Armageddon: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

[Godscreated]

27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matty 16

Imagine how surprised the last of the fuckers were when they died without seeing any of the holy horseshit come true?

Know your scripture before spouting your nonsense, the two verses are not related on a time line. Verse 27 is about judgement, verse 28 is about Jesus resurrection, this was the start of the kingdom ie. church. By the way I see you and your buddy Bart do not see eye to eye on Jesus anymore.

[michaelsherlock]

BTW I suspect that you are not a real Christian but more of a Socialist Infiltrator type. Do you live by the Gospels or do you live by the Infidel laws of your country?

Is this addressed to me?

[Killman]

How can any self-respecting human being believe in any form of religious apocalypse??? Then again most of the same people that believe in such a thing also believe in souls being tormented and tortured for eternity.


.........................

Holy fuck religion is some pessimistic shit.....

[michaelsherlock]

How can any self-respecting human being believe in any form of religious apocalypse??? Then again most of the same people that believe in such a thing also believe in souls being tormented and tortured for eternity.


.........................

Holy fuck religion is some pessimistic shit.....

I think the answer to your question may be related to the fear of the unknown. Uncertainity can do some pretty dramatic things to the human mind in search of quick relief.

As Jiddu Krishnamurti once said:

What is important is not what you believe but only why you believe at all. Why do you believe? And what difference does it make to what actually is whether you believe one thing or another? Facts are not influenced by belief or disbelief. So one has to ask why one believes at all in anything; what is the basis of belief? Is it fear, is it the uncertainty of life - the fear of the unknown the lack of security in this ever-changing world? Is it the insecurity of relationship, or is it that faced with the immensity of life, and not understanding it, one encloses oneself in the refuge of belief? So, if I may ask you, if you had no fear at all, would you have any belief?

Jiddu Krishnamurti. The Urgency of Change. Harper and Row. (1977) Pg. 99

[Minimalist]

27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matty 16

Imagine how surprised the last of the fuckers were when they died without seeing any of the holy horseshit come true?

Know your scripture before spouting your nonsense, the two verses are not related on a time line. Verse 27 is about judgement, verse 28 is about Jesus resurrection, this was the start of the kingdom ie. church. By the way I see you and your buddy Bart do not see eye to eye on Jesus anymore.

I know that you can invent any number of absurd excuses for your bullshit to make it say something other than what it says, G-C. I consider you such a fool that whatever you say on the subject is instantly disregarded as pious blather. The two verses are adjacent for a reason....and the heading of the whole passage is "jesus said to his disciples." Sorry, old boy. It's just horseshit that later xtian writers had to overcome and Ehrman....who always conned himself into thinking there was a "historical" jesus...although he never really explained what he meant by that...has detailed how the failure of your godboy's little prophecy to come true was finessed by later xtian fucktards.

Ehrman is far more convincing when he sticks to his area of expertise.
Documents.

[michaelsherlock]

27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matty 16

Imagine how surprised the last of the fuckers were when they died without seeing any of the holy horseshit come true?

Know your scripture before spouting your nonsense, the two verses are not related on a time line. Verse 27 is about judgement, verse 28 is about Jesus resurrection, this was the start of the kingdom ie. church. By the way I see you and your buddy Bart do not see eye to eye on Jesus anymore.

I know that you can invent any number of absurd excuses for your bullshit to make it say something other than what it says, G-C. I consider you such a fool that whatever you say on the subject is instantly disregarded as pious blather. The two verses are adjacent for a reason....and the heading of the whole passage is "jesus said to his disciples." Sorry, old boy. It's just horseshit that later xtian writers had to overcome and Ehrman....who always conned himself into thinking there was a "historical" jesus...although he never really explained what he meant by that...has detailed how the failure of your godboy's little prophecy to come true was finessed by later xtian fucktards.

Ehrman is far more convincing when he sticks to his area of expertise.
Documents.

Also, Ehrman, In his recent interview with NPR (April 1, 2012), commented on the mythicist position, saying:

"Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible... According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man.... Most importantly...these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again.... The mythicists have some right things to say... The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical."

[Minimalist]

What do you think of this argument, Mike?

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

Rev. 17:10

This book dates itself to late 68/early 69 AD. The five kings who have fallen are Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero.

The one who is, Se. Sulpicius Galba was assassinated in early 69.

A Jew writing this apocalyptic horseshit would have known of Josephus' declaration that Vespasian would be Emperor and indeed, he did last a short space of about 10 years after watching the short-lived "emperors" Otho and Vitellius destroy each other.

[Godscreated]

BTW I suspect that you are not a real Christian but more of a Socialist Infiltrator type. Do you live by the Gospels or do you live by the Infidel laws of your country?

Is this addressed to me?

If it is I did not post it.

---

27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matty 16

Imagine how surprised the last of the fuckers were when they died without seeing any of the holy horseshit come true?

Know your scripture before spouting your nonsense, the two verses are not related on a time line. Verse 27 is about judgement, verse 28 is about Jesus resurrection, this was the start of the kingdom ie. church. By the way I see you and your buddy Bart do not see eye to eye on Jesus anymore.

I know that you can invent any number of absurd excuses for your bullshit to make it say something other than what it says, G-C. I consider you such a fool that whatever you say on the subject is instantly disregarded as pious blather. The two verses are adjacent for a reason....and the heading of the whole passage is "jesus said to his disciples." Sorry, old boy. It's just horseshit that later xtian writers had to overcome and Ehrman....who always conned himself into thinking there was a "historical" jesus...although he never really explained what he meant by that...has detailed how the failure of your godboy's little prophecy to come true was finessed by later xtian fucktards.

Ehrman is far more convincing when he sticks to his area of expertise.
Documents.

Since you feel that way we should not respond to each others post, I believe this to be the best action we both can take. Bart does believe in a historical Jesus.

---

27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

28Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Matty 16

Imagine how surprised the last of the fuckers were when they died without seeing any of the holy horseshit come true?

Know your scripture before spouting your nonsense, the two verses are not related on a time line. Verse 27 is about judgement, verse 28 is about Jesus resurrection, this was the start of the kingdom ie. church. By the way I see you and your buddy Bart do not see eye to eye on Jesus anymore.

I know that you can invent any number of absurd excuses for your bullshit to make it say something other than what it says, G-C. I consider you such a fool that whatever you say on the subject is instantly disregarded as pious blather. The two verses are adjacent for a reason....and the heading of the whole passage is "jesus said to his disciples." Sorry, old boy. It's just horseshit that later xtian writers had to overcome and Ehrman....who always conned himself into thinking there was a "historical" jesus...although he never really explained what he meant by that...has detailed how the failure of your godboy's little prophecy to come true was finessed by later xtian fucktards.

Ehrman is far more convincing when he sticks to his area of expertise.
Documents.

Also, Ehrman, In his recent interview with NPR (April 1, 2012), commented on the mythicist position, saying:

"Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible... According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man.... Most importantly...these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again.... The mythicists have some right things to say... The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical."

Nice try, now post the rest of the comment, you know, where he said he believes in the historical Jesus.

[michaelsherlock]

Also, Ehrman, In his recent interview with NPR (April 1, 2012), commented on the mythicist position, saying:

"Mythicists' arguments are fairly plausible... According to them, Jesus was never mentioned in any Roman sources and there is no archeological evidence that Jesus ever existed. Even Christian sources are problematic – the Gospels come long after Jesus' death, written by people who never saw the man.... Most importantly...these mythicists point out that there are Pagan gods who were said to die and rise again and so the idea is that Jesus was made up as a Jewish god who died and rose again.... The mythicists have some right things to say... The Gospels do portray Jesus in ways that are non-historical."

Nice try, now post the rest of the comment, you know, where he said he believes in the historical Jesus.

That goes without saying, read his Jesus Interrupted and he dedicates an entire chapter to it, as I have pointed out in my post on the bastard son. The fact is that even though he "believes" in an historical Jesus, he admits that it is just a belief and that the other side to the argument is credible as well. The matter of a historical Jesus is not resolved. What is resolved however, is the tragic results of the belief in a historical Jesus; see: Inquisition, Crusades, Witch hunts, Goa, Stolen Generation (Aust. Aborigines), Tahiti and other missionary atrocities. etc........

For an alternative look at the historical Jesus issue, I would advise you read, Dr. Richard Carrier, Dr. Robert Price and even Earl Doherty is a good source.

[TheJackel]

I decided to write this article to point out the danger of the Armageddon, not as a prophecy which will come to fruition as a result of divine forces

I predict the Sun will, in about 1.5 billion years, start burning more helium than hydrogen. And during this process the sun will get so hot it will vaporize all life on this planet. Then when the sun nears it's end, it will begin to expand and then possibly consume what's left of Earth, or leave it to a slow atomic decaying death in the dimly lit light of a white dwarf star.