you'll need to throw some un-natural causes into the mix and explain how we identify and classify these (via the method noted above).

[Hope]

Assumptions are easy of course but whether they are correct is another matter.

I think that that point ought to be directed towards Floo, Gordon.  After all, it is she who has made an unsupported assumption.  All I've done is call her out on it.

Ditto beliefs, so a method to demonstrate the assumed relationship between claims of divine agency and 'natural processes' is required else were stuck at beliefs based on assumptions - got such a method?

Not my favourite form of method, but the very fact that there are events and processes at work in life that have no naturalistic explanations, would suggest that there is something beyond the mere natural

Then you'll need to throw some un-natural causes into the mix and explain how we identify and classify these (via the method noted above).

The most well-known one is so-called 'spontaneous healing' when used in the context of medical science and its inability to explain why some condition reverses or simply disappears with no logical explanation.  This is most dramatic when all known physical attributes have been exhausted - either within the sufferer or from the side of medical science.  Or what about situations where all scientific evidence points to a certain outcome, such as death following a massive crash in a car, and yet the person/people step out of the mangled wreck with minimal injury.  The fact that they are 'non-natural' in nature means that classifying them in the 'natural' way becomes difficult, perhaps even impossible because they don't match natural categories.

[Gordon]

Not my favourite form of method, but the very fact that there are events and processes at work in life that have no naturalistic explanations, would suggest that there is something beyond the mere natural

How do you identify stuff that you say has no naturalistic explanation?

The most well-known one is so-called 'spontaneous healing' when used in the context of medical science and its inability to explain why some condition reverses or simply disappears with no logical explanation.

Nope - we've been here before and we know your knowledge of medical science is anecdotal at best. That medical science is a work on progress and is happy to accomodate a 'don't know' position means that spontaneous remission is no more than an indication that there is more to learn.

This is most dramatic when all known physical attributes have been exhausted - either within the sufferer or from the side of medical science.  Or what about situations where all scientific evidence points to a certain outcome, such as death following a massive crash in a car, and yet the person/people step out of the mangled wreck with minimal injury.  The fact that they are 'non-natural' in nature means that classifying them in the 'natural' way becomes difficult, perhaps even impossible because they don't match natural categories.

Utter tripe, and I do believe I've mentioned before that I have the advantage of you in terms of direct experience of medical intervention by dint of a long NHS career, part of which was spent in a variety of clinical settings, and your argument here is no more than a mix of anecdote and your own personal incredulity. Your claim that aspects of medicine or the reasons people require medical intervention involve anything 'non-natural' is utter bollocks of the first magnitude.

[jeremyp]

the very fact that there are events and processes at work in life that have no naturalistic explanations, would suggest that there is something beyond the mere natural

There's a difference between a phenomenon not having a naturalistic explanation and you not knowing what the naturalistic explanation is.The latter does not imply the former.

The most well-known one is so-called 'spontaneous healing' when used in the context of medical science and its inability to explain why some condition reverses or simply disappears with no logical explanation.

Has that ever happened though?

Or what about situations where all scientific evidence points to a certain outcome

Science doesn't deal in certainties.

such as death following a massive crash in a car, and yet the person/people step out of the mangled wreck with minimal injury.  The fact that they are 'non-natural' in nature means that classifying them in the 'natural' way becomes difficult, perhaps even impossible because they don't match natural categories.

People have got very good at analysing car crashes to find out why the occupants survived or didn't.

[trippymonkey]

Aren't there some incidents, even up to NOW, that have no explanation to or from ANYONE on earth?

Nick

[jjohnjil]

I think that that point ought to be directed towards Floo, Gordon.  After all, it is she who has made an unsupported assumption.  All I've done is call her out on it.
Not my favourite form of method, but the very fact that there are events and processes at work in life that have no naturalistic explanations, would suggest that there is something beyond the mere natural
The most well-known one is so-called 'spontaneous healing' when used in the context of medical science and its inability to explain why some condition reverses or simply disappears with no logical explanation.  This is most dramatic when all known physical attributes have been exhausted - either within the sufferer or from the side of medical science.  Or what about situations where all scientific evidence points to a certain outcome, such as death following a massive crash in a car, and yet the person/people step out of the mangled wreck with minimal injury.  The fact that they are 'non-natural' in nature means that classifying them in the 'natural' way becomes difficult, perhaps even impossible because they don't match natural categories.

The classic 'God of the gaps'!

[Walter]

Aren't there some incidents, even up to NOW, that have no explanation to or from ANYONE on earth?

Nick

can you give examples?

[torridon]

Aren't there some incidents, even up to NOW, that have no explanation to or from ANYONE on earth?

Nick

Quantum theory and relativity are both well tested theories yet they contradict each other and that remains unexplained. And yet we don't say it must be supernatural, rather we say we don't understand it yet. There is ultimately no case for calling anything supernatural, it just closes the door on our attempt to understand.

[wigginhall]

I don't think that gravity is well understood.   There seem to be various theories accounting for it, e.g. gravity particles/waves/fields.  Therefore God?

[Walter]

I don't think that gravity is well understood.   There seem to be various theories accounting for it, e.g. gravity particles/waves/fields.  Therefore God?

I wish I had known earlier, I could have saved myself a lot of time.

[Spud]

When did that happen? .....if it has....

Just to add that the binding of Satan can be understood better by reading what happens when he is loosed, after the thousand years are ended.

When he is loosed, he will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth. This implies that all the nations will be deceived together. So, for Satan to be bound means that he is prevented from deceiving all the nations at one time. Individual people and nations yes, but all together, no, not until the end of the thousand years.

Jesus used metaphor to indicate that during his ministry he was binding Satan and robbing his house. Thus the thousand years started in AD 70 with his judgment on the apostate Old Covenant church, which Satan had taken over, and the destruction of its temple.

Jesus' 'parousia', or 'second coming', encompassed this event, which was the visible proof that he was sitting at God's right hand, his kingdom having been established. It also encompasses the time when the dead will rise for judgment, which Revelation 20 tells us will take place after Satan's release.

[Sebastian Toe]

Just to add that the binding of Satan can be understood better by reading what happens when he is loosed, after the thousand years are ended.

When he is loosed, he will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth. This implies that all the nations will be deceived together. So, for Satan to be bound means that he is prevented from deceiving all the nations at one time. Individual people and nations yes, but all together, no, not until the end of the thousand years.

Jesus used metaphor to indicate that during his ministry he was binding Satan and robbing his house. Thus the thousand years started in AD 70 with his judgment on the apostate Old Covenant church, which Satan had taken over, and the destruction of its temple.

Jesus' 'parousia', or 'second coming', encompassed this event, which was the visible proof that he was sitting at God's right hand, his kingdom having been established. It also encompasses the time when the dead will rise for judgment, which Revelation 20 tells us will take place after Satan's release.

Did that answer my question?
I'm not sure that it did.

[Walter]

Just to add that the binding of Satan can be understood better by reading what happens when he is loosed, after the thousand years are ended.

When he is loosed, he will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth. This implies that all the nations will be deceived together. So, for Satan to be bound means that he is prevented from deceiving all the nations at one time. Individual people and nations yes, but all together, no, not until the end of the thousand years.

Jesus used metaphor to indicate that during his ministry he was binding Satan and robbing his house. Thus the thousand years started in AD 70 with his judgment on the apostate Old Covenant church, which Satan had taken over, and the destruction of its temple.

Jesus' 'parousia', or 'second coming', encompassed this event, which was the visible proof that he was sitting at God's right hand, his kingdom having been established. It also encompasses the time when the dead will rise for judgment, which Revelation 20 tells us will take place after Satan's release.

Spud , do you actually believe this bollocks?

[Gordon]

When he is loosed, he will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth. This implies that all the nations will be deceived together. So, for Satan to be bound means that he is prevented from deceiving all the nations at one time. Individual people and nations yes, but all together, no, not until the end of the thousand years.

So, since you say 'when he is loosed' then Satan is still 'bound' - yes? 

Jesus used metaphor to indicate that during his ministry he was binding Satan and robbing his house. Thus the thousand years started in AD 70 with his judgment on the apostate Old Covenant church, which Satan had taken over, and the destruction of its temple.

Then the 1,000 years must have ended in 1070 CE, since this is simple arithmetic, so how then can Satan still be 'bound' since the thousand years has long since passed (by 946 years)? You, or someone, clearly can't count.

[Walter]

So, since you say 'when he is loosed' then Satan is still 'bound' - yes? 

Then the 1,000 years must have ended in 1070 CE, since this is simple arithmetic, so how then can Satan still be 'bound' since the thousand years has long since passed (by 946 years)? You, or someone, clearly can't count.

facts tend to get in the way of the story though

[Spud]

Seb,
The 'thousand years' are not a literal time period; they symbolize the time during which the church on earth preaches the gospel to the world. So it's happening now.

[Aruntraveller]

Seb,
The 'thousand years' are not a literal time period; they symbolize the time during which the church on earth preaches the gospel to the world. So it's happening now.

Why did you previously post as if it was a literal time period?

[Sebastian Toe]

Seb,
The 'thousand years' are not a literal time period; they symbolize the time during which the church on earth preaches the gospel to the world. So it's happening now.

Could you not have just said that to begin with?

[Spud]

Could you not have just said that to begin with?

Sorry; as I said in #122, I thought we had discussed it before.

[Gordon]

Seb,
The 'thousand years' are not a literal time period; they symbolize the time during which the church on earth preaches the gospel to the world. So it's happening now.

How convenient.

Since presumably someone at some point mentioned this 'thousand years', which implies precision, on what basis (other than convenience) does this claim become symbolic?

Sounds like a fudge to me.