/lit/ - Literature

Both Jehova’s Witnesses and the Mormon church have suffered multiple failed predictions of Christ’s return, although not within the original predicted timeframe. Both have rationalized that Christ actually did return when they claimed he would but “invisibly”, to usher in an unseen “spiritual revolution” around the world, very similar to the Preterist explanation save for the date.

Protestants/Baptists generally hold the view that Daniel's vision of the future satisfies the requirement that someone alive at Jesus' time "witness" his second coming, though like the wandering Jew, it's a passage that was selected for inclusion by the council of Nicea specifically to rectify Jesus' failed prediction.

A variety of apologetics exist that attempt to resolve the failed prediction, one common apologetic being that "This generation" did not refer to the people who were alive at the time but rather some future generation that Christ refers to when he says "when you see all these things". This would be a potentially satisfactory resolution too, if not for the other verse which clearly says "Some of you STANDING HERE". Additionally, cries for context don’t resolve the problem, as the verses preceding Matt. 24:33–34 have Jesus describing to his apostles what signs they personally can expect to witness that indicate his return is close at hand.

Another popular apologetic holds that when Christ says “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” he refers to the transfiguration, which happens shortly thereafter. But this doesn’t work either, as the verse immediately preceding that says “27For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.” None of this occurred at the transfiguration, but it is an accurate description of the second coming, making it plainly obvious which event he was referring to.

Honest assessment of these verses has in some cases compelled even committed and famous Christian theologians like the beloved C.S. Lewis to admit that Christ was simply mistaken in his prediction, rather than scrambling to rationalize it:

“…he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.”
—C. S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1973), 98.

To understand why this hasn't destroyed popular belief in the Christian religion, look at the aftermath of every other similar failed prediction. There are still many who believe Harold Camping was “spiritually correct”, if not literally so. The Jehova's Witnesses survived countless failed predictions since the 1800s and never concluded that their religion was wrong, only that they had misinterpreted scriptural clues each time but would eventually get it right (or that in some cases Christ had in fact returned, but invisibly, fulfilling scripture in an unseen “spiritual” fashion). Generally speaking, as explored in the book "When Prophesy Fails", these failures seem to actually strengthen belief as they compel believers to aggressively convert as many around them as possible. being surrounded by others who share their beliefs restores the sense of normalcy and credibility of their religion, by majority, and counteracts the feelings of insecurity that follow a failed prediction.

From the 1956 sociological study "When Prophesy Fails":

"Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance can account for the psychological consequences of disconfirmed expectations. One of the first published cases of dissonance was reported in the book, When Prophecy Fails (Festinger et al. 1956). Festinger and his associates read an interesting item in their local newspaper headlined "Prophecy from planet Clarion call to city: flee that flood." A housewife from Chicago (changed to "Michigan" in the book), given the name "Marian Keech" (real name: Dorothy Martin (1900–1992), later known as Sister Thedra), had mysteriously been given messages in her house in the form of "automatic writing" from alien beings on the planet Clarion.

These messages revealed that the world would end in a great flood before dawn on December 21, 1954. Mrs. Keech had previously been involved with L. Ron Hubbard's Dianetics movement, and her cult incorporated ideas from what was to become Scientology. The group of believers, headed by Keech, had taken strong behavioral steps to indicate their degree of commitment to the belief. They had left jobs, college, and spouses, and had given away money and possessions to prepare for their departure on the flying saucer, which was to rescue the group of true believers.

The group evolves a belief system—provided by the automatic writing from the planet Clarion—to explain the details of the cataclysm, the reason for its occurrence, and the manner in which the group would be saved from the disaster.

December 20. The group expects a visitor from outer space to call upon them at midnight and to escort them to a waiting spacecraft. As instructed, the group goes to great lengths to remove all metallic items from their persons. As midnight approaches, zippers, bra straps, and other objects are discarded. The group waits.
12:05 A.M., December 21. No visitor. Someone in the group notices that another clock in the room shows 11:55. The group agrees that it is not yet midnight.
12:10 A.M. The second clock strikes midnight. Still no visitor. The group sits in stunned silence. The cataclysm itself is no more than seven hours away.
4:00 A.M. The group has been sitting in stunned silence. A few attempts at finding explanations have failed. Keech begins to cry.

4:45 A.M. Another message by automatic writing is sent to Keech. It states, in effect, that the God of Earth has decided to spare the planet from destruction. The cataclysm has been called off: "The little group, sitting all night long, had spread so much light that God had saved the world from destruction."

Afternoon, December 21. Newspapers are called; interviews are sought. In a reversal of its previous distaste for publicity, the group begins an urgent campaign to spread its message to as broad an audience as possible.

Festinger stated that five conditions must be present, if someone is to become a more fervent believer after a failure or disconfirmation:

A belief must be held with deep conviction and it must have some relevance to action, that is, to what the believer does or how he behaves.

The person holding the belief must have committed himself to it; that is, for the sake of his belief, he must have taken some important action that is difficult to undo. In general, the more important such actions are, and the more difficult they are to undo, the greater is the individual's commitment to the belief.

The belief must be sufficiently specific and sufficiently concerned with the real world so that events may unequivocally refute the belief.
Such undeniable disconfirmatory evidence must occur and must be recognized by the individual holding the belief.

The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence that has been specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, the belief may be maintained and the believers may attempt to proselytize or persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.

This phenomenon can potentially explain why the death of Jesus didn't herald the death of his cult, but rather greatly accelerated its growth. It’s also consistent with the reaction of every modern equivalent studied since, including the failed prediction by Michael Travesser’s “Lord Our Rightenousness Church” that the world would end in 2007. As seen in the documentary “The End of the World Cult”, when the day and hour arrive (and then pass) without the end of the world occurring as predicted, the church members emerge from their encampment dancing, skipping and jumping, singing religious songs and waving flashlights, chanting “Renewal!” Their explanation afterward was that Travesser had actually predicted a “spiritual” end of the world rather than a literal one, and that the date actually signified an invisible “spiritual” worldwide revolution. Essentially the same (very popular) rationalization employed by Jehova’s Witnesses, the Preterists and the Church of Latter Day Saints.

stop.

I can't be bothered to read all of it, but what I did read was quite bad.

I disputed the grade, wound up invited to speak about it with the principle and was accused of fabricating the C.S. Lewis quote, because "I am certain Lewis never would have said such a thing". After substantiating the quote I was offered the compromise of scrubbing the grade entirely such that the paper would neither count for or against my final grade in the class. Because I wasn't especially invested in any of it I took the offer.

To whom did you hand in this essay? I don't think it's a 'good essay' technically, but certainly not for the reason that it is 'narrowminded and deliberately provocative'. The content is more or less fine, although you don't develop an argument.

>>2775302

It was for a theology elective. I think they neither expected nor intended for anyone's essay to be "all of it's wrong and here's why". I half-expected this from the teacher but not the principle, although I have always had difficulty reading him.

>>2775311

Well there's the problem. You don't take a welding class and then go "Welding is dumb and pointless and here's why". Why even take a theology class if you're gonna write a paper like that? You don't belong there. If you can't contribute something to the topic, go elsewhere.

>>2775311
Well, my initial post was a reply to only the first two paragraphs, because I loaded the page some time ago. I like what you wrote, it makes sense, both your teacher and principal obviously need to go fuck themselves. Claiming you made up the quote and after you prove it, offering to treat the essay as if it never happened are even classically evasive in a way that has hilarious psychological resonances with the content of the essay (even if what you describe is a more specific form of self-delusion).

On a different note, I like how some of the argumentative strategies mirror those of Lacanians when confronted with biological, anthropological and psychological evidence that what Lacan said about the mirror stage is a crock of shit. Suddenly it is some figurative expression, or a metaphor, etc. pp., despite the fact that Lacan clearly claims that he is describing an actual ontogenetic moment in the development of the individual child...

>>2775320
Erm... no? He made an argument inside theology which makes sense. What he said does not invalidate theology in its totality or reject it in toto, but he takes a critical stance towards an interesting problem. Of course it is provocative, but if they can't handle that, they should just come clean and stop pretending there is some sort of scholarship involved, because they are clearly investing the majority of their intellectual energy into looking the other way while they tiptoe around problems they would rather not think about for the sake of their faith. Fuck that shit, that kind of behaviour shouldn't even be allowed in an institution of learning.

>>2775321

You can directly witness this happening in the documentary I referenced. "The End of the World Cult" is free to watch on Youtube. If you're at all interested in watching people undergoing these kinds of mental contortions as a passive observer, it makes for a fascinating watch.

>>2775325

The thing is, I am 90% sure my principle isn't religious. It's a mystery to me why he'd side with an offended religious teacher. He's exactly the kind of guy who would normally tell you to pursue the truth wherever it leads you.

>>2775333

He's probably fucking her on the down low.

>>2775333
>pursue the truth wherever it leads you

You can do this in your own time. Academics are about writing something within the status quo according to the rules that still manages to be somewhat refreshing. Truth has nothing to do with it.

It does come as kind of a shock that C.S. Lewis would straight up admit that. I'd like to see the context of that quotation.

Erm, the essay was just all right. It's too lopsided in its points of argument: too vague in some places, too detailed in others. I also can't quite agree with the logic of the last two or three posts of the essay you made. You should read more essays, or write more of them. You need to work on your skills.

>>2775333

Because when you have to work with someone and interact with them on a daily basis, you're life is a lot easier if they like you. Also, the longer you've known someone, the more you tend to appreciate them. (Unless they're giant assholes that are just constantly reminding you why you dislike them.)

>>2775345
>you're
=
>your

I'd initially planned to write something else but changed tack after typing "you're", hence the mistake.

That's their inner sanctrum bro. You invaded it.

Theology elective is the compromise THEY accepted instead of getting to teach religion in science class. The assumption was religious students could take the elective and learn that kind of thing separately.

They don't want atheists in that class. It's not meant for you.

>>2775354

If the class is open to anyone, he did nothing wrong.

>>2775320
welding isn't about argument and persuasion. pick a relevant analogy. idiot.

>>2775299
>taking the compromise
>not turning this into a national debate

why.png

>>2775370

That never ends well. I've read articles about atheists who were shit on in the military because they objected to how the air force academy in particular has been turned into an evangelical conversion factory, and 100% of the time people in the comments say things like "We're not getting the whole story here, he's an atheist, he must have been being obnoxious and hateful and that's really why he was disciplined". No matter how overtly one sided it is and how obvious that the guy didn't do anything to deserve it, people fill in the gaps in their head according to their own prejudices, turning victim into villain.

Well, the Wandering Jew is FAR from 'Catholic Doctrine'! Further, the majority of theologians since about 300 AD point out that Matthew 16 is referring tot he Resurrection while Matthew 24 is referring to the conditions needed before Christ will return, not the actual return (as you, yourself, note, Christ was talking about portents). i.e, they are about different things. This is especially clear if you read them in Greek or even in the Latin.

I largely stopped reading after you claimed that the Wandering Jew is a Catholic Doctrine; that alone would cap anything at a C- for sheer inability to look up sources.

All these posts and not one person has corrected him on his misspelling of principal.

>>2775390

It is, though. The fact that not all Catholics take it seriously is of no more concern than the fact that most also don't believe in transubstantiation.

>>2775299
>>2775311
>complaining about a poor grade on an essay
>say you talked to the school's 'principle' about it
Really? Will you take it all the way to the governor at the capital?

>>2775390

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandering_Jew

>>2775403

You should know. You're me. You really expect anyone to believe there's more than one person in this thread?

>>2775402
>still claiming that the Wandering Jew is Catholic doctrine
This proves a few things to me
1) You don't know what dogma, doctrine, discipline, Tradition, pious legend, and tradition mean within the context of Catholicism
2) You can't be bothered to look up the concept in any of the many compilations of Catholic dogma and doctrine available
3) You can't figure out this 'google' thing.

Keeping in mind that I am a Catholic Systematic Theologian by training, want to try again?

>>2775415

Okay, I'll take that out. It doesn't seem to meaningfully undermine the core claims of the paper, though. Was that your intention?

>>2775400
see
>>2775403
>I was laughing when you posted

>>2775407
whatdoesthiseven.jpg

>>2775404
Nice link - did you bother to READ it? Or the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia?

>>2775423

Yes, and I made the corresponding corrections. It still appears to have been a popularly held Catholic belief. And it's one of many rationalizations for the failed prediction in question. If I'm understanding you correctly you're trying to get an inordinate amount of leverage out of whatever the disctinction between this and official(tm) doctrine is.

>>2775422
First, since you are talking about seeing your
principal
how old are you?
And since theology is an elective, what denomination is the school?
The main problem with the essay is that it actually doesn't deal with *theology*; your citations are muddled, your statements of theology are wrong and the main points of your essay aren't just muddled, they aren't *theological*. You refer to a single quote from a non-theologian, references to obscure cults and reference a book on a sociological study; there is ne reference to any theological works or any weight, any Church Fathers or any theologians. This is akin to being surprised that your sociology essay did poorly when you only reference an out of context quote from a humorist, make a rambling discourse on a hippie commune, and mention in passing a single book about theology.
In short; it is incoherent, disjointed, off-topic, and begins with factual errors. You should be glad it wasn't an F

>>2775432

>your statements of theology are wrong

How so? You make a lot of vague accusations (and insults) but never actually rebut the content.

ITT: married oldfag gets trolled to fuck because he's insecure in his faith.

>>2775428
Demonstrate that it was ever widespread - it wasn't until the 13th Century, even then largely as a metaphor for the Jewish Diaspora.
Also, since you are writing about theology the fact that 'Catholic doctrine' is, yes, actually a term with a very specific meaning that is clearly defined and easily researched is, yes, very relevant. Your defense of the elementary error is like hearing someone this in an essay on baseball;
> 'the strike zone is from the knees to the chin'
>'Actually, that isn't true'
>'you seem hung up on 'the rules' of baseball'
Yeah - that's the point.

Listen, I get it; you hoped to come to /lit/ and have some atheists pat you on the back and tell you that you got the poor grade because you are being downtrodden by the evil, nasty theists.
But the essay you posted is poor work and deserves a poor grade; deal with it.

>>2775439

But I made the recommended corrections, and none of that was brought up as reason for the grade.

I get that you're mad, but I'm still struggling to understand what case if any you've put forth that resolves the problems with Christ's prediction of a first century return.

>>2775432
No theologian is allowed is to discuss this so obviously he had to go outside theology.

>>2775433
>'I didn't read what married oldfag wrote'
FTFY
try;
- the Wandering Jew isn't Catholic Doctrine
- The first biblical passage is about one event, the second is about another event
- The second prediction isn't about the End Times but about the necessary events for the End Times to be possible

all in the first reply

>>2775436
keep dreaming

>>2775446
Provoked again. This is too easy.

>>2775443

>- the Wandering Jew isn't Catholic Doctrine

Third time, I have made the recommended correction. Repeat, I have made the recommended correction.

- The first biblical passage is about one event, the second is about another event

Not the case. This is one of the rationalizations mentioned in the paper and it's explained why the verse you're referring to did not refer to the transfiguration, but very clearly to the second coming.

>- The second prediction isn't about the End Times but about the necessary events for the End Times to be possible

This doesn't resolve the problem, because Jesus still specifies that some of those standing there listening to him would be around to see it.

>>2775443
>The second prediction isn't about the End Times but about the necessary events for the End Times to be possible

but it still says jesus will be return before his contemporaries die
> this generation will not pass away until all these things take place

Here are the sections of the paper which address your objections specifically:

"A variety of apologetics exist that attempt to resolve the failed prediction, one common apologetic being that "This generation" did not refer to the people who were alive at the time but rather some future generation that Christ refers to when he says "when you see all these things". This would be a potentially satisfactory resolution too, if not for the other verse which clearly says "Some of you STANDING HERE".


"Another popular apologetic holds that when Christ says “Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” he refers to the transfiguration, which happens shortly thereafter. But this doesn’t work either, as the verse immediately preceding that says “27For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.” None of this occurred at the transfiguration, but it is an accurate description of the second coming, making it plainly obvious which event he was referring to."

>>2775452

He doesnt even have to argue with you now you got the wandering jew thing wrong, that makes your whole argument disproved.

>>2775441
*sigh*
I'm not mad, kid, I am pointing out errors. Did you go to any source for analysis of the biblical passage such as, oh, Irenaeus, Aquinas, Anselm, or a more modern theologian to see what the last 2,000 of theology had to say about them? How about the Anchor Bible Dictionary? Did you remove teh extraneous references to obscure cults and focus only on hermeneutics or at least exegesis? Did you delete the reference to a sociological text that has nothing to do with actual theology?
You see, the essay that you posted here isn't a theology essay, it is an attempt to be an anti-theist tract, and a poor one. I mention the Wandering Jew bit because when an essay starts with a glaring factual error it is almost impossible to recover and you just go farther and farther afield.
Now a discussion of the theological differences in eschatology between various Protestant sects? Great topic! two or three cites and you are done! This? This is, like I said, at best a C- paper because it isn't about theology

>>2775454
The wandering jew thing wasn't the crux of the argument. Try again.

>>2775442
>mfw I did a paper on the topic of the prophecies of Matthew for a 400-level theology course and got a 4.0

>>2775455
Pointing out divergence from theological tradition is not refutation of any kind. Try again. In fact, just get out.

>>2775455

>Did you go to any source for analysis of the biblical passage such as, oh, Irenaeus, Aquinas, Anselm, or a more modern theologian

This Aquinas?

"St. Thomas Aquinas stated in his Summa Theologica, "Rain and winds, and whatsoever occurs by local impulse alone, can be caused by demons. It is a dogma of faith that the demons can produce winds, storms, and rain of fire from heaven."

>Did you remove teh extraneous references to obscure cults

I dispute that it's extraneous. It was an illustrative example concerning the reinforcing effect that failed predictions can have for peoples' religious beliefs. That's counterintuitive and worth explaining.

>I mention the Wandering Jew bit because when an essay starts with a glaring factual error it is almost impossible to recover and you just go farther and farther afield.

It doesn't work that way. A single factual error that isn't central to the argument cannot invalidate the entire thing.

>>2775458
>mentions something completely unrelated
it's clear you don't have a point to make


Also, only mad a hell people feel it necessary to convince the world they aren't mad.

married oldfag getting told. lol

>>2775449
Yes - around to see the events that must occur *before* the End Times, not the end times! You yourself mentioned this in the essay - and is clear if you read the entire section (available in multiple online venues, of course).
Further, the point I am getting to from my first reply on is this - the essay doesn't quote any theologians about the passages, just sorta' the essay's author.We have none of the full context, no reference tot he Greek or Latin texts, no discussion of the apologetics other than 'they are obviously wrong, trust me' dismissals.
In other words, poor exposition, refutation and support. Thus, a poor essay.
The real meat of this paper is NOT 'this weird cult did this and that' which is the majority of the actual paper - the meat SHOULD be about the passages the wrote essentially glosses over and the various apologetics he dismisses off page.

>>2775461

Nice try but it's too late. You were wrong about one thing and therefore you're wrong about everything. Internet debate rules.

>>2775466

>Yes - around to see the events that must occur *before* the End Times, not the end times! You yourself mentioned this in the essay - and is clear if you read the entire section (available in multiple online venues, of course).

Bullshit:

"27For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matt. 16:27–28)

It does not, as you can see, say that they will witness signs of his return. It says they will witness the return itself.

You are a liar.

>>2775466
>'they are obviously wrong, trust me' dismissals.

He doesn't do this though. That's just what you want to believe to console yourself. he actually points out why they don't work. Try again.

>>2775450
'these things' refers to the preconditions, as is obvious in context

Read Matthew 24 and the entire chapter is a discussion of how there will be war, the temple of Jerusalem will be destroyed, there will be false prophets, etc. and Christ says 'when these things come to pass you know that I [shall be ready to return]
THEN He says
>Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
'These things' are, obviously in the context of the entire chapter, the wars, famines, temple destruction, etc. that are 'pre-conditions', NOT the End Times. This is *very* obvious in the original Greek and still very obvious if you read the entire thing in English.

>>2775475

>'these things' refers to the preconditions, as is obvious in context

However, he does not as you claim say that they will live to witness those signs. He says explicitly in Matt. 16:27–28 that they will witness his return itself.

>"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom"

This says nothing about signs of his return. It's referring specifically to his return itself. And it says some of those standing there would live to witness it.

>>2775452
Dismissing them is not the same as refuting them; citations? Other theologians? References to the original language?
Again, this is, we are told, a paper about theology - the only theology in the paper in in the first few paragraphs, unsourced and unsupported and sprinkled with factual errors.
WHO makes the apologies? Where and WHEN are they 'popular'? WHICH authors made them? WHERE can a reader find them for themselves?
Essays are no place for unsupported assertions about the central point!

>>2775482

>Dismissing them is not the same as refuting them

I did refute them. In either case I explained specifically why the most common apologetics didn't work.

In your case, I refuted your claim that Jesus was only referring to the signs which must necessarily occur before his second coming and not his second coming itself by pointing out that in Matt. 16:27–28 he explicitly says he's talking about his return, and that some standing there would live to see it.

>WHO makes the apologies?

"Apologies"? Do you....do you know what religious apologetics is, as a field? You claim to be a theologian. Surely...?

>>2775482
>exclamation marks
>caps lock

You can tell he's not mad.

The OP isn't even qualified in theology and he's got you scraping for justifications to dismiss his point.

>>2775484

OP has a point, but if he's gonna go around saying stuff like this he needs to get his shit together because diehard theology buffs will tear you to shreds if you give them even the smallest foothold against you. It's how these beliefs stay alive for thousands of years despite obvious mistakes.

Gotta speak their language to make your case and be heard. That means biblical research and getting all your facts right, even the technically irrelevant ones.

>>2775461
Yeah, that Aquinas, who has a lovely essay on the passages you were writing about.
>I dispute that it's extraneous.'It isn't about theology, so it doesn't belong in an essay about theology. You start with an unsupported assertions and factual errors and then leave the field of theology completely for a discussion of sociology and psychology. If you were to actually have focused on theology....

>It doesn't work that way. A single factual error that isn't central to the argument...
Really? Says who, you? It is presented in the essay as if it supports the main contention - now it is 'extraneous'? If it is extraneous, why the heck is it in the essay? If it is extraneous, why was it presented as supporting the main contention?

>>2775465
>I didn't read the post this was in reply to
FTFY

>>2775489
I know, man. Everything in theology is built on arguments from authority. It all must go through the proper traditional channels or it can be dismissed without thought and if it doesn't come from a source with appropriate qualifications, it can be dismissed even faster regardless of content

>>2775469
I am referring to Matthew chapter 24
Your quote is from Matthew 16
You are discussing a different section of the Gospel of Matthew that is discussing a DIFFERENT TOPIC.
As i have been pointing out the ENTIRE THREAD the two passages that start the essay are largely unrelated. Matthew 16 IS discussing the End Times, Matthew 24 IS NOT discussing the End Times, but is rather prophecy about the tribulations coming within the decades immediately after the death of Christ.
This is commonly accepted and has been for 2 millenia.

>>2775490

>>2775473
By not referencing the actual apologetics and providing no context? hardly!

>>2775477
That is a very different passage talking in a different context about a different topic! Conflating them is a key error in the essay, as I have been saying.

>>2775490

>Yeah, that Aquinas, who has a lovely essay on the passages you were writing about.

Anything in particular which salvages the notion that Jesus was the son of god in spite of an objectively incorrect prediction concerning when his second coming would occur?

>Really? Says who, you? It is presented in the essay as if it supports the main contention - now it is 'extraneous'? If it is extraneous, why the heck is it in the essay? If it is extraneous, why was it presented as supporting the main contention?

I didn't use the word extraneous, you did. I listed it as one of several examples of rationalizations for the failed prediction. It's not necessary because it isn't the only example.

You still have yet to acknowledge that in Matt. 16:27–28, Jesus predicts his second coming (not signs of it as you claimed eariler but the second coming itself) will occur within the lifetimes of some of the people physically standing there, listening to him talk.

If this were some other religion you're not emotionally invested in you'd be agreeing and having a laugh about it. But because it's your own, you're undergoing absurd contortions to salvage the unsalvageable.

>>2775495
>Matthew 16 IS discussing the End Times

Oh well that's lucky because it's what OP's argument rests on.

Phew OP, that was close. I thought he had you there for a second.

>>2775481
once more, different chapter, different context, different topic.
This is one reason why OP's essay is poor - he conflates two unrelated passages, give no context, and coasts on assumptions.

>>2775500

>That is a very different passage talking in a different context about a different topic! Conflating them is a key error in the essay, as I have been saying.

Then let's focus on Matt. 16:27–28.

>"27For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

You have yet to account for this. Here, he very clearly specifies that his second coming (not signs of it but his second coming itself) will occur within the lifetimes of some of the people physically standing there, listening to him talk.

>>2775504
>different topic.

but you admitted it referes to the end times so clearly you agree that is is the same topic.

god, you're all over the place today

>>2775483
You keep referring to Mark 16 to support Mark 24 - reason enough for a cap of a C grade! Go read Mark 24 as a whole and see the recitation of wars, famine, destruction, etc. that Christ says 'will come to pass' while some of his listneres are still alive - it isn't about the end times, but about the destruction to come in the next few decades.
Matthew 16, however, is art of the declaration of Christ as the Messiah, the establishment of the Church, etc.
Very Different Discussion!

>>2775277
It's "The Revelation", not "Revelations". I would have failed you on that alone, you pretentious, cock gobbling faggot.

>>2775512

>You keep referring to Mark 16 to support Mark 24

No, as explained here >>2775505

>"Then let's focus on Matt. 16:27–28."

I am perfectly willing to let go of Mark 24 and focus on Mark 16. We agree it's referring to the end times. However it also specifies that some of the people standing before him listening to him speak would live to witness it.

>>2775515

You should be thanking him for helping you hone your argument.

>>2775483
a specific argument within the field of apologetics is called an....?

>>2775484
I am pointing out the key elements of critical writing that OP's essay misses. You know about who, what, when, etc., right? I mean, this is still /lit/, isn't it? You *do* know the elements of a critical essay, right?

>>2775502
You keep making that unsupported assertion....

>>2775503
Mark 24, though, *isn't* talking about the End Times, so using Mark 16 to support Mark 24 is incorrect.

>>2775509
Mark 16 refers to the End Times, Mark 24 does not.
I have repeated this several times
Try to keep up.

>>2775522
>Mark 16 refers to the End Times

Cool. So the point still stands.

>>2775515
Again, let's go back to the actual topic - the essay!
-It begins with two unrelated passages in "support" of each other.
- It goes on to a factual error presented as support to the main assertion
- There is no support of the assertion from theological sources
-Apologetics are mentioned and dismissed without citations or examples
-It stops talking about theology completely and wanders into sociology.

Sorry - its a poor essay.

back after Lunch

>>2775522

>a specific argument within the field of apologetics is called an....?

Apologetic.

>Mark 24, though, *isn't* talking about the End Times, so using Mark 16 to support Mark 24 is incorrect.
>Mark 16 refers to the End Times

Then acknowledge the failed prediction in Mark 16 already. He very clearly says that some standing there would live to see his second coming.

>>2775536

For fuck's sake, you're still harping on about things that don't refute the central point. And despite repeates requests to acknowledge and address the failed prediction in Mark 16, you haven't.

I'm beginning to suspect you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult.

>>2775536
Deviating from the topic of the essay to discuss structure and style of the essay. Classy response, compadre

>>2775539
Theology teaches you to dance around the difficult questions in order to preserve your preordained viewpoint. It's really the smartest of the sciences.

"27For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matt. 16:27–28)

Here, Jesus predicts that some physically standing before him as he speaks will live to witness his second coming.

THAT is the crux of the argument. It has yet to be addressed.

tfw married oldfag will be all riled up for his bacon sandwich now and will probably be all bitter towards his lovely wife who made it for him.

Because of you guys. That's not cool.

As I posted in this thread earlier, defending OP against his school, I would like to adjust my position: I had not (and still really don't) any idea what level of education this essay is a part of, is this highschool or what?

Also, my defense was more geared towards the fact that although the essay might deserve a low grade for being poorly written/researched/argued, the reasons OP quotes for his bad grade are a clear indicator of ideological reasons (what we in the business refer to as 'maximum butthurt').

Also, married oldfag might well cut this argument short by bringing his assertions of 'this becomes clear in the original language' to a logical conclusion by either offering a citation of verses 27/28 from a different translation which does not make the claims discussed by OP, or else settle on arguing that it is a mistranslation. That, however, is also an interesting theological topic in itself (as much of organized religion seems to be built on the firm bedrock of more or less intentional mistranslation; cf. women as priests...).

>>2775558

Private highschool. It's secular, the class is a religious elective.

>Also, married oldfag might well cut this argument short by bringing his assertions of 'this becomes clear in the original language' to a logical conclusion by either offering a citation of verses 27/28 from a different translation which does not make the claims discussed by OP, or else settle on arguing that it is a mistranslation.

If that we actually the case he'd have jumped on it by now.

The core points of this essay are not something new, the bible is chock full of passages that seem to divert. Many passages in ALL the gospels disagree with each other on chronology and a host of other issues.

In this particular case, you can certainly believe the bible specifically says Jesus is saying the end is nigh. However, it is equally valid given the general vagueness of the passages themselves, due to the original context, and issues with other gospels and passages when as they relate to that one.


Essentially it's an opinion. It's not a new 'controversy' if you call it that,

But as for the grade itself, the essay could use more work in a less hostile tone.


Now, here is what will REALLY drive them crazy: In the old testament, if a prophet makes a prediction and it fails, he should be killed. Likewise God says if a prediction doesn't come true; it's not really his prophet and instead is a false one.

C.S. Lewis said that Jesus made a mistake, however if he admitted so, then it should have invalidated the entire religion in his own eyes, given the EXPLICIT criteria for determining whether a prophet is real or not.

In fact, in some places, if the prophet really comes from God, he will MAKE the prophecy come true.

Don't have the verses handy atm, but they're there.

>>2775563

>In this particular case, you can certainly believe the bible specifically says Jesus is saying the end is nigh. However, it is equally valid given the general vagueness of the passages themselves, due to the original context, and issues with other gospels and passages when as they relate to that one.

What are you even saying here?

>the bible is chock full of passages that seem to divert. Many passages in ALL the gospels disagree with each other on chronology and a host of other issues.

Nonetheless it seems pretty straightforward in Mark 16:27-28. He says some of the people standing there would still be alive to see his second coming. There's not really any other way to interpret that.

>Essentially it's an opinion. It's not a new 'controversy' if you call it that

I never did. Not being new doesn't make it invalid.

>But as for the grade itself, the essay could use more work in a less hostile tone.

Wasn't intended to sound hostile. What about it sounded that way? What would soften it?

>>2775545
As much as I like an opportunity to piss off a Christian, I can't in all good conscience let this continue and believe me I drew it out for as long as I could.

Matt 16 deals with the ambiguous metaphor of Jesus 'coming into his kingdom' and it can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Commonly it is suggested as Jesus predicting his death, but may be prediction of his ascension or the establishment of the church, or even the second coming.

I have no idea how many of these things coincide with the lifetimes of contemporaries of Jesus but it is not true that it is explicitly refers to a prediction of the second coming (for which it would have, as you have correctly put it, failed and all the implications in your essay would apply).

The second coming could be the true meaning of the passage but personally I think it's more likely it refers to his ascension and/or death. I have no factual basis for this as is the case with anyone and of course it doesn't demonstrate that anything actually happened.

The fault of the essay lies conflation, in assuming Matt 24 deals with the second coming and then using this inherently ambiguous metaphor of 'coming', that is open to multiple interpretations, to corroborate that story

I did want to point out one more thing: the gospels are generally believed to have been written a generation or two later, sometimes much later depending on sources. I would put more credence behind the opinion that this was intended to mean "a people" rather than the original witnesses. An author would not write that the end of the world happened a century before they're actually penning a book. (Most peg the writing dates to mid 1-2 century.)

>>2775567

>Matt 16 deals with the ambiguous metaphor of Jesus 'coming into his kingdom' and it can be interpreted in a variety of ways

That's not all he said.

"For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done."

That is plainly a description of the second coming.

>but it is not true that it is explicitly refers to a prediction of the second coming

Yes, it is true. "For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done." This is a description of the second coming.

>The fault of the essay lies conflation

We know it's you, married oldfag. You might want to omit this phrase next time, it's common to several of your posts so far.

>>2775277
That's not deliberately provocative. THIS is deliberately provocative:

'In belief in what? In love with what? In hope for what?—There’s no doubt that these weak people—at some time or another they also want to be the strong people, some day their “kingdom” is to arrive—they call it simply “the kingdom of God,” as I mentioned. People are indeed so humble about everything! Only to experience that, one has to live a long time, beyond death—in fact, people must have an eternal life, so they can also win eternal recompense in the “kingdom of God” for that earthly life “in faith, in love, in hope.” Recompense for what? Recompense through what? . . . In my view, Dante was grossly in error when, with an ingenuity inspiring terror, he set that inscription over the gateway into his hell: “Eternal love also created me.” Over the gateway into the Christian paradise and its “eternal blessedness” it would, in any event, be more fitting to let the inscription stand “Eternal hate also created me”—provided it’s all right to set a truth over the gateway to a lie! For what is the bliss of that paradise? . . . Perhaps we might have guessed that already, but it is better for it to be expressly described for us by an authority we cannot underestimate in such matters, Thomas Aquinas, the great teacher and saint: “In the kingdom of heaven” he says as gently as a lamb, “the blessed will see the punishment of the damned, so that they will derive all the more pleasure from their heavenly bliss.” '

Right, Scare quotes aren't acceptable in an academic paper unless they are actual quotes from a source, for which you provide no citation. You also provide vague allusions to uncited sources, such as your unnamed apologetic and your passing comment on the numerological origins of the number of the Beast. Contractions are also somewhat looked down upon. Documentary and press sources are iffy, but probably acceptable.

All in all, the tone of your paper *is* deliberately provocative, especially given that A) you have a principal, meaning you are at the latest in high school and B) you have received a school assignment on a religious topic, indicating that it is institutionally religious. Narrowminded is harder to judge, but your paper does nothing at all to mitigate its obvious bias. That's no crime in a persuasive paper, but decent persuasive writing takes audience into account. This is good research, mostly acceptable form and terrible rhetoric. If I had been grading it and it had been in the context of a literature or writing course, especially one where the assignment was to write a persuasive essay, I would have given it a B. I don't consider those criteria (deliberate provocativeness and narrowmindedness) at all acceptable for judging academic work by, but perhaps you should take this as a lesson in understanding your audience.

>>2775571

> I would put more credence behind the opinion that this was intended to mean "a people" rather than the original witnesses.

No, it says "Some of you standing here".

>An author would not write that the end of the world happened a century before they're actually penning a book. (Most peg the writing dates to mid 1-2 century.)

That's right, except if you go looking for a source for that claim you'll find it wasn't a full century or even close. The portions in question were written following his death, but also within the plausible lifetimes of his apostles.

>>2775579

>Scare quotes aren't acceptable in an academic paper unless they are actual quotes from a source, for which you provide no citation.

But I did:

>"—C. S. Lewis, The World’s Last Night and Other Essays (New York: Harcourt Brace & Company, 1973), 98."

All that stuff after the quote is the citation.

>>2775579

>you have received a school assignment on a religious topic, indicating that it is institutionally religious.

No, as explained several times now it's a secular school and the class was a religious elective.

>>2775566

Haha I reread that and for some reason half of the reply is gone. Oh well. What I was saying, you can interpret it to mean both coming that generation, and with some mental re-reading to be symbolic.

Okay, I have a question for you theology-dudes:
On biblegateway.com, Matthew 16 is made up of several parts with subheadings. 27-28 are in the part "Jesus Predicts His Death". Are these subheadings original or were they added for easier reading at some point? Because it doesn't really match the style of the text, which is quite jumpy and confused, thus making it seem unlikely that the author would provide sub-headings with such clear indications of structure and content.

>>2775575
No it's not married oldfag. I'm an atheist, honestly. I just saw something in the discussion that I thought wasn't being considered. I don't know bible passages that well.

>>2775578
On the Genealogy of Morals, right?

>>2775589

>What I was saying, you can interpret it to mean both coming that generation, and with some mental re-reading to be symbolic.

With some mental re-reading, you can make anything mean anything. If he'd predicted that his return would occur in the far future that wouldn't be necessary. But he didn't. For whatever reason he saw fit to make his claim vulnerable to disproof by predicting his second coming relatively soon after his execution. It's probable he didn't anticipate his religion enduring for 2,000+ years and simply didn't want to leave his followers without a reason to live after watching him die.

>>2775537
No; it is 'apology'. Once again, 1 minute with google would have prevented this error.

>>2775537
Listen, I know that you want to stop talking about the *essay* and start talking about how cool the *point* is.

But that isn't the issue, is it? OP is talking about how the posted essay got a bad grade.

It got a bad grade because it is a bad essay. Saying 'my point is valid!' again and again doesn't change the fact that the essay stinks.

One more time with feeling:
1) Unrelated quotations in an attempt to 'support' each other
2) A glaring, easily-researched factual error in 'support' or the main assertion
3) Dismissals of counter arguments without quotes, citations or context
4) Divergence into unrelated topics

Even if the main argument is good, *we can't tell from the essay*! Even if OP can demonstrate on the Chan that he is right, the essay is still C- work at best.

>>2775575
Okay with that quote your point is well taken and stronger than I gauged from the first quote. It explains why married oldfag still agreed that it refers to the second coming. Hm seems hard to put christianity down as anything but a failed prophecy now. but I'll withhold judgement.

>>2775590
Subheadings were added later. So were the verse numerations. Do realize that many works in the Bible were pieced sewn together from older tradition, but I'm pretty sure that the Gospels (WITH THE VERY IMPORTANT EXCEPTION of the ending to Mark in most cases [Jesus is never seen after he is gone from the tomb in the original]) are completely from their one author.

>>2775597
Yep. Good eye.

>>2775601
You still haven't addressed the issue that this paper was apparently graded with a D for reasons of belief-butthurt and not because it's a shitty essay. For highschool, I'd say it's good to even have pupils have some kind of idea, even if the form is lacking.

>>2775601

No, it's "apologetic".

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apologetic

Definition 2, "defending by speech or writing."

>"But that isn't the issue, is it"

Yes, it is.

>"It got a bad grade because it is a bad essay. Saying 'my point is valid!' again and again doesn't change the fact that the essay stinks."

Except the reason seems to be that like you, they reacted emotionally to that central point.

>>2775539
No, I am trying to explain why the posted essay deserves a poor grade.
Which is the point of the thread, I thought.
If OP's thesis was Catholic Dogma I'd still be telling him to get rid of the factual errors, diversions into non-theological topics, and quotes that don't support the point.

I get papers like this all the time and I have student come into my office explaining that their argument is great. Sometimes they are even right.
The low grade is because their paper was poor quality. Like OP's

>>2775582
"invisibly" "spiritual revolution" "spiritually correct" "spiritual" fashion

If these are all direct quotations from Lewis, you should both have multiple textual citations for them and cite specific publication information and page numbers. You're also probably relying too much on that source.

>>2775586

My apologies, I had only read your first four posts. I oughtn't to have jumped to conclusions.

>>2775603
Is that an actual email address or did you just choose it because Freddy taught there? It would be pretty boss of the good folks at Basel to actually create that email address.

>>2775605

>"Hm seems hard to put christianity down as anything but a failed prophecy now."

Christ also said that there is a way that looks correct, but leads to death. Maybe this apparent failed prophecy is really misdirection to weed out those with insufficient faith.

>>2775614
The latter. It's just a joke for people who care enough to look. They might have such an email address, but I sure as hell don't have access to it.

>>2775615
Do you have a bible quote for that first bit?

And yeah that would be nice. it would show that God is at least as smart as his children lol

>>2775615
>>Maybe this apparent failed prophecy is really misdirection to weed out those with insufficient faith.
Do I really need to quote Mark Walberg from The Departed everytime someone on /lit/ goes 'Maybe [...]'? I guess this is why committed posters create image macros.

>>2775628
youtube link? its been ages since i saw that film

>>2775615

This is a perfectly good, logical explanation OP probably rejects because he's an xXXEDGY TEENAGE ATHEISTXXx. Christ is the son of God, therefore he could not have been wrong, therefore what's wrong is our understanding of what he said. If you go about it backwards and treat his divinity like something that is potentially wrong then you're already too biased to arrive at the right conclusion.

>>2775631
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJj3mERrEgA

>>2775632
10/10, I'm legitimately unsure as to whether I'm getting trolled or not.

>>2775581

Yea actually estimates can range from 40 to 140, which is mid 1st to second century. :) (Don't forget it starts at 0, not 100.)

While you're correct it could have been written around the direct disciples, and the church would loveto believe it was, it probably wasn't.

Regardless if the dates even fall at the low side of 50AD. The early church found Mathew as its main writings, so its likely in such a small pamphlet the quote of prophecy would have stood out like a sore thumb. The entire gospels weren't collected and bound with other teachings officially until centuries later. So there was no new testament as we have today. Just scattered writings by gnostics who believed all kinds of freaky shit.


I went to a catholic school and learned all this, it's pretty basic stuff.

>>2775626

Proverbs 16:25 "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death."

Basically anytime someone who thinks they are being smart like OP believes they have found something in the Bible that's wrong, they are letting their own fallible human logic fool them, and no matter how correct it seems in the end it leads to hell.

>>2775637

>While you're correct it could have been written around the direct disciples, and the church would loveto believe it was, it probably wasn't.

Based on....?

>Regardless if the dates even fall at the low side of 50AD. The early church found Mathew as its main writings, so its likely in such a small pamphlet the quote of prophecy would have stood out like a sore thumb.

Hence the addition of Daniel's vision.

>>2775632
you're going about it in reverse, treating his divinity as true so that all things, even contradictions and errors, fall in line with that. it's still a bias. There's really no such thing as a non-biased position unless you are dispassionate to the level of Meursault. I just hope you can live with the choices you make.

>Christ is the son of God, therefore he could not have been wrong,
>you're already too biased to arrive at the right conclusion.

>>2775638
what if following jesus seems right to man?


your point is self defeating

>>2775640

God interacting with and speaking to ancient man happened, the Bible is just their record of that. You can't be "biased" in favor of something that happened and was historically recorded. The irony is that you're the one going about it in reverse and that's why OP's logic seems to make sense for you.

>>2775646
....

I think we ARE being trolled, OP.

>inb4 all other religious texts ever
>inb4 circular reasoning

>>2775637

I wonder if anyone will catch that, do do do do. Hehe, It starts at one, one you fool!

>>2775646
still 10/10. There's just no trolling like someone who is actually serious about their incredibly ridiculous beliefs.

>>2775646
No you take jesus' divinity as as fact from the outset and everything to you supports that even when it apparently contradicts it.

I don't assume anything about Jesus. I ask for justification and then I hit stumbling blocks like contradictions and errors a God wouldn't make.
of course there's the possibility that a God could deliberately make these errors just to fuck with me but that's a trickster God in the presence of which I would be fucked either way.

>>2775540
Does a badly written essay deserve a poor grade?
Yes.
I have been explaining why OPs essay is not worthy of a good grade; in a shocking twist a poorly written essay with a valid point still gets a bad grade. Diving into the details (such as how the two quotes aren't related) was necessary because people here don't seem to get that point.

>>2775546
It was actually a nice chicken caesar salad, and I enjoyed it very much, thank you.

>>2775558
I also think that an actual reading in context in English is capable of clearly demonstrating that the passages are unrelated (as I mentioned before).

>>2775561
See the above, as well as my earlier posts.

>>2775575
I never samefag or drop my trip if I am using it to begin with. Why would I?

>>2775590
They were added *much* later and are neither uniform nor ubiquitous

>>2775608
How many times do I need to repeat this? OP made errors of exegesis, fact, and citation in a short essay. OP also deviated from the topic for the majority of the essay. It is at best C- work in my opinion regardless of the topic or accuracy of the premise. The fact that OP keeps saying >sure. sure, I may have been factually wrong, BUT my argument!
shows he *still* doesn't get it.
Let me be MORE clear
*IF* OP's argument is valid (which I don't think it is, but for other reasons) this is still a terribly-written essay, religious or not. And I have been listing them, over and over, and they obviously aren't all 'hurr durr, religion rulz'. OP's copped to most of them FFS.

>>2775661

>*IF* OP's argument is valid (which I don't think it is, but for other reasons)

Let's hear 'em.

Today OP was not a faggot but a scholar.

>>2775677

>OP
>A scholar

He was wrong about literally everything except the crux of his argument. I don't even know what to call that.

>>2775661
>>How many times do I need to repeat this?

Well, you have sound reasons for giving this paper a bad grade. That however, does not make the reasons which OP was given by his teacher any more sound, because they are not the reasons you presented here. Just as much as OP's defense of his essay on 4chan doesn't affect the essay he handed in, your valid reasons for giving him a bad grade do not ameliorate the horrible reasons given by his teacher, simply because they are only brought forth here on 4chan, by someone completely different. If his teacher had told him 'it's a bad essay for this and that reason' and not played the butthurt-authority card, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

>>2775609
*sigh*
Plato's 'Apology'
Merriam-Webster's First definition (1a) 'a formal justification: Defense'
dictionary references definition 2 'a defense, excuse, or justification in speech or writing, as for a cause or doctrine.'
freedictionary.com, definition 2a 'A formal justification or defense.'

OP, the link you provided states specifically 'adjective' and the first definition has a link to the word 'apology'. Are you *trying* to embarrass yourself?

>>2775681
Sounds like a compliment to me.

take a bow, OP

>>2775661
>>I also think that an actual reading in context in English is capable of clearly demonstrating that the passages are unrelated (as I mentioned before).

However, if one looks at 16:27-28, adding 24 seems hardly necessary. So even if the passages are unrelated, OP's claim for what Jesus said can be fully grounded on reading 16 alone. The formulation 'standing here', which is the stronger and more obviously deictic reference to the present is from 16, so there is really no need for the argument to rely on a connection between 16 and 24.

>>2775609
>like you, they reacted emotionally to that central point.
Pointing out factual and structural errors is 'reacting emotionally'? Really?
Face it, the only emotionally upset person here is you, mad that simple things like factual errors, structural flaws and poor writing stood between you and a good grade on an essay. Your insistence that we admit the core argument is valid while admitting to the rest is proof enough.

>>2775684

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologetic

"A formal defense or apology."

That is a valid use. It is an adjective for some of the listed definitions, not all of them. You're looking to score a cheap shot and once again ignoring the core of the argument.

Additionally, here >>2775669 I asked you to list the reasons you alluded to having for believing my argument concerning Matthew 16:27-28 to be incorrect. I'd still love to hear those reasons.

>>2775639

Based on the conflicting nature of the Gospels, and possible additional verses that may well have crept in. That of course IS opinion, and some think it's much earlier, some think it's much later. Neither opinion is inherently wrong, so long as the date being written is before notable mentions of that particular gospel.

What i'm refering to is that around 100AD, even 150 AD, 200AD etc. before the official formation of an actual bible it must have been obvious to nearly anyone that if the verse DOES mean "you people living right now, while i'm walking the earth who" will see the second coming, it likely would not have been included in the bible at all.

Many, many gospels were written with other gnostic texts that disagreed with what the church wanted, so they weren't included.

Had such a glaring thing in what would have been a pamphlet meant jesus made a wrong prophecy it wouldn't have been included. No matter how old it was.

The actual bible was formed just for that reason, you had crazy as Christians believing and doing all sorts of crazy ass shit. So they separated the nuts from the non nuts, made an official book, and called it a day.

>>2775696

Good advice. The second verse is included mainly to show that the prediction is repeated elsewhere, if less concretely. If it hurts the larger argument it probably does make sense to leave the rest out.

>>2775700
i think the point is Op's teachers didn't respond with 'Pointing out factual and structural errors'.

tfw married oldfag can't read

OP, you should take that married oldfag said seriously. You essay blows, man. It doesn't matter if your actual point is right, you presented it horribly. That's all married oldfag was saying as well, and you just kept trying to think he was some crazy Christian mad about you, as if your some genius whose intelligence can't be understood in this Christian world. Nah bro your essay just blows LOL. It literally deserved a D (unless you're in like 9th grade).

>>2775651
Seriously, there's just nothing more to say. Troll or idiot, slave morality, If God is good why did he do X. Yahweh is a psycho nutbar of a wargod.

ETC
ETC forever

>>2775717

>That's all married oldfag was saying as well

No, initially he was disputing the conclusion as well.

You're getting better at this but it's still obvious when you post without your trip.

>>2775717

ignore the shit typos it's early in the morning

>>2775717
>>2775700
While married oldfag offers valid points, they do not change anything that "narrowminded and deliberately provocative" is not a rational critique of OP's essaywriting but someone very much letting the butthurt flow through them.

Essay isn't set up that good. I would have given you a C. Or a B if you promised to do it again.

The timely nature of Christ's sacrafice is a legitimate point, one of many legitimate points that can be debated and explicated ina theology paper.

But man, come on, using CS Lewis as a source? That's pretty low ball on the theologian roster. Get some Augustus or Erasmus. And no, actually believing religious bullshit doesn't make them any less brilliant and influential. Aristotle is THE most citied western philosopher and he believed in the innate inferiority of women and slaves.

>>2775721

Please don't accuse me of being a samefag, shithead. You're a pretentious piece of fuck. Admit it, your essay had very little supporting evidence, said many nonfacts, and half of it is dedicated to psychology. It aint good bro it aint good. Here, just let me show you what the fuck you're doing:

>>2775483
>you make fun of him for using "apologies," claim that's wrong, starting a long subargument about it
>>2775684
>he proves you wrong, proves apologies was a right usage
>>2775701
>you dismiss all of that as him trying to score cheap shots when you started it

God DAMN kid what the FUCK is that.

>>2775717

I think saying it blows for highschool is a little harsh. I would say it sounds preachy and doesn't present the point in a well defined way. The tone isn't formal enough, and seems to rattle things off that are unrelated and mostly wrong, jumping from bit to bit.

I would have taken the verses and ran with them instead of jumping to the cult bit, since that is a derogatory term for any organized religion, whether there's any truth behind them or not. I'm sure you knew that when you wrote it. It further underlines the tone in general.

>>2775730

It IS narrowminded. He pretty much ignores actual theology to prove his points.

Jehovah has an H in it. Makes me think you didn't check any sources on the witnesses. Did you even read the wikipedia? Even if I agree Christ predicated the end in the lifetime of his apostles, that alone is enough to make me stop reading.

>>2775745

>It IS narrowminded. He pretty much ignores actual theology to prove his points.

In what sense? It needs serious trimming but the main argument is correct. Jesus says his second coming is gonna happen in time for some of the people standing there to see it before they die.

No amount of disingenuous theological wrangling can salvage that.

>>2775739

Ok, how about this. It blows in real life, it's mediocre in high school. Either way OP should just be glad that it won't be an actual grade for him.

>>2775745
What does he ignore?

>>2775749

>Jehovah has an H in it. Makes me think you didn't check any sources on the witnesses.

OH NO GUYS A TYPO

THEREFORE, THE GREAT DISAPPOINTMENT NEVER OCCURRED

>>2775751

the main argument can be correct, doesn't mean he didn't argue for it in an incredibly narrowminded way

>>2775754

>read the thread

>>2775759
He doesn't have to agree with apologetics, just acknowledge, cite, and respond.

>>2775763

I see it alluded to by married oldfag several times but he never shows the goods. Keeps saying he has reasons to believe Op is wrong but never spells 'em out.

>>2775754

I think that's fair :)

>>2775637
>technically, no year 0 - it starts at 1
>>2775681
But the *essay* provides no real support that OP's argument is correct - that is one of its flaws.

>>2775701
OP, will that make your terrible essay worth a B?
No.

Also, your repeated questions about Matthew 16 demonstrate that you *still* haven't taken 20 minutes to look up what theology actually says about this passage! Unconscionable, really, that after a poor grade you are too busy thumping your chest to actually look up the essay topic to see what else you might have gotten wrong....

OK, I usually never reply to homework threads
{After all, this is a homework thread}
but I will continue;

If this is for real and there's no good rebuttal for it how come none of the big atheist authors have had a field day with it yet?

>>2775768

Married oldfag outlines many times why the argument is bad. Once again, I don't give a fuck about OP's core point and if that's right, it's about how well the essay is written. That's what essays are about.

>>2775781

Because we live in the modern age and one verse in the bible will hardly affect casual Christians today.

>>2775779
> the *essay* provides no real support that OP's argument is correct

the essay identifies an error in scripture and discusses several responses that fail to explain it.

>>2775710
I believe 'narrow minded' is supportable - OP reaches his conclusion with no support and dismisses counter examples out of hand without even quotes; this is, arguably, narrow minded.

Then taking his unsupported premise to launch into a non-theological discussion of cognitive dissonance is, arguably, 'deliberately provocative'.
I almost never comment on papers, but this isn't CLOSE to extreme; I have a colleague who makes comments such as 'Try an ESL course before you re-write this'

Once again, OP's butthurt doesn't improve the quality of his writing

>>2775789

EXACTLY, the OP 'discusses several responses that fail to explain it,' citing cults and lies about the Catholic church, never once citing a theologians argument for it.

>>2775800
what are they?

>>2775721
It is relatively easy to check to see if someone is samefagging; try it and see that I am ONLY posting with my trip in this thread.

And do re-read what I *actually* wrote, please. You'll see that I am pointing out that you don't support your argument, that the second quote has nothing to do with the first, that you are flat-out wrong about Catholic doctrine, etc.

>>2775768
Just a mo'

>>2775781
They have. Throughout time. You need to read up on your biblical literary criticism Theron, particulary the German works.

Most modern authors like Dawkins and Twain prefer to argue against the morality and logical fallacies of a religious belief rather than debate text and context.

By the way, there is no better argument against God than Twain's Letters from the Earth.

This is a creative rendition of OP versus Christians ITT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_K8prLfso

>>2775815
>Theron

why did you type this? what does it mean?

>>2775779

Unfortunately for you, I already corrected myself. Though you're the only person i saw that mentioned it.

>>2775779
Mark 16 is a critically important element of the Gospels, particularly for the Catholic and Orthodox Church (i.e., the majority of Christians). Christ alludes to the Eucharist; discusses the interpretation of prophecy; accepts the title of Messiah; makes Peter the first Pope; and predicts his own death.
He also ends the chapter with the section quoted by OP.
Now, he states that he will do what? 'Come with angels'.
Who announces that Christ is risen? Angels; angels that are seen by many and perform some amazing feats. So the resurrection is accompanied, directly, by angels. And while He is on earth after the Resurrection Christ establishes the Church and prepares the way for the Paraclete. he gives His priests the right to bind and loose, to judge, and to administer the sacraments.
To understand the conceptualization of this you must remember one key fact; to a Catholic or Orthodox, we have been in the End Times since the destruction of the Temple!
[cpnt]

>>2775826
Theron Ware. The Damnation of Theron Ware is one of those books that English majors love but no one knows about and isn't on any best of list.

And this is how wars were fought over trivial religious questions.

>>2775855
It's like comic book debates. Triviality inside triviality.

>>2775756
It would be "just a typo" if he didn't keep doing it. Once again, makes me think the writer has never seen it. Also the great dissapointment was pre-witness (they don't give titles to their dissapointments, they wish people would just forget about them.)

>>2775860
Yeah, I think reading "how would Batman defeat Spider-man" is more intelectually stimulating than this.

>>2775854
okay nice. but how does it fit in that sentence? does the author deal with biblical literary criticism?

also, what is it about this book that makes it permanently obscure?

>>2775871
Wiki is your friend.

But to try to make it short, Theron is a young Methodist preacher that moves to town a little less out of the boonies and learns all about astheticism, atheism, darwinism, and all the stuff the turn of the century intellegensia were in.

It's one of the best works of naturalism I've ever read. It's probably not that well known for the same reason Letters From the Earth is not well known. Most Americans are religious. Think about that for a second. MOST. MAJORITY.

>>2775841
So the Coming of the Kingdom of God refers to a few things; Christ's Resurrection; the establishment of the One True Church; the interior life of the faithful in the period between the Resurrection and the Second Coming.
The reference to "reward(ing) each person according to what they have done' is part of the sacramental cycle followed by Purgatory and Last Judgment.
Indeed, if OP had taken the time to actually *study the theology of this passage* he would have seen the rich discussion of the meaning if this passage, including in the recent book 'Jesus of Nazareth' by Pope Benedict XVI.
The blythe 'but since the passage obviously refers only to the Second Coming' only demonstrates that he didn't actually study the theology of the passage; there is a reason we use the term 'Second Coming', after all!

>>2775867
>Yeah, I think reading "how would Batman defeat Spider-man" is more intelectually stimulating than this.
>more intelectually stimulating than this.
> intelectually

>>2775904
>people think typos have anything to do with intelligence
>people being prescriptivists
Embarrassing.

>>2775867
Spider-man would beat Batman. Batman is a dirty atheist.

>>2775909
Yeah, but someone making an embarrassing typo while mocking others?
That's a slice of friend gold

I thoroughly enjoy this thread

>>2775763
fuck you asshole, I have. I think you don't know what narrowminded means.

>>2775909
>people think typos have anything to do with intelligence
Typos are not non-standard language usage like slang. Typos are sloppiness.

One´s words are the medium in which one presents your thoughts. Typos reflect the inadequate attention one has paid to the presentation of his argument. Furthermore it is likely that if one has not paid sufficient attention to a comparatively simple manner that is the correct linguistic presentation of one´s thoughts, insufficient attention has also been paid to the thoughts themselves.

And conversely, no typos indicate concentration and care on the part of the writer.

>>2775896
Oh, right! Theologians defending their faith have not arrived at the same conclusion as OP, which means that it does not make sense! After all, people like the pope are not biased in any way and thus have no reason to favor one reading over another for personal, ideological or strategic reasons!

Seriously, your account includes the judgement, as in judgement day. Only because you enumerate everything else that happens in 16, this point does not suddenly disappear. You have not provided a convincing argument as to why this should refer to anything else than the second coming, and now you present us with the brilliant argument that clearly we should rely on people whose entire world-view is at stake here? Really, that is how we are supposed to argue this? Normally I make this argument the other way around, but the blatant disregard for any sort of meaningful argument or search for textual truth in favor of achieving a result that supports one's own dogmatic position that you seem to be advocating makes it sound like theology is very close to classical Marxism in its rhetorical strategies.

>>2776419
>One´s words are the medium in which one presents your thoughts.
> in which one presents your thoughts.
>one presents your thoughts.
>one
>your

>>2776419
>>Furthermore it is likely that if one has not paid sufficient attention to a comparatively simple manner that is the correct linguistic presentation of one´s thoughts, insufficient attention has also been paid to the thoughts themselves.

Furthermore it is likely that you pulled this assumption out of your ass. If the argument is bad, argue against it. If it is good, accept it. If there is a typo, shut the fuck up about it.

>>2776435
Good point. Thanks.

>>2776428
>If there is a typo, shut the fuck up about it.
Whether one is capable of communicating with clarity is a good preliminary test to see whether he can contribute anything significant to the (any) debate. It is foolish to expect wisdom from one who couldn´t master something as simple as English orthography.

>>2775841
>>'Come with angels'.
Who announces that Christ is risen? Angels; angels that are seen by many and perform some amazing feats. So the resurrection is accompanied, directly, by angels. And while He is on earth after the Resurrection Christ establishes the Church and prepares the way for the Paraclete. he gives His priests the right to bind and loose, to judge, and to administer the sacraments.

Why do you insert all of this between the angels and the rewarding of the deeds? Because there is nothing in 27 about the Church, nothing about the sacraments, nothing about priests and I don't even know what a Paraclete is. Now I clearly know little about theology, but for someone who self-identifies as a trained theologian and castigates OP for his poorly sourced and argued points, you sure seem to pull a lot of this straight out of your ass.

What textual basis is there for your insertion of all these things into 27/28, assuming that they are dealt with in the earlier parts of 16? Should not logically those parts of the text that directly follow each other play a larger role in interpretation than something else that was talked about earlier? Jesus will come with the angels and judge the mortals, and he will do that before all of those currently present have died. In this pretty long thread, you haven't provided any reading that makes remotely as much sense as this (very literal) reading of 27/28.

>>2776457
Yeah, I guess I'm just not wise enough to talk about the orthography instead of the content, that must be it...

>>2776465
Jesus, when did I say I don´t care about content? I simply expect a certain standard from anyone who wants to be taken seriously. I believe this to be more important than ever before, now that every semi-illiterate shithead spouts his opinions online and thinks himself to be a misunderstood genius. Under these circumstances - with which you must have had your fair share of anger as well - I think it wiser to listen onlyto those that recognize and respect the intelligence of their counterparts not only in speech, but also in written word (i.e. in the way they write).

It may sound pretentious to you, but my time is too precious to spend it deciphering anyone´s scribbles. Clarity as a prerequisite of fruitful communication.

>>2776461
This is actually a good point.

married oldfag didn't address the fact that in Matt 16: 27 it explicitly mentions how jesus will judge people and 'repay them according to their deeds'.

Now I only have an elementary understand of scripture I've picked up from my priest but I don't think Jesus made any headway towards judgement or repayment in the form of reward and punishment between his resurrection and ascension.

That leads me to believe that the passage is referring not to jesus' death but to an end times that has no come. yet. And obviously all of the people who were present at that time of the prophecy are long dead so clearly it was a failed prophecy.

This brings up some staggering questions about whether Jesus was God/the son of God or just some popular cult leader. And going by the fact that a God is unlikely to make such an error, it has to be the latter.

Just let this one die already.

>>2776531
I'm up and in the office again, time for day two!
Also, no one has disputed that the early Christians did actually expect parousia to happen during their life-times, right? So any theological interpretation of Matthew 16: 27/28 is BOUND to NOT interpret it in the way that seems most sensible, simply because for the vast majority (maybe all) of theological authors who have addressed this subject, the event that is referred to in this interpretation of 27/28 (i.e. the Second Coming, not the resurrection or ascenscion) has already NOT HAPPENED, which creates a VERY STRONG psychological barrier against this reading, or an emotional incentive to find another interpretation, if you will. Thus treating the interpretations of theologians of 16: 27/28 as superior to our own understanding IN PRINCIPLE, even aside from any textual arguments they might have (which is basically how married oldfag has made his case: He supposedly knows what 27/28 means not because he has argued for his interpretation, but he has indirectly supported it by asserting his status as a theologian, showing his knowledge about theology by talking about points which have no direct logical connection to 27/28 but only serve to establish his intellectual authority) is a very bad idea in terms of scholarship.