Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Are the Majority of People Saved?

It’s the position of other scholars.

You can lead a horse to water.....

Well, ok ... but there a number of bible scholars that would note that the historical events surrounding 70 AD are indeed quite congruent with Matthew 24.

But, eschatology seems to be a complex subject. I myself have not come to satisfactory explanations to many of my questions.

a_s,

I’m just curious. Did you attend Seminary School or are you self learned in Theology?

You’re the only one, that I know of, who will wade neck deep into the Christianity threads and provide a countering argument to the conversation.

Again, I’m just curious about how you came by the word of God.

🦫

Jesus did say that “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened” regarding the Olivet Discourse in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Many believe that means it all had to take place in the first century. Many believe that all future Bible prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem…and the complete and utter destruction of the Jewish Temple and Ancient Judaism…in 70 AD.

Historical events are one thing, the description of the event - power, glory, for all the tribes on earth to see, judgement of man, and its promised timeframe - within the lifetime of those present, is another.

I don't think you read the info in the link.

Also, you don't understand "poetry... nor allegory ...nor hyperbole...."

Here is a quote attributed to Martin Luther:

"The difficult parts of Scripture are the peripheral issues, while the primary parts are crystal clear."

But as been said..... "some can't see beyond their own opinion" .... and ...."you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think."



And of course you are correct... there are well respected scholars that hold to the earlier date for the writing.



https://www.equip.org/bible_answers...-the-destruction-of-the-temple-in-ad-70/

I understand allegory, metaphor, poetry, hyperbole, etc.....what you fail to grasp is that Christians did not believe in hypobole or an allegorical or metaphorical interpretation of the return of Jesus in power and glory, but a literal event, which is what they fully expected and awaited.

Evening Beaver,

I've primarily learned through self study, but do have a bit of formal education on the subject.

At 17 I joined the Army National Guard and did basic the summer between my Junior and senior year. In Basic the only reading materials allowed were the Soldiers Manual of Army Testing and Training (SMART Book) and religious works. It didn't take long to basically memorize the Smart Book, so I got a pocket sized copy of the New Testament and started reading that.

My freshman year of college I dated a nice Pentecostal girl and started attending church and Bible study with her. They lay instructors claimed to have all the proof regarding Biblical truths etc. As a new convert I thought this was great. I planned to learn all the indisputable proof for God so I could learn the best arguments to convert wayward souls.

The lay teacher claimed to have 100 proofs the Bible was true, with foot notes to independent sources. I was pretty excited about this, unfortunately, when presented with the "proof", it consisted of 100 circular references claiming "This part of the Bible is true, because it agrees with this other part of the Bible". From there their arguments quickly degenerated to "you just got to have faith", and "you don't want to go to hell".

Of course I didn't just give I. I figured, hey, these idiots can't produce the evidence, I'll just have to go find it myself, and started reading the Bible, from the beginning. I made it to Second Kings before I can to the inescapable conclusion there was no evidence, and even worse, the Christian God was an immoral prick who couldn't even measure up to the standard taught by my own father.

I figured there was more to the story then the common narrative. Years later I was introduced to the works of Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, beginning with their first book, Holy Blood Holy Grail. The popular series The Da Vinci Code is based on their work, but I'd concluded much of it was bunk, but these works introduced me to key idea such as the role of Constantine in the formation of the early Church and The early Church Councils, such as the Council of Nicaea and their role in shaping Christianity. History's always interested me, so this just opened up additional aspects of it to study. From here I started a deep dive into the origins of Christianity all the way to it's predecessor religions, following those to their origins, and each origin in it's turn, until I was all the was back to the oldest know archeological evidence of a ceremonial burial, which wasn't performed by humans, but Neanderthals about 100,000 years ago.

When I went back to school I took logic, comparative religion, philosophy, and an anthropology class which covered the science behind evolution, the relationships between humans and hominoids, and other species, how to tell the fossils apart, how DNA developed, etc.

Along the way I found Dawkins, Hitchens, Ehrman, and other authors, and now have a fairly decent library on the subject.

Once you've studied the evolution of religion, the births and deaths of religious beliefs, you begin to see how patterns found in Christianity and other modern religions rhyme with so many of the clearly made up dead religions of the past.

That depends on the sect of early Christians.
Perhaps the majority of Gnostics believed in a COMPLETELY allegorical and metaphoric Jesus, who only lived amongst the starts, who never visited this earth and was crucified and rose from the dead in one of the constellations of stars.

Depends on how you mean that. The main core of the old Hebrew books were probably put together over a period of at least 700 years. The Early Church was still arguing about what was in or out for another 500 years, so over 1,000 years of editing and adjusting, until the next round of edits 1000 years later during the reformation.

Interesting read.

Thank you, a-s !

🦫

Certainly looks like the result of committee actions and decisions, I mean "god inspired" committee.

They couldn't possibly have been inspired by their own self interest!

I like that. I can relate to it.

There were sects and splinter groups. I am referring to what we have by the writers of the gospels, and what they describe. What is written and described does not come across as allegory or metaphor, just what they believed would happen.

“Do not seek a wife. This is what I mean, brothers: the appointed time has grown very short. From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the present form of this world is passing away.” (1 Corinthians 7:27,29-31)

''Children, it is the last hour, and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come. Therefore we know that it is the last hour.” (1 John 2:18)


“…the coming of the Lord is near. …the Judge is standing right at the door.” (James 5:8, 9)

Does something get relabelled as allegory if it doesn't come true?

That seems to be the procedure.

What is the point for believers if bible stories are allegory, metaphor and poetry?

If the fall is metaphor, what need of Jesus as redeemer? What purpose is served by an allegorical blood sacrifice for metaphorical sin?

If it's 'just stories' poetry and symbolism, why build cathedrals, churches and places of worship? Why study or teach theology? Why have priests or pastors?

We’re livin’ in the New Covenant and that shapes my perspective on following Jesus, and on how I think about the Bible. I’m not tradin’ Jesus’ good news for a faith that’s so blended with old covenant theology that it’s almost non-recognizable as what He and His apostles taught. I don’t blame anybody for bailin’ on an imported version of the hypocritical and legalistic religion of the Pharisees and callin’ it Christianity.

I choose to focus on the event-based version of the faith, rather than on the text-based version. And it doesn’t undercut the Bible either; it just puts the weight on what’s weightiest. It’s more about perspective and approach than it is about theology. The foundation of the faith isn’t theology anyways; it’s an event in history. Paul said the faith was useless apart from that event; and I’d say the theology is useless as well. I’ll stand on the reality of the resurrection above all else.

Atheists attempt to take apart the text-based version of Christianity; but even Dawkins and Harris haven’t put a single dent in the core faith by pokin’ holes in the Old Testament or makin’ fun of the New Testament. And maybe the faith of some, or even many, doesn’t stand up to their barrage, not to mention a secular culture already sittin’ on the fence about Christianity. But maybe those who’ve been susceptible to their attacks had put their faith in something other than the core of Christianity.