If Jesus is to Make Appearance

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,772
Australia
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days..."
Slight mistranslation. The fourth word shouldn't be "tribulation" but "tribbles". The coming of Jesus will occur after a plague of tribbles has beset mankind and cast him low into a state of desperation and cutesy furriness.
 
Nov 2016
1,040
Germany
I just want to point out that the description Jesus himself gave of his return was this:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
You ignore the sentence:

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

For many skeptics this is proof that Jesus (if historical) made a mistake with his apocalyptic prognosis, which makes his alleged sonship with God seem very questionable.

From an ethical point of view, the cruel fantasies in the apocalyptical passage stand in stark contradiction to the alleged message of the love of Jesus, who here (if historical) proves to be a preacher of hatred.

From a psychological perspective, a world view split into good and evil is shown, which goes back to early childhood traumas and has the typical sadistic-destructive components.
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
Both Christianity and Islam appear to be "book religions" that feature fictional stories, promulgated by the supreme victors of civil wars at the zenith of their military power.
False: making an assertion without the evidence to support the assertion and/or ignoring evidence that refutes an assertion: red flag for misleading or false argumentation.

There is zero evidence for the part of your assertion that they were "promulgated by the supreme victors of civil wars", at least in regard to Christianity, we are in no possession of any reliable evidence to support your assertions on this point.

I am not familiar enough with Islam to judge the veracity of your assertion in this regard.

Additionally, there is evidence of pre-Constantine biblical literature in regard to DP 24 as primary evidence that undercuts your assertions/theory. DP 24 continues to stand as solid archeological evidence. Per a scholar that you have referred to on occasion, Brent Nongbri, from his recently published book, God's Library, (RE: page 55 )about DP 24, aka P.Dura 10:

But we can say with confidence that this piece has a secure terminus ante quem of 256 CE.​
 
Last edited:
Nov 2016
1,040
Germany
Wasn't this written three or four generations after it was uttered?
This indeed seems to be another of numerous examples of illogicality in the Gospels, provided that by "this generation" is meant the contemporary generation of Jesus (if historical) and not a generation experiencing the events described in the future. But there is much to suggest that this expression actually means a contemporary generation. However, it is missing in some manuscripts of the Gospel of Matthew, from which one could conclude that his illogicality had been recognized by the copyists. The following sentence, 24:35, is also omitted in some manuscripts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Edratman

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
False: making an assertion without the evidence to support the assertion and/or ignoring evidence that refutes an assertion: red flag for misleading or false argumentation.

There is zero evidence for the part of your assertion that they were "promulgated by the supreme victors of civil wars", at least in regard to Christianity, we are in no possession of any reliable evidence to support your assertions on this point.

I am not familiar enough with Islam to judge the veracity of your assertion in this regard.

Additionally, there is evidence of pre-Constantine biblical literature in regard to DP 24 as primary evidence that undercuts your assertions/theory. DP 24 continues to stand as solid archeological evidence. Per a scholar that you have referred to on occasion, Brent Nongbri, from his recently published book, God's Library, (RE: page 55 )about DP 24, aka P.Dura 10:

But we can say with confidence that this piece has a secure terminus ante quem of 256 CE.​
CLARIFICATION: Based on promulgation as to intimate initiation or creation based on your thesis that Constantine created Christianity.

I would support your assertion if your position has changed to recognize Christianity as not being invented by the victor or if you are saying here that the victor is promulgating an already existing doctrine/religion/set of beliefs.

To be clear, if you are saying that Constantine took an already existing doctrine or existing religious material (re: Christianity) and used it for his purposes then I would agree with your assertion.
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
No early Aramaic or Hebrew fragments of the NT have been discovered. All this conjecture about an Aramaic Matthew is reliant upon the literature of the so-called early "Church Fathers" cited by various authors during the Christian Revolution of the 4th century. I am inclined to think that the writings of these "church fathers" are later forgeries.
Is there a variation from your earlier thesis ?

Your comments are ambiguous to me.

True, we have no Aramaic or Hebrew fragments --- but we do have early Greek frags.

Aramaic Matthew cited could be inventions since we have no evidence --- however we do have solid archeological evidence of Greek NT frags.

Church fathers may have been forgeries --- but we still have evidence of early, pre-Constantine Christianity.

Are you now acknowledging an earlier than 4th century Greek Matthew ? RE: Dura Parchment 24
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,309
And the same would go for the characters in the Quran and the Hebrew Bible. All these book religions were politically kick-started by the victors of civil wars - military commanders at the zenith of their military power.
Do you mean "kick-started" as in created or are you using it to mean using some religious material already in existence ?

Am I reading you correctly here ? I do not read "kick-started" as created, so, the victors, RE: Constantine, is using religious material already in existence.

The language you are using here has a different spin from that of your thesis.

Have you changed your position in regard to your thesis ?
 
Last edited:

holoow

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
3,842
Vilnius, Lithuania
A lot of posters here have made comments to the affect of 'How would we know it really is Jesus?' or 'How would this' Jesus' prove his credentials?' I just want to point out that the description Jesus himself gave of his return was this:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in grief, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

So when Jesus does return (talking from a Christian perspective here), there is not going to be any ambiguity about it. I'd be interested to hear how the people in that thread would react under this scenario, as opposed to the scenario that he will just come back as a man on earth.
'Stars will fall from heaven'. Where? On Earth? There are 100,000,000,000 stars only in our galaxy. Will they all fall from heaven on earth? What about stars in other galaxies?
 
Nov 2016
1,040
Germany
I would support your assertion if your position has changed to recognize Christianity as not being invented by the victor or if you are saying here that the victor is promulgating an already existing doctrine/religion/set of beliefs.
I think Jack refers to the generally accepted view that Constantine liberated Christianity, which had existed for centuries, from its illegitimacy and legally equated it with existing Roman religions. However, he neither made Christianity the sole state religion (this happened only after his death) nor was he himself a convinced Christian, for which at least in the sources there is no clue.

The expression "promulgate" may be misleading. What Constantine promulgated was the legal equality of Christianity with other religions. Whether one can also say that he "promulgated Christianity", I cannot judge as a non-native speaker. To my knowledge, it means "publically declare" or "make known to the public".

Stars will fall from heaven'. Where? On Earth? There are 100,000,000,000 stars only in our galaxy. Will they all fall from heaven on earth? What about stars in other galaxies?
The "stars" may - in this context - possibly mean angels living in heaven who have turned away from the Christian god, just as Satan is seen as a fallen angel.

Perhaps, however, it actually alludes to a cosmic catastrophe, as described in other ways in earlier ancient literature. But one should understand this here from the scientifically very limited point of view of that time, instead of applying modern standards. Christian apologists would in any case react to your reproach with their standard argument that Jesus is speaking in metaphors here to make himself understood by ordinary people.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Cepheus