Eastern Gate: An Atheist's Worst Nightmare

So we can open it up today and seal it back up tomorrow and then open it again, etc. etc. As long as it's closed when Jesus comes the prophecy will be fulfilled? Ok, I predict the door to my house will be sealed and that it will remain selaed until I unseal it. Great prophecy...

PS: I agree with Chodpa.

 

popthree,

So we can open it up today and seal it back up tomorrow and then open it again, etc. etc. As long as it's closed when Jesus comes the prophecy will be fulfilled? Ok, I predict the door to my house will be sealed and that it will remain selaed until I unseal it. Great prophecy...

PS: I agree with Chodpa.

-Let me restate this:It does not matter how many times it was open or closed before it was sealed

The fact is Eziekiel predicted that when it is sealed it will not be open until the messiah comes.

No one has walked through it since it was sealed. Sorry popthree but you are still in this nightmare

Of course you agree with Chodpa because if you sided with me you would have to admit that the Bible does have validity.

Oh yeah popthree, I have posted these questions to you two other times and not yet have you replied to them.

Can you please explain these...
1. Messiah would be sold for 30 pieces of silver-Zech. 11:12

2. The Bible states that the Messiah would be the light to the gentiles. Who claimed to be the messiah and is now embraced by the gentiles but is rejected by the Jews?


LuciferSam,

Umm, what do you want explained? It sounds like a really well built gate. If they really want to test it why don't they just blow it up... that's what I'd do if I was determined to open it for some reason.

-Well why hasn't anyone been able to get through. There has been attempts, yet none succeeded. The arabs are so threaten by it they even put a graveyard in front of it with the thinking that the Messiah would not walk through a graveyard. Try to explain what you said: Why can't someone just blow it up. I give you this, if anyone walks through the gate-besides Jesus-they prove the Bible wrong. So if you are that determined, go ahead and try, but I don't think you'll get anywhere.


Chodpa,

"Nowhere in the Bible does it declare that Jesus will return."

-Then you do not know the Bible.

 

Campbell, I'm sorry but I really can't take this gate theory seriously. Do you honestly believe that simply quoting the Bible is a valid argument and expect people to soak in your wisdom based only on that? Hell, I could write my own scriptures, my own Gospel of LuciferSam, that refutes your Gate legend, and that would be just as valid. Why should the Bible be so much more special and valid than any other holy script, or anything else?

I'm not concerned enough about it nor do I have the means to actually go overseas with a rocket launcher and blow a hole in the Gate, but I don't doubt that with enough force, this Gate can be opened just like any other gate. But if someone does fire cruise missiles at the Gate or goes at it with a diamond saw and it comes out unscathed, then get back to me.

And on the return of Jesus legend, that originated from Paul's Gospel, I believe. Jesus' death understandably lowered the hopes of many believers, so quick-thinking Paul thought up the idea of Jesus' Second Coming. Though Paul had predicted that the Second Coming would be within a few decades or so of his prediction... and he also thought he and other believers would live forever... when those predictions failed, later Gospels and believers would extend those predictions and explain some of those that didn't come about to be allegorical rather than direct prophecies.

 

LuciferSam,

"Campbell, I'm sorry but I really can't take this gate theory seriously. Do you honestly believe that simply quoting the Bible is a valid argument and expect people to soak in your wisdom based only on that? Hell, I could write my own scriptures, my own Gospel of LuciferSam, that refutes your Gate legend, and that would be just as valid. Why should the Bible be so much more special and valid than any other holy script, or anything else?"

-Yeah you could write your own scriptures but could you predict anything in detail-nope-that's what makes your scriptures and any other book different from the Bible's. The fact is the gate still stands and so does my faith.

And on the return of Jesus legend, that originated from Paul's Gospel, I believe. Jesus' death understandably lowered the hopes of many believers, so quick-thinking Paul thought up the idea of Jesus' Second Coming. Though Paul had predicted that the Second Coming would be within a few decades or so of his prediction... and he also thought he and other believers would live forever... when those predictions failed, later Gospels and believers would extend those predictions and explain some of those that didn't come about to be allegorical rather than direct prophecies.

-First off Paul did not come up with Christ returning. Jesus himself said he would return.

"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going."

Also, which prophecies did they explain away as allegory?

 

Just FYI to all...he is right. There is such a gate. Those there are afraid that it will come true, as well. They have built a graveyard right behind the wall, in hopes that Jesus would not desecrate (spelling?) a graveyard, and stop Him from walking through.

 

Dude, if I cared enough to take the time, I could give you all the detail you want. I'd weave fantastic stories... I mean, predictions about giant magic wombats and angels riding in flying pumpkin chariots and Jesus returning in a flying saucer. The fact it's described in detail is only a testimony, if anything, to the author's imagination rather than his/her foresight.

No one really knows what Jesus actually said. There are no actual scriptures of Jesus' teachings directly from him, all accounts of Jesus come from the Gospels or later writers, none of whom have ever encountered Jesus. This explains why the four official Gospels have such differing accounts of Christ, and the Gnostic Gospels are often even more cryptic or strange (read the Gospel of Thomas, that one's always entertaining).

In that specific case, the prophecies that Paul had about Jesus returning very soon, and that he and his followers would never die. These didn't come about, so later Christian leaders would say, essentially, "Oh... well, uh, that was just allegory. Jesus actually won't be back for quite a while. And what Paul meant was not that we won't physically die, but our spirits won't." Basically to that effect.

 

On a further note, if you pay any attention at all to Christian history, especially during its early years when it was infused with Hellenistic/Platonic ideas, you'd know that the Bible was and is often interpreted on a non-literal, allegorical level. The Greeks were fond of allegory, after all.

 

The insult implicit in the first sentence was not necessary. (Implying he does not pay attention to any Christian history)

It would be a fitting implication for yourself.
The early years of the Christian Church did not see some remarkable 'infusion' of Hellenistic/Platonic 'ideas'.
Not surprisingly, Apostles like Paul or even Jesus Himself were relating and teaching to a world infused with Hellenistic/Platonic ideas.
Even the language of the day (Greek) was chock-full of 'Hellenistic/Platonic' basis, reference and derivision.

So this you conclude is evidence Christianity was 'infused' with Plato??

Lets go with this baseless suggestion of yours....
You draw some 'conclusion' (which is someone supposed to 'inform' Campbell of God-knows-what)

Huh?

What is 'non-literal'?
You mean Paul's voyage to Malta 'was and is' to be seen as an 'allegory' about travelling to other islands?

You mean Jesus showing Thomas his healed wounds was really some 'allegory' about how 'man views scars'?

'After All' you remind us.. 'The Greeks were fond of allegory"
Huh?
or should I say 'Duh'?

Read the New Testament.. or even passages.. The Writers, Apostles, Jesus and everyone involved are entirely aware of Allegory, Literal vs. Non-literal and there is no confusion on anyones part.

The Gospels clearly and without 'grey' explain what they are, what they intend to explain and then go about doing so.
Clearly, literally and without mystery.

Please, since you are so familiar with early Church history and the Hellenistic/Platonic world-view of the Greco-Roman world, Please explain where and what is 'Allegorical' and what is 'Non-Literal'?

I'm certain that someone intelligent enough to stylise his countenance to that of a Hobbit will be able to carefully enlighten me as to where Dr. John's Gospel Account of Jesus Ministry was being 'Allegorical'.

I can't wait.

 

Again I restate that the status of 'sealed' has been difined by someone and you claim that since it was opened before it must not have been 'sealed' or it wouldn't have been opened. But now it is sealed because it hasn't been opened... but if someone opened it all the believers in this gate thing would just say... 'oh it must not have been sealed yet!' In essense the prophecy is circular, and unproovable. If you could say that the gate has been sealed since those scriptures were written it would be different. The gate has been opened and nothing happened. They could open it again and nothing would happen.

I have not claimed that the bible has NO validity. I claim that the bible is NOT a 100% complete, accurate, literal, infallible document pulled 100% from the mouth of God without misinterpretations, mistranslations or the misdirections of man's influence on it. ... but I don't think Chodpa's statement had anything to do with invalidating the bible. He was pointing out that people read a bunch of stuff into the religion that's not in the bible (especially since 300 - 400 AD when the religion took quite a historical turn.)

1. Chapters 9 to 11 of Zechariah are not written by the prophet and are not considered prophetic in nature. They come from the hand of another author that is often called "Second Zechariah" (around 300 BC). These chapters consist of sayings against foreign nations together with promises of power for the returning exiles. They are easy to read stories about what God is going to do to Jerusalem's enemies and how those who return will be rewarded for there courage. How you find a 'Messiah' prediction in these documents is quite beyond me, unless you forgot the read the sentences that come before and after Zech 11:12.
2. Light unto the gentiles - very opinionated statement with can not be verified. Claimed to be the messiah - I don't remember Jesus claiming that. Hitler claimed to be a deliverer of the Gentiles and he is rejected by the Jews. Maybe you got the wrong man...

 

'Non-Literal' - (example) When Jesus said that god's harvest was like grain that fell on fertile soil he didn't mean he was going to plant us.


A whole lot of the 'good' (IMO) teaching in the bible are in parable and even riddle. Those who built many of the scriptures must have been aware that language and word meanings change, but morals embedded inside of stories often held the test of time - because they are abstract in nature.

Taking these stories literally destroys ALL of the meaning and wisdom they were meant to impart.

 

PS: I don't really see the nightmare here. If Jesus came back I think we'd be pretty good pals.

 

Alright then, I merely took the assumption from the fact that campbell seems to take everything in the Bible literally and at its word. A look at early Christian history would show you that theology would not often take things so literally. I am trying hard to maintain a level of civility in this conversation, but it gets very trying at times for me to hide my contempt for people who repeatedly yelp "The Bible says it and that's all the proof I need! And it's valid because my faith is very very strong!"

Wrong. Read further on for my counterargument.

Jesus' main area of influence in his living days were strictly confined to the Hebrew world and he himself had little to do with Greek philosophy. It would be later Christian theologians that would bring in Hellenistic ideas. Had Jesus hypothetically returned only a few centuries after his death, he would very likely not have understood all the theological changes the religion he founded underwent.

No, that is not the extent of my evidence. You haven't covered the entire story. Not long after the passing of Jesus and the Gospels, the people who would assume leadership of the Christians were more and more gentiles rather than Jews. The new leadership was, like most other theologians of the day, heavily schooled in Greek philosophy, and so they would adapt Christianity to a Hellenistic/Platonic model simply because it was how they viewed things. And it was also the way to go if they ever wanted Christianity to earn any respect in the elite world of philosophy. The model that everyone looked to and respect was Plato's model of the cosmos, of a dualistic system with a physical world and an abstract world. In order to bring some status to their religion, which is generally viewed as a cult back then, they would explain Christianity to their theologian peers in terms of Plato's model of the universe and other Hellenistic ideas. Different varieties of Christianity would adapt Plato's model to Christianity in different ways, and Gnostic Christianity was especially influenced by Platonism. That is what I meant by the infusion of Hellenism and Platonism into early Christianity.

I think I've made the case above that my "suggestion" is not baseless. What I was meaning to inform Campbell of is simply that the Bible isn't always taken literally.

Not taking everything word-for-word and as if it all really happened exactly as explained in the Bible.

Hm, sure, I don't really know about those excerpts specifically. Much of the stuff regarding Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection, and the motives behind them were interpreted at various levels, both literal and allegorical. Some Gnostics would even regard Jesus' resurrection as irrelevant in terms of salvation, which drove the mainstream Church nuts.

You mean simply the "Writers." Jesus was never directly involved in the making of the New Testament of course. The Gospel writings that made it into the New Testament were handpicked by the authors. Whether they entirely aware of how it was meant to be interpreted can certainly be disputed, disputes over the correct interpretation of scripture has been the basis for many schisms and new denominations of Christianity.

Maybe to you. The 'grey' in the Gospels' explanations in my opinion have more to do with their different depictions of Jesus, from a peace-and-love hippy-ish messiah to a repent-or-feel-my-vengeance messiah.

And I encourage you to read some of the more obscure Gospels, those that didn't make it into the Testament for instance (mainly because a big reason why the Testament was written by the Church was to provide a basis on which to refute the rival Gnostics). The Gospel of Thomas that I mentioned before is particularly cryptic and incomprehensible, with many mystical, all-is-one quotes that seem like they were written by a drunken Buddha - example: "A man who is old in his days will not hesitate to ask a baby of seven days about the place of life and he will live. For many who are first shall be last, and they shall become a single one." If you can read that Gospel and tell me what it's trying to explain, and tell me convincingly that it's literal and clear, then I seriously would be very, very impressed.

There is no real absolute explanation for what is allegorical and what is non-literal and what is literal in the Bible. I am not Christian myself (I only have an interest in religious studies in the sense of "hmm, that's interesting," as opposed to "this must be the truth.") so I do not have my own convictions on what's real and what's not in the Bible, I view all of it as one big story myself, based on various historical figures and events. Different groups had different ways of interpreting it. That's a fundamental part of all the debates between the many different groups of Christianity back then, the various factions would use different bits of scripture to validate the points they were trying to make.

Hehe, calm down dude. I haven't thought of my sketch before as resembling a hobbit, but as a Tolkien fan I thank ye for the compliment. As I've said above, I have none of my own exacting convictions as to what should be taken literally in the Bible and what shouldn't, as I myself am not Christian. Being non-Christian though, naturally I don't believe that any of the supernatural and "miracle" elements are real. I am simply saying that the Bible has not always been taken word-for-word everything-in-this-book-actually-happened literally, as some other people on this forum seem to do, and in fact has very often not been taken so literally. Provide me with examples of the more fanciful stories in the Bible, and I will probably say that there is allegory involved. And as someone else said above, a good deal of the Bible was very likely, in my opinion, meant to be interpreted like a parable or fable with lessons and wisdoms rather than a literal, this is what happened story.

 

Prophesy is propaganda...

We could blow up the gate... then they would merely say that prophesy has not been fulfilled because nobody had actually walked through the gate...

And that is what makes prophesy so powerful...

And I'm not surprised that other religions are scared (for want of a better word) by this prophesy... after all, they are believers too... they may not be believers in the Christian faith, but they believe in their own prophesies... so it will come as no surprise if their actions indicate that they also believe in your prophesies too...

You demand an explaination... I can't give you one... but I expect there are many possible explainations as to why it cannot be opened... your knowledge of The Bible strikes me as being impressive, but your weild it like a moody teenager in a childish game of "taunt the atheist"...

Your prophesy is meaningless to me... just as your gate is meaningless to me... you give them power and value because of what you believe... for me, they have no power or value because they have no connection to my reality...

So I will never be able to dissuade you of your beliefs because I do not offer any beliefs to replace them... only the evidence of my life experience...

You believe... I do not believe...

Its as simple as that...

Fly...
.

 

Couldn't we just walk through the gate after we blew a hole in it?

 

Why would the Muslims be afraid of the Messiah??? They believe in Jesus (Isa) as a great prophet as well, who will come back.

 

Jesus might come back tonight...he could come back anytime...

 

LuciferSam,

-You can predict lots of things but unlike the writers then pen the Bible none of your predictions outside of what is predictable will come true. We all can predict the sun will rise tomorrow. However, the Bible has predicted hundreds of prophecies that have already come true thousands of years before they happen with impossible detail. Only God could have known the circumstances that have allowed these prophecies to come to pass.

-There are different views of Jesus life but that is because there are different writers talking about his life from their perspective. The most important thing is that none of their views conflict with each other. Now if you have any substance of what you told me, please show me where you see a conflict. I am sure I'll find this entertaining.

-Apparently when you read the Bible you don't believe in reading in context. The verse that you mention can be found in Luke 9:27 but you should have also read Luke 9:28-36 and this is the explanation: this is where Peter John and James saw Jesus in the glory of His coming it was a vision of the future. Christians refer to this as the Transfiguration. Usually nonbelievers love to take Luke 9:27 out of context dishonestly and do not read the rest of the verse. In an attempt to try and prove the Bible wrong. It's a cheap shot.

 

This is me after the gate opens, right?

 

-East Gate

The scriptures never stated when, they only stated that it would be sealed. And the original gate would have to be buried because the prophecy requires that both gates exist at the same time. The gate that Ezeikiel saw in his vision did not exist yet. The gate to be sealed would have to be built on the original gate a thousand years later. Because the Bible states that when the Messiah comes he would enter through the porch of that gate. And it is the porch of the original gate that was to be sealed. The arabs have tried twice to open this gate once in 1917 and the second time in 1967. On the very day they tried to open it, Jerusalem passed out of Arab control. In 1917 the British took over and in 1967 the Jews took over. That is some coincidence considering it was on the very day they tried to open the gate.

-Zechariah

The prophecies of Zechariah were fully accepted by the Jewish community until about 1100 A.D. Many of the Beliefs today denying the messianic prophecies would have been rejected by Jews that lived before 1100 A.D. For you see all Rabbis before that time fully embraced the belief of the literal interpretation of the coming Messiah. About 900 years ago Rabbi ShlomoYitzchaki (Rashi) decided that all pervious Jewish religious leaders from the beginning were wrong in their understanding of many of these scriptures. So he took it upon himself and his followers to change that belief from Messiah, to Israel. In short, he did away with a 1000 years of Jewish belief and set the standard for a new belief. It was obvious to him that all previous religious theologians and Rabbis did not know what they were talking about. As a result, most Jews now reject what was clearly accepted in their faith and now embrace this new thinking. They had to forget the great medieval Jewish scholars like Moses Ben Nachman, Rabbi Moshe Konen Ibn Crispin, or Rabbi Moshe El-Sheikn. All of them with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophets were speaking of King Messiah. Could it be that all of the Jewish religious Rabbis and theologians were wrong from the beginning, and nobody got it right until Rashi came. The questions is, who was right? Was it the early religious leaders who were closer to the Bible's origin, or was it the maverick theologian Rashi? Apparently, you believe Rashi was right. Is it any wonder that 90% of today's Jews have no real religious faith.


-Light unto the Gentiles

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. -John 14:6

Light unto the Gentiles: two billion people today are considered Christians who else would be the light of the Gentiles that is also a Jew??

 

lookin' pretty good there freakyjoeman