Why was Jesus Baptized?

[Lt_Ripley]

Negative. Jesus's return didn't mean literally right then and there. His return has been happening for 2,000 years.

of course it was literal.

just like the book of revelation was about Rome at the time.

James Kelhoffer, an assistant professor of theological studies at Saint Louis University:

"Many people who have interpreted the rich symbolism and mythology of [Revelation] have read into it to reflect on a world cataclysm within their lifetime. It greatly misunderstands ancient Jewish and Christian prophets who always talk about apocalypses within their own time, not several centuries hence.

[Agent. Mulder]

How do you know that? The Bible is riddled with analogies.

because the bible said so. and i believe its Every Word.

[Bluefinger]

no it hasnt.

and it Did mean for that time. for Thier generation. but, not surprisingly, it didnt happen.

Says who?

According to Revelation, Matthew 28, and 2 Peter, it says that Christ's return is extended in phases.....he came for the Apostles when Jerusalem was taken. Unless, of course, you have a more authoritative word.

[Lt_Ripley]

How do you know that? The Bible is riddled with analogies.

ask any learned scholar . read a bit . the bible is riddled with contradictions . Even the supposed sayings of Jesus as well. for example ......

“If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid (John 8:14)

“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. (John 5:31)

[Agent. Mulder]

Says who?

According to Revelation, Matthew 28, and 2 Peter, it says that Christ's return is extended in phases.....he came for the Apostles when Jerusalem was taken. Unless, of course, you have a more authoritative word.

i do.

in the bible where it says it for Thier time.

looks like weve got a problem here.

[Agent. Mulder]

ask any learned scholar . read a bit . the bible is riddled with contradictions . Even the supposed sayings of Jesus as well. for example ......

“If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid (John 8:14)

“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. (John 5:31)

God i love that book

[Bluefinger]

i do.

in the bible where it says it for Thier time.

looks like weve got a problem here.

uh, yeah. Like a two thousand year gap of history and a bad habit of putting stuff into the Bible instead of taking out what it says.

[Bluefinger]

of course it was literal.

just like the book of revelation was about Rome at the time.

James Kelhoffer, an assistant professor of theological studies at Saint Louis University:

"Many people who have interpreted the rich symbolism and mythology of [Revelation] have read into it to reflect on a world cataclysm within their lifetime. It greatly misunderstands ancient Jewish and Christian prophets who always talk about apocalypses within their own time, not several centuries hence.

You're wrong and so is he.

Revelation has Jewish OT written all throughout it, especially in Ch. 1, where it indicates that the events happen through Church history.

[Agent. Mulder]

uh, yeah. Like a two thousand year gap of history and a bad habit of putting stuff into the Bible instead of taking out what it says.

wtf?

that doesnt even make any sense.

it IS coming out of it, not putting it in. thats where were getting it.

[Bluefinger]

wtf?

that doesnt even make any sense.

it IS coming out of it, not putting it in. thats where were getting it.

negative. you're interpreting it with a 20th century mentality, and thus are putting your two cents into it, instead of getting out what the first readers would have got out of it

[Agent. Mulder]

negative. you're interpreting it with a 20th century mentality, and thus are putting your two cents into it, instead of getting out what the first readers would have got out of it

LMFAO.

whoa, way to tell us How were thinking hahaha

oh lord. ok, how old are you? really?

the first readers got, that it was for Thier generation.

[Lt_Ripley]

You're wrong and so is he.

Revelation has Jewish OT written all throughout it, especially in Ch. 1, where it indicates that the events happen through Church history.

sorry blue .... your the one here who is wrong.

Is John's Apocalypse unique?

The Revelation of John, the Apocalypse, also must be looked at from the perspective that it's not the only such piece of apocalyptic literature that we have. In fact there are lots of apocalypses. Some thirty or forty of them from the ancient world that we know by name and we can actually read still to this day. ... So when the author of the Book of Revelation sat down to write, there was a very strong paradigm of what revelation literature should look like and sound like. The stock of characters, the list of images, the symbols one uses are pretty commonplace, if you're in that environment.

Sometimes people are surprised that when they actually read the Book of Revelation of what's not there. Things that are typically associated with end time prophecies and typical language actually is not found in Revelation at all. ... Notably there's no reference whatsoever to the Antichrist. That terminology only shows up in two places in the entire New Testament. One time in First John and one time in the Second John, but not in the Book of Revelation itself. The other terminology that [is] sometimes thought to be in Revelation is the Rapture, that is, the snatching away of Christians just at the last moment before the Tribulation occurs. That, likewise, is not actually in the Book of Revelation itself, that actually comes from a passage in First Thessalonians. And so what we have to realize is that in some interpretations of the Book of Revelation--in fact most of them--the interpretation is created by bringing things into the Book of Revelation, into its scheme, that are not actually there and reading them as a kind of a jigsaw puzzle of eschatology and last judgment.

What did John expect when he talked about new heaven, new earth, new Jerusalem?

The end of the Book of Revelation sees a new heaven and a new earth coming down and a new Jerusalem being established ... . What John seems to be suggesting in the original meaning of this work is that when the triumph of God comes over the dragon, over the forces of the devil, and the Roman Empire is toppled, a new heaven and earth will be created ... and that's the kingdom coming on earth. ... [He] anticipated a rebuilding of the real city of Jerusalem as part of this eschatalogic expectation. So John is looking for Jerusalem to be re-established soon, a new Temple to be built soon, and for this to be the symbol that God's kingdom is finally being established on earth, a pure kingdom of goodness in contrast to the kingdom of Satan that has been destroyed in the person of the Roman emperor.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...revelation.html

[Agent. Mulder]

taken from a website, coming from biblical readings:

Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus states that all the signs marking the end of the world in Matthew 24 would be fulfilled before his generation ended. That generation ended 2000 years ago, and the world has not come to an end, neither has all those signs been fulfilled.

Matthew 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

Jesus tells the high priest that he would see his second coming. The high priest is long dead, and Jesus hasn't returned yet.

Throughout the New Testament, the end of the world is prophesied as being very near, at hand, to be witnessed by those living at the time. Paul often told the people he preached to that they would be witnesses to Jesus' second coming. They are all long gone.

i think theres more, but im tired. its late here. but thought id leave you with that before i peace out.

[Lt_Ripley]

negative. you're interpreting it with a 20th century mentality, and thus are putting your two cents into it, instead of getting out what the first readers would have got out of it

yes ....... and what readers then got out of it is exactly what the author intended. that it be a piece of work that would happen in their lifetime ---- not later.

fact is the book of revelation is not about now or some time in the future. and the statement of jesus returning during the lifetime of those he was standing in front of and speaking too meant them ....... not anyone else.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Lt_Ripley

[Bluefinger]

LMFAO.

whoa, way to tell us How were thinking hahaha

oh lord. ok, how old are you? really?

the first readers got, that it was for Thier generation.

26, and I study Bible history, theology, and eschatology, and have for years.

[Agent. Mulder]

26, and I study Bible history

hmm, apparently not that well.

theology, and eschatology, and have for years.

theres a problem.

[IrishAidan07]

ask any learned scholar . read a bit . the bible is riddled with contradictions . Even the supposed sayings of Jesus as well. for example ......

“If I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid (John 8:14)

“If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. (John 5:31)

Ask any learned scholar. Read a bit. Jesus did not contradict himself.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesuswitness.html

The old saying, "Atheists know the Bible better than believers" is poppycock. You cherry pick **** and then take it out of context.

Sad.

[Agent. Mulder]

Ask any learned scholar. Read a bit. Jesus did not contradict himself.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesuswitness.html

The old saying, "Atheists know the Bible better than believers" is poppycock. You cherry pick **** and then take it out of context.

Sad.

oh my ****in goodness. not this BS again.

ANY time that people poke holes in the bible, they take things 'out of context'. its a sad attempt that believers use to redeem themselves and their beliefs. to show that the opposing view is actually incorrect. sad.

the people who Wrote, what jesus Said, contradicted themselves then. if that makes you happy.

[Lt_Ripley]

Ask any learned scholar. Read a bit. Jesus did not contradict himself.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesuswitness.html

The old saying, "Atheists know the Bible better than believers" is poppycock. You cherry pick **** and then take it out of context.

Sad.

one .... I'm not an atheist.

two .... jesus of course contradicted himself plenty of times. as well as every script attributed to him in the bible isn't actually his. but added .

Jesus consistently contradicts himself concerning his Godly status. "I and my father are one." (John 14:28) Also see Philippians 2:5-6 Those verses lead us to believe that he is a part of the trinity and equal to his father being a manifestation of him. Yet, Jesus also made many statements that deny he is the perfect men, much less God incarnate. Take the following for example: "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17). "My father if greater then I." (John 14:28) Also see Matthew 24:26 Clearly, Jesus is denouncing the possibility of him being the Messiah in those three verses.

now you can tell me how does the context differ so that Jesus wouldn't seem to contradict himself ?

[IrishAidan07]

And about the Matthew thing.

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

The problem is, many people understand that this Chapter is speaking about later day occurrences, and so they are puzzled as to how the term generation fits the context. But something that is not well known by the average Christian is that there are several ways that this Greek word generation [genea] is used in scripture. First of all it is from the root word [genos] meaning kindred, and in conjunction with that it is used three ways in scripture.

1. It can be used to denote a physical family generation.

2. It can be used to denote the spiritual family or generation of evil.

3. And it can be used to denote the spiritual family or generation of Christ.

These are three very distinct and Biblically justifiable applications of this word. The word generation is unambiguously used in the Bible in all three contexts, so that even Preterits will not deny this fact.

Another point worthy of note is that scripture has always dated itself by Patriarch or founding father figures. Even to this day we date this way (probably without even giving it much thought). Whenever someone says that, "this is the year 1999," they are dating (though not accurately) by our Patriarch reference, Christ. In other words, we are saying that we are living 1,999 years after the birth of Christ (AD, anno domini, or the year of our Lord). He is the Patriarch reference by which most of the civilized world dates today. This is a biblical and historical practice that dates back to the beginning, and is explained in depth in my paper on the "The Biblical Timeline of Creation." The point here being, the year we use is really a Patriarch Family or genealogical reference.

To start with, the word translated "generation" in the New Testament is [gennema], [genos] or [genea], the root of all refer to a family or kin. By extension or by implication it can also mean a period of a family line, or even a Patriarch's offspring. For example, if someone declared that something occurred in the 4th generation, they would be telling us that it happened in the family period of the 4th born child. So it would be illustrating a "particular family relationship" removed by three from the Patriarch reference. Understanding this principle, we can see how God uses the word generation in scripture to signify not only the family of God, but the family of His adversary Satan, as well. These are of two distinct seeds, even as God spoke of them in the garden as having enmity. And this is very easily proven. Children of God, and children of the devil are two diverse and distinct generations or families from those two seeds. The family of God extends all the way back to Abel. Likewise, the family of Satan extends all the way back to Cain. Clearly, the way God uses the term "the Generation of evil" in scripture, makes it synonymous with the children (or family) of the Devil. It does not and cannot refer to an immediate family group only. It refers to all those, throughout time, who are in that generation by patriarchal relationship. Just as the children of God refer to the whole family of God, which is "a chosen generation" that has existed throughout time. It's not just people who happen to be living at the time in which something was written.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/generation.shtml

Don't you atheists hate it when you realize that your every justification for flouting the Christian faith is complete and utter bull ****?

[Agent. Mulder]

And about the Matthew thing.

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled."

The problem is, many people understand that this Chapter is speaking about later day occurrences, and so they are puzzled as to how the term generation fits the context. But something that is not well known by the average Christian is that there are several ways that this Greek word generation [genea] is used in scripture. First of all it is from the root word [genos] meaning kindred, and in conjunction with that it is used three ways in scripture.

1. It can be used to denote a physical family generation.

2. It can be used to denote the spiritual family or generation of evil.

3. And it can be used to denote the spiritual family or generation of Christ.

These are three very distinct and Biblically justifiable applications of this word. The word generation is unambiguously used in the Bible in all three contexts, so that even Preterits will not deny this fact.

Another point worthy of note is that scripture has always dated itself by Patriarch or founding father figures. Even to this day we date this way (probably without even giving it much thought). Whenever someone says that, "this is the year 1999," they are dating (though not accurately) by our Patriarch reference, Christ. In other words, we are saying that we are living 1,999 years after the birth of Christ (AD, anno domini, or the year of our Lord). He is the Patriarch reference by which most of the civilized world dates today. This is a biblical and historical practice that dates back to the beginning, and is explained in depth in my paper on the "The Biblical Timeline of Creation." The point here being, the year we use is really a Patriarch Family or genealogical reference.

To start with, the word translated "generation" in the New Testament is [gennema], [genos] or [genea], the root of all refer to a family or kin. By extension or by implication it can also mean a period of a family line, or even a Patriarch's offspring. For example, if someone declared that something occurred in the 4th generation, they would be telling us that it happened in the family period of the 4th born child. So it would be illustrating a "particular family relationship" removed by three from the Patriarch reference. Understanding this principle, we can see how God uses the word generation in scripture to signify not only the family of God, but the family of His adversary Satan, as well. These are of two distinct seeds, even as God spoke of them in the garden as having enmity. And this is very easily proven. Children of God, and children of the devil are two diverse and distinct generations or families from those two seeds. The family of God extends all the way back to Abel. Likewise, the family of Satan extends all the way back to Cain. Clearly, the way God uses the term "the Generation of evil" in scripture, makes it synonymous with the children (or family) of the Devil. It does not and cannot refer to an immediate family group only. It refers to all those, throughout time, who are in that generation by patriarchal relationship. Just as the children of God refer to the whole family of God, which is "a chosen generation" that has existed throughout time. It's not just people who happen to be living at the time in which something was written.

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/faq/generation.shtml

Don't you atheists hate it when you realize that your every justification for flouting the Christian faith is complete and utter bull ****?

well, for one, im not an athiest.

and two, i couldnt tell you if they get mad. seeing as no one here has provided anything to back thier claims up, or refute the contradictions, incosistencies or absurdities we find in the bible now.

if anything, you Strengthen the argument Against the bible, when you talk about the different words and translation problems people have had. so Thanks!

its late here. Peace.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Agent. Mulder

[Lt_Ripley]

To start with, the word translated "generation" in the New Testament is [gennema], [genos] or [genea], the root of all refer to a family or kin.

I didn't read it all - will later . suffice to say that that is greek .... where is the Aramaic ? when in greek you don't have the root . you can't even really claim it was ever used.

it's only now that translation has really stepped up. while most of it is fine ........ some isn't. no doubt what has been 'learned ' via the bible needs to be scrutinized.

as well as it's a collection of stories written around and for another culture given to thinking donkeys talked.

Edited January 9, 2009 by Lt_Ripley

[IrishAidan07]

one .... I'm not an atheist.

That's good to know. You clearly aren't a Christian.

two .... jesus of course contradicted himself plenty of times. as well as every script attributed to him in the bible isn't actually his. but added

No, He didn't.

Jesus consistently contradicts himself concerning his Godly status. "I and my father are one." (John 14:28) Also see Philippians 2:5-6 Those verses lead us to believe that he is a part of the trinity and equal to his father being a manifestation of him. Yet, Jesus also made many statements that deny he is the perfect men, much less God incarnate. Take the following for example: "Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God" (Matthew 19:17). "My father if greater then I." (John 14:28) Also see Matthew 24:26 Clearly, Jesus is denouncing the possibility of him being the Messiah in those three verses.

now you can tell me how does the context differ so that Jesus wouldn't seem to contradict himself ?

In the Matthew bit you posted, the New International Version translation is such: "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."

He didn't say He wasn't the Messiah. In the John bit, yet again you fall victim to p*** poor translation.

Perhaps more than any other, this verse has been quoted by non-Trinitarians as proof that Jesus could not be true God. In the view of those denying the Trinity, if the Father is "greater" than Jesus, Jesus must be teaching that He is ontologically inferior to the Father. A careful consideration of this verse in context, however, reveals that such a view in untenable.

As Jesus approaches the Cross, He begins to speak more plainly about leaving His disciples and returning to His Father. When the disciples display a self-centered - though natural - response, Jesus reproves them: "If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father." But why should they rejoice when Jesus goes to His Father? Is it because Jesus will be happier there? Or because He will be past His suffering on the Cross? These would be answers we might give a loved one who, upon hearing that we had a terminal illness, cried out, "But what will I do without you?" What we would certainly not say in such a circumstance is: "Rejoice for me that I'm going to God, because God is a superior being than I am." Such a remark would provide little comfort (since obviously God is superior to any created being) and instead would bespeak an intolerable hubris - as though we were so wonderful that our loved ones would actually confuse us for God Himself!. If Jesus' disciples understood Him to be a mere man, or a lesser divinity of some sort, as non-Trinitarians tell us, reprimanding them in this way would would seem almost a non-sequitor. "We know God is a greater being than you are, Master," the disciples could reasonably respond, "but why should we rejoice in such an obvious truth?"

The word translated "greater" (meizon) does not mean greater in the sense of a higher type of being, but rather greater in the sense of position or authority. This is the meaning cited by modern Greek lexicons, and is exampled by dozens of Biblical and extra-Biblical sources (see Grammatical Analysis, below)

. Jesus repeats the phrase,

"A servant is not greater than his Master," twice in this same discourse (John 13:16; 15:20).

The same Greek word (meizon) occurs in each of these verses. No one would suggest that a servant is a lesser being than his Master. A Master is "greater" than a servant because he occupies a position of greater status, dignity, and authority. If we let these other examples guide us, Jesus is saying that the Father is "greater" because the Father's position in Heaven is one of greater dignity and authority than the Son occupies on earth. This meaning, then, makes clear why the disciples should rejoice. The Son is returning to the right hand of the Father, to the glory He had with the Father before His existence on earth (John 17:5). He had voluntarily humbled Himself in coming to earth (Philippians 2:6), taking the form of a servant (doulos, the same word Jesus uses in John 13:16 and 15:20). Now Jesus was returning to the Father to regain His former glory, where He could accomplish all the wonderful things promised to the disciples in His final discourse. If the disciples had considered the import of Jesus' words, they would have realized the exaltation that awaited the Son, and would have rejoiced.

Thus, there is little contextual or lexical support for the idea that Jesus is teaching His ontological inferiority to the Father in this verse. He is speaking in the highest terms of the positional greatness of the Father - a position to which Jesus is soon to return, there to be an even greater blessing to the disciples and an assurance of their own paths to Heaven.

Ya folks just don't know what you're talking about. http://www.forananswer.org/John/Jn14_28.htm

Edited January 9, 2009 by IrishAidan07

[IrishAidan07]

well, for one, im not an athiest.

and two, i couldnt tell you if they get mad. seeing as no one here has provided anything to back thier claims up, or refute the contradictions, incosistencies or absurdities we find in the bible now.

if anything, you Strengthen the argument Against the bible, when you talk about the different words and translation problems people have had. so Thanks!

its late here. Peace.

I didn't read it all - will later . suffice to say that that is greek .... where is the Aramaic ? when in greek you don't have the root . you can't even really claim it was ever used.

it's only now that translation has really stepped up. while most of it is fine ........ some isn't. no doubt what has been 'learned ' via the bible needs to be scrutinized.

as well as it's a collection of stories written around and for another culture given to thinking donkeys talked.

I have studied the Bible, and I have a very devout Catholic living with me. My next door neighbor is a Baptist minster. I'm ready to debate and clear up these "inconsistencies" for you folks. I have already cleared up a few, and I'd be thrilled to clear up some more.

Want to debate the matter? Let's do it.

[momentarylapseofreason]

Ask any learned scholar. Read a bit. Jesus did not contradict himself.

http://www.tektonics.org/gk/jesuswitness.html

The old saying, "Atheists know the Bible better than believers" is poppycock. You cherry pick **** and then take it out of context.

Sad.

Tektonics huh ? Interesting

A fan of James Patrick Holding (who is now Robert Turkel) the self-proclaimed apologist I see ?

The name change was triggered by Turkel/Holding’s recognition that his previously published work was such a source of embarrassment, that adopting a new name was the logical way to disown it.

Edited January 9, 2009 by momentarylapseofreason