Why the delay in Christ's return?

[2Dbunk]

As a former Christian it has been my understanding that Jesus Christ is an all-loving, compassionate personal God (or Son of God). And above all the good things attributed to him there is one supreme caveat that hangs like the sword of Damocles over our heads: that Heaven is only achievable to those who believe in him – indeed, those who don’t will be condemned to everlasting fire and brimstone.

Also, the New Testament tells us that Christ’s departure from Earth 2,000 years ago will be short-lived and his return is imminent . . . to take up to Heaven all those who follow Him – that “few will be chosen.�

My question for debate is: Knowing “few will be chosen,� why is there such a delay in his return? As the years go by and the world’s population at about 7 billion people, it is obvious that proportionately more and more will not "be chosen.� How can an all-loving, understanding god consign more and more of his created children to hell each passing day, especially in these times of exponentially increasing knowledge and more doubt of what supernatural things to believe.

Can anyone posit a reason why the delay in the Second Coming?

[Ancient of Years]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick with these. The passage in Mark is not primarily about Jesus' return. Read in context, Mark's sequence is Peter's confession of Christ/secret Messiah; then prediction of his own death; then warning that the disciples too must take up their cross. Jesus mentions his return almost as an afterthought - reminding them what all this suffering and following and preaching is leading up to - not as the main focus of the passage. What it's about is preaching the good news, and if 9:1 is to be linked with that passage at all it has to fit the meaning of the whole passage, not just that final sentence from which Mark explicitly separated it. The kingdom of God present with power is the power of the gospel:

• When he had called the people to himself, with his disciples also, he said to them, “Whoever desires to come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel’s will save it. For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul? For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him the Son of Man also will be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.â€� And he said to them, “Assuredly, I say to you that there are some standing here who will not taste death till they see the kingdom of God present with power.â€�

As I've already pointed out, the fact that this final phrase is not unambiguously eschatological is proven by the fact that Matthew felt the need to change it to "Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Mark 8
34 Then he called the crowd to him along with his disciples and said: “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. 36 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? 38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.�
Mark 9
1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.�

Sounds like it is about Jesus urging persevering in the faith through hard times and temptations because the Son of Man is coming soon and anyone in “this generation� who does not heed the words of Jesus is in for it. And it is all going to go down while some of the listeners are still alive. And you think the Son of Man eschatological part is just an afterthought? And you also think that the kingdom of God coming with power in the very next sentence has nothing to do with the preceding sentence? Sorry but I find this very hard to accept.

Why do you find it so hard to accept? Mark himself separated the thought in the last sentence from the one preceding it. Granted, you and I might instinctively link the two distinct sentences together, but only because we're already so accustomed to thinking of the 'kingdom of God' in eschatological terms. There's little reason to suppose that Mark or his readers were burdened by such preconceptions. Paul never uses the phrase. Mark's gospel begins by explicitly identifying Jesus' mission as a baptism with the Holy Spirit (1:8) and his disciples' as fishers of men (1:17), a theme expanded on and explicitly linked with the 'kingdom of God' in chapter 4. In fact correct me if I'm wrong, but besides a passing reference to the 'day of judgement' in 6:11, 8:38 is the first time anything eschatological is mentioned in the gospel at all!

Read without preconceptions, there is nothing in Mark to suggest that 'kingdom of God' in 9:1 is eschatological - quite the opposite in fact - and Mark himself separates that sentence from the one preceding it. Since 'kingdom of God' has previously been established in the book to mean the preaching/growth/following of the gospel, and since this passage in 8:34ff is about suffering whilst spreading the gospel, it's really quite obvious that 'kingdom of God' means the same thing here as previously in the book!

Mark even explicitly suggests in more ways than one that something would change for the disciples after Jesus' death and resurrection; he repeatedly suggests that while Jesus was with them they were dull and slow to understand, and that they didn't fast while the 'bridegroom' was with them but would after he'd gone. It's really no stretch to suppose the baptism with the Holy Spirit - which Mark says from the very beginning of his gospel was the purpose of Jesus' mission - is supposed to have something to do with this change, and probably is what the kingdom of God present with power means also: Following on from Peter's wish for Jesus to avoid his own death, Jesus is tellling his followers not only that they must be willing to face suffering in the cause of spreading the kingdom of God, but reassuring them that they will have the same strength and courage to do so as Jesus himself because soon it will be present with power.

Snipping those two sentences out and chaining them together against Mark's own editting misses the point of the whole sequence and the themes of the gospel! Admittedly it's an almost instinctive way to think about it, given the preconceptions with which we are burdened, but I see nothing to suggest that it is correct.

Paul very definitely used the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ (List) For the most part the references ae ambiguous for determining whether he meant it in eschatological terms. But one is significant.

1 Corinthians 15
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each in turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24 Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.

This is definitely eschatological.

Mark’s references are for the most part unclear, but some are without doubt eschatological.

Mark 1
4 After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15 “The time has come,� he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!�

Ambiguous. It could mean an eschaton, it could mean something else.

Mark 4
10 When he was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables

Not relevant either way. It does not say what the secret was.

Mark 4
26 He also said, “This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. 27 Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. 28 All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. 29 As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come.�

Unclear. The kingdom of God grows. But what is meant by “the harvest has come�?

Mark 4
30 Again he said, “What shall we say the kingdom of God is like, or what parable shall we use to describe it? 31 It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest of all seeds on earth. 32 Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds can perch in its shade.�

Points to the kingdom of God as something that grows.

Mark 9
47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’

The quote is from Isaiah. It is eschatological. It refers to the establishment of the messianic age.

Isaiah 66
22 “As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me,� declares the Lord, “so will your name and descendants endure. 23 From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me,� says the Lord. 24 “And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind.�

Mark goes one further than Isaiah. The unrighteous go to hell. Apocalyptic notions had evolved since Isaiah. A future period of happiness for Israel is not enough. Everyone who ever lived gets rewarded or punished. The Book of Enoch describes Gehenna as a place of punishment, not just a burning garbage heap.

Mark 10
13 People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.�

Ambiguous. Will entry to the kingdom of God be all at once or gradual?

Mark 10
23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!�

24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.�

26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, “Who then can be saved?�

27 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God.�

28 Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!�

29 “Truly I tell you,� Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.�

A very interesting passage. We see references to both a worldly messianic age, which is not far off (“this age�) and Olam Ha-Ba (“the age to come�). Which is the kingdom of God is not clear. But it is definitely eschatological in character.

Mark 12
32 “Well said, teacher,� the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.�

34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.�

Could be non-eschatological. Or could be earning a place in the messianic age or Olam Ha-Ba after an eschaton.

Mark 14
24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,� he said to them.
25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.�

Jesus is talking about his death. Definitely eschatological.

Now to the bone of contention.

Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.�
Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.�

These are consecutive sentences. You seem to want to separate them because they are in different chapters. Mark did not do that.

Question: "Who divided the Bible into chapters and verses? Why and when was it done?"

Answer: When the books of the Bible were originally written, they did not contain chapter or verse references. The Bible was divided into chapters and verses to help us find Scriptures more quickly and easily.[/i[ It is much easier to find "John chapter 3, verse 16" than it is to find "for God so loved the world..." In a few places, chapter breaks are poorly placed and as a result divide content that should flow together. Overall, though, the chapter and verse divisions are very helpful.

The chapter divisions commonly used today were developed by Stephen Langton, an Archbishop of Canterbury. Langton put the modern chapter divisions into place in around A.D. 1227. The Wycliffe English Bible of 1382 was the first Bible to use this chapter pattern. Since the Wycliffe Bible, nearly all Bible translations have followed Langton's chapter divisions.

http://www.gotquestions.org/divided-Bib ... erses.html

Mark’s first sentence refers to an undeniably eschatological event – the Son of Man coming with angels in glory. His next sentence refers to the kingdom of God coming with power.

Now take a look at Mark’s eschaton.

Mark 13
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

The two sentences about ‘not taste death’ are talking about the same thing. And they are without a doubt eschatological. Plus the ‘not taste death’ reference here and the ‘this generation’ in the eschaton passage that this links to point to an expected imminent return of Jesus.

[Mithrae]

Paul very definitely used the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ (List)

Wow, don't know how I screwed that up - that'll teach me to post while drinking!

Mark 4
26 He also said, “This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. 27 Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. 28 All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. 29 As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come.�

Unclear. The kingdom of God grows. But what is meant by “the harvest has come�?

I think we could hazard a guess: But the point is that the kingdom of God comes before the harvest, leading up to it.

Mark 9
47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’

The quote is from Isaiah. It is eschatological. It refers to the establishment of the messianic age.

I'm not so sure about that: A later Christian way of saying the same thing might be "It's better to have salvation with one eye than have two eyes and be cast into hell." Obviously the former (salvation/kingdom of God) need not refer to the same time of occurance as the latter. Elsewhere Mark has Jesus explicitly stating that existence after the resurrection bears little resemblance to our earthly life (specifically regarding marriage), that we'll be like the angels. So suggesting that bodily injuries would carry over into an eschatological kingdom of God makes no sense - on the contrary, the clear implication here is that the person is entering the kingdom of God while they are still deformed.

Mark 10
13 People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.�

Ambiguous. Will entry to the kingdom of God be all at once or gradual?

Not even remotely ambiguous - it's not entering the kingdom of God, it's receiving it. Makes no sense in an eschatological context.

29 “Truly I tell you,� Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.�

A very interesting passage. We see references to both a worldly messianic age, which is not far off (“this age�) and Olam Ha-Ba (“the age to come�). Which is the kingdom of God is not clear. But it is definitely eschatological in character.

The righteous get persecuted in the messianic age? Again, makes no sense. Mark has already explained that whoever does the will of God is a mother or brother or sister to believers (3:31ff) - there's no need to invoke some kind of weird earthly messianic age in which people somehow have a hundred biological mothers. Presumably by extension, believers share each others homes and fields as well as relationships; mi casa es tu casa.

Mark 14
24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,� he said to them.
25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.�

Jesus is talking about his death. Definitely eschatological.

It's not consistent with the meaning of all other uses in the gospel, but it needn't be eschatological either: The gospels have Jesus' resurrection three days after his death (rather than waiting for a general resurrection), so there's no reason to suppose that it means anything other than "when I drink it in heaven" a week later. That clearly would not be consistent with what you want 9:1 to mean.

You're presumably familiar with the theory of a 'passion narrative' on which Mark's final chapters are based? I think it has some merit, and this single incongruous use of kingdom of God in the book would be well explained by it.

Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.�
Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.�

These are consecutive sentences. You seem to want to separate them because they are in different chapters. Mark did not do that.

No, he separated them by inserting "and he said to them..." This would be entirely redundant unless either a) it was meant to be a distinct thought unrelated to the preceding story at all or more plausible b) it was simply meant to be distinct from the preceding sentence, though still part of the whole story. As I've shown, in the context of Peter's wish for Jesus to avoid his death and Jesus' warning that spreading the gospel (the kingdom of God, as previously established in the book) would be accompanied by trials and possible death for the disciples too, this makes a lot more sense; the previously timid and somewhat dull disciples would receive wisdom and strength like Jesus' when the kingdom of God is present with power.

The gospel begins with John the Baptist clearly stating that Jesus' mission was a baptism with the Holy Spirit. Where do you think that that ever occurred, if not in the change which came over the disciples after the 'bridegroom' had departed (a theme which Mark highlights in several ways)?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

As a former Christian it has been my understanding that Jesus Christ is an all-loving, compassionate personal God (or Son of God). And above all the good things attributed to him there is one supreme caveat that hangs like the sword of Damocles over our heads: that Heaven is only achievable to those who believe in him – indeed, those who don’t will be condemned to everlasting fire and brimstone.

Also, the New Testament tells us that Christ’s departure from Earth 2,000 years ago will be short-lived and his return is imminent . . . to take up to Heaven all those who follow Him – that “few will be chosen.�

My question for debate is: Knowing “few will be chosen,� why is there such a delay in his return? As the years go by and the world’s population at about 7 billion people, it is obvious that proportionately more and more will not "be chosen.� How can an all-loving, understanding god consign more and more of his created children to hell each passing day, especially in these times of exponentially increasing knowledge and more doubt of what supernatural things to believe.

Can anyone posit a reason why the delay in the Second Coming?

Matthew Mark and Luke all quote Jesus as having declared that the kingdom of God was at hand NOW! Gospel Mark, for example, says:

[29] So ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors.
[30] Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done (Mark 13).

We now know of course that what he really meant was that thousands of years would have to pass first. How do we know that? Because thousands of years have passed and everyone who lived 2,000 years ago is still quite undeniably dead.

[Danmark]

Also, the New Testament tells us that Christ’s departure from Earth 2,000 years ago will be short-lived and his return is imminent . . .

You will have to provide a reference of this statement in order to establish the premise upon with a presumption of "delay" is based.

The references are obvious and clear and come from the gospels.

"Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�
Matthew 16:28

"Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."
Matthew 24:34

Among the 'things' referred to earlier in the chapter are:
“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, 18 and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. 19 And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! 20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. 22 And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved."

This verse is one of the verses pointed to by preterists to claim all these things, including the "Coming of the Son of Man" have already taken place; i.e. by 70 CE, a generation after the words were spoken.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... p?p=691944

[Ancient of Years]

As I have said before, Luke inherited the ‘not taste death’ and ‘this generation’ passages. He cannot dispense with them quite yet or risk not being taken seriously. And he needs to be taken seriously to successfully take on Matthew. While those from the time of Jesus may be pretty much dead, the ‘still alive’ story originally began with Paul writing in the 50s. If Luke wrote 25-30 years after that there ought to have been survivors. Acts shows us that Luke was very familiar with Paul’s letters. In any case you are looking for exact precision when revival of faith is the issue.

Luke’s reference to the time of the Gentiles is “Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.� The trampling of Jerusalem by Gentiles ended in 70 CE with the total destruction of the city following a lengthy siege. Not at all an indefinite period.

As far as Luke meaning “a race of men very like each other� etc., why should Luke be interested in telling his Gentile audience that the Jewish race will stay around until Jesus comes? And since he already made changes for his Gentile readers why should he preserve the exact wording of the previous Gospels but mean something different?

I'm sorry, but you're jumping from obfuscation to assumption to circularity here.

Either 'this generation' refers to Jesus' generation, or it refers to something broader. It does not refer to the generation of an ageing Paul - that's an unconvincing attempt at obfuscation. But the simple fact is that by the 80s CE virtually no-one (including perhaps Luke himself) could be confident that anyone from Jesus' day was still alive, so that interpretation makes little sense from the pen of any 80s author (including Matthew).

Discussed below.

Luke unabashedly removed or changed plenty of things from Mark (and even more so from Matthew in your view), including the most important thing in the prophetic sequence itself, the abomination which Mark specifically draws readers' attentions to. You cannot simultaneously claim that Luke was compelled to include stuff merely because it was in Mark/Matthew - even though it was becoming absurd by the 80s CE, if your interpretation of his meaning were correct - yet also that he could merrily change the most important detail of it on the flimsiest of pretexts. The fact is that he messed around with the script: So if he meant what you claim he meant, and that was indeed absurd by the time he wrote, then he simply would not have written it! Since he did write it, it's evident that he didn't mean what you think he meant.

Removing the abomination and saying that "Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled" both make complete sense in that context - providing an indefinite delay to the final conclusion of the prophecy. The latter would make no sense if he was merely saying "Jerusalem will be overrun, and Roman soldiers will be there while they overrun it," and you are merely assuming that no gentiles remained afterwards. On the contrary, Josephus suggests that a Roman garrison did remain.

The ‘trampling’ and the ‘desolation’ are references to Daniel.

Daniel 8
11 It set itself up to be as great as the commander of the army of the Lord; it took away the daily sacrifice from the Lord, and his sanctuary was thrown down. 12 Because of rebellion, the Lord’s people and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.

13 Then I heard a holy one speaking, and another holy one said to him, “How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the Lord’s people?�

Daniel wants to know what this vision means. He is told “understand that the vision concerns the time of the end.� (Daniel 8:17)

Mark had to nudge the reader (“let the reader understand�) to get the meaning of ‘abomination of the desolation’ across. Luke makes it more obvious. “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near.� (Luke 21:20) And he ties that back into Daniel, just like Mark does in a reference that is about “the time of the end�.

Israel being oppressed by the nations (Gentiles) is all over the OT. A messiah is to come to rescue Israel. In this context, the image of Jerusalem being ‘trampled’ by the nations appears in various apocalyptic literature. We have seen the image used in Daniel with respect to vents near the end of days. The non-canonical Psalms of Solomon, probably dating to the 1st century BCE, also links the trampling of Jerusalem with an expected messiah. It also happens to mention Jews being taken as captive to foreign lands. Revelation also uses the image of Jerusalem being trampled as a precursor to the end of days.

Psalms of Solomon 2

20 For the nations reproached Jerusalem, trampling it down;
…
24 And I saw and entreated the Lord and said,
Long enough, O Lord, has Thine hand been heavy on Israel, in bringing the nations upon (them).


Psalms of Solomon 9

1 When Israel was led away captive into a strange land,
When they fell away from the Lord who redeemed them,


Psalms of Solomon 17

23 Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David,
At the time in which Thou seest, O God, that he may reign over Israel Thy servant

24 And gird him with strength, that he may shatter unrighteous rulers,

25 And that he may purge Jerusalem from nations that trample (her) down to destruction.

…

28 And he shall gather together a holy people, whom he shall lead in righteousness,
And he shall judge the tribes of the people that has been sanctified by the Lord his God.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-bo ... f-solomon/

Revelation 11
1 I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, “Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, with its worshipers. 2 But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months.

Compare to Luke.

Luke 21
24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

These works look forward to a future messiah who will end Gentile oppression. For Daniel in the 2nd century BCE and the author of the Psalms of Solomon in the 1st century BCE this is sometime in the future. (In the case of Revelation it is all just around the corner, in fact already in progress, Daniel is told to seal the scroll. John of Patmos is told to not seal the scroll “because the time is near� (Rev. 22:10) and Jesus says “Yes, I am coming soon.� (Rev 22:20) )

But Luke retains the ‘not taste death’ and ‘this generation’ memes introduced by Mark and continued by Matthew. The implication is that the end of trampling of Jerusalem and the time of the Gentiles and the appearance of the Son of Man (or return in this case) will all happen very soon.

It is not that Luke has done mathematical calculations and decided that it is still possible. Luke needs to retain the sense of the Olivet Discourse and the related ‘not taste death’ passage because the earlier Gospels had them. To be taken seriously as a Gospel and in particular to be taken seriously as a rival to and replacement for Matthew, Luke must retain them. And as we have seen, his changes do not have to affect the timeframe. On the contrary they tie even tighter into existing traditions and amplify the meaning. Luke has not added anything new. He has incorporated more old material that also happens to be clearer to Gentiles in connecting with an actual historic event, the siege of Jerusalem. Anyway why give up such a powerful part of the story?

Not at all flimsy.

Finally, you're simply begging the question by stating that Luke in this view meant something completely different to Mark. As I've pointed out, Mark immediately follows that sentence up by saying that Jesus did not know when it would occur. So Mark, particularly if he was writing in the early/mid stages of the war, most likely meant the same thing as Luke: That whatever trials might follow, the Jewish race would still endure until the end. This is entirely consistent with the frequent references in the synoptics to the Jews as 'a sinful and adulterous generation' or the like, akin to the older prophets' characterization of 'a stubborn and stiff-necked people.'

It's a bit of a stretch, when Mark says with one sentence that Jesus didn't know when it would all occur, to declare that the sentence immediately before that was giving a time-frame for its occurance!

First of all, I am NOT saying that Luke “meant something completely different to Mark�. On the contrary he was saying the same thing, that the Son of Man would be coming very soon. He uses a different but still traditional image to get around Mark’s awkward ‘abomination’ reference and to make a clearer and more understandable connection to actual events.

Those who believed in an imminent return of Jesus got it from Paul and apparently not before perhaps 50 CE. Paul never mentions Pilate or anything else that would assign a specific timeframe to the life and death of Jesus. It is not at all unreasonable to suggest that ‘not taste death’ and ‘this generation’ were not yet expired concepts.

Mark took old traditions that he received and used them to build a story about Jesus. But his impetus for writing a Gospel in the first place came from the destruction of the Temple which he employed to try to salvage a fading belief. It is not as if Mark’s readers, who seemed to be mainly Gentiles, would know offhand the dates when Pilate was prefect of Judaea. Interestingly Mark just suddenly introduces Pilate into the story by name with no explanation of who he was. It sounds like he is using yet another tradition that he inherited, one that worked very well to round out the story. It might even be that Mark did not himself know the exact dates of Pilate’s tenure.

And once again, Mark did not write in the “early/mid stages of the war�. He utilizes a real event, the utter destruction of the Temple itself, as a key element in his story. This was not either prophesied or expected. In fact it happens to contradict Daniel from which Mark takes his imagery. I have already documented all this. The destruction of the Temple had already happened when Mark wrote.

[Mithrae]

And once again, Mark did not write in the “early/mid stages of the war�. He utilizes a real event, the utter destruction of the Temple itself, as a key element in his story. This was not either prophesied or expected. In fact it happens to contradict Daniel from which Mark takes his imagery. I have already documented all this. The destruction of the Temple had already happened when Mark wrote.

An important point which I haven't addressed yet. Let me know if there's anything else important that I'm overlooking. It's hard to cover every point in detail, but it's been a great discussion so far

You're assuming here that Mark was writing after the Revolt of course, but none of this applies if he wrote beforehand. The reader would understand that he was referring to prophecies from Daniel and the other prophets. In fact the passage makes a lot more sense if he was merely rehashing older prophecies: You're right that the temple's destruction would be foolish 'sign' to flee to the hills, but equally you're correct that there was no plausible abomination in the temple before that! Caligula's plans had occurred some 30 years earlier - an equally foolish 'sign' to flee, and obviously one which historically the Jerusalem church had not heeded. It simply makes no sense if Mark was writing after the fact.

We saw above that Mark refers to events that happened in 67 CE. The destruction of the Temple is explicitly described by Mark (knocked down completely) was an accident of war and not something predictable. The references to Daniel include the destruction of the city in a war but not the destruction of the Temple. It is clear that in Daniel the Temple remains sanding and also that the ‘abomination’ is not set up until well after the destruction of the city. The sanctuary within the Temple is destroyed (some translations say ‘profaned’) but not the Temple itself. These are references to events in the time of Antiochus IV, couched as prophecies made centuries earlier.

First of all, you haven't really addressed the point I made above: If it's true that an 'abomination' of some kind at the climax of the Jewish war would in hindsight be a foolish and far too late sign to flee Jerusalem (which it is), it's equally obvious that an abomination from thirty years earlier which never even occurred is an even more nonsensical warning to flee and obviously not historically heeded by the Jerusalem church!

Those verses do not make any sense in any way, if they were written in hindsight - so the more plausible conclusion is that they weren't.

Secondly, you're creating a distinction between the temple and the sanctuary in Daniel 9, and between the fates of the city and the sanctuary, where none exists in the text. Daniel writes only that "the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary, and his end will come about by inundation, and until the end of the war, it will be cut off into desolation." This doesn't suggest that that the city would be destroyed but the sanctuary only 'profaned,' or that the city also would be merely be profaned; it suggests the desolation of the city, and the same fate for the sanctuary - and certainly not that the 'temple' would somehow be spared!

Of course many modern scholars and some, perhaps many 1st century Jews understood it in reference to the events under Antiochus. But that's not the point; the question is how might 1st century Christians like Mark understand it? And that's not difficult to guess: "And after the sixty-two weeks, the anointed one will be cut off, and he will be no more, and the people of the coming monarch will destroy the city and the Sanctuary..."

I don't know whether Mark was writing blind, before the war even began, or whether the early or even middle stages of the war led him to conclude all this stuff was about to happen. But in light of Daniel, either option is obviously plausible: Moreso than an absurd 'sign' to flee Jerusalem after it's already been beseiged and captured, and certainly much more plausible than a 'sign' from thirty years earlier which never even happened!

[Ancient of Years]

Hi Mithrae

I have much to say on your two recent posts but no time to do it. RL again. Will reply when I can.

I agree, good discussion!

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 33 by Ancient of Years]

With regards to the word generation: and looking at hebrew

1752; properly, a revolution of time,

1752 duwr dure a primitive root; properly, to gyrate (or move in a circle), i.e. to remain:--dwell.

Generation has nothing to do with the life of people, rather it speaks of a cycle of time.

1755 dowr dore or (shortened) dor {dore}; from 1752; properly, a revolution of time, i.e. an age or generation; also a dwelling:--age, X evermore, generation, (n-)ever, posterity.

It appears Jesus means something like:- this age which lasts till Judgement.

So virtually every translation is wrong? Jesus spoke Aramaic, but the translation is from Greek.

For example:
Matthew 24:34Amplified Bible (AMP)

34 I assure you and most solemnly say to you, this generation [the people living when these signs and events begin] will not pass away until all these things take place.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=AMP

You can quibble inaccurately about Matthew 24:34, but take a gander at Matthew 16:28
Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�
English Standard Version (ESV)

What is the oldest Aramaic or Hebrew manuscript containing these verses?
The oldest fragment of Matthew I am aware of, dates from the 2d Century and of course is written in Greek, the ‘Magdalen Papyrus’.
http://www.magd.ox.ac.uk/libraries-and- ... n-papyrus/

It is abundantly clear that Paul and the other 1st Century Christians believed 'the Christ' would come a 2d time in their lifetimes.

[Ancient of Years]

Paul very definitely used the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ (List)

Wow, don't know how I screwed that up - that'll teach me to post while drinking!

Right. You might spill some while typing.

Mark 4
26 He also said, “This is what the kingdom of God is like. A man scatters seed on the ground. 27 Night and day, whether he sleeps or gets up, the seed sprouts and grows, though he does not know how. 28 All by itself the soil produces grain—first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head. 29 As soon as the grain is ripe, he puts the sickle to it, because the harvest has come.�

Unclear. The kingdom of God grows. But what is meant by “the harvest has come�?

I think we could hazard a guess: But the point is that the kingdom of God comes before the harvest, leading up to it.

It is not clear at what point the kingdom of God is in effect. It could be when the harvest has come. I alluded earlier to my opinion that a real historic Jesus (probably) sought to make Israel worthy of a messiah by fostering true righteousness. Hs would fit with the idea of the kingdom of God as something that grows, as in this parable. But my scenario still has a messiah come at some point to establish the kingdom, this being the expected messianic age that appears in Jewish scripture. I am not aware of anything in Jewish scripture that would justify the idea of a gradual establishment of the kingdom without a messiah first appearing. If Mark intended to introduce a new idea like this would he not make it much clearer?

Mark 9
47 And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, 48 where

“‘the worms that eat them do not die,
and the fire is not quenched.’

The quote is from Isaiah. It is eschatological. It refers to the establishment of the messianic age.

I'm not so sure about that: A later Christian way of saying the same thing might be "It's better to have salvation with one eye than have two eyes and be cast into hell." Obviously the former (salvation/kingdom of God) need not refer to the same time of occurance as the latter. Elsewhere Mark has Jesus explicitly stating that existence after the resurrection bears little resemblance to our earthly life (specifically regarding marriage), that we'll be like the angels. So suggesting that bodily injuries would carry over into an eschatological kingdom of God makes no sense - on the contrary, the clear implication here is that the person is entering the kingdom of God while they are still deformed.[/quote]
If the kingdom of God referenced is non-eschatological or pre-eschatological but is something that happens in the here and now with existing living bodies, then being thrown into hell must be something that happens in the here and now with existing living bodies. But somehow gradual and non-eschatological? This does not make sense. What does make sense is that Mark does not mean this literally. He is using hyperbolic figures of speech. Are we really supposed to pluck out an eye and cut off a hand and a foot? How would they have caused us to ‘stumble’? (Itself a figure of speech.) In general Mark does not deal much with the reward/punishment paradigm. By contrast Matthew, who is trying to keep his Jewish Christian community intact against incursions from rabbinic Judaism, is fanatical on the subject.

Mark 10
13 People were bringing little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.�

Ambiguous. Will entry to the kingdom of God be all at once or gradual?

Not even remotely ambiguous - it's not entering the kingdom of God, it's receiving it. Makes no sense in an eschatological context.

Completely ambiguous. “Such as these� presumably means the innocent, who would earn a place in the kingdom. But when and how does the kingdom come about? That is not addressed here. If it is a gradual thing in the world as we know it, what will become of the non-innocent, the unrighteous? What happens to them, when and how?

The word translated as “receive� is Strong’s G1209. Here is some commentary on it:

• The personal element is emphasized with 1209 (déxomai) which accounts for it always being in the Greek middle voice. This stresses the high level of self-involvement (interest) involved with the "welcoming-receiving."

Here is another use of the same word in a very similar context that is translated as “welcome�’

Mark 9
36 He took a little child whom he placed among them. Taking the child in his arms, he said to them, 37 “Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me.�

It is not passive receiving but active welcoming. It is about the attitude. This is essential to entering the kingdom no matter how the kingdom arrives.

Ambiguous relative to the question of eschatology.

For reference here are the interlinear Greek for Mark 9 and Mark 10.

29 “Truly I tell you,� Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.�

A very interesting passage. We see references to both a worldly messianic age, which is not far off (“this age�) and Olam Ha-Ba (“the age to come�). Which is the kingdom of God is not clear. But it is definitely eschatological in character.

The righteous get persecuted in the messianic age? Again, makes no sense. Mark has already explained that whoever does the will of God is a mother or brother or sister to believers (3:31ff) - there's no need to invoke some kind of weird earthly messianic age in which people somehow have a hundred biological mothers. Presumably by extension, believers share each others homes and fields as well as relationships; mi casa es tu casa.

The disciples will get persecuted between the time Jesus is speaking and the return of Jesus while some of them are still alive. From the perspective of a post-Nero reader this makes perfect sense since followers of Jesus did indeed get persecuted. The subject at hand in this passage is that the disciples are concerned about having given up all material possessions to follow Jesus. Jesus assures them that they will be rewarded a hundredfold.

Mark 10
28 Then Peter spoke up, “We have left everything to follow you!�

29 “Truly I tell you,� Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel 30 will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life. 31 But many who are first will be last, and the last first.�

They have nothing, having given it all up. What are they going to share? Or are you saying that they are just going to go back to their old lives, take back everything they gave up and somehow share it? How is that going to work? And they are going to do this instead of going out to spread the word as they are supposed to do? Plus how does this make them first instead of last?

A far more reasonable explanation is that material rewards will come in the messianic age when Jesus returns in “this generation�. This is fully in line with expectations about the messianic age.

Mark 14
24 “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many,� he said to them.
25 “Truly I tell you, I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.�

Jesus is talking about his death. Definitely eschatological.

It's not consistent with the meaning of all other uses in the gospel, but it needn't be eschatological either: The gospels have Jesus' resurrection three days after his death (rather than waiting for a general resurrection), so there's no reason to suppose that it means anything other than "when I drink it in heaven" a week later. That clearly would not be consistent with what you want 9:1 to mean.

You're presumably familiar with the theory of a 'passion narrative' on which Mark's final chapters are based? I think it has some merit, and this single incongruous use of kingdom of God in the book would be well explained by it.

As I have been arguing all the other uses are ambiguous just as they are in Paul. But Paul’s expectations are definitely eschatological. As are Mark’s as is plain from the Olivet Discourse. Arguing against an eschatological expectation does not work. The question is when it is expected. Mark’s use of the ‘not taste death’ and ‘this generation’ references plus Paul’s references to ‘we who are still alive’ as opposed to ‘those who have fallen asleep’ as well as Mark’s connection of the end times with the destruction of the Temple are all rather obvious in their meaning.

To have Jesus drinking wine in heaven would mean that the kingdom of God is heaven. That does not fit at all with your idea of the kingdom of God being a gradual thing happening on earth. It fits fine with an eschatological expectation but not otherwise.

Are you referring to Ricoeur narrative theory as applied to the use of Psalms of Lament in Mark’s passion narrative? The use of Psalm 22 (“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?) is well known but little understood. In Mark’s narrative Jesus is captured, abandoned by the disciples, treated harshly and murdered in a horrible and humiliating fashion. All of this is couched in terms of gritty realism. The cry of Jesus is from the pit of despair. Yet the Psalm speaks of passing through terrible times in expectation of the Messiah. We might see a reference to the terrible persecution of Christians under Nero and an offering of hope in the return of Jesus. I do not see at all how this relates to Jesus drinking wine in heaven as opposed to when he returns to earth. Soon.

Mark 8:38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.�
Mark 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.�

These are consecutive sentences. You seem to want to separate them because they are in different chapters. Mark did not do that.

No, he separated them by inserting "and he said to them..." This would be entirely redundant unless either a) it was meant to be a distinct thought unrelated to the preceding story at all or more plausible b) it was simply meant to be distinct from the preceding sentence, though still part of the whole story. As I've shown, in the context of Peter's wish for Jesus to avoid his death and Jesus' warning that spreading the gospel (the kingdom of God, as previously established in the book) would be accompanied by trials and possible death for the disciples too, this makes a lot more sense; the previously timid and somewhat dull disciples would receive wisdom and strength like Jesus' when the kingdom of God is present with power.

Let us look at the verses again.

Mark 8
38 If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.�
Mark 9
1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.�

Compare to:

Mark 13
26 “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And he will send his angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of the heavens.

Why should Mark have Jesus emphasize the Son of Man being ashamed of people in this generation when he comes? But somehow not some who will “not taste death� before the kingdom of God comes with power? And this has nothing to do with the Son of Man coming with power in ‘this generation’?

We went through every reference to the kingdom of God in Mark. Show me the one where the kingdom of God is equated with spreading the Gospel. And reconcile this with all the other uses of the term.

The gospel begins with John the Baptist clearly stating that Jesus' mission was a baptism with the Holy Spirit. Where do you think that that ever occurred, if not in the change which came over the disciples after the 'bridegroom' had departed (a theme which Mark highlights in several ways)?

As I have said a number of times now, Luke uses an existing theme to connect Acts with his Gospel. He then goes about connecting Jesus with the idea of the Holy Spirit to get away with replacing the imminent return of Jesus with the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost and with the identity of the ongoing church. It is not that the Holy Spirit suddenly appears in the story. It is that the return of Jesus gets pushed off indefinitely. I suspect neither Matthew nor Luke was terribly happy with Mark’s version to begin with because of the additional time lag. This can be seen by them throwing in even more disclaimers about delays but connecting them with severe penalties for losing faith. But throwing out the Olivet Discourse that early with its imminent return promise – the reason for keeping faith – would be to invite non-acceptance as a real gospel at that stage. Not until the idea of an imminent return became a serious handicap, due to way too much elapsed time, was there divergence from it.

[JLB32168]

But that presupposition is so much claptrap, so ...

I asked you to define what it means to put faith into something and this is your response? Okay, so whenever you ask a theological question and get an answer, rather than address the response your stock answer will be “Well, none of this stuff is provable.� That’s bad faith debate, but at least we know it’s an avoidance of actually debating the question.

The word is "rational" not "reasonable" but, in either case, I think it would be fairly easy to demonstrate that your views are not either as rational or as reasonable and that you are, in fact, "less reasonable."

There is no appreciable difference between “rational� and “reasonable� in this context and at least we now know that, as is the previous case, your stock answer will be “None of this stuff is provable� rather than an actual thoughtful engagement of the person’s point.

It may be "theology" but it is also an unproven assertion.

One has to wonder why you asked a theological question since you ultimately were going to repair to the standard “Oh yeah – well your beliefs aren’t rational or reasonable.� In order to debate these things you at least have to allow for the hypothetical possibility that your opponent’s argument might be correct. To do otherwise is to debate in bad faith and that seems to be the norm on this board.

Yes, that is "typical" of atheists because have they have no need for invisible friends.

If a deity doesn’t exist then I have no need for an invisible friend since one doesn’t exist. I’m using my own mind and coping mechanisms, which are different than yours but not inferior.

Theists do have such a need and put themselves through the most mind-numbing mental contortions to justify their faith systems, forgetting always that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Not even "ordinary" evidence is forthcoming.

Translation: “Whenever I cannot really tackle your point, I’ll simply dismiss it as an invisible friend whose existence cannot be proven. Granted, it’s called the argumentum ad ridiculum fallacy, which means my argument is fallacious, but when that’s all I have that’s what I’ll use.�