[flagged]
Would it be? It's my experience of HN that these things are all grouped as Abrahamic mythology. Cult is quite a charged word but I would be surprised to see it flagged in this environment.
My vague understanding is that the idea that Christianity was significantly derived from local mystery cults was once taken seriously, but it's completely fallen out of favor and everything new we've discovered about the mystery cults has made the connections ever more tenuous.
And by "failed" I mean it seems clear from Matthew 24:34 that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes (assuming that account is credible,) and such a belief is consistent with every other apocalyptic cult, Christian or otherwise. Like Seventh Day Adventists, Christians do keep kicking the can down the road, but just as the book of Revelations more likely refers to Nero Caesar and a belief at the time that he would return from the dead ("Nero Redivius[0]") than some future nuclear war where the "locusts" are really Apache helicopters[1], so Christian beliefs about the second coming should be assumed to apply their own cultural and temporal context, rather than some as yet unknown future millennia removed.
Obviously the cult as a whole has been very, very successful.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Redivivus
[1]I know people who believe this, and they'll claim it as evidence of the Bible's divine prophetic power.
In modern culture, it's often asserted the apocalypse has occurred any time someone doesn't get their way.
The verse where he tells his disciples that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” would seem to be at odds with that. A lot of Biblical canon is at odds with itself, the Bible doesn't have a singular coherent narrative. I'm just suggesting an interpretation which seems more likely than not.
Just look at history - almost every generation of Christians have believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes, or at least the near future. Why would only the first generation accept that, no, it would be some thousands of thousands of years in the future? That isn't the way these things tend to work.
I think thats close to a definition of insanity. Either move to the Aramaic, or Greek, or stop discussing the "literalism" of the words in question.
But fine. Since you brought it up, and since you bring up a fair point tell us your interpretation of the original Aramaic or Greek.
Because your reply presupposes the modern understanding is inherently sound because of an appeal to authority of the wisdom of times past. I would say instead by the time of the council of Nicea, things were already very political and the church was seeking to confirm words to suit the institution, not for their actual historical meaning. That was only 2-300 years after the record mind you.
There is quite the extensive record of first/second century apocalyptic literature, (some of it even became the NT). These preserve remarkably detailed pictures of what apocalyptic thinking looked like long before Nicea.
The main thing to say is the concept of apocalypse was much broader than today's. To your question, it did mean a revelation of relationship with god, and then it also meant an end-of-times sense, and it also was political commentary, and it was also a conspiracy theory, etc. People did not distinguish between which modern, narrower concept they meant, because they actually meant the broad concept.
I don't even know what to say. For the first thousand years or so, they didn't even teach their own scriptures to so-called Christians. They conducted mass in a language most didn't speak. Even now, the Vatican squirrels away who knows what down in some vault.
Yeh, in many places today it's not a mystery cult, if you ignore its origin, its history (and recent history at that), and nearly every other detail of consequence.
Christians have a wide range of views on eschatology, but the mainstream position for a while has been amillennial, which are not the people who get freaked out about locusts and red cows and whatnot.
The way it came to be interpreted by the church is not necessarily the way it was meant to be interpreted by first generation Christians, so its presence in canon isn't evidence of any particular intent on the part of the author.
See also the additional New Testament citations I compiled in "Is Jesus Coming Again? The Predictors' Track Record Doesn't Inspire Confidence" [0]
(Some of the comments there are mildly amusing.)
[0] https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/10/is_jesus_coming... (2005; self-cite)
Indeed. They believe and that's that -- there's zero proof that would change their minds. I'm a non believer but would be willing to change my mind if there was compelling evidence.
Hitchen’s tried to hold this position by regurgitatation decade old counter arguments publicly and all he got attributed to him at the end was “hitch-slaps”.
Ah, there's the rub. What I want to "believe" is whatever truth shall be revealed to me. It's not like I want to not believe in God, I simply haven't been presented with compelling evidence to lead me there.
And as for other's, they should be able to believe whatever they want (but there's a catch). My only concern for what others believe is how that translates into real world outcomes. A prime example of this is that the current US Administration is Christian Nationalist and want to pass laws on their interpretation of scripture -- then that become mine and everybody else's business.
What most people seem to mean by this is, “If God himself came down in a column of fire, then I’d believe.”
Most folks can’t be bothered to actually dig into the real, ample evidence that exists. You like philosophical arguments? There’s philosophical arguments for it. You like astronomical or geologic arguments? There’s that too. Logic? Check.
There’s so much evidence for Christ, it’s basically the only logically consistent worldview. I know I’ll get downvoted to hell for saying that (heh) but it’s true. There is not another logically consistent worldview beyond Christianity.
Secondly, I'd like to know what you think is not logically consistent with atheism/evolution.
Free Will as described in the Bible fully explains why and how a good, omnipotent God could allow evil. Perfect beings making imperfect choices isn't a contradiction, it's the very essence of free will. God valued authentic relationship over robotic obedience. Natural evils entered as consequences of this freedom exercised poorly, not as part of the original design.
Christianity doesn't just acknowledge this tension - it provides the complete framework to understand it: creation, fall, and redemption.
I’ll also go ahead and acknowledge that just because a being that exists outside of space and time knows something will happen, doesn’t CAUSE it to happen. So while our minds may not like the fact that God knew it would happen, it doesn’t mean he caused it to happen.
You wouldn’t forgo the joy and wonder of having a child simply because you knew one day they might scrape their knee.
By the way, a sincere thank you for engaging instead of downvoting out of disagreement. We need more of that!
Either perfect beings, including God, are capable of imperfect actions/decisions on some random whim, or they are not.
If they are, then the definition of perfection is meaningless.
If they are not, then God's creations were imperfect, which suggests that God also is imperfect.
> I’ll also go ahead and acknowledge that just because a being that exists outside of space and time knows something will happen, doesn’t CAUSE it to happen.
You're implying that an entity that has perfect foresight of the consequences of its actions is not responsible for those consequences.
I disagree.
> God valued authentic relationship over robotic obedience.
Robotic obedience is the only theoretical option for a relationship with a timeless entity who created the universe.
If God knows the outcomes of all universal starting conditions, then no outcome is less pre-determined than any other outcome.
> You wouldn’t forgo the joy and wonder of having a child simply because you knew one day they might scrape their knee.
Actually, I'm child-free because I don't think that the additional joy & wonder I might gain from raising a child would be worth the pain that they may experience or cause.
Also, you're welcome. ^^
As for disproving God, this addresses that better than I can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot
I am not an atheist because that's my identity or belief, it's just the absence of belief. There are countless Gods amongst many religions -- do you believe in them? No? Well, then I simply believe in one less God than you do.
In the US, more people believe in angels than in evolution. I'd wager that the latter part is due to the former. I'm not a scientist but the theory of evolution is very simple and there's ample real world evidence to back it up. Where are all the angels these days?
Plenty of people cared then:
> 12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died[e] in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
* https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians...
And plenty of people care now:
This was directly addressed in 2 John 7
"I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world."