Skeptics Bible

[Ouroboros]

All of the skeptics I have encountered here are displaying willful ignorance, so I guess I'm not surprised that the bunch at the link you have provided do as well.  They hide behind pretty sounding terminology like 'rational thought' and 'skepticism' and 'enlightenment', but in the end, they take their position on faith just like we do ours.

 

The difference between us and them is that we wear our badge of faith on our sleeves, while they pretend theirs doesn't exist.  

102587[/snapback]

 

Truth of Christ......

 

Why are you being so sarcastic and mean spirited?

102640[/snapback]

Actually, I think I like this guy. He just make the reason to stay away from Christianity stronger.

 

(And I haven't forgotten your PM Sofia, weekends doesn't give me much time to do any reasearch or reading.)

[Fweethawt]

Paul said he thought it was better that you remain as you were when you were saved.  However, he also says that it's better to be married if you can't control your lust. 

Chalk that up to one of the reasons the Christian Divorce Rate™ is probably so high.

[Mr. Neil]

Daniel, are you ignoring me? Whassamatter? Can't refute what I say?

 

Don't worry. I'll still make a point of demonstrating why your criticisms are false, and all your Christians friends will understand why you're not responding to me. It's because you can't.

[mwc]

I just so happend to click at random a certain book when I went to the site... I clicked on 1 Cor -- http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/1cor/1.html

 

I'll tell you what I think of them.

 

1) (1:7-8)

"Be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Paul expected Jesus to return within the lifetime of his followers.

 

No he didn't, and that's pretty ridiculous that someone would claim that.

 

2 Peter 3:3-5, tells us...

 

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,  And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.  For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

 

Peter knows that men in the future, will be wondering where is He?  Is He not coming?

 

Regardless... Paul makes NO IMPLICATION that the "day of our Lord Jesus Christ," returning will be in his lifetime.  I don't even know what the person that uses this as a contradiction is talking about... how does he gather that Paul said He is coming in his (Paul's own) lifetime, as a doctrine fact?  He doesn't... and is just another intentional lie by a "skeptic."

Here's some stuff I looked up awhile back on this whole return of jesus thing. It's kind of long but then again I seem to be known for long posts. I actually paired it down a bit so the quote feature would work correctly.

 

23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of  Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Jesus says he will return before his disciples visit all the cities of Israel.

He got it wrong.

 

27 For 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.

28 Verily 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.

 

Mark 9:1-3; Luke 9:27-28

Jesus says he will return before everyone standing with him dies.

He got it wrong.

 

Also, Jesus specifically states you're rewarded for works as opposed to faith.

 

While you're at it compare Mark 9:2 to Luke 9:28.

Jesus and pals went up the hill after 6 days (Mark 9:2)

Jesus and pals went up the hill after about 8 days (Luke 9:28)

In both stories Jesus pulls a Buddha and is "enlightened" (I mean "transfigured").

 

36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

 

See also Mark 13:28-33; Luke 21:27-32

Jesus says he will return during the generation of those he is speaking to.

He got it wrong.

 

63 But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be  the Christ, the Son of God.

64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.

 

See also Mark 14:61-63

Jesus says the high priest will see him return.

He got it wrong.

 

24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.

Jesus says the time is now, his lifetime, for all these events to take place.

He got it wrong.

 

Also, Jesus also says to believe in God and not him to be saved.

 

21 Peter seeing him saith to Jesus, Lord, and what shall this man do?

22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? follow thou me.

23 Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die: yet Jesus said not unto him, He shall not die; but, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

Jesus implies he may return during this man's lifetime.

Taken with all the above references it isn't rhetoric.

 

51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Paul believes that he and the Corinthians will not die but be transfigured.

Paul also slips up and reveals a "mystery" in writing betraying Paul's christianity as just another mystery religion of the day.

 

15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Paul tells the Thessalonians that some of them will be alive for the rapture.

He tell them to take comfort in his words.

He is speaking in present tense and is not prophesying here.

 

14 That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Paul tells Timothy to keep a commandment until Jesus comes.

Timothy is likely dead now and Jesus did not come back during his life as Paul implies to him since Timothy probably can't keep the commandment after he dies so Jesus would have to return before then.

 

-----

 

I am aware of the various apologies for all of these statements. The funny thing about them is that they seem to ignore either what is written (using various "technicalities" to skirt the issue) or ignore what religion is really about.

 

The "technicalities" have to do with any number of interpretive issues (Jesus/Paul said X but really meant Y or "you need to look at this other thing to get it"). I like these answers since it just enforces the amibiguity of the whole text. If the response to that is along the lines of I need the spirit to "get it" then this enforces the "mystery" aspect of the religion and puts it firmly in the pagan mystery religion camp.

 

If you want to take the whole "they're talking about future xians" approach then you miss the point of religion. No one "joins" a religion in respect to what it will do for others, especially future others. It is about what can it do for them in the here and now and, possibly, the next life. Not a single person back then (even today) cares about the "next guy" (not in the context I'm referring to at least). So when Jesus/Paul said things in the present first person view that was exactly what they meant. They meant "you guys I am speaking to in this place/letter, and not some unknown third party in the future, will experience this event."

 

It's painfully obvious what Jesus/Paul believed. As written jesus was to come to earth (either for the 2nd time as jesus implied or for the first as Paul seem to think in his early writings). Then, as today, people believed that the coming of jesus was going to happen during their life. If it didn't matter (meaning this was for some "future" group) then it would not have been talked about as it would be irrelevant. The coming to earth of a god, and his vengeance on the "evil doers," would have been a great reward for those "true" believers and was sold as such (and still is).

 

Now, so I'm not rude and don't address what you wrote here we go. First there's 1 Corinthians and then there's 2 Peter. A quick look at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ shows us the probable dates for these writings (and the ones I quote from):

50-60 1 Thessalonians

50-60 1 Corinthians

65-80 Gospel of Mark

80-100 Gospel of Matthew

80-130 Gospel of Luke

90-120 Gospel of John

100-150 1 Timothy

100-160 2 Peter

 

It would appear that "Peter" had a lot of excuses to make for all those failures that came before him. I'd start the apologies too if what I based my "faith" on failed to materialize after so many promises. (Oh, and "Peter" shows his ignorance by believing that the earth is "standing out of the water and in the water" as this essentially is how a flat earth existed in many "explanations").

 

mwc

[quicksand]

Um...since when has anyone referenced the SAB?

102699[/snapback]

That's a good point. Most common quoted Bible is the KJ or NIV on this site by present-day christians and ex-christians alike.

[mwc]

Um...since when has anyone referenced the SAB?

102699[/snapback]

That's a good point. Most common quoted Bible is the KJ or NIV on this site by present-day christians and ex-christians alike.

Exactly. I almost always use the KJV to avoid the whole wrong version argument that gets thrown by (KJV inerrancy) fundies.

 

The SAB is a fun read (not just for the bible but for the Quran and BoM too), and a good way to pick up references to strange things I didn't know or forgot, but there's quite a few things they say that I don't agree with at all (for any number of reasons).

 

mwc

[Vigile]

but in the end, they take their position on faith just like we do ours.

 

102587[/snapback]

 

Explain to me how it takes faith to not believe?

[Godless Wonder]

> but in the end, they take their position on faith just like we do ours.

 

This indicates that the author of the above sentence fragment, down deep, knows there is something wrong with faith, else he wouldn't try to justify his own faith by attempting to point out that others use faith too. Even though in this case, the others he accuses of using faith actually are not.

 

Atheists know that faith is not a good way to know anything, and realize that faith -- believing things to a degree of certainty not warranted by the available evidence -- is not a virtue, but a fault.

 

The faithful idiotically praise faith -- believing things to a degree of certainty unwarranted by the available evidence -- as a virtue, so long as the things one believes in this way are the same particular things they happen to believe in this way.

 

Faith is willful ignorance. To try to become faithful is to willfully turn yourself into a moron. Encouraging others to have faith is unethical and despicable, akin to promoting illiteracy or actively preventing people from being able to learn to read.

[Antlerman]

Faith is willful ignorance.  To try to become faithful is to willfully turn yourself into a moron.  Encouraging others to have faith is unethical and despicable, akin to promoting illiteracy or actively preventing people from being able to learn to read.

102933[/snapback]

 

 

Well said! Amen and Amen!

[Kuroikaze]

Come on now, do you even read the Bible, Heck I was taught this stuff in sunday school and bible study back when I was a christian.

 

Yes, I do read my Bible... therefore I don't necessarily have to rely on what I was or wasn't taught in Sunday school.

 

Paul said he thought it was better that you remain as you were when you were saved. However, he also says that it's better to be married if you can't control your lust. However, there is no implication whatsoever that should lead anyone to believe he taught a doctrine that Christ would 100% factually return in his or the church's of that time lifetime.

102822[/snapback]

 

 

Nice, not only did you ignore the bulk of what I said only to focus on one sentence, you grossly misinterpreted what I said, by making it look like I never read my bible....which is blantanly false.

 

1. I read my bible almost every day for 4 years

 

2. I read it not only as devotional material but also studied in depth for the many religion classes I took.

 

3. Do you really think you know more about paul than the majority of modern theologins? So much so that you don't even have to bother to read what they wrote at all? These people have actually studied history, unlike you, again you show your totally lack of humility by thinking you can figure out everything on your own.

 

4. One of my religion classes was actually ON Paul. I did nothing but study him for an entire term in college so please don't think you know more about him than me....because you don't

 

 

1Co. 7:28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin

marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face

many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

1Co. 7:29 What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on

those who have wives should live as if they had none;

1Co. 7:30 those who mourn, as if they did not; those who are happy, as

if they were not; those who buy something, as if it were not

theirs to keep;

1Co. 7:31 those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in

them. For this world in its present form is passing away.

 

We can clearly see from this passage that Paul belived that christ would be returning soon because he says "Time is short, as an arguemnt for not having sex with your wife" since he is referencing this as a reason for not marrying or having sex, and therefore children with your wife. when he says short he is talking about christ returning in that generation. It would make no sence for him to use this as an argument if by short he simply ment "sometime, you know in the next 2 or 3 thousand years"

 

I'm sure you will weasel out of this or just ignore it all together. But the passage is very clear if you took the time to understand the historcal context at all. Maybe you'll try to redefine short, that would be good for a laugh.

 

In truth, if you read some of Paul's later letters, 1 Cor. is the first chronologically, you can see that Paul strugles with this idea of christs imminent return. It is evident in his later letters that he is beging to think it will be a lot longer, and he is trying to deal with that.

[spamandham]

This indicates that the author of the above sentence fragment, down deep, knows there is something wrong with faith, else he wouldn't try to justify his own faith by attempting to point out that others use faith too.

 

Excellent insight! "You have faith too" demonstrates that the poster does not actually value faith, but merely claims to value it. He is deluding himself and his subconscious knows it.

 

The same type of analysis applies to those who claim evolution is a religion. Deep down they know the religious explanation for origins is a lie, so they attempt to prove evolution is the same thing thereby justifying their acceptance of a lie.

[daniel_1012]

Hate to tell ya this Dan, but I fear not a single ExC user gives a rats ass about what you *think* about SAB and contents within.

 

The why was I asked what I thought?

[daniel_1012]

I'm sure you will weasel out of this or just ignore it all together. But the passage is very clear if you took the time to understand the historcal context at all. Maybe you'll try to redefine short, that would be good for a laugh.

 

Redfine short? I don't think short has a definition, because it has no standard for comparison. Considering God is everlasting, "short," very well may be a very very long "time" on earth. There is absolutely no place where Paul indicates the thought that Jesus would, with absolute surity, come back within his or other followers lifetime.

 

However, regardless of the fact Paul does not indicate such doctrine as fact, even people today are encouraged to live like Jesus is coming back tomorrow. "If I told you, Jesus comes quickly, do not live for this world." First off, assuming I am speaking of the final straw when Jesus comes in all His glory to judge the world, this is something of what I consider common teaching. It's not saying that I know He is coming back tomorrow... it means live like He is. Jesus comes quickly -- and this is always true because time is meaningless to God. What is even a billion years to a God who is completely unaffected by time unless He chooses to be such as when He created time for us. God lives in the eternal, and everything is eternal. Anyways, I somewhat digress because in the very beginning, Paul does not indicate such thought as though Jesus will FACTUALY return in his or anyone elses lifetime.

 

If anyone taught to prepare for the return of the Lord, that is no surprise, we even do it today but we understand it is not a fact that He will come in my lifetime -- it is to encourage us to live by faith. Live like today is your last, live like there is no tomorrow. Surely when Christ returns, that is it.

[Cerise]

Redfine short?  I don't think short has a definition, because it has no standard for comparison.

 

Um, sure it does. Like say...long.

 

 

Considering God is everlasting, "short," very well may be a very very long "time" on earth.  There is absolutely no place where Paul indicates the thought that Jesus would, with absolute surity, come back within his or other followers lifetime.

 

Why would Paul, when talking to humans about the time when God would return to earth, use the word "short" from God's "Everlasting" perspective? If I told you that fruit flies live for a million years and they lived for three days, would it suddenly turn into an accurate description of time if I claimed to be seeing things from the point of view of the fruit flies?

 

If Jesus does come back tomorrow, you'll have a lot of explaining to do about why you aren't doing as the bible said and shaking the dust of your feet. Also, I'm sure Jesus will want to know why you're still not going around moving mountains and curing lepers like any true followers of Christ would do.

[daniel_1012]

Jesus isn't of the house of David. You ran away from this argument and started a new one, because you're a coward. Therefore, any remark you make about "Christ rejecting societies" is meaningless and hypocritical.

 

We have been over this. You are convinced the Bible is in error or says otherwise to Jesus being from the house of David, and I'm not reopening that can of worms in this thread. Both Mary and Joseph were Davids decendents.

 

Furthermore, nobody here abides by the Skeptic's Annotated Bible as a reputable, scholarly source, so your criticism of it here is worthless and doesn't need to be disputed. If you have any criticism of that site, you'll have to take it up with Steve Welles. Not us.

 

Of course, you won't do this, because it's much easier to bunch all atheists together.

 

Nobody does huh? Then why was I *asked* to give what I thought on it? Obviously there are many who do use it as a reliable source, because the only reason this post even exists right now (as well as the one you may reply with), is because someone *does* use it as a source. So, my criticism of it here was actually requested of me.

[daniel_1012]

 

Um, sure it does. Like say...long.

 

Yes, then by the same logic up has its comparative... down. Just because things are oppostie does not mean they are comparitive.

 

If I said, "throw the ball a short distance," how far would you throw it? 5 feet? What if you threw it 5 feet and I said, "I said throw it short darn it!" To me, I was thinking of the average height of a man being the comparison for full length. You almost through it the entire distance! You see, long and short do not have an object for direct reference, unless you give it one.

 

When we generally say up/down, we are referring to an objects *relative* spot on the earth, being effected by gravity *at that time* *at that place* as it is pulled "downward" or thrown "upward" in respect to the gravitational effects of the earth. However, up and down are also relative terms, because what if I told you to go "up" when we were in the middle of outer space? Perhaps then, you would use the top of your head for the reference of the "high place" and the bottoms of your feet for the reference of the "low place. But what if you are laying down, is the top of your head still up? You could also use the top of the ship and the bottom of the ship, or perhaps the earth itself could even be used as the reference point of "up" where as another man might say, "no no... that is forward."

 

I could go on, but long/short have no point of reference unless you give it one, and saying "Jesus comes quickly," is a common belief we are to take up as we live for God each day. We are indeed to treat the day as though Christ will return tomorrow, and if I said, "Christ comes quickly, prepare today as though it is your last," I am not in error. We are to live just like that, and just because I told you to prepare as though today was your last, it does not mean it is -- this is also a common use of 'inspiration' for other parts of lifes journey's. If someone said, "live like there is tomorrow," would you necessarily feel motivated to do so or fear for your life that is coming to a now so sudden end? Of course you wouldn't... unless you believed in something greater, such as Christ... and determined Him worthy of such an act -- which He is.

[Kuroikaze]

I'm sure you will weasel out of this or just ignore it all together. But the passage is very clear if you took the time to understand the historcal context at all. Maybe you'll try to redefine short, that would be good for a laugh.

 

Redfine short? I don't think short has a definition, because it has no standard for comparison. Considering God is everlasting, "short," very well may be a very very long "time" on earth. There is absolutely no place where Paul indicates the thought that Jesus would, with absolute surity, come back within his or other followers lifetime.

 

However, regardless of the fact Paul does not indicate such doctrine as fact, even people today are encouraged to live like Jesus is coming back tomorrow. "If I told you, Jesus comes quickly, do not live for this world." First off, assuming I am speaking of the final straw when Jesus comes in all His glory to judge the world, this is something of what I consider common teaching. It's not saying that I know He is coming back tomorrow... it means live like He is. Jesus comes quickly -- and this is always true because time is meaningless to God. What is even a billion years to a God who is completely unaffected by time unless He chooses to be such as when He created time for us. God lives in the eternal, and everything is eternal. Anyways, I somewhat digress because in the very beginning, Paul does not indicate such thought as though Jesus will FACTUALY return in his or anyone elses lifetime.

 

If anyone taught to prepare for the return of the Lord, that is no surprise, we even do it today but we understand it is not a fact that He will come in my lifetime -- it is to encourage us to live by faith. Live like today is your last, live like there is no tomorrow. Surely when Christ returns, that is it.

103139[/snapback]

 

 

Quickly does not mean the same thing as soon. And God didn't write that passage Paul wrote it...so comparing God's sense of time adds nothing to this discussion. Besides God is supposed to exist out side of time anyway, according to the traditional christian thought on the matter, so time is a totally meaningless concept to even apply to God.

 

You are right to say that short only derives its meaning from comparing it to long, however from the passage it is clear that paul is using short in the sense of human time. This is why he tells people not to bother continuing to have sex with thier wives. There was no point in having kids if Jesus was going to come back in a few year. It would make no sense to tell them not to have sex if Paul thought it might be 2 thousand years later when Christ returned. I mean christianity would have had a hard time spreading if no one had kids.

 

I'm a bit confused as to what your even trying to argue at this point. I never said that Paul made any claim to know the exact date of Jesus return, merely that at the begining of his ministry he "thought" or was fairly sure that it would be in the his lifetime, and he makes quite a few statements in Cor. and Gal. bassed on this assumption. Later on he rethinks this postion. you can see examples of this change throughout his letters. Again, almost every theologian, even the conservitive ones, agree on this. Do you really think you are smarter than people who have produced the past 4 or 5 hundred years of biblical scholarship?

 

P.S. you did a pretty good job of trying to redefine short....nice try

[Kuroikaze]

Nobody does huh?  Then why was I *asked* to give what I thought on it?  Obviously there are many who do use it as a reliable source, because the only reason this post even exists right now (as well as the one you may reply with), is because someone *does* use it as a source.  So, my criticism of it here was actually requested of me.

103145[/snapback]

 

I think his point is that most of us agree that some of the interpretations in the skeptics bible are questionable. I would agree that there are plenty of places where the problem they point out is bassed on a misinterpretation of the bible. But many points made there are valid, and in either case, it still makes you think, which is a good thing.

[crazy-tiger]

Jesus isn't of the house of David. You ran away from this argument and started a new one, because you're a coward. Therefore, any remark you make about "Christ rejecting societies" is meaningless and hypocritical.

We have been over this. You are convinced the Bible is in error or says otherwise to Jesus being from the house of David, and I'm not reopening that can of worms in this thread. Both Mary and Joseph were Davids decendents.

103145[/snapback]

The fact that you haven't proved that either of the geneologies was Mary's casts doubt on Mary being a descendent of David. (casts doubt? blows the whole idea out of the water more like)

Add to that the fact that Jesus was supposed to be a VIRGIN BIRTH and therefore HAS NO HUMAN FATHER, and you have very serious doubts that Jesus was of the House of David...

 

 

Now, unless you'd like to show just where in the Bible it says that one of them is Mary's geneology, I suggest you stop adding stuff to the Bible in direct defiance of the Bible...

[Mr. Neil]

We have been over this.

No we haven't. I showed you that Jesus couldn't be of the house of David, and you just said, "Nuh-uh", and you ran away.

 

You are convinced the Bible is in error or says otherwise to Jesus being from the house of David, and I'm not reopening that can of worms in this thread.

Because you're a pussy, and you know you're wrong.

 

Both Mary and Joseph were Davids decendents.

Idiot! The Bible states, in no uncertain terms, that pedegrees come only after the house of their fathers! FATHERS!!!! If you count Mary, then the whole prophecy of Jesus coming from David is useless! These prophecies are supposed to be signs!

 

Schmuck!

 

Nobody does huh?  Then why was I *asked* to give what I thought on it?  Obviously there are many who do use it as a reliable source, because the only reason this post even exists right now (as well as the one you may reply with), is because someone *does* use it as a source.  So, my criticism of it here was actually requested of me.

Sure, there are people here who use it for a source, but I'm talking in terms of a scholarly source. The SAB is simply not at the level of biblical criticism as someone like Bob Price.

[daniel_1012]

I didn't redefine short... I gave you its definition. Short in and of itself has no point of reference. This is why dogs can be short, dinosaurs can be short, buildings can be short, our time can be short, my shorts can be short. I'm not saying anything people don't already know.

[daniel_1012]

 

I'm sorry, I'm not convinced. Perhaps next time.

[Mythra]

I didn't redefine short... I gave you its definition.  Short in and of itself has no point of reference.  This is why dogs can be short, dinosaurs can be short, buildings can be short, our time can be short, my shorts can be short.  I'm not saying anything people don't already know.

103186[/snapback]

 

No, what you did is give a definition of short that was devoid of context.

 

If I said that I had a short time to live, would you think that I could be talking about only sixty more years?

 

When Paul says time is short, he believed that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. This is borne out by the numerous verses in the later epistles trying to calm the believers who were grumbling about "where IS He?"

[Mr. Neil]

I'm sorry, I'm not convinced.  Perhaps next time.

Not good enough. Again, you're running away, because you know you're wrong, and you're trying to save face.

 

Every argument you make on behalf of Christianity is immediately rendered irrelevent, because you were faced with evidence of Christianity's falsehood, which you ignored.

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...36entry101236

 

You ran away like a bitch, and you know it.

[♦ nivek ♦]

However, regardless of the fact Paul does not indicate such doctrine as fact, even people today are encouraged to live like Jesus is coming back tomorrow.

 

Yo Daniel...

 

If Paul (Saul of Tarsus) said it, it is *doctrine*, to be taken as "gospel" itself.

 

You do know that todays contruct of religion is as much or more *Paul* as it every was *Jesus*.

 

Anything Paul (Saul) "revealed" (as he never was a peer of jebus, nor ever had met the god-man in person, everything he, Paul-Saul, said was some kind of dream or revelation by extra-world means. visions, dreams, nightmares, whatever) and thus codified in to the modern xtian bible is considered *trvth*.

 

Under any apologetic circumstances you would be laughed your happy ass out of the House with your inane and insepid attempts at translating *soon*.

 

Paul-Saul said "soon", meaning "in the immediate future", indicating an imminent and quick return of the god-man.

 

Don't try to unfuck your argument amigo. Been Here, Done That with this far too many times to have you attempt to 'splain away the *soon* argument.

 

kL