Moses and Yahweh, Lost In Translation.
Moses, now having The Lord Genocide’s precise instructions on how to live and more importantly, how to build great altars and temples to He Who Shall Not Be Named ( I am just Shittin’ ya. It’s God.) is instructed by God that he should move on. Unfortunately, like a cuckolded lover, God is still pouting from the Hebrews affair with that Golden Hussy from the last few chapters. We all know the old saying, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” which — I’ll try to be diplomatic here — may or may not be true, except for God. No one can throw quite such a dumb-assed hissy fit quite like Our Lord God when people aren’t falling all over themselves in adulation. That shit-ass takes every perceived slight way too seriously and gets worked up over the smallest of things. Eye just one golden bovine while walking through the mall and Bam! All the sudden, he wants to kill you and everyone you know. Shit dude, lighten up a bit. I was just looking for Baal’s sake! It’s not like you caught me in a Motel 6 rubbing oil on her udders.
So God wants the Hebrews to move on. I’m not really sure why as he doesn’t actually want them to get to the Promised land for another 39 years, but nevertheless, he demands they move and wander around for another few decades, and they do. Have you ever noticed how Yahweh’s not into just giving gifts but instead makes people suffer for everything they get? So they go, but he refuses to go with them. I told you he was a pouty little bitch. Just look.
“Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; for I will not go up in your midst, because you are an obstinate people, and I might destroy you on the way.”
Now I’m not sure I know what that means but it sure sounds to me like Yahweh has a bit of a temper, and like a mother who has had a very bad day, he doesn’t trust himself around his children. “If I gotta stop this caravan, your all going to be sorry!” You ever think that there are some beings, divine or not, who should never be parents? This entire concept is reinforced by the next line.
When the people heard this sad word, they went into mourning, and none of them put on his ornaments. For the Lord had said to Moses, “Say to the sons of Israel, ‘You are an obstinate people; should I go up in your midst for one moment, I would destroy you. Now therefore, put off your ornaments from you, that I may know what I shall do with you.’” So the sons of Israel stripped themselves of their ornaments, from Mount Horeb onward.
So not only does he doubt his self control– notice how it changed from “might” to “would” –but takes away their ipods and jewelry. Apparently, he’s using that old parental maxim handed down through the ages, If dad’s pissed, everyone suffers… and perhaps, dies! His feeling are hurt and he’s not ashamed to let everyone know… then threaten to kill them for it. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m all for getting things off your chest, but that seems to take it a wee bit too far. Seldom do my crying jags end in bloody rampages. Well, um… Yeah, seldom.
I’m just sayin’.
What we need here is a kind of Divine Prozac, a Mega Marijuana, or perhaps, a Holy Hashish, anything to get Yahweh in a better mood. Hell, while we’re dreaming lets’ get him something for all those obsessive-compulsive, bi-polar and schizophrenic traits too. Wow! That’d be the drug to end all drugs. It’d make heroin look like a placebo.
The only problem is that with that asshole, I’m sure it have to be administered hourly… as a suppository.
Any volunteers?
Anyway, Moses has built a special tent where he meets God on a regular basis. This is a particularly funny part.
Now Moses used to take the tent and pitch it outside the camp, a good distance from the camp, and he called it the tent of meeting And everyone who sought the LORD would go out to the tent of meeting which was outside the camp. And it came about, whenever Moses went out to the tent, that all the people would arise and stand, each at the entrance of his tent, and gaze after Moses until he entered the tent. Whenever Moses entered the tent,the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the entrance of the tent; and the LORD would speak with Moses. When all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the entrance of the tent, all the people would arise and worship, each at the entrance of his tent. Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend. When Moses returned to the camp, his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, would not depart from the tent.
I think this passage says much about Moses and the writer’s need to show him back in control. The rebellion is over, beyatches. Moses won. The people all obey him for he is the only one who remains in God’s favor. Don’t believe me? Just ask him. God actually listens to him. Somedays, he and The Lord Genocide just sit around shooting the shit and getting high. “Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, just as a man speaks to his friend.” Yeah just like a friend… Who appears in the form of a cloud… and who’s mere visage can be fatal… and who regularly threatens to kill everyone you know. Yeah, I got a lot of friends like that.
The old saying has never been more true. With a friend like Yahweh, who needs enemies.
BTW, anyone else notice the young man who would not leave Moses tent. Can you say Boytoy? I knew you could. Seemingly, Ted Haggard was just following an ancient tradition.
But to further the idea that Moses and the priesthood in general are absolutely essential, Moses is constantly finding it necessary to intercede for the Hebrews to change God’s malevolent little mind for Mister Pouty Lip is constantly wanting to kill them. The writer of Exodus tries so very hard to show how essential the priesthood is. Shit like the following litters the pages of Exodus.
Then he (Moses) said to Him, “If Your presence does not go with us, do not lead us up from here. “For how then can it be known that I have found favor in Your sight, I and Your people? Is it not by Your going with us, so that we, I and Your people, may be distinguished from all the other people who are upon the face of the earth?” The LORD said to Moses, “I will also do this thing of which you have spoken; for you have found favor in My sight and I have known you by name.”
Sheesh! I know that the common consensus today is that Exodus was not written by Moses himself and was likely written much later, but some of this positively smacks of a great degree of self-aggrandizement as if Moses was padding out his celestial resume. 1354 BCE — Became God’s best friend. 1356 BCE — Cured cancer 1357. BCE — Saved the Hebrews… Again! These pages are so full of conceit that a part of me screams that a man named Moses must have had something to do with it’s writing. A chorus of voices in the back of my head demand that this asshole has pulled off the greatest scam of all-time. Just read the self serving propaganda through these chapters and judge for yourself. It reminds me of all that shit Stalin used to personally write for Pravda regarding himself.
“Should you feel tired at a time when a man should not be tired, think of him — of Stalin – and work will become easier. Should you be at a loss as to how you should act, think of him — of Stalin – and your decision will be the right one.”
Yeah. When I have a difficult personal decision to make I always use the old “What Would Stalin Do?” wisdom which, of course, mostly boiled down to “Kill the fuckers!” Then again is it any different from using the wisdom of the incestuous son of another mass murderer? At any rate according to themselves, both Stalin and Moses made life better… um?; they both had violent purges of dissidents; they both ruled by terror and fear and they both thought they talked to God. That is Stalin thought he was god and talked to himself in the shower every morning, and Moses thought he was God’s best friend which, when referring to imaginary beings, comes out to be pretty much the same thing.
It brings to mind other possible similarities. Most people are aware that Stalin is not his birth name. He was born with the fine sounding handle of Yosif Vissarionovich Dzugashvili. Understandably, he realized early that to go far in politics and genocide, he needed a name that didn’t sound like someone pissing on a fence. He required something that would bolster his image, something manly, “steel”. Stalin is Russian for steel, the Man of Steel. In light of their other similarities, I’m sure that “Moses” is really an archaic Hebrew word for “He with the Large Dick”.
That or it could mean “I am a huge Prick”.
Translations can be a bitch.
One of the old jokes I remember hearing in Sunday school was when the teacher asked us who was the only known person in the Bible without parents. Answer? Joshua, the “son of Nun.” Your post reminded me of that little nugget.
Hey– I never heard any good jokes like that in Sunday School!
So Moses goes into his tent and moments later there’s a “pillar of cloud” outside the entrance of his tent. In a previous verse it said Moses came down from the mountain and his face was “radiant as the sun.”
Seems to me that Moses spent a lot of time baked out his of skull. (Not that I blame him. Roaming through a desert trying to keep three million disgruntled people from getting out of line would have been a demanding job. No wonder he assigned some of those duties over to Aaron and his sons.)
Has anyone considered that the pillar of cloud might have been a large pillar of suspiciously sweet-smelling smoke?
Hmmm, Ted Haggard: the New Moses? We have the drugs, the boytoys, the self-aggrandising flim-flam… If it looks like a steaming pile of bullshit, smells like a steaming pile of bullshit and
walkslies on the ground like a steaming pile of bullshit, I’d say there’s a good chance it is a large, fresh heap of taurean fæces.You can’t say ‘Mega-Marijuana’ and not expect someone to think of this!
HA! I’d *completely* forgotten that bit! (Or, maybe it was edited out of the version I saw in high school…?)
So, the rapture came and went, I missed the predicted earthquake but that was undoubtedly the hangover’s fault. End of the world party got pretty wild the night before. Are we all still here? I assume Mr Hubbo is no longer around to “contribute”.
Odd thing is, no one around here seems to be missing. I guess Calgary really is a cesspool of iniquity. How about Dakota, KK? All vacant and ghost-towny now? I bet you at least get the coffee shop to yourself Sun mornings.
Ha! We trimmed toenails during the… non-event
Nope, still around and kicking, Dave. I think the absurdity of trying to set a date on such an event was something we all agreed on.
Not quite, the absurdity is believing that there will be a “second coming”. Anyone who thinks that the imaginary sky daddy will come to earth is just as deluded as Harold Camping and the rest of the fools who thought it would happen on Sat. “Jesus will return on the 21st” and “Jesus will return soon, but we don’t know the date” are the same delusion, I just hope that a few people who were roped in by Camping use this opportunity to see the foolishness of religion.
We shall see, friend. We shall see.
No Mr Hubbo, we won’t. Your god won’t be coming, you and I will die when our bodies fail, through age, illness or injury. And when the electrical activity in our brains fades, we will utterly cease to be. No bright lights to enter, no judgment from god, no heaven or hell, not even eternal nothingness, we will simply not exist. You won’t even have time to realize that you wasted your life in service to a figment of your imagination. Life after death, such as it is, is only in how we are remembered after we are gone, the monuments we leave behind, and the lives we change.
You seem pretty certain, friend. How do you know for sure? Such certainty seems more like faith than reason, wouldn’t you say?
No, I wouldn’t say that, and you know it. It is the only result possible according to logic and reason. But we’ve had this discussion, there is no evidence of god, any god. And you’ll respond by linking to your trash heap of a website that purports to show evidence where none exists. And then you’ll ignore when the community here systematically destroys your flimsy arguments. We’ve done this dance before. You spectacularly failed to produce any shred of evidence last time, and it won’t be any different if we do it again.
Go peddle your snake oil elsewhere, we aren’t buying.
Why is it the only possible result based on logic and reason? That seems to be a pretty extraordinary claim.
Because that’s the only way we can test an idea, as we’ve repeatedly told you, for relevance to reality. Feelings are not evidence.
Please go away, Troll. My inbox is getting mightily sick of you.
Daz, the question wasn’t why logic and reason is the valid way of testing an idea, but why Dave’s statement was the only possible result given logic and reason. Such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence, wouldn’t you say?
From Wikipedia: “In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”
I would love to hear how my posts on this particular set of comments is inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic based on Dave’s call-out of me above. It would seem your inbox is doing much more trolling here than myself, given the definition.
Lemme see.
You enter a comment board where your view is contrary to that of most of the users (nothing wrong with that, per se, but…).
You proceed to:
Flatly ignore points that you can’t answer (on numerous occasions).
Constantly move goalposts.
Redefine people’s terms to your own liking, then argue against what your own private definition means, rather than the obvious definition used by the person you’re answering.
Proclaim impossibilities as fact (the flood being an obvious example), yet constantly ignore, or wish away, mountains of evidence in the opposing argument.
Claim to provide evidence when all you provide is vague supposition.
When it all gets too heated for you, you post a self-pitying whinge about how we’re not playing by some arbitrary set of rules that you just made up, and that any further debate should take place on your own comment-board, where it turns out that you don’t just moderate comments (that’s par for the course for virtually all Christian blogs), but you self-justify your actual editing of people’s words. So much for not bearing false witness, eh?
So yes, I’d say the name ‘Troll’ is apt.
And, for the record. You can argue all you like about whether Russell’s teapot is Delftware, Wedgewood or Pound-land’s best, but you still ain’t shown any bloody evidence whatsoever that the thing is actually up there in orbit.
If you’d rather go by your definition of “troll,” Daz, that’s fine. Pot, meet kettle. Many of the same accusations you’ve made of me seem pretty applicable when you look in the mirror.
Regardless, this conversation had absolutely nothing to do with you until you decided to butt your way into it. Note that I made an innocuous comment to the actual blog post initially, then got called out and responded. Nothing in there involved you, so if anybody is “trolling” this conversation, I’d submit that it is you and not me.
Finally, I’ve stated my four-piece argument, which people like Amy and Ron have come to my blog to discuss. Ask them how well their points were represented there, because they actually sought to debate the issue. I simply posted my arguments there because you refused to acknowledge any rules of debate, and I choose not to be badgered by ad hominems in favor of actually discussing the issue at hand.
No thanks. I will not subject my words to your arbitrary—and hardly disintersted&emdash;editing process. That issue alone means that I no longer have a shred of respect for you.
Wikipedia does not claim to be the final word on any subject. My definition of ‘troll’ fits perfectly well with its usage on most boards where debate takes place.
If you read back, you’ll see that my ‘butting in’ merely remade and stressed Dave’s previous point.
Rather than let Dave answer for himself? Doesn’t seem fair to him, does it?
I’m fine with your definition of troll. We both fit in the same mold under your definition, so neither one of us is superior to the other on that front and we can drop the name-calling.
You don’t have to subject your words to anything I say, but don’t confuse your dis-interest in posting on my blog with their not being any evidence.
Let’s put this to bed, and let Dave have a turn, OK?
Dave is perfectly capable of answering too. I wouldn’t dream of pretending to speak for him. I felt I had something to say; I said it. This is called ‘freedom of speech’. Unedited. You are perfectly free to not respond, if you feel it’s below you.
Yeah, ’cause I always pretend vague suppositions are evidence, deliberately ‘mistake’ people’s meanings, and so on. Well-known for it, I am.
You mean my ‘uninterest’, yes? Or are you claiming that I’d make the good neutral referee that I accused you of not being?
See paragraph one.
I’ll jump in when I feel there is something that I need to say. But, as usual, Daz is doing a fine job on his own, far more eloquently, and with vastly more patience, than I could.
Daz, spent some time over on your site reminding myself of the futility of this particular conversation. I am sorry I broke the cardinal rule, I fed the troll. You can let it go. You’ve already put more time and effort into this then anyone had any right to expect, I apologize for starting it again. He just sounds so much like my parents, its hard not to try to get in the last word.
Thanks Dave. Yeah, problem is I’m also a sucker for troll-feeding. That and I’m currently grappling with a new page-layout in html that’s giving me gyp, so the little mail icon pops up and the distraction proves too tempting.
Talking of feeding things…
<Shameless plug>
While you’re on my site, feel like contributing to The Great Book-List Project™?
</Shameless plug>
Can’t seem to throw up a comment on your site, Daz. So here’s what I tried to post…
“First thoughts would be…
Neuromancer by William Gibson
American Gods by Neil Gaiman
Catch 22 by Joseph Heller
Ender’s Game by Orson Scott Card
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
As good as it is, I don’t think I can honestly say the whole of the Sword of Truth (Terry Goodkind) series is good enough to be here, but the sixth book, Faith of the Fallen, is definitely one of my front runners for best book I have ever read.
I’m sure I’ll think of others, but those are the first that pop into my head.”
“Why is it the only possible result based on logic and reason? That seems to be a pretty extraordinary claim.” ~ sabepashubbo
In the words of Billo:
People die, they stay dead… never a miscommunication.
A logical conclusion supported by several millennia of empirical evidence.
But Ron, that’s evidence of it as one possible result, not the only possible result. Such a claim requires much greater evidence than just giving one option.
But Ron, that’s evidence of it as one possible result, not the only possible result. Such a claim requires much greater evidence than just giving one option.
The burden of proof rests with those who assert that human existence continues on in a spiritual realm after physical death, and to date no one has supplied tangible proof in support of such an extraordinary claim.
The metaphysical claims are further weakened by scientific evidence of a causal relationship linking Near-Death Experiences (NDEs) to a neurochemical reaction within the brain:
Near-death experiences (NDE’s) can be induced using the dissociative drug ketamine. Advances in neuroscience have recently provided us with new insights as to the mechanisms involved at the mind -brain interface. On the ‘brain’ side, it is now clear that these NDE’s are due to blockade of brain receptors (drug binding sites) for the neurotransmitter glutamate. These binding sites are called the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Conditions which precipitate NDE’s (low oxygen, low blood flow, low blood sugar, temporal lobe epilepsy etc.) have been shown to release a flood of glutamate, over-activating NMDA receptors. This overactivation can kill brain cells (‘excito’ toxicity). Ketamine prevents excitotoxicity. Conditions which trigger a glutamate flood may also trigger a flood of ketamine-like brain chemicals which bind to NMDA receptors to protect cells, leading to an altered state of consciousness like that produced by ketamine. On the ‘mind’ side, induction of NDE’s has psychotherapeutic value via several routes which will be explored in this article.
For the TL;DR crowd, here’s a video instead
NB: Language warning – NSFW
Ron, that’s incorrect. The burden of proof is on whoever makes the initial claim in the discussion, and the initial claim made here was that there is no afterlife, and that it was the only possible result. That is the claim that demands a burden of proof in this discussion. What you’re doing is akin to me saying “God exists” and you saying “Where’s your evidence?” and me responding “Well, where’s your evidence that He DOESN’T exist?” You know how much that irks you guys, so don’t turn around and use it on us.
What is the relevance of NDEs to this discussion? We’re talking actual death, not near death.
No. You made the initial claim: “I think the absurdity of trying to set a date on such an event was something we all agreed on.” This suggests you believe such an event will take place.
Dave responded with “Not quite, the absurdity is believing that there will be a “second coming”.
The onus now falls on you to prove the likelihood of such an event.
Also, in a later comment he writes: “But we’ve had this discussion, there is no evidence of god, any god.” — which indicates that this is a continuation of previous discussions from other threads.
And if we really want to be pedantic about who is making initial claims, consider the fact that blogs like this one wouldn’t even exist if their were no superstitious beliefs to counter.
“What is the relevance of NDEs to this discussion? We’re talking actual death, not near death.”
If you read the entire article, it states that religious experiences and altered states can be chemically induced — a physical explanation which renders the supernatural ones superfluous.
Sorry, Ron. I was giving Daz time to call you out for trolling, but since I guess you guys agree he’s not going to lay into you the way he did to me.
You can’t make inferences on what my comments “suggest” and use that to imply an initial claim. If we go that far, then Dave made the initial claim that I believed what Harold Camping said, which is also incorrect. But in reality, the first actual claim was that no afterlife is “the only possible result,” which requires strong evidence to validate such a claim. You gave one option, but didn’t show why it is the “only possible option.”
This goes right to the heart of Daz’s accusation about avoiding questions you don’t want to answer. No matter who made the initial claim, you attempted to answer a question that you didn’t successfully answer, and when I pressed for full evidence you shifted to a burden of proof argument. All that does is suggest to any readers that you don’t have a good answer. If you do, please share it and I’ll re-consider. But don’t take away from the task at hand with a petty argument about who needs to answer to what.
I don’t think you quite understand how burden of proof works. Stating that people die and remain dead isn’t an extraordinary claim; it’s a reasonable conclusion backed by mountains of evidence — the very thing which theists seem unwilling to bring to the table during these discussions. Not only that, it’s also a falsifiable claim: in order to refute it, all you need to do is find that 2000-year-old Jewish disciple who witnessed the crucification, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Claiming that people return from the the dead, however, is an extraordinary claim because there is no such an event has never happened.
And as for making inferences about your core beliefs, I don’t need to — they’re already publicly documented right on your own blog.
Oooo, ‘ark at her!
Tell you what, if I spot Ron saying something wrong, I’ll point it out to him then. (Though I’d think you’re perfectly capable of doing so yourself.) And you know what, if I show evidence he’ll acknowledge the point. That’s the thing with us sceptics. We don’t think a retraction or correction based on new evidence is ‘backing down’. We never claimed to know everything in the first place, unlike religiots.
As far as the actual conversation goes, Ron’s right. We can, if we feel ghoulish enough, watch bodies rot away to nothing. We see nothing leave the body and go elsewhere. If you say something does leave the body and go elsewhere, then you need to show some evidence in support.
I understand how burden of proof works just fine, thanks Ron. Stating that people die and remain dead isn’t an extraordinary claim; stating that it’s the only possible result IS an extraordinary claim, because in stating so lies the claim is that there is no afterlife, which one can’t possibly attempt to prove.
But I wouldn’t even go far enough as to say that people dying and remaining dead isn’t an unreasonable claim. People are “dead on the table” in operating rooms and brought back quite frequently. So even from a present-day, logical sense, this argument doesn’t hold merit based on the evidence.
And no Daz, the burden of proof isn’t on me here, because I didn’t make any claims as to the afterlife here. So I don’t need to provide evidence for anything until I make a claim. Maybe if you spent less time trying to “shift the goalposts” and more time admonishing your own “team” for twisting others’ words, what you contribute might be at least called fair.
Seems we’ve been here before.
All we’re claiming is that there is no evidence for an afterlife. Not even any that suggests one may or could exist. So why investigate it? The evidence for this claim of lack of evidence is the very existence of that lack of evidence.
Do you have any evidence that such a thing exists or are you basing your entertainment of the idea on ancient non-evidence-based philosophical ideas and old stories based on those ideas? Be honest when answering.
Stating that people die and remain dead isn’t an extraordinary claim; stating that it’s the only possible result IS an extraordinary claim, because in stating so lies the claim is that there is no afterlife, which one can’t possibly attempt to prove. ~sabepashubbo
But that’s not what you were arguing. You wrote: “Such certainty seems more like faith than reason, wouldn’t you say.”
Faith is a belief or conviction unsupported by evidence. Reason, on the other hand, is a statement presented in justification or explanation of a belief or action. (Dictionary.com)
It’s no leap of faith to assign a fair degree of certainty to the statement that death is final because that’s where all the evidence points to.
Claims for an afterlife, on the other hand, amount to pure speculation, because there is absolutely no physical proof to warrant such an assertion.
But I wouldn’t even go far enough as to say that people dying and remaining dead isn’t an unreasonable claim. People are “dead on the table” in operating rooms and brought back quite frequently. So even from a present-day, logical sense, this argument doesn’t hold merit based on the evidence.
Fine! If you want to argue semantics, then yes, death was once defined as lack of pulse and respiration. Thanks to medical advances (hurray for science!), it’s now possible to resuscitate cardiac arrest victims and restore circulation, but only within a very narrow window of opportunity because once complete brain death occurs the chances of a successful revival diminish rapidly. So today death is defined as the cessation of all brain activity.
In any case, it’s only delaying the inevitable — to date there is no known cure for death due to old age.
Oh, I dunno. Dying young would work…
Point noted.
I was going to link The Who’s My Generation, but we already have two vids on this thread.
“Hope I die before I get old…”
How come God could make a pillar of cloud back then, but he can’t do anything at all now to prove he exists? Hmmm… is it because this story is fiction, and god doesn’t exist? Why, I think that must be it!
Re the latest end-of-the-world scare – I’m here, LOL. What a surprise, the Christians were wrong. Again.
I love the way Christians have been saying that we shouldn’t judge all Xians just cause Harold Camping is nuts, that they knew Camping was wrong, that they knew the world wouldn’t end on May 21, 2011. These are the same christians that *know* (using the same numbers Camping used) that the earth is 6000 years old.
I wish I could say I knew how old the earth is, Nancy. That would sure make things a lot easier for science, wouldn’t it? I can make conjectures, and as a YEC (of the worst kind, I suppose) I would put it in the neighborhood of the age you listed, but I can’t tell you for certain that is correct either. The age of the universe could be 13.7 billion years, and that wouldn’t surprise me either.
If the Bible was clear on that front, there’d be no debate. The Bible IS clear on not setting the date for Christ’s return, and that’s why Christians ask not to be lumped in with those who shun what the Bible actually says.
“Re the latest end-of-the-world scare – I’m here, LOL. What a surprise, the Christians were wrong. Again.”
And for those who say Camping was a false prophet, you can always quote the following passages:
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (Matthew 16:28)
“Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.” (Matthew 24:34)
~ Jesus. (the first false prophet)
Actually, Ron, the first one was a prophecy fulfilled during the day of Pentecost in Acts 2. The second one is a prophecy that has not yet come to pass. The Greek for the word “this” in Matthew 24:34 refers to the thing immediately prior to it in the text, which is the symbolism of the fig tree, a future prophecy.
I’ve heard many NT theologians speculate that this prophecy could very well come true in our lifetimes, but there was usually someone in every century that said the same things in the past, so I figure I’ll be safest if I let God do the deciding.
How could the first one have been fulfilled at Pentecost? Although I only quoted verse 28, it is a direct continuation of verse 27 which states that Jesus is coming back in judgment, and nowhere in Acts 2 does that take place.
As for the second prophecy, Jesus warns that just as the budding of fig leaves signals the coming of summer (a very short time period) so will the events following the destruction of the temple signal the coming of the final judgement. And since he’s addressing his disciples in private, it’s clear that this would occur during their generation.
A bit confusing to be sure, but the way I read the passage is that 27 and 28 are separate thoughts, not referring to the same thing. Jesus did this in other passages of Scripture too, like Matthew 24 for instance. The difference is the word “in” from verse 28. Note that it is not “into,” but “in” which implies a very different thing.
In terms of the second prophecy, the issue here is what is the “fig tree” that is budding. Looking at the rest of the Bible for context, we find that the fig tree is commonly used as a symbol for the nation of Israel (see Joel 1, for example). So what would it mean if Israel needed to “bud”?
Well, if the Jewish people didn’t have a homeland for a whole heck of a long time, then all of a sudden they become a nation again, that seems to me like it would fit the description. So “this” generation could very well imply the generation that saw the re-birth of Israel as a nation. I wouldn’t say that to an absolute certainty, but it seems within the realm of possibility.
I don’t think that you can simply say because Jesus was only addressing the disciples that it implies this would happen during their generation. That would be like me telling you I was taking a trip to Europe. If I didn’t tell all of my friends and relatives I was going, does that mean my trip to Europe was any less valid? The number of people who hear a prophecy doesn’t explain who the prophecy references–I think you’re going a bit too far with your assumption here.
Both passages begin with “amen lego humin” (Truly/Verily I am saying to you). This passage is used dozens of times throughout the NT and (to my knowledge) always signifies the completion of the preceding thought, not the introduction of a new one. So why should Matthew 16:28 be considered an exception?
Furthermore, the Greek language has an equivalent for the English word “that” so why would Jesus say “this generation” instead of “that generation” if he meant to convey the idea that these events would take place centuries later?
In fact, why would he speak in parables at all? An omni-deity would surely have realized that employing symbolism peculiar to a particular age and culture would render the message confusing to readers of a future era.
On would expect the divine word of God to be delivered in a clear and concise manner without obligating the reader to undertake a study of the Greek language and Judean history.
Good questions, Ron. What are your thoughts on the answers to your questions?
Bummer!! I was hoping that Pat Robertson, and the Westboro bunch would be airlifted off the planet.
There is that, isn’t there…
Somebody at WEIT posted this gem from the Thinking Atheist:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9KlMWzKj4s&w=400&h=300
enjoy
Pint of Darwin Genuine Draught, please barmaid.
LOL
“Facilities for laser tag” (Picture of the Vatican)
Amy: LOL, my favorite part was “Prison populations have disappeared.”
To innocent lurkers: if you haven’t read previous entries in this blog, you may not know that Hubbo is a troll. He is being ignored on purpose.
Ron wrote:
“And for those who say Camping was a false prophet, you can always quote the following passages:”
Guess what – I actually got to do this. She said Camping was a false prophet, and I quoted Matty 24 at her. And you know what she responded with? Ad hominem. Yep, ad hominem, the favorite argument of christians. I see a few ad hominems in some posts above (which were posted after the last time I was here).
Ad hominem, the last argument of the christian when christianity is proven to be BS.
(And I *still* can’t find a christian one who can explain why Harold Camping is wrong but James Usher is right)
I can’t say I’m surprised. Hardcore adherents of any ideology — be it religious, political, or otherwise — are often so deeply wrapped up in their beliefs, that it becomes a part of their identity. As such, any criticism of those beliefs is construed as a personal attack.
Yeah, I like Fighting Atheist. He always makes good points, and that one’s spot-on.
If I may share a little summat I writted a while back…
*clears throat*
I am the very model of a Biblical Creationist;
To age the world I know I merely need to sum a list
Of all the ‘gats and ‘gots I find in Exodus and Genisis
And close my mind to evidence, reality and scientists.
I have no truck at all, with matters evolution’ry;
I’ll be a monkey’s uncle ‘fore believing in ape-ancestry
The only things I know about were taught me at my Mammy’s knee;
The King James Bible’s all I need to keep me from calamity.
Scientific the-ory to me is just a load of cod’s
If it contradicts my unsubstantiated word of God.
I’ll believe in myth and miracles, and in fabled lands of Nod,
But dismiss DNA, and Darwin and Mendel-ian pea-pods.
I’m happy to be ignorant, as the day that I was born,
I’ve got a little mantra: I say ‘Show me the tansit’nal form’.
‘Evidence!’ I shout, then do nowt but cover it with scorn,
‘It’s just a theory’, close my eyes, count to ten, hope you are gawn.
The Book is true, and God is truth, and, well I think you get the gist.
No evidence from me, but from you I want a great long list
And none will ever pass my expertly shown analysis.
Oh yes, I am the very model of a Biblical Creationist!
OT, but Alice (Sprinklings) has a new home.