3 ms·

Christianity isn't a mystery cult.There isn't really a hierarchy keeping secret rituals and knowledge from the masses or acolytes. At best it's a failed apocaly

by krapp 2y ago

Christianity isn't a mystery cult.There isn't really a hierarchy keeping secret rituals and knowledge from the masses or acolytes. At best it's a failed apocalypse cult. 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 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.

Boogie_Man 2y ago
The section of Mathew is understood by mainstream Christianity as a "double prophecy" concerning both the destruction of the second temple and the eventual second coming of Christ. I can understand someone seeing this as moving goalposts until I consider that it could've been quietly deleted to avoid embarrassment if it wasn't intended this way. 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.
- krapp 2y ago
  >I can understand someone seeing this as moving goalposts until I consider that it could've been quietly deleted to avoid embarrassment if it wasn't intended this way. 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.
  - Boogie_Man 2y ago
    I may be misunderstanding, but they were adding bits to support the doctrine of the Trinity quite a bit after the first generation of Christians had passed away.
selfhoster 2y ago
Agree with the first part of your comment but "that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes" is at odds with Jesus's teachings where he said he does not even know when God will choose to bring the apocalypse. In modern culture, it's often asserted the apocalypse has occurred any time someone doesn't get their way.
- krapp 2y ago
  >"that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes" is at odds with Jesus's teachings where he said he does not even know when God will choose to bring the apocalypse. 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.
  - ggm 2y ago
    Forgive me hanging a view in a detailed conversation but you're discussing the english translation post James of a work written after his lifetime in any other language than English, assuming literalisms in the metaphorical quality of a transcription of a transcription. 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.
    - krapp 2y ago
      I never used the word "literalism." I refer to the English translation because I am an English speaker having a conversation in English with other English speakers, and the English translation of the Bible is the one commonly understood in the context of this conversation. I have no reason to assume that any English translation of the Bible diverges so wildly from the original sources, given the efforts put into Biblical scholarship, that to even use it in casual conversation could be considered insanity. 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.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
>Christianity isn't a mystery cult.There isn't really a hierarchy keeping secret rituals and knowledge from the masses or acolytes. 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.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
dctoedt 2y ago
> failed apocalypse cult 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.html https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/10/is_jesus_coming... (2005; self-cite)

by krapp 2y ago

Boogie_Man 2y ago

The section of Mathew is understood by mainstream Christianity as a "double prophecy" concerning both the destruction of the second temple and the eventual second coming of Christ. I can understand someone seeing this as moving goalposts until I consider that it could've been quietly deleted to avoid embarrassment if it wasn't intended this way. 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.

krapp 2y ago
>I can understand someone seeing this as moving goalposts until I consider that it could've been quietly deleted to avoid embarrassment if it wasn't intended this way. 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.
- Boogie_Man 2y ago
  I may be misunderstanding, but they were adding bits to support the doctrine of the Trinity quite a bit after the first generation of Christians had passed away.

selfhoster 2y ago

Agree with the first part of your comment but "that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes" is at odds with Jesus's teachings where he said he does not even know when God will choose to bring the apocalypse. In modern culture, it's often asserted the apocalypse has occurred any time someone doesn't get their way.

krapp 2y ago
>"that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes" is at odds with Jesus's teachings where he said he does not even know when God will choose to bring the apocalypse. 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.
- ggm 2y ago
  Forgive me hanging a view in a detailed conversation but you're discussing the english translation post James of a work written after his lifetime in any other language than English, assuming literalisms in the metaphorical quality of a transcription of a transcription. 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.
  - krapp 2y ago
    I never used the word "literalism." I refer to the English translation because I am an English speaker having a conversation in English with other English speakers, and the English translation of the Bible is the one commonly understood in the context of this conversation. I have no reason to assume that any English translation of the Bible diverges so wildly from the original sources, given the efforts put into Biblical scholarship, that to even use it in casual conversation could be considered insanity. 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.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

>Christianity isn't a mystery cult.There isn't really a hierarchy keeping secret rituals and knowledge from the masses or acolytes. 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.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

dctoedt 2y ago

> failed apocalypse cult 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.html https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/10/is_jesus_coming... (2005; self-cite)