A question has been submitted:
The various comments on Church of God Faithful Has End-times Timeline Laid Out For You reminded me of a question I have long wondered about, but kept forgetting to ask.At various times, God’s Schedule has gotten disrupted because “the Church wasn’t ready” or some similar excuse, I mean, reason. Did the various leaders explain how that worked with the Parable of those virgins and the oil lamps? The Bridegroom didn’t say, “Oh, excuse me, I didn’t realize some of you had forgotten your oil, I’ll just go back and come again tomorrow.” No, he stuck to His schedule and slammed the door in some of their faces. It seems to me that something similar would apply to all the times the Church wasn’t ready.
22 comments:
There's nothing actually to get ready for. So there's the real problem.
The 70 weeks of Daniel 9 appears to be a prophecy of all the time, without interruption, without gaps, from the end of the 70 years of the desolations of Jerusalem to the Second Coming. A "week" is "sevened" and can be any number of units of time that is 7 or divisible by 7 or have 7 parts. The time of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (not fiction) seems therefore to have been scheduled long ago but the timing, at least during when Jesus was here on earth, was known only by God the Father. The common belief of 490 years as a fulfillment doesn't seem to concur with Daniel 9:24.
Cyrus did command to rebuild Jerusalem (compare Isa 44:28; 45:13; Dan 9:25) and this command appears to be the beginning of the 70 weeks.
Speak for yourself Dennis. You've resigned yourself to eternal death, and have rationalized this away, but the rest of us haven't.
In this parable the outcome was not as pre-emptive as the comment suggests. We also have the passages:
"As the bridegroom was delayed, they all became drowsy and slept . . . Watch therefore, for you know neither the day nor the hour."
So we are forewarned in this parable that a precise chronology for the Parousia is not going to be possible. But some in Splinterdom come up with a precise date for the Parousia and then walk it back when nothing happens. This is done cyclically. This is 19th century Millerism on speed. And walking it back may take the form of blaming the congregation for lack of preparation or whatever. This is an heuristic experience and after a few repeats I think most people get a clue. It might even lead some to read the Bible and discover how it so greatly differs on the Parousia from what is heard from the apocalyptic Millerite pulpit.
The harsh facts are that anyone in a country with free speech can stand up before a crowd and augustly proclaim that Christ is coming next Friday and then walk it back, with egg on his/her face, when Friday is dull. Egg on their faces even though they try to shift the blame. This is a "buyer beware" business. But a tempering effect is that some people need a perpetually imminent Parousia with all the attendant end-time disasters in order to have some semblance of Christian praxis in their lives. Just like some people who aspire to Christianity really need Hell either as eternal damnation or annihilation in order escape torpor. If these motivators go away, their religious aspirations spiral into decline. Some people need fear.
A point of interest is that after the Great Disappointment some Millerites developed what is called a Shut Door Theology. This idea was based on the parable of the 10 virgins and asserted that ". . . William Miller had given the final call for salvation (On October 23d, 1844), all who did not accept his message were lost. The door of salvation was shut, hence the term "shut door" (Wikipedia)." Isn't it refreshing to bask in the truth that many ideas that Millerites promulgate are just mercifully hairbrained.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Anonymous (9:32) wrote "...at least during when Jesus was here on earth..."
Scripture does not say that. That is a clause added to lend credibility to the fabulous speculations of prophecy weenies.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
All the COG has to offer is fear. Fear of America’s impending doom, fear of the end-times, fear or anything or anyone different from them, fear that God won’t find you worthy.
It’s a destructive state of mind that the COG constantly puts upon its members to keep them in line because if you ever leave God won’t protect you.
Those who choose not to live in fear are wise.
It does render an interesting theological question. Is the second coming a "fixed date" and God will bring about the circumstances, or is is a floating date dependent upon human free will and conditionality.
II Peter 3:9 "The Lord isn’t slow to keep his promise, as some think of slowness, but he is patient toward you, not wanting anyone to perish but all to change their hearts and lives."
The author of II Peter was grasping at straws here and afraid to admit the obvious...Jesus was expected to come back as the Triumphant second-stage Messiah in the lifetime of the first followers. Since that didn't happen, they could not allow themselves to believe that they had all been wrong so they invented the idea that perpetuates today that the "Lord" must just be giving more people the chance to repent, so things are delayed!
Since Jesus is dead, and there's no such thing as becoming alive again after three days, then he's not coming back. So, the suggestion that the return will be "soon" can go on and on and on and on for many thousands of more years...because god is gracious and wants more and more and more people to get born again.
How about we all just stop this silliness now?
If we stopped this silliness now that would necessitate shutting down every single Church of God. They are all led by disgusting leaders.
Armstrongites,
Read GrittyMan's comments and see what your silly speculations about the End Times and Christ's return can produce in others. And, yes, you ARE responsible for the way your shenanigans are perceived and received by others! "It's funny how one insect can damage so much grain" - Elton John
Anonymous said...
Speak for yourself Dennis. You've resigned yourself to eternal death, and have rationalized this away, but the rest of us haven't.
April 28, 2021 at 6:34 AM
Anon, don't be too quick to speak for "the rest of us." Dennis arrived at his position rationally.
That exemplifies one potential meaning of "rationalize": to make sense of something by using one's reason. This process opens up the possibility of acknowledging error.
The other meaning, the one you are reaching for, is to weave rational-sounding arguments to justify one's preconceptions and avoid confronting the possibility one is wrong.
In many cases, including this one, it is hard to tell which is going on. The way to clarity is to examine the evidence. It should be available to all, not based on the soft foundation of personal feelings or the shaky one of idiosyncratic claims of revelation, neither of which cannot be verified by evidence.
We can follow the example of Donald Rumsfeld, who, when things went sour with his vision of American success in the Middle East, admitted "It is what it is." Dennis has simply made this same admission in regard to the question of eternal life/death.
While I agree with Retired Prof that Dennis has traveled a rational path to arrive at the conclusions which he has reached about God, the Bible and religion, I would hope that no one would ever suggest that those conclusions are the only ones available to folks who are traveling a rational path. In other words, we must insist that it is entirely possible to rationally conclude that God exists, that the Bible is a valuable spiritual guide, and that religion can be a positive force in the human experience. Dennis has developed a rationale for his beliefs that he believes to be cogent and reasonable based on the available evidence. Likewise, I believe that my own rationale for believing in God and spirituality is cogent and reasonable (and is largely based on the same evidence available to him). And, finally, we should all be able to entertain the possibility that we may be wrong. Unfortunately, atheists and theists have both demonstrated their capacity for intellectual arrogance and a readiness to dismiss any conclusions which do not match their own.
No Prof, it is not difficult to tell "which is going on." Dennis has a history on this blog. There is a strong pattern which tells us his intentions.
NEO is right, the Miller-mania in the 1840s was the Big-bang that revived Christianity in the new world.
Because in Europe at the same time Christianity's decline had began with the 'Dutch Radical School' of criticism (Dennis is Dutch)
(wiki/The_Denial_of_the_Historicity_of_Jesus_in_Past_and_Present)
Those who completely shun fear are unwise. Terror religion is evil, but there is the narrow gate regarding fear. In the animal kingdom, fleeing from danger preserves animals lives.
Anonymous, April 27, 2021 at 9:32 PM commented saying: "...The time of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (not fiction) seems therefore to have been scheduled long ago but the timing, at least during when Jesus was here on earth, was known only by God the Father..."
Phrase "second coming" is not in Bible.
Christ did return to earth for a second time (not fiction, or a floating date, but a fixed date to God the Father) after His murder, 3 days and 3 nights in the grave, on a particular Wave Sheaf day.
Will there be a Mickey Mouse Millennium very soon to come where some Jesus reigns on earth?
Will there be a 3rd, 4th, 5th coming?
Time will tell...
John
Miller Jones:
You make a very important point. Atheists typically characterize their philosophy as being aligned with reason, rationality and science. And they portray people of faith as being non-sensical. This is not only Dennis but people like Dawkins and Dennett. While there are many Christians who are strong in praxis and less developed in theology, historical and contemporary Christian writing indicates that reason is common in the pursuit of Christianity and has been for centuries. A cursory study of the Patristics would underpin this. Atheists like to deal with the concocted stereotypical nominal Christian who is painfully fundamentalist and virtually lives in a world of superstition. It is easier to beat up on a strawman of ones own device rather than to engage in credible debate.
On the other hand, the most common atheist offering is materialism or, maybe, naturalism. While this may seem rationalist at the boundaries, at its core it is just as irrational as the pretextually impaired Christianity that atheists love to use as a punching bag. Materialism cannot even render up a plausible explanation for why the advanced, sentient human mind exists - ironically a mind that is capable of understanding what materialism is.
But Dennis is not a lone voice. There are millions in the world like him. All of whom have grimly (if it is not grim, it should be) settled the issue in their minds that the only reasonable future for humanity is non-existence. The real irrationality of atheism is found in their assertion that this nihilistic belief somehow forms a basis for meaningful and constructive action.
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
How do Christains/Alarmstrongites spin the fact that Christianity is in decline?
NEO says, "Materialism cannot even render up a plausible explanation for why the advanced, sentient human mind exists - ironically a mind that is capable of understanding what materialism is."
Daniel C. Dennett, in *Bacteria to Bach and Back* does make a plausible explanation. And in the course of doing so, he demonstrates the importance of two paraphrases of the question "Why?" They are "What for?" and "How come?"
The two open up vastly different approaches to finding explanations. The first assumes events are trending toward some goal. They happen for the purpose of fulfilling that goal, and explanations must take into account the entity that decided on the goal and chooses ways to accomplish it. The second makes no a priori assumption about purpose (though it does not necessarily exclude it). Instead it focuses on the processes leading up to the phenomenon inquired about.
The answer to "Why did that volcano erupt?" using the first assumption will run along the lines of "To punish persons in the area for their sins" or "To warn of worse things to come." An explanation using the second assumption will involve gathering information about rock strata and magma pools and how they behaved leading up to the eruption.
The catch is that all too often we overlook these distinctions. It may seem reasonable to everybody to agree with the saying "Everything happens for a reason." Yet people may not agree at all, if some are thinking in terms of "What for?" and others in terms of "How come?" It's a good idea to acknowledge the difference. But first we have to recognize it.
Dennett answers "How come?" and does a thorough job, a plausible job. It will not satisfy those who expect a "What for?" answer.
Retired Prof:
Give this an honest read in reference "From Bacteria to Bach and Back":
"The Illusionist: Daniel Dennett’s latest book marks five decades of majestic failure to explain consciousness" by David Bentley Hart
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-illusionist
******* Click on my icon for Disclaimer
About Bentley's review of Dennet's book, NEO: Like I said, what Dennett did will not satisfy those who expect a "What for?" answer.
Ha! Elton John quotes now Miller Jones. ha ha. How odd an alleged American quoting Elton John.
The same Elton John who relished telling the media how he always loved shredding any Holy Bibles that got sent to him.
Post a Comment