OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Where's Jesus?

Entry 493, on 2007-03-13 at 14:52:20 (Rating 4, Religion)

Recently I have been involved in some quite involved discussions with some creationists regarding the relative merits of creationism, religion, and faith compared with evolution, science, and logic. One of the topics related to the rapture: the event some fundamentalist Christians believe will happen when Jesus will return to Earth and all true believers will ascend to heaven (or something along those lines anyway, the exact interpretation varies according to which part of the Bible you read, and what type of Christian you are).

I made the comment that people had been predicting the second coming of Christ ever since he allegedly was last on Earth (I say "allegedly" because I don't think there is good evidence that he even existed the first time, which really calls into question the idea of him appearing again!) The Christian I was debating with said no one knows when it will happen (how convenient) but I was sure there was somewhere in the Bible that did make a prediction. Here it is: Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Sounds like he was supposed to turn up before some of the people he was (allegedly) talking to died. Presumably this indicates a maximum of 100 CE. Seems that old JC is a bit late then!

This also reminded me of a rather amusing document I have had for many years which predicts the end of the world. Here are a few predictions from it...

AD 30, According to Matthew 16:28, Jesus himself predicted his second coming and the end of the world within the lifetime of his contemporaries.

AD 247, Christian prophets declare that the persecutions by the Romans are a sign of the impending return of Jesus.

AD 500, Roman theologian Sextus Julius Africanus (ca. 160-240) predicted the second coming of Jesus in the year 500. And the theologian Irenaeus predicted the second coming of Jesus in the year 500.

AD 800, Sextus Julius Africanus predicted the second coming of Jesus in the year 800.

AD 1533, Anabaptist prophet Melchior Hoffman predicted the end of the world in 1533. He also predicted that Jesus would reappear in Strasbourg, to save 144,000 people from the world's end.

AD 1583, Several astrologers and clergy cite a conjunction of Jupiter with Saturn as a sign that the second coming of Jesus will occur in London at noon on Apr 28, 1583.

AD 1992, Rapture, October 28, 1992, Jesus is coming in the Air. Full page add in the October 20, 1991, issue of USA Today, placed by followers of the Hyoo-go (Rapture) movement, a loose collection of Korean "end-times" sects.

AD 1998, Larry Wilson, a former Seventh-day Adventist pastor, predicted four massive global earthquakes beginning around 1994 and ending in 1998 with the Second Coming.

The thing about many religious people is that their faith, which they prize so highly, stops them from using their common sense to see that they have been deceived. Still, maybe I'm wrong, Jesus could turn up any day now... yeah right!

Comment 47 (846) by OJB on 2007-09-16 at 10:31:25: (view earlier comments)

In a social group it is beneficial to cooperate with other members of your group. It is to the individual's and group's advantage to share food, cooperate in hunting, and reduce conflict by having rules of behaviour. At the same time individuals naturally tend to do what's best for themselves and aggression is an advantage in a hunting lifestyle. So both self-centered and social behaviours exist.

Is this not clear and obvious? What we call "morality" arose from evolutionary pressures for cooperative behaviour when our ancestors started living in groups, especially after they settled in one spot and agriculture began.

Maybe you are confused because you have this rather naive idea that evolution requires "survival of the fittest". Darwin never used that phrase and no modern evolutionary biologist would either. The interactions between the individual, group, and environment are far more complex and subtle than that. Unfortunately creationists use it as part of their campaign of misinformation (is lies).

Another favourite lie is that evolution is random. Darwin didn't say that, and no biologist ever believed it, yet creationists keep on claiming it is a problem with the theory. If it was part of the theory it would be a problem, but natural selection definitely isn't random - its shaped by natural forces.

As far as Jesus returning is concerned. Here's how I see it. He lists all the bad things that will happen and then he says he will return, right? Then he says all of this will happen in the lifetime of those listening. Its fairly clear isn't it? Do you have an alternative explanation?

Comment 48 (927) by sbfl on 2007-10-15 at 04:50:20:

Man, that was a painful thread. I did well to hang in there till the end (albeit with skim reading). Anyway, OJB - I am disappointed you have taken such a literal view to a Bible passage - something you criticise the Christian fundamentalists for. You seem more obsessed with the initial appearance of a mistake and trying to challenge others to explain your initial interpretation... why don't you expend that effort trying to find out more about what it means?

I'm no expert on it but a quick Google search gave this good overview of interpretations: "Some view the entire text as referent to the end of time and believe Jesus simply was mistaken. Others believe it is speaking of his resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Holy Spirit. Still others believe the Transfiguration is the subject. Finally, some believe that Jesus was referring to his coming in judgment at the destruction of Jerusalem. Among amillennialists the traditional view holds that verse 27 speaks of the end of time while verse 28 speaks of the establishment of the kingdom on Pentecost."

Comment 49 (932) by OJB on 2007-10-15 at 10:12:28:

In a more recent blog entry I talked about how Christians require convoluted rationalisations to make the facts fit their beliefs. This is yet another example. I'm not saying that the rationalisations might not be true, but after a while you begin to suspect that they indicate a deeper problem inherent to the belief system itself.

For Christianity to be true there have to be hundreds of arbitrary, unsupported excuses made for why the facts don't fit and in any other area the theory would be thrown out. For example, the Steady State Universe can be made to fit the facts if several arbitrary assumptions are made, but we don't accept that because there is a better explanation. Its the same with Christianity: a pile of bizarre excuses could be true, but there's a better explanation: its all a myth.

Comment 50 (949) by sbfl on 2007-10-17 at 07:26:27:

Or perhaps you just don't understand, or more likely, you refuse to understand. Your current opinions are typical to 'face value' to a question. So why don't you do some research and try and find out. Even if you don't agree at the end, you may at least appreciate how others do.

Can you not see that because of you extreme anti-Christian bias that you actually refuse to explore the may questions man cannot answer. You keep falling back on the need for physical black and white evidence, which is not wrong in it self, but it restricts yourself to what can be absolutely proven to an idiot! I know you are cleverer than this, so at least make the effort to expand you mind (not by drugs) even if you do end up at the same point. I know you have not done this because in the post you referred to above you asked the question 'Why does God not heal amputees?". Oh dear.

Comment 51 (967) by OJB on 2007-10-17 at 15:32:58:

I cannot accept anything on faith and I don't think I should have to. That means I need evidence. I will accept many types of evidence: not just black and white, or physical, or 100% proven. What I won't accept is an assertion which conflicts with the evidence I do have already, unless it has even better evidence supporting it.

And I have researched the "facts" of Christianity quite thoroughly. That's why I feel confident in dismissing it as mythology. I know there is no good evidence to support most of the Christian stories. But there are areas where I am less certain, for example I think there is a fair chance the Jesus myths are based on the life of a real person.

As I keep telling you, just show me the evidence. It doesn't have to be physical, absolutely certain, or anything else, but it can't be just faith. Faith is a certain way to get the wrong answer, not the right one.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.