Most here know that I tend to follow St. Augustines line of thinking in regards to the anti-Christ not being a literal figure, but a figure of speech referring to the anti-Christ that can be found in all man that can turn them away from God.
I also tend to think (radically, I know) that the 2nd coming of Christ occurred the moment He was resurrected. With Revelations being so cryptic, not to mention based on a supposed dream in which it was revealed, I tend to question the validity of it in that it seems to me that it is a great scare tactic the Catholic church could have used to maintain their power.
So, open for debate:
Is it possible that the 2nd coming of Christ has already occurred? Is there any validity to the thought that Christ will come again and usher in an apocalyptic event? What would be the point of the event, what is stood to gain at the end for mankind?
Has the 2nd coming of Christ already occurred?
Moderator: Moderators
Has the 2nd coming of Christ already occurred?
Post #1What we do for ourselves dies with us,
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
What we do for others and the world remains
and is immortal.
-Albert Pine
Never be bullied into silence.
Never allow yourself to be made a victim.
Accept no one persons definition of your life; define yourself.
-Harvey Fierstein
-
byofrcs
Post #22
That you for proving my point because you haven't looked very far have you ?. The contemporaneous notes of Evolution is inside of everyone of us and this is the genetic makeup and from that humanity can tell you where your ancestors came from.dunsapy wrote:You mean like evolution, there wasn't very many contemporaneous writers, around documenting that. It's more like witch doctors, digging up bones and shaking them around, doing a little dance, and coming up with some myths about them.This won't eliminate the fact that where it counts there are no contemporaneous records of the Bible (specifically the New Testament). It has all been documented after the events are alleged to have occurred conveniently dove-tailing with existing historical events but without any evidence of the supernatural.
Actually now that I think about it, this explains evolution pretty good.
The molecular clock can also show how we are related to other animals and from this a tree of life can be produced that goes back in time.
On the other hand if something is said then unless someone is around to hear it and write it down or record it then there is no evidence of it being said.
So Evolution has the evidence of what was done in everyone of us which is a continuous genetic record since the dawn of life so many billions of years ago whereas the Bible does not present any evidence of what was said in the most essential time period of when it was said but the Bible seems to have been created over a generation and more after the events.
That is the problem with establishing the 2nd coming.
-
cnorman18
Reminder
Post #23MODERATOR REMINDER
Please recall that this is the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.
Purpose of TD&D subforum
The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.
In this subforum, the reliability and authority of the Bible, including the New Testament, is not subject to debate. Arguments that call those assumptions into question are perfectly legitimate, but not here. They should be placed in another subforum.
Please recall that this is the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.
Purpose of TD&D subforum
The purpose of this subforum is to have a place to freely engage in debates on Christian theology with the basic assumption that the Bible can be used as a primary reference without the need to defend its authority. Responses to topics with "but first you have to prove that the Bible is true" is not allowed here.
In this subforum, the reliability and authority of the Bible, including the New Testament, is not subject to debate. Arguments that call those assumptions into question are perfectly legitimate, but not here. They should be placed in another subforum.
Post #24
The problem with that is, that in using DNA to create life, in all its great variety is that in this one method, by slight changes in the DNA can create all sorts of life. Some very similar to other life. Or built from one then changed slightly to create another. In this way, you would have completed animals that are similar, but no in between life. This is what the fossil record shows.That you for proving my point because you haven't looked very far have you ?. The contemporaneous notes of Evolution is inside of everyone of us and this is the genetic makeup and from that humanity can tell you where your ancestors came from.
The molecular clock can also show how we are related to other animals and from this a tree of life can be produced that goes back in time.
On the other hand if something is said then unless someone is around to hear it and write it down or record it then there is no evidence of it being said.
So Evolution has the evidence of what was done in everyone of us which is a continuous genetic record since the dawn of life so many billions of years ago whereas the Bible does not present any evidence of what was said in the most essential time period of when it was said but the Bible seems to have been created over a generation and more after the events.
That is the problem with establishing the 2nd coming.
For it to be evolution you would need to see millions upon millions of in between , deformed animals. Science would have to show that life could form on it's own, and then develop its own DNA with the completed instructions, to make a complete animal. And if science does this in a lab, that only shows creation, not that it could happen on it's own.
So the second coming is looking very important, at this point.
-
byofrcs
Post #25
No. Your understanding of Evolution is wrong. Your parents are not deformed versions of humans between you and your grandparents. You seem to be suggesting they should be.dunsapy wrote:The problem with that is, that in using DNA to create life, in all its great variety is that in this one method, by slight changes in the DNA can create all sorts of life. Some very similar to other life. Or built from one then changed slightly to create another. In this way, you would have completed animals that are similar, but no in between life. This is what the fossil record shows.That you for proving my point because you haven't looked very far have you ?. The contemporaneous notes of Evolution is inside of everyone of us and this is the genetic makeup and from that humanity can tell you where your ancestors came from.
The molecular clock can also show how we are related to other animals and from this a tree of life can be produced that goes back in time.
On the other hand if something is said then unless someone is around to hear it and write it down or record it then there is no evidence of it being said.
So Evolution has the evidence of what was done in everyone of us which is a continuous genetic record since the dawn of life so many billions of years ago whereas the Bible does not present any evidence of what was said in the most essential time period of when it was said but the Bible seems to have been created over a generation and more after the events.
That is the problem with establishing the 2nd coming.
For it to be evolution you would need to see millions upon millions of in between , deformed animals. Science would have to show that life could form on it's own, and then develop its own DNA with the completed instructions, to make a complete animal. And if science does this in a lab, that only shows creation, not that it could happen on it's own.
So the second coming is looking very important, at this point.
If your subjective view of Evolution is so wrong then how can you trust your subjective view of the second coming ?
More importantly; how can you verify what you know ? The forum rules here forbid verifying what we know with respect to the Bible in that it is assumed true but an assumption is not a verification.
All human interaction can be reduced to one phrase,
"Trust, but verify."
Byofrcs, 2008
As the mods have pointed out the Bible is deemed true and I have not questioning the canonical nature of the Bible - it is the interpretation that is placed on it by some that is in error. I've used the many worlds approach to the truth in the Bible.
The Forum rules do not specifically state that what is claimed as true is for all possible worlds. If it did then it would be absurd to think that the Bible is also True in the Star Trek universe as much as Star Trek is true in the Bible world.
So obviously then the Bible truth is restricted to that world in which the Bible is true which may not necessarily be this world and certainly not the Star Trek world. The mapping to reality is through objectivity and it is axiomatic that faith cannot be objective else it wouldn't be faith now would it ?.
So I like the absurd reasoning of the rule and hope it is kept in its silo of non-overlapping magisteria.
This leads us back to the forum rules forbid us to verify our trust in the Bible so we are left with blind faith.
So if we are simply weighing subjective views then my subjective view is as good as any view and I have faith that the question of "Has the 2nd coming of Christ already occurred?" can be answered as "No".
Followed by baaaa.
Post #26
Moderator Intervention
Firstly, the debate seems to be getting a little off topic. You may debate evolution in the theology forum if you wish and if the questions fit into the guidelines for the forum. However, this is not the thread.
Secondly.
Satirical comments on what the rules should be or whether they should or should not apply in alternate universes is not on topic. If you wish to discourse on what the rules should be in Star Trek Land or Lilliputia or wherever, I would suggest Random Rambling or another area of the site.
Firstly, the debate seems to be getting a little off topic. You may debate evolution in the theology forum if you wish and if the questions fit into the guidelines for the forum. However, this is not the thread.
Secondly.
If byofrcs does not wish to debate issues under the assumption the Bible is valid then he is free not to participate in this section of the forum. This forum is specifically designed so as to avoid debates getting side-tracked by accusations that the Bible is not valid or accurate, etc. Those issues CAN be raised in the Christianity and Apologetics forum.byofrcs wrote:No. Your understanding of Evolution is wrong. Your parents are not deformed versions of humans between you and your grandparents. You seem to be suggesting they should be.dunsapy wrote:The problem with that is, that in using DNA to create life, in all its great variety is that in this one method, by slight changes in the DNA can create all sorts of life. Some very similar to other life. Or built from one then changed slightly to create another. In this way, you would have completed animals that are similar, but no in between life. This is what the fossil record shows.That you for proving my point because you haven't looked very far have you ?. The contemporaneous notes of Evolution is inside of everyone of us and this is the genetic makeup and from that humanity can tell you where your ancestors came from.
The molecular clock can also show how we are related to other animals and from this a tree of life can be produced that goes back in time.
On the other hand if something is said then unless someone is around to hear it and write it down or record it then there is no evidence of it being said.
So Evolution has the evidence of what was done in everyone of us which is a continuous genetic record since the dawn of life so many billions of years ago whereas the Bible does not present any evidence of what was said in the most essential time period of when it was said but the Bible seems to have been created over a generation and more after the events.
That is the problem with establishing the 2nd coming.
For it to be evolution you would need to see millions upon millions of in between , deformed animals. Science would have to show that life could form on it's own, and then develop its own DNA with the completed instructions, to make a complete animal. And if science does this in a lab, that only shows creation, not that it could happen on it's own.
So the second coming is looking very important, at this point.
If your subjective view of Evolution is so wrong then how can you trust your subjective view of the second coming ?
More importantly; how can you verify what you know ? The forum rules here forbid verifying what we know with respect to the Bible in that it is assumed true but an assumption is not a verification.
All human interaction can be reduced to one phrase,
"Trust, but verify."
Byofrcs, 2008
As the mods have pointed out the Bible is deemed true and I have not questioning the canonical nature of the Bible - it is the interpretation that is placed on it by some that is in error. I've used the many worlds approach to the truth in the Bible.
The Forum rules do not specifically state that what is claimed as true is for all possible worlds. If it did then it would be absurd to think that the Bible is also True in the Star Trek universe as much as Star Trek is true in the Bible world.
So obviously then the Bible truth is restricted to that world in which the Bible is true which may not necessarily be this world and certainly not the Star Trek world. The mapping to reality is through objectivity and it is axiomatic that faith cannot be objective else it wouldn't be faith now would it ?.
So I like the absurd reasoning of the rule and hope it is kept in its silo of non-overlapping magisteria.
This leads us back to the forum rules forbid us to verify our trust in the Bible so we are left with blind faith.
So if we are simply weighing subjective views then my subjective view is as good as any view and I have faith that the question of "Has the 2nd coming of Christ already occurred?" can be answered as "No".
Followed by baaaa.
Satirical comments on what the rules should be or whether they should or should not apply in alternate universes is not on topic. If you wish to discourse on what the rules should be in Star Trek Land or Lilliputia or wherever, I would suggest Random Rambling or another area of the site.
" . . . the line separating good and evil passes, not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either, but right through every human heart . . . ." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Post #27
Thanks micatala, for that post.
I try to answer all questions even though, they are out of the rules of a forum.
I am much more interested in the meaning of the bible, here in this forum, than proving to some that the bible is God's word. I have done that in other subforums.
I try to answer all questions even though, they are out of the rules of a forum.
I am much more interested in the meaning of the bible, here in this forum, than proving to some that the bible is God's word. I have done that in other subforums.
-
InTheFlesh
- Guru
- Posts: 1478
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:54 pm
Re: Has the 2nd coming of Christ already occurred?
Post #28What do you mean by 2nd coming of Christ?Confused wrote:Most here know that I tend to follow St. Augustines line of thinking in regards to the anti-Christ not being a literal figure, but a figure of speech referring to the anti-Christ that can be found in all man that can turn them away from God.
I also tend to think (radically, I know) that the 2nd coming of Christ occurred the moment He was resurrected. With Revelations being so cryptic, not to mention based on a supposed dream in which it was revealed, I tend to question the validity of it in that it seems to me that it is a great scare tactic the Catholic church could have used to maintain their power.
So, open for debate:
Is it possible that the 2nd coming of Christ has already occurred? Is there any validity to the thought that Christ will come again and usher in an apocalyptic event? What would be the point of the event, what is stood to gain at the end for mankind?
Are you referring to a specific event
that you feel has already been fulfilled?
-
InTheFlesh
- Guru
- Posts: 1478
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 9:54 pm
Post #30
I'm thinking...dunsapy wrote:YesWhat do you mean by 2nd coming of Christ? Think
Are you referring to a specific event
that you feel has already been fulfilled?
And?
