Atheist version of Pascal's wager

[GrandizerII]

Addressed by this link:

https://blacknonbelievers.wordpress.com/...is-return/

Yay for link debate ...

Well, I've looked it over, and I see the objections he has to what he dismisses as "apologetic rationalizations". He begins this section with the really open-minded, let's-withhold-all-judgment-until-all-the-facts-are-in statement: "To anyone not already indoctrinated into Christianity reading the above passages it is crystal clear that according to the Bible Jesus was supposed to return in the first century of the Christian Era. That has not happened."

This is based upon the author's confidence that HE is more qualified to interpret the true meaning of scripture than are all of the countless scripture and Greek scholars and theologians who have studied these passages over the past 2,000 years. He then goes on to attempt a rebuttal to every "apologetic rationalization". IOW, "I know this is wrong; now, I'm going to show you why." Which is not quite the same as saying, "Here are the explanations...do they have any merit?"

Now, we COULD spend days re-hashing what he wrote and the proper meaning of Greek words. For detail, consider this:

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/qu...y-in-matth

Personally, I think that the word "generation" may be translated differently as you will see in some of the answers given at that site.

It's not just his view. The view of mainstream scholarship today is that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher who did make such a promise.

But either way, we disagree on the premises, so whatever conclusion each side reaches is going to be based on the premises set forth. You believe that there's no way Jesus could have made a false prophecy, so he must have been misunderstood. I say he was a normal human being who said a lot of wrong things and made lots of mistakes.