Great at Prophecy, Stink at Timing?

[Gordian Knot]

This is one of those issues that have troubled me for many a long time.

Why did the Great Prophets of religion come along when they did? These were men who came here to dispense the wisdom by which many faiths were born. To name just a few, and roughly the time of their propheting:

Moses - 1500 BC
Buddha - 350 BC
JC - 30 AD
Muhammad - 600 AD

There are, it seems to me, two significant problems with these dates.

Problem #1.
What about all the poor souls who languished before these guys came along?
The list includes, Sumeria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, China, the Minoans, the Greeks, and a host of other civilizations to numerous to mention.

Why didn't the Prophets come along early enough to help these folks? And especially in Christian tradition, didn't every one of these individuals who lived and died before JC did his thing, didn't they all take a ride on the Down elevator?

If a belief in Christ is a prerequisite to going to heaven, weren't all these earlier civilizations doomed to hell, every man, woman and child?

Problem #2.
If the prophets weren't too concerned about the people who came before them anyway, why did they choose to show up at a time when the dispensing of accurate information was so terribly fallible.

Think about it. What a message these guys could get out there directly to the entire world with the technology we have today!

No matter which end one looks at it, the timing of the Prophets seems to have been horribly wrong. Doesn't it? What am I missing?????

 

[Nick the Pilot]

You are assuming that there were no great profits before these four, and that there will be none in the future. There is no reason to make this assumption.

"If a belief in Christ is a prerequisite to going to heaven, weren't all these earlier civilizations doomed to hell, every man, woman and child?"

--> This right here tells you that your two assumptions are wrong. And, many thousands of years in the future, Jesus will be long forgotten, so the flaw in your logic affects the future, too. The human race and its civilizations have been around for a lot longer than 6,000 years, and will be around for a lot longer than 6,000 years in the future. Please do not buy into the mistaken idea that Jesus, Buddha, etc., were a one-shot deal.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

G-Knot, do you think today would be a better time to preach, aren't we dismissing faith out of hand simply looking at facts? Perhaps 2000 or 3000 years ago was the perfect time to preach, perhaps people were more in-tune with nature and the community?

And I'm not sure 'hell' is such a common concept among religions as a lot of us from the outside would assume.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Nick, I'm not sure your assumptions are any better.

1. The human race has been around for longer than 6,000 years. Okay we agree on that one.
2. The human race will be around for a lot longer than 6,000 years into the future. Say huh? What in the world, or outside of it for that matter, makes you believe that? That is one extraordinary assumption! Backed by what?
3. Many thousands of years in the future JC will be forgotten. Again, huh? All those other gods were false gods. JC is the real deal. If you have doubts, ask at any of your local Christian hangouts.
4. Could you elaborate on your last statement? That these prophets were not a one shot deal? I'm not sure what you mean, and it sounds intriguing.

Tea, I'm not sure being more in tune with nature and the community would necessarily lead to a closer tie to divinity. Life was much harder. People didn't have the luxury to wax theologic very much. Plus the life span was so much shorter. People were more ignorant then, from the simple fact that all this science stuff hadn't gotten in the way yet. So it was a better time because people were more ignorant?

Your last sentence confuses me, too. (Nothing unusual there, I confuse easily). Hell is not such a common concept among religions as a lot of us from the outside world assume? I'm particularly lost at the part in bold. Which outside world we taking about? And what is the inside world?

 

[wil]

There is a contemplation that these were one and the same, repeatedly sent to get us the message...

And you are forgetting the bahaula, Jesus coming to the Natives in America (mormon), Melchizidek, numerous other biblical prophets, what about Lau Tzu, or Neal Donald Walsch, Course in Miracles, Ramtha, Ester, tons of modern prophets and channels,....

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"All those other gods were false gods. JC is the real deal. If you have doubts, ask at any of your local Christian hangouts."

--> Now you are proselytizing. I am not a Christian, nor do I think JC was the 'real deal'.

Perhaps you think I am proselytizing too. Hardly conditions for an open discussion.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

Tea, I'm not sure being more in tune with nature and the community would necessarily lead to a closer tie to divinity. Life was much harder. People didn't have the luxury to wax theologic very much. Plus the life span was so much shorter. People were more ignorant then, from the simple fact that all this science stuff hadn't gotten in the way yet. So it was a better time because people were more ignorant?

No I'm not sure either, I have no idea, I don't think I would be able to determine what the best time for a prophet would be. I don't think anyone of us could.

Your last sentence confuses me, too. (Nothing unusual there, I confuse easily). Hell is not such a common concept among religions as a lot of us from the outside world assume? I'm particularly lost at the part in bold. Which outside world we taking about? And what is the inside world?

Misspelling: as a lot of us from the outside would assume.
And I mean me, I'm outside of religion looking in, and people like me assume a lot about things we don't understand.

 

[radarmark]

The principles that should (IMHO) be applied are "does it fit in with what we beleive the world to be", "can the assumption be falsified", "does it admit to inductive or abductive proof", and "does it move humanity forward"?

A "no" to any of these makes the claim pseudoscientific and illogical at the best. Evil at the worst.

 

[Thomas]

What about all the poor souls who languished before these guys came along?

They had their prophets. They had their way of talking to God.

Prophets come along, born of place and time as much as anything else.

And especially in Christian tradition, didn't every one of these individuals who lived and died before JC did his thing, didn't they all take a ride on the Down elevator?

Not according to ancient tradition, no.

If a belief in Christ is a prerequisite to going to heaven, weren't all these earlier civilizations doomed to hell, every man, woman and child?

Not according to ancient tradition, no.

Think about it. What a message these guys could get out there directly to the entire world with the technology we have today!

You are kidding, right? Do you believe everything you read on the internet?

'Truth' carries less meaning and value today than ever before. Today truth comes a poor second to 'personal narrative', the Philosophy of Relativism that is the over-arching philosophy of modernism.

In ancient days, man knew comparatively little, but it was a lot to him.
In modern days, man knows comparatively a lot, but it's all negotiable.

No matter which end one looks at it, the timing of the Prophets seems to have been horribly wrong. Doesn't it? What am I missing?????

The fact that nothing new, in the world of ideas, has been said for 2,000 years?

We have convinced ourselves we're smarter, more astute, more insightful and more intellectually enlightened than our ancestors, but really we're not, it's an illusion created by the backlight from the screens we look into, and all the tech we surround ourselves with.

 

[Gordian Knot]

"All those other gods were false gods. JC is the real deal. If you have doubts, ask at any of your local Christian hangouts."

--> Now you are proselytizing. I am not a Christian, nor do I think JC was the 'real deal'.

Perhaps you think I am proselytizing too. Hardly conditions for an open discussion.

Nick I would only be proselytizing if I believed JC was the real deal. Which I do not. I was suggesting that in most of Western culture theologies, a great many people believe JC is the real deal. Everyone else who came before were false gods believed in by fools who didn't know better.

It is a hubris I find fascinating. History has shown us that at various times certain gods were considered the real deal, only to have them supplanted by new gods who were really the real deal. And they supplanted by the honest to goodness real deal.

What is the psychology of people who think this way? How can Christians look back on all the humans in the past who, in their time, believed they had the real deal. But they were all wrong. And Christians today are right.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Thomas, you missed my point. Of course everything on the internet is not true. My suggestion was that in 25 AD, JC could directly spread his word to what, a couple thousand people?

From there he had to depend on secondaries to spread (and possibly distort) his words further afield.

If JC came today, he could directly, personally deliver his message to practically the entire world population. If one is spreading the True Word, what better way to do it. People would still have the choice to believe or not. But everyone would be getting the same message from the same source at the same time.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I think you're over-thinking this. You don't understand Christians, it isn't a problem is it?

Also, I don't think that people dismiss the previous prophets, for example, look at Abraham, Moses and Jesus, it builds on. Do you have an example of people dismissing an old prophet in light of a new one?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"If JC came today, he could directly, personally deliver his message to practically the entire world population."

--> If he came today, I think most people would not listen to his message. (There are a lot of religious people on the Internet nowadays that no one listens to.) I also think they would not recognize him as JC.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

"...look at Abraham, Moses and Jesus, it builds on. Do you have an example of people dismissing an old prophet in light of a new one?"

--> Christians hold up Jesus as a deity, whereas the Ten Commandments expressly forbid holding up any human as a deity.

 

[Gordian Knot]

--> If he came today, I think most people would not listen to his message. (There are a lot of religious people on the Internet nowadays that no one listens to.) I also think they would not recognize him as JC.

JC had that same problem in 25 AD did he not?????

 

[Gordian Knot]

Also, I don't think that people dismiss the previous prophets, for example, look at Abraham, Moses and Jesus, it builds on. Do you have an example of people dismissing an old prophet in light of a new one?

Don't remember ever suggesting people dismissed an older prophet in place of a new one.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I see, then I don't think I understand this.

Everyone else who came before were false gods believed in by fools who didn't know better.

It is a hubris I find fascinating. History has shown us that at various times certain gods were considered the real deal, only to have them supplanted by new gods who were really the real deal. And they supplanted by the honest to goodness real deal.

 

[Thomas]

If JC came today, he could directly, personally deliver his message to practically the entire world population.

On WebTV, or blogging, or posting videos on YouTube? I'm not so sure.

Bear in mind the message is being broadcast globally today, and even the versions tailored to contemporary culture, so watered-down as to be bland and anodyne, self-satisfying and inoffensive, fail to capture a significant market share.

Check out Marshall McLuhan — The Medium is the Message is his aphorism that offers some insights about global communications. Even better different perspective on your views . Even better is The Medium is the Massage

Modern media is our Tower of Babel. Nuggets of pure gold in there, sure enough, but so much chaff, so much chatter.

I think people would see just another mad prophet blethering on about something.

I think if He came today, He'd be doing the same thing as He did then, talking to the guy on the street ... spending time with people who don't have cable and satellite and a cell ...

And five minutes after He was off-air, you'd have a dozen commentators up there explaining 'what He really means' and pointing out 'what He's missing' and every stop in between.

... People would still have the choice to believe or not ...

That's the point, isn't it?

It's the same choice, same now as it was then ...

What people want to hear is sometimes, and quite often, not what is being said, especially if the core message is not to one's taste ... and the essential message of Christianity is far removed from today's tastes.

As I've said before, we 'lose faith' when we lose faith in the core message. The rest of it, outrage at discovering Christmas isn't Dec 25, or that the Exodus wasn't some Cecil B DeMille production, are what we tell ourselves to convince ourselves we are right, but really, it's a sideshow.

Same with the message ... there's core is there, plain as day, everyone agrees to that, you can't deny it ... but we choose not to live it, or rather we choose to live it on our terms, and moderate it accordingly.

 

[Gordian Knot]

I see, then I don't think I understand this.

Ah. Gotcha. What I was trying to say was that before Christianity took hold, there were thousands of years where people believed in Norse Gods, Greek Gods, Egyptian Gods, Sumerian Gods and so on, and so on.

Those people believed in their gods as surely as people believe in the gods that reign today. Yet everyone is so sure their god(s) are the only Twu god(s). It is that certainty that I find exasperating.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Thomas I wish people would give more time to the core instead of almost all their time to the sideshow. I could accept organized religion a lot more if that were the case.....