What Bull!

OK. So, nothing happened on May 21st. Now, Harold Camping suddenly realizes that the "Judgment Day" that he predicted was an "invisible" one-- meaning that the "Judgement" was "spiritual" and not literal.

But, now-- the October 21st date which he predicted as the conclusion of the May 21st prophesy is still scheduled to be the end of the world.

I guess that prophesy will turn out to be a non-literal, spiritual event, too.

But, you know what? Psychology can predict the future better than Harold Camping could.

Just read about what happens when prophecy fails.

Clearly cognitive dissonance is at play, here. Harold Camping's teachings has caused people to give their last for a fallacy. Those who still hang on to his teachings can't face their losses now. So, he and his followers dig an even deeper hole to avoid facing their disappointments and embarrassment.

What bull!

And all that energy-- wasted!

May 21st is Almost Gone!

Well, as we skeptics confidently suspected, nothing has happened today that remotely resembled the grand judgment of Jesus Christ and the rapturing of his Church.

At the time of this post, it's already May 22nd in New Zealand-- and it's pasted 7:00 AM there, too! Though it's still May 21st in Europe, it's passed 8:00 PM in Berlin, Germany. That's significant because "Judgment" was predicted to begin at 6:00 PM in every time zone.

I feel for those who gave all they had to promote this day. I can't imagine what is going on with them emotionally. My guess is that such people will dig down even more into their fallacies, or they'll be so ashamed, disgusted, and angry with themselves that they'll disappear into a shadow of bitterness.

The media gave Harold Camping and Family Radio (not American Family Radio) all the attention he could probably hope for. Now it's time to dismiss him as an attention-craving quack and totally ignore him should he crank out a third failed prediction.

I do realize that many Christians did not believe this prediction would mean anything. But, this is a good time to raise the question: Why hasn't Jesus come back, yet?

Another good question to raise is: Didn't he promise to already return before all the disciples died?

How long will Jesus have to delay before Christianity of the future becomes unrecognizable from the fundamental Christianity of modern day?

Oh well . . . enough of this. It's time for some caffeine.

May I Borrow a Dollar?

A few months ago a psychic named Angela Donovan predicted that Obama would turn our country away from the U.S. dollar towards some other currency.

I looked in my wallet today to see if her prophesy had become true, but I don't seem to have any cash on me.

May I borrow a dollar from someone, just to see if the currency has changed yet?

;-)

The Four Legends of Jesus: Part II

In part one of The Four Legends of Jesus, I stopped with the Jewish revolt of 70 A.D. ending in massacre by the hands of the Romans. Shortly after the failed revolt, the gospel of Mark emerges as the first written gospel. Recall the possibility that Jewish Christians and mainstream Jews alike were expecting a Messiah to rise up and secure the new kingdom during the revolt against Rome. While Jewish Christians were possibly looking for Jesus to return and establish the kingdom, the mainstream Jews were probably looking for a different Messiah to rise up from among their ranks.

Either way, the revolt failed and Jerusalem was sacked; the Temple--so precious to the Jews of Jerusalem--was desecrated and laid to waste.

Mark

The "new Jews" probably needed new encouragement to help them endure the deep disappointment of an absent Messiah. But what could facilitate healing after such a brutal pounding from the Romans? The survivors lost loved ones in a bloody massacre as well as their central symbol of God's presence-- the Temple.

Many scholars of textual criticism point out that the gospel of Mark is short and abrupt relative to the other canonized gospel writings. Consider the original ending of Mark before it was edited. The women who want to anoint the body of Jesus with spices are last seen frightened and fleeing the tomb, telling no one what they saw. Also, we find that Jesus is absent from the tomb, said to be away in Gallilee.

Jesus was absent from the revolt, too. He didn't make his way back down from Heaven.

The traditional ending of Mark found in the typical bible was added on later. Mark actually ends in chapter 16 verse eight. Someone apparently didn't like how Mark originally ended and needed to smooth over Mark's bewildering ending. But in doing so, the editor of Mark may have covered up an intentional literary device by the original author.

The goal of Mark seems to be consolation towards the followers of Jesus after the failed revolt. Again, someone needs to smooth over the disappointment caused by failed expectations of prophesy. The gospel of Mark seems to depict Jesus as a reflection of the people who suffered through the horrors in Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. Also, Mark seems to reach out to the diasporic Jews who saw the outcome of the failed revolt from afar. Mark attempts to help the followers of Jesus feel as though he identifies with and knows their sorrows. For instance, Jesus falls prostrate in the garden before he is crucified, begging God to take the cup of suffering from him. He exclaims to his disciples that he is overwhelmed with sorrow, to the point of death before he is arrested. Likewise, many of the people who endured the punishment of the Roman army no doubt fell prostrate, begging not to be slaughtered by the sword.

The women leave the tomb during the resurrection scene not knowing what to think and terribly afraid--wondering where Jesus could be. In like manner, those who endured the failed revolt were probably thinking the exact same thing. Those who were "new Jews" were probably afraid and wondered where Jesus could be. Why hasn't he returned like he said? Yet, the mysterious man standing at the tomb insists Jesus is alive somewhere. Perhaps Mark also attempts to leave a subtle glimmer of hope concerning Jesus. Maybe he's challenging the reader. Will you continue to look for and hope for Jesus? Will you go to Gallilee and find him? Or will you run away in fear, never reaching past his empty tomb?

On a side note: the prophesy of the demolished Jewish Temple was added in hindsight in my opinion. If the disappointed early Christians can be persuaded that Jesus predicted this, they may very well accept that he has a higher purposes and meaning to his words than they could have possibly understood. But if none of this was divine to begin with, the only way the "prediction" of the Temple could appear in Mark is for if the revolt happened first.

Matthew

Matthew seems to work towards depicting a new kind of Jesus-- Jesus, the King of the Jews. The dating of Matthew is debated (as well as Mark), but many think Matthew was written next. In this gospel, Jesus often speaks of fulfilling the law and acts as a literary type of Moses by going up into the mountains and coming back down to the people with a message or miracle from God. Jesus has a pedigree that links him directly back to Abraham. The actions and words of Jesus are quite often a fulfillment of an alleged Old Testament prophesies (many of which Jews contest or claim to be gross misinterpretations by Christians). The author of Matthew is attempting to attract mainstream Jews into accepting Jesus as the real Messiah. I suppose the first failed revolt left a bitter taste in their mouths and Jesus' promise needs to be fulfilled soon. In the meanwhile, an appeal needed to be made to the rest of Israel to rally behind their soon to return Messiah.

Luke

Later comes Luke. Again, the dating is debatable. But since so much of Mark is contained in the other three Gospels, Mark is considered a literary source. Unlike Matthew, Luke is written largely to a pagan audience. Luke takes time to explain Jewish laws to his audience, which wouldn't be necessary with a largely Jewish readership. Luke also traces the genealogy of Jesus all the way to Adam-- who is the son of God. Luke alludes to the divinity of Jesus in somewhat of a pagan manner-- reminiscent of mystery religions in my view. Jesus is the son of God, much like Caesar was probably seen as the son of God. Human, yet divine.

Luke also tried to stress to the Greeks that one could still be safe under Roman rule while converting to Christianity.

Honest. The Romans won't become suspicious of you if you openly became a Christian.

Honest.

According to many scholars of textual criticism, the gospel of Luke is written with pristine Greek-- the finest of the whole New Testament canon. Luke is said to write on the level of a Classical Greek novelist. I'm sure this helped to hold the attention of his sophisticated, Greek audience. Also, many people forget that the book of Acts was part of the gospel of Luke. And with Paul often depicted as a missionary to the Gentiles, he appears in Acts. Paul's "Roman" citizenship is played up a few times in Acts. His citizenship even prevents Paul from getting flogged or mistreated by Roman guards when he's arrested. The Book of Acts even ends with a "happily ever after" feel as Paul preaches the gospel in Rome unhindered.

But secular history tells us that Paul returned to Jerusalem just before his arrest-- years before Luke and Acts were even written. The Romans arrested Paul as a rebel rouser and executed him. Likewise, the Romans went after Peter and the other leaders as well because they suspected this fringe movement of Judaism was creating dissension towards the Roman government.

Yeah, being an early Christian in Rome was really safe.

John

In the gospel of John, Jesus is sometimes depicted as a superman. Jesus embodies the full divinity and majesty of God. Contrasted with Mark-- Jesus delivers a beautiful prayer in the presence of his disciples before he is arrested (John 17). When the Roman guards finally come to arrest Jesus, they inquire of his whereabouts. When Jesus responds, all the Roman guards fall back onto the ground! To me, this expresses that Jesus willingly goes away with his captors. These guards clearly didn't have the power to apprehend Jesus; he is only letting them take him away and nail him to the cross. Jesus is the sacrificial lamb. Compare the story of Jesus' arrest with all the other gospels within the context I've presented so far. Do you still see four people telling different angles of the same event? Or do you see four different "Jesuses" pitched to four different audiences, written by four different authors who have four different religious or political agendas?

Another fascinating feature of John (and perhaps found in the other gospels) is the constant rivalry between Jesus and the Pharisees. They argue with Jesus constantly when he claims authentic Judaism. But . . . if Pharisees were truly Abraham's children, they would love Jesus-- not hate him. But the Pharisees don't love Jesus at all. So then, the Pharisees cannot be the real Children of God-- but rather only the Children of the Devil.

But according to some historians, Pharisees weren't prominent until years after the Temple fell and synagogues became more important than ever. Interestingly, this phenomena seems to match the time that John was probably written-- decades after the fall of the Temple. So then, Pharisees seem to become some sort of anachronism within the gospels.

Hmmmm . . . .

As the synagogue and Pharisees became more important in Judaism, the mainstream Jews were finally making a full split with Christians as John was being written. The gospel of John was the final cry of an outcast group demanding to still be called Jewish as they were being thrown out of the synagogues. By now, the mainstream Jews had a new Messiah by the name of Bar Kokhba and strong tensions for a new revolt were forming again.

Eventually, Bar Kokhba was believed to be the true Messiah and lead a second Jewish rebellion that was also smashed by the Roman government.

The "new Jews" sat out on this failed revolt. By now, they were too Christian to be Jews and were too smart to be creamed a second time by the Romans. Christians now have their eternal, divine Jesus as their Messiah. His return is still soon, but he is otherworldly now and can flutter down from the Heavens to establish the kingdom whenever he sees fit. At this point, many first generation Christians were passing on. So then, the return of Jesus and the establishment of God's kingdom finally needed to transcend time and place so that Christ's followers could still maintain hope in rising above any political situation that kept them oppressed.

If it had not been for Constantine, Christianity would perhaps be regarded as nothing more than a myth or legend by now. Probably not too different from the ancient mystery religions or the ancient religions of Greece and Rome that finally fizzled out from that time period. And if Christianity did hang on without Constantine, I have a feeling the believers would only make up a very small religious order.

With this new perspective, I don't see Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the four gospels any longer. I now see them as the Four Legends of Jesus.

I don't think I could ever bring myself to become a fundamentalist Christian again.

Just so you know I didn't make all of this up on my own, you can see the documentary that inspired this post:

From Jesus to Christ

DISCLAIMER

I also want to stress that I'm mainly stating my opinions based on what I've understood from the documentary, some extra reading, and a few suspicions I've held in the back of my mind since my deconversion. I don't make any claims at being a biblical scholar and I understand that my analysis could be wrong in many places. But, I personally feel like my presentation is a rough idea of how Jesus evolved from a Jewish political rebel, to the Messiah, and then into the very person of God in the flesh.

I believe the followers of Jesus changed who he was over time-- from a fringe group's Messiah to the Christian's Jesus Christ.

The Four Legends of Jesus: Part I

For all my life, I understood the gospels to be four harmonious accounts of the same events. Even after becoming an atheist, that idea remained uncontested in the back of my mind.

Not anymore.

First, let's apply the context that has shaped my new opinion.

The earliest of Christians (You know, Peter . . . Paul-- those guys) probably saw themselves more so as enlightened Jews rather than "Christians". And like most mainstream Jews in the first century, these "new Jews" were eager for the re-establishment of their former Davidic kingdom which was to be accomplished by the Messiah. Thus, the kingdom of God was initially an exclusive desire of the Jews. The first Christians, then, are best viewed as newly enlightened Jews who would follow along with their newly realized Messiah (Jesus) who will bring about the establishment of the Davidic kingdom of God. The establishment of God's kingdom would require the overthrowing of Roman rule. A defining quality of the Messiah is to accomplish the resurrection of the kingdom; mainstream Jews reject Messianic claims from anyone who accomplishes less than that.

So, these "newly enlightened Jews" believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the real Messiah. They trusted him and expected him to fulfill the required work of the Messiah by saving Israel from Rome.

But before anything significant happened against Rome, Jesus was executed.

No revolution. No Davidic kingdom. No overthrowing of Roman rule.


No Messiah.

So, now what?

I suspect that the words of Jesus suddenly needed new interpretation as his followers struggled to understand why he died without even sparking a revolution. They eventually rationalized that Jesus must rise from the dead; after which, he will return to Earth from Heaven and establish the new kingdom of God.

But, this peculiar fringe group of Jews were probably dwindling fast after the death of Jesus. And the truest followers who invested the most into Jesus were probably dealing with cognitive dissonance. Once they saw that Jesus did not immediately fulfill the required role of the Messiah, the key followers of Jesus rationalized that he would return to fulfill his Messianic requirements after making certain preparations in Heaven. In the meanwhile, the "new Jews" needed to recruit new followers. However, the Jesus-movement couldn't seem to bring in very many mainstream Jews.

Why not?

Because mainstream Jews were looking for a living Messiah who would establish the kingdom presently. Right then. Jesus did not fit that description. The mainstream Jews were not going to follow a "failed" Messiah. And as the decades turned into centuries, this "new Judaism" evolved into the familiar Christianity of today. And this Christianity is quite opposed to Judaism concerning the nature of God. Not only do Jews reject Christianity because of the failure of Jesus as Messiah, but Jews also reject Christianity because most (not all) Christians understand Jesus to be more than just the Messiah; Jesus is divine. Jesus is God. For many Jews, the Godhead has no room for Yahweh and Jesus, too.

Hear O Israel, the LORD your God is one LORD.

So then, the new Jews had little choice. Go ye therefore and teach those pagans!

Er, I mean . . . teach all nations . . .

The "new Jews" invited Gentiles into this new flavor of non-exclusive Judaism. Paul seemed to be the greatest champion of this cause. And as the Gentile base grew within the "new Judaism", it slowly became less Jewish and more Christian.

Keep in mind that at this point in history only the letters of Paul where being circulated. No gospels seem to have been written at this point. Perhaps a general document containing the sayings of Jesus was floating around, but the gospels as a literary work do not seem to be in circulation just yet.

While the "new Jews" were growing, tensions grew between the Romans and Jews of all flavors. This tension built up over decades until it finally exploded in Jerusalem in the year 70 A.D. The Jews in Jerusalem staged a revolt against Rome.

And the Romans responded with hot and heavy-handed anger. They brutally crushed the attempted rebellion of the Jews.

Many of the "new Jews" were probably expecting Jesus to return during the revolt to finally establish the kingdom. But instead, the "new Jews" and mainstream Jews alike were burned, maimed and killed in the streets. Those fortunate enough (unfortunate, maybe?) to survive these horrors fled out of Jerusalem for their lives.

Shortly after the revolt, the gospel of Mark appears-- the earliest of the four main gospel writings.

In my opinion, the historical context that I just presented sheds light on the true purpose behind each canonized gospel writing. I think this context also provides a better understanding of who Jesus and the earliest Christians truly were.

And with that, I will conclude part I of this post.

In the meanwhile, you can see where I'm coming from and where I'm going with this post by visiting the link below:

From Jesus to Christ

Stay tuned.

Why We Need Skepticism

Angela Donovan is a psychic who predicts by May of 2010, President Obama will cause the United States to stop using the dollar as it's base currency. Better start investing in gold and making other important preparations to keep your family safe. Her books will show you how.

Skeptical?

Jack and Rexella Van Impe predict that the next pope after Benedict XVI will became the leader and founder of the New World Order. Basically, that will either make the next pope a forerunner to the Antichrist or the Antichrist himself.

Skeptical?


Robert Tilton.
Enough said.

The-End.com claims that the End Times were set into motion back in 2008 and that by May 27, 2012 the "self-rule of man" will end. You need to get a copy of their book so you can be fully prepared. You see, terrorism will continue to grow until the United States collapses and WW III will commence. [Jesus enters stage right]

At least they provide their book for free. Maybe they are at least sincere.

But still . . . be skeptical.

• You need skepticism when a preacher tells you that depression is all in your head.
• You need skepticism when a preacher tells you that you can choose your sexual orientation through determination and prayer.
• You need skepticism when the bible tells you blasphemy of the Holy Ghost is unforgivable, yet that same bible cannot give you any comfort or assurance as to whether you're guiltless of this damnable sin.
• You need skepticism when someone tells you that Hitler could be in heaven had he only confessed Jesus. However, you will burn in hell for eternity if you fail to confess Jesus no matter how decent your life might have been.
• You need skepticism when you hear yourself "speaking with tongues" yet nobody can ever understand or translate what you're saying.
• Hell . . . you need skepticism even if someone does claim to understand what you say when you speak in tongues.
• You need skepticism when politicians speak. Regardless of party affiliation or super-star status.

Even when Obama speaks; Especially when Palin speaks.

• You need skepticism when scientists pontificate about the origins of life and of the Universe. As a matter of fact, many scientists would encourage that you do this.
• You also need skepticism when people claim magnets can make a perpetual generator that can bring your electric bill down to $0, even though perpetual motion seems to defy the very laws of physics!

Excited anyway? You still want to purchase one of these generators? Well, MangiWork* will only provide you with a DIY guide to build your own for the special discounted price of $49.00. They even encourage you to resell their technology if you get one of those generators up and working!

Say . . . why aren't they simply selling the generators rather than the DIY kits? They could be making a fortune building those things!

Now, are you skeptical?

By the way . . .

If you can write a simple letter like this one, you can make six figures.

Are you skeptical?

Does that guy in Nigeria really want to give me a cut from that million dollar trust that he just inherited by dubious means? Does he really need my bank account number to cash out that money?

Remember, you may be trading your hard earned money and good years of your life paying for someone's sports car and mansion. Worse, you may be buying some sort of snake oil that could actually endanger your life! Or, talked out of real help or denied a life time of happiness because you allowed someone else to forbid you to be your true self.

Skepticism does not mean that truth or trustworthy information can never be found. On the contrary, skepticism seeks out truth and trustworthy information. Skepticism is simply the act of sending a claim through a vetting process. Skepticism simply asks the claimant to provide some reasonable evidence before expecting you to take the bait.

Unthinking belief is exactly what charlatans and confidence men want out of you. After they gain that, the rest if pretty easy.

Are you still skeptical about the importance of skepticism now?


* By the way, the MangiWork site no longer exists. But with the power of Google, you can find some YouTube videos on the topic.

The Prophetic Cryptoquip

My kids and I usually spend at least one evening per week over my mom's house. One evening in particular (just a week ago from this post), I took interest in the daily puzzle section found in our local newspaper. My mom keeps weeks, sometimes months of newspaper back issues laying around. So, I just grabbed an old one out of the pile.

At first, my eyes fixated on the daily sudoku puzzle; The number grid was just begging me to try and solve it.

But then, something else caught my eye: the daily cryptoquip.

I had never tried a cryptoquip before. I never liked puzzles much until sudoku won me over. Besides, the unintelligible word chunks of the cryptoquip always intimidated me. I had wished that I could get the nerve to solve one, but cryptoquips just looked too hard.

But after reading the game description and rules again, I was drawn by the irresistible call from the puzzle.

If you never saw one, a cryptoquip is a substitution cipher where each letter in the words of a meaningful sentence is substituted with a different letter; thus, encrypting the phrase. You see letters, but only as an unreadable mess. You can make out words only by the spaces. In it's unsolved form, the sentence before you makes no sense nor is it readable in any coherent way.

In this particular cryptoquip puzzle, one clue was offered-- a single letter substitution was reveled to help the solver get started.

As for the rest of the clues, you're on your own. No other clues are given except for those subtle clues which the encryption might offer-- little helpful hints like short words or words with an apostrophe.

And much like sudoku, each discovery you make becomes a new and important clue necessary to further your ability at solving the puzzle.

But cryptoquips seem to require a little more trial and error that sudoku. Spelling skills, context clues, and vocabulary skills seem to matter a lot, too.

As I toiled away on the cryptoquip, my mom decided to read aloud a passage from the Bible to my son. She read to him the story of Samson.

For the most part, he listened quietly. Occasionally, he would interject remarks like, "why did he do that?" "how is that possible?" "Why didn't he just . . ."

I haven't really read the Biblical account of Samson in a while. So as I was hearing it this time, the story of Samson's seemed glaringly fictional for the first time in my life. I felt like I was hearing the words of an ancient story teller whose purpose was only to deliver a moral lesson.

Not a history lesson.

See, I once took the story of Samson as literal, historical fact. Now, the story only sounded something of a parable, a fairy tale, or a fable. All of a sudden, Samson's heroics and folly were no longer an authentic piece of history as I once believed. I felt like I was hearing literary devices like repetition, foreshadowing, and a fictional plot moving towards a literary climax.

Samson's silly behavior also seemed like a plot hole. Everything came to him so easily. And Samson knows his adversaries are constantly trying to catch him. Samson toyed with them by misleading them each and every time that he gave one of his riddles or lied about the secret to his strength. He taunted everyone-- even Delilah. Samson had to know that she was out to get him. Every time Samson lied about the source of his strength the Philistines tried to destroy the source. And Samson had to lie to Delilah each time for this to happen.

Ever watch a TV show or read a book and ask "why'd he make that choice?" Or, "why'd she do that?". I call them plot holes. Places in the plot of a story where if the main character had simply made one phone call, or used their powers, or went to the police, the story would be over in five minutes.

So when Samson gives in to Delilah simply because she worried him until he couldn't stand it, he gives in. Why? Because he was weak? Or, because the plot could not continue otherwise?

I didn't say anything. I didn't disturb my mom's reading to my son. I simply listened quietly with one ear while working away on the cryptoquip puzzle in front of me.

Also, I didn't realize the story of Samson was so long. My mother read the whole life of Samson as written in the Bible to him, not simply the popular part about Samson and Delilah.

As my mom finished reading, I found a breakthrough in solving my puzzle. Everything became easy and I solved it just about the same time.


Cracking the cipher reveled:


IF ANCIENT STORIES TEACH MORALS, CAN WE CALL STORIES THAT HAVE CHARACTER'S WITH FLAWS AESOP'S FOIBLES?


Was some force prophetically confirming that the story of Samson was simply a "foible"-- no different from the ancient stories of Aesop?

And I was thinking this all along before I even solved the puzzle!

Out of the whole history of the universe, these two moments intersected as though they were meant to be. I solved an encrypted message about ancient stories and fables with characters who have flaws just as my mom finished reading such a story aloud to my son.


But I'll stay true to form. I'll have to answer that this moment was nothing more than coincidence.


But, what a strange coincidence indeed!

Happy New Year!!!

Remember ever wondering if back in 1999 that Y2K was going to be the end?
Ever hear some of the preachers saying that the apocalypse was going to unfold in 2000?

Some preachers were even telling their members to buy property with water on it because everything was going back to the stone age -- the time of tribulation was at hand!

I was still a devout Christian back then. I went to church on New Years Eve of 2000 because I was convinced that church was the safest place to be just in case Y2K was the end.

Never mind that the other side of the planet had already celebrated Y2K many hours before we would here in the U.S. and nothing seemed to happened to them!

Anyway, our pastor always "prophesied" that things would only get worse and more people were going to die than the previous year. He seemed to do this on any New Years Eve church service. I guess he did it to calm down all the jubilation people expressed when the clock hit midnight. Yes, the church service would go way past midnight. We wanted to be in god's presence when the New Year began. Service wouldn't let out until 3:00 AM many times. They would even serve breakfast afterward -- not for free, though.

And particularly with Y2K, once we all breathed a sigh of relief that a mass computer crash didn't usher in Armageddon, people went into a celebratory frenzy -- Pentecostal style!

But our pastor still managed to work in his "prophesy" of the same bad news that he gave years before.

Wow! What a killjoy! What an awful way to bring in any new year!

But now I say, lets party like it's 1999 everybody! Especially since we've made it all the way to 2009!

Looks like Y2K didn't kill us after all, huh?

Whoot! Whoot!

Two Thousand Years too Late

Look! He comes with the clouds of heaven. And everyone will see him--even those who pierced him. And all the nations of the earth will weep because of him. Yes! Amen!

Revelations 1:7

In a recent blog post, I wondered what would people start to say when another whole millennium passes and Jesus still hasn't returned.

After some reflection, I think I might know what would happen now.

Nothin'. Christianity will still be going strong.

Here's why I think this:

The first Century Christians seemed to believe that Jesus was to return within their lifetime. But, Jesus never returned as expected. Yet, Christianity still rolls on. After Jesus' failed promise to return, one would think the church would have died out.

I won't try to defend the argument that first century Christians expected Jesus to return within their lifetime in this post. Rather, read this article by Dave E. Matson. Edward Babinski posted the article on his website.

So if the over due return of Christ is well founded, how can Christianity still survive with this glaring failed prophesy?

Robert Cialdini cites an eye opening study in his book Influence: Science and Practice. Cialdini cites how a group of social psychologists infiltrated a cult that believed a UFO would come and carry them away from earth just before the "great cataclysm". The study was done by Leon Festinger, Henry Riecken, and Stanley Schachter.

This team also produced a book entitled When Prophecy Fails as a followup to their experiment.

This group of social psychologists predicted that the exclusive UFO cult would change their habits and proselytize others once their cult leader's prophecy failed. The psychologists based their prediction on the principle of cognitive dissonance.

Keep in mind, the cult was exclusive before the UFO was expected to arrive. This cult grudgingly accepted new members, did not actively proselytize and shunned interviews from the news media in their town. That's another point which makes this study interesting. The three psychologists had to make personal sacrifices to "join" (infiltrate) this cult and get reliable data for their study.

The UFO cult waited in eager expectation to be exported away to another world. But, nothing happened! The group had to do something to deal with their disappointment because of the large amount of personal sacrifice each cult member had made -- particularly their leaders. While some members left in disgust, many members still stayed and hoped for answers. Soon, the leaders "rationalized" that the earth was spared for now; therefore, they should spread the message to the world and actively take new disciples into their cult.

Sound familiar?

I found the results of that study quite chilling when the implications finally dawned on me.

Perhaps since Jesus never came back from the dead, the disciples had nothing left to do but spread the gospel in order to deal with their disappointment. And, since he never came back for his growing church -- nothing was left to do except spread the faith even more.

And since the return of Jesus is constantly delayed, nothing is left to do but spread the Christian belief perpetually. Surely this could apply to any belief system where people make great personal investments and sacrifices.

Such a cycle just goes on and on -- far into the future.

Nonetheless, the fact still remains; Jesus is still 2000 years too late.