Is the Resurrurredction really a historical fact, or not?

[polonius]

In Paul’s oldest and first epistle, written in 51-52 AD, he states without qualification that:

“Indeed, we tell you this, on the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord,* will surely not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself, with a word of command, with the voice of an archangel and with the trumpet of God, will come down from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first.g17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together* with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Thus we shall always be with the Lord.� 1 Thes 4:15-17

But it didn’t happen. Thus we must conclude that either Paul or the Lord were incorrect.

How much else of what Paul told us is also incorrect?

Recall, it was Paul who reported the Resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 written about 53-57 AD.

Was his story historically correct (did it actually happen) or is it just a story that was used by and embellished by the writers of the New Testament?

Since the basis of Christian belief is the historical fact of the Resurrection, let’s examine the evidence and see if the Resurrection really happened or can an analysis of the story show that it is improbable if not impossible.

Opinions?

[marco]

The superlative ἅ�ιστος [aristos] "best", was sometimes used in the form of an inseparable prefix ἀ�ι [ari]; so the first part of arimathaia might be interpreted to mean "best".

To this, the word you mention, μαθητής [mathētēs] disciple, might be added to produce ἀ�ιμαθητής [arimathētēs] i.e. "best disciple".
It may well be that Mark simply invented a place name that sounded sufficiently exotic to satisfy the curiosity of his audience.[/font][/size]

Very interesting information Student. Joseph is a deus ex machina in the fabulous tale of death and resurrection. It is wonderfully convenient that somebody from somewhere offers an expensive tomb.
Luke convinces us completely that there was no resurrection. If the following appeared in a play today, the audience would be reduced to laughter.
The spice girls come to the tomb, see it is empty and notice a couple of men in shiny clothes. The men wittily ask why the girls are seeking the living among the dead. (Hint: Christ is living.) The men jog their memory -no explanation at all about the most obvious question - who on earth are they? - and the penny drops with the ladies. They remember. And it's perfectly clear. They skip back home. The men go off to visit Sodom and Lot.
Then on the road to Emmaus Jesus creeps up on two men, listens amused as they tell him tales about himself, and then he says the equivalent of ya, boo! But not before he spends some hours giving a Bible history lesson, starting from Moses.
When Christ appears to the apostles he's preoccupied with his hands and his feet - apparently a glorified body still carries its old scars.

What a way for a God to behave, one might say. It is fascinating to speculate what the REAL story must have been.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 684 by rikuoamero]

Bravo. You hear that? That's me clapping. What you just said destroys the story completely.

Where's my gold star?

[Claire Evans]

Luke must be referring to the Temple destruction in 70 AD because it was not destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem. Luke concentrated more on the fall of the Temple rather than the end of the age.

Of course the Temple was destroyed during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Josephus gives a very detailed account of the whole affair. See The War of the Jews Book 5, Book 6 and Book 7.

If you are thinking of the Bar Kokhba Revolt, there was no siege of Jerusalem in that conflict. It was Bethar that was besieged by the Romans. Jerusalem still had no walls, except the piece left standing in 70 CE to shelter the Roman encampment.

The final battle of the war took place in Bethar, Bar-Kokhba’s headquarters, which housed both the Sanhedrin (Jewish High Court) and the home of the Nasi (leader). Bethar was a vital military stronghold because of its strategic location on a mountain ridge overlooking both the Valley of Sorek and the important Jerusalem-Bet Guvrin Road. Thousands of Jewish refugees fled to Bethar during the war. In 135 C.E., Hadrian’s army besieged Bethar and on the 9th of Av, the Jewish fast day commemorating the destruction of the first and second Holy Temples, the walls of Bethar fell. After a fierce battle, every Jew in Bethar was killed. Six days passed before the Romans allowed the Jews to bury their dead.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... volt1.html

The significance of these differences becomes clear as one carefully compares the accounts. Luke emphasizes the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 in a way the other Gospels do not. All the Synoptics anticipate the fall of Jerusalem in the way they introduce the discourse, but Luke focuses on the short-term event in a way Matthew and Mark do not. His temporal indicators (vv. 9, 12) draw the reader back toward the present before really focusing on the end in verses 25-28. A transition begins to appear in verses 20-24, but until verse 19 the focus is still on events before the judgment of the capital in A.D. 70, which is not yet the end.


The speech makes several points. First, Luke clearly shows how the destruction of A.D. 70 is distinct from but related to the end. The two events should not be confused, but Jerusalem's destruction, when it comes, will guarantee as well as picture the end, since one event mirrors the other. Both are a part of God's plan as events move toward the end.

I think that the Jews thought that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD meant the end of the age while Luke was insinuating differently. The other gospels were thinking that the destruction of the temple meant the end of the age was near while Luke is saying that the is saying that it is not something that is going to happen in succession.

"Two features of this discourse should not be overlooked. First, in verses 8-12 Jesus works from the end backwards and then in verse 25 leaps forward again in time, beyond Jerusalem's destruction to the end. Such a rewinding backwards in time is clear in light of the statement in verse 9 that the end will not come right away and the note in verse 12 that before all this--that is, the events of verses 8-11--other things will occur. With verse 12 and following, Jesus moves forward again, toward the description of Jerusalem's fall and the persecution that will accompany it. The issues of the end and the return of the Son of Man are deferred mostly until verse 25, with the reference to the times of the Gentiles in verse 24 serving as a transition into Jesus' statements about the end times. After Jerusalem falls, the period of Gentile rule will continue until the Son of Man returns."

So it will be at the end. When these cosmic signs are displayed, Jesus' followers can rest assured the end is near. In fact, when the whole discourse is taken into account, Jerusalem's fall--predicted as it is and mirroring the end as it does--also serves as a sign guaranteeing that what Jesus says about the end and redemption will come to pass. So Jesus says to look for two things: the fall of Jerusalem and cosmic signs. With these heavenly portents (vv. 25-26), the kingdom of God is near. In this text Luke speaks of the kingdom as not yet arrived, in contrast to earlier texts where it had already approached or come (10:9, 18; 11:20; 17:20). As has been noted, Luke sees the kingdom in two phases: an initial, already-present phase and a consummating, yet-to-come phase. The consummation will wrap up the promise in total fulfillment. Anticipation will become realization. The kingdom will be present in its fullness.

This will explain why the Jews believed that Jesus would come back in their life-time because they didn't distinguish what would happen in their generation and events to come way into the future. In the other gospels, generation was seen as the current generation. It is true that the destruction of Jerusalem happened in their generation. However, they went onto assume that this meant the end of the age would be in their generation also. Luke doesn't agree with that.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... uction-End

Mark 13
1 As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!�
2 “Do you see all these great buildings?� replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.�
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?�

Matthew 24
1 Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2 “Do you see all these things?� he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.�
3 As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,� they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?�

Luke 21
5 Some of his disciples were remarking about how the temple was adorned with beautiful stones and with gifts dedicated to God. But Jesus said, 6 “As for what you see here, the time will come when not one stone will be left on another; every one of them will be thrown down.�
7 “Teacher,� they asked, “when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are about to take place?�

Essentially identical so far and definitely referring to the destruction of the Temple during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

Mark 13
5 Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 6 Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. 7 When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 8 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains.

9 “You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them.10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit.
12 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child. Children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 13 Everyone will hate you because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

Matthew 24
4 Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Messiah,’ and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

9 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Luke 21
8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them. 9 When you hear of wars and uprisings, do not be frightened. These things must happen first, but the end will not come right away.�
10 Then he said to them: “Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. 11 There will be great earthquakes, famines and pestilences in various places, and fearful events and great signs from heaven.

12 “But before all this, they will seize you and persecute you. They will hand you over to synagogues and put you in prison, and you will be brought before kings and governors, and all on account of my name. 13 And so you will bear testimony to me. 14 But make up your mind not to worry beforehand how you will defend yourselves. 15 For I will give you words and wisdom that none of your adversaries will be able to resist or contradict. 16 You will be betrayed even by parents, brothers and sisters, relatives and friends, and they will put some of you to death. 17 Everyone will hate you because of me. 18 But not a hair of your head will perish. 19 Stand firm, and you will win life.

All very similar.




I bolded verses 9 and 12 in Luke and the corresponding verses in Mark and Matthew. I do not see all that much difference. In fact Luke is closer to Mark than Matthew is.

Mark 13
14 “When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15 Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 17 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 18 Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.

20 “If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them. 21 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 23 So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.

Matthew 24
15 “So when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand— 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the housetop go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again.

22 “If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it. 24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

Luke 21
20 “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 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.

For the most part very similar. The biggest difference is that Luke changes the ‘abomination’ reference in Mark and Matthew into a reference to the siege of Jerusalem and realistically describes the aftermath of the siege. As previously discussed, expecting Gentiles to get a reference to an event that happened in Jerusalem over thirty years before (at the time Mark was writing) was something of a stretch. The siege of Jerusalem reference they would get right away. That Luke leaves intact the text underlined above from mark and Matthew shows that he is talking about the same events.

There is a striking difference in what Luke wrote:

Luke 21
8 He replied: “Watch out that you are not deceived. For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The time is near.’ Do not follow them.

None of the other gospels write about false Christs saying the time is near. That is because the other gospel writers believed the time would be near when they would be persecuted. In their generation, to be exact.

Absolutely are they similar but it is how they are construed is what is important.

What is noted is that Luke doesn't mention the false messiah as being connected to the end of days like Matthew and Mark do. This repeat of the false messiah indicates to me that Matthew and Mark still associate what will happen in their life-time as means the end of the age. Luke is obviously saying the destruction of the Temple is related to the end but is not the end itself.

Mark 13
24 “But in those days, following that distress,
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
25 the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

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.

Matthew 24
29 “Immediately after the distress of those days
“‘the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.
31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

Luke 21
25 “There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 People will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.�

Mark and Matthew use the exact quote from Isaiah. Luke paraphrases it. Not surprising since his audience is Gentiles. (Luke refers to scriptures from time to time but usually only when he is importing material from the other Gospels.) Otherwise the passages are very similar.

Mark 13
28 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 29 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that it is near, right at the door. 30 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Matthew 24
32 “Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Luke 21
29 He told them this parable: “Look at the fig tree and all the trees. 30 When they sprout leaves, you can see for yourselves and know that summer is near. 31 Even so, when you see these things happening, you know that the kingdom of God is near.
32 “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 33 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Mark told the story of the fig tree that was not in season. In that passage (Mark 11) he interleaves fig tree / temple / fig tree / temple. Here in Mark 13 he refers to the fig tree coming into season as the sign that the end is near. He started the Olivet Discourse referring to the destruction of the Temple and ends the description of the end time signs with referring to the fig tree, previously associated with the Temple. This is all to happen before ‘this generation’ passes away. Matthew and Luke present this section in very similar language.



I see no significant difference in what the three Gospels are saying in this passage. The only noticeable difference is Luke dropping the rather shaky ‘abomination’ reference and substituting a reference that his Gentile audience would get. But it is clear that all three are talking about the same thing, a series of signs culminating in the destruction of the Temple as indicators of the imminent return of the Son of Man. Matthew and Luke slip in disclaimers here and there in their Gospels about just how imminent imminent is. (Including here) But they retain the Olivet Discourse because it is an important part of the story thanks to Mark. Only when it is simply no longer credible is it reversed, as in John and Acts.

It is obvious that that they are all writing about the same thing but there is confusion about when the return of Christ would be. The other gospels think that the end will come after the destruction of the Temple while Luke does not. The destruction is related to the event but doesn't mean it will happen right after the other.

Remember that only Mark has the Olivet Discourse as the main reason for writing his Gospel. He wants to renew fading faith in a quick return of Jesus as Paul expected to happen. Matthew wrote to ward off rabbinic Judaism. Luke wrote to ward off Matthew.

There you go. Is not an agenda a reason to misinterpret what Jesus meant? There way be other meanings of generation such as:

Two other options are possible. If the term has no temporal force, then it could mean "the evil generation of humankind." Using the term with this descriptive, ethical force would mean Jesus is speaking of a quality of human being: evil persons will not escape the judgment when it comes. This evil generation will not pass away before God deals with them. There will be judgment and vindication.

Finally, the term might refer to the generation of the end. In other words, once the beginning of the end arrives with the cosmic signs of verses 25-26, the Son of Man will return before that generation passes away. Such a meaning honors the term's temporal force and reads it as somewhat contextually limited by Luke's clear distinction between near and far events. This view has been rejected by some as too obvious a sense--the last generation will not pass away (Stein 1992:526). However, this misreads the view's force. It is arguing that the end will occur within one generation; the same group that sees the start of the end will see its end. This is the option I slightly prefer, though the previous sense is also possible.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... uction-End

So Jesus could have said generation but there were different interpretations on what it meant.

I already showed that every time Jesus said ‘generation’ in the Gospels he meant generation in the everyday sense. It connects directly with the ‘not taste death’ passages and the destruction of the Temple as the sign of the end of days.

There seems to be a misinterpretation. The coming of the son of man, as alluded to in Daniel 7:13, does not mean the the second coming of Jesus but rather when He receives His kingdom from the Father, i.e, the resurrection.

"In order to come to an understanding of this saying, we must again be reminded that when Jesus speaks of the “coming of the Son of Man,� he is purposefully alluding to Daniel 7:13–14. And again we must recall that the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is set within a judgment scene before the throne of God (cf. Dan. 7:9–10). Unlike the saying in Matthew 10:23, the saying in 16:28 is found in the immediate context of words regarding judgment (v. 27). The point that Jesus is making when he says that there are some standing here who will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is that there are some to whom he is speaking who will not die before the prophecy of Daniel 7 is fulfilled, in other words, before Jesus receives the kingdom from his Father.

A comparison of Matthew 16:28 with its parallels in Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 lends support to this interpretation. All three sayings are set within the same context immediately before the Transfiguration, yet whereas Matthew speaks of some living long enough to see the coming of the Son of Man, Mark and Luke speak of some living long enough to see the coming of the kingdom of God. The “coming of the Son of Man� then is simply another way of saying “the coming of the kingdom of God.� It is the assumption that the words “coming of the Son of Man� must mean “Second Coming� that has caused much of the confusion. Once we realize that Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to allude to the whole prophecy, texts such as Matthew 16:28 are much more readily understood. Jesus was not predicting that his Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers. He wasn’t speaking of the Second Coming at all.v He was referring to the fulfillment of Daniel 7, his reception of the kingdom from the Father, and this was fulfilled within the lifetime of some of his hearers (cf. Matt. 28:18).vi"

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/some-stand ... chatology/

The reason no one references that the Temple was actually destroyed is that all their stories are set before that event. A ‘prophecy’ supposedly made in the past of something that had already happened when the story is being read lends power to the story when the reader recognizes the ‘prophesied’ event.

But you'd think that Luke would mention the fall of Jerusalem after Paul was executed? However, he is silent on that. He doesn't continue Acts. The New Testament does write about a prophetic event and then say it has been fulfilled:

Matthew 21:4-11

4 All[a] this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:

5 “Tell the daughter of Zion,
‘Behold, your King is coming to you,
Lowly, and sitting on a donkey,
A colt, the foal of a donkey.’�

Therefore it would be reasonable to comment that the prophecy of the destruction of the temple had been fulfilled according to the scriptures.

As I already explained, to mention the destruction of the Temple as a fulfilled prophecy would point out that it happened and Jesus was still a no-show. Acts was written much too late to still expect Jesus to show up, so Luke changed the game plan. The end of Mark 13 has Jesus tell his disciples to ‘Watch!� Acts 1 has the angels tell the disciples to stop watching. Instead of Jesus returning any day now, the expectation is switched to the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. And Luke has that happen right away, so Jesus is off the hook until some unspecified time in the future. John is even cruder in his approach (or at least the author of the add-on last chapter). He says that all that ‘not taste death’ stuff was just a misunderstanding. Jesus never said any of that.

If that is the case, why would any of the gospel writers include that prophecy of the destruction of the temple when the generation had passed and there was still "no-show". You'd think they'd omit the "generation would not pass" part out to avoid embarrassment. If you think the gospel of Mark was written in 80 AD, then the generation most certainly had passed.

[Claire Evans]

It is claimed that Jesus would come right away after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD? So why should Luke think He would? There was no a set date when Jesus would return.

What is 'claimed' and stated by Jesus himself according to the Olivet discourse is that he would return during the lifetimes of at least some of those he spoke to on the Mount of Olives. He did not name the exact time or date, but that it would be before some of those standing there "tasted death;" that it would happen during "this generation." As with many specific prophesies when the time for the event appeared to be passing, causing the young church embarrassment about their key prophecy, they generated 2d epistles to the Corinthians, and from Peter and John allegedly, to soften this clear prophecy. But to attempt to shift this date of the 2d coming from roughly 70-100 CE, to 2015 CE and beyond is ludicrous. This apocalyptic prophecy attributed to Jesus himself has failed, and with it the supernatural claims of Christianity.

"In order to come to an understanding of this saying, we must again be reminded that when Jesus speaks of the “coming of the Son of Man,� he is purposefully alluding to Daniel 7:13–14. And again we must recall that the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is set within a judgment scene before the throne of God (cf. Dan. 7:9–10). Unlike the saying in Matthew 10:23, the saying in 16:28 is found in the immediate context of words regarding judgment (v. 27). The point that Jesus is making when he says that there are some standing here who will not die before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom is that there are some to whom he is speaking who will not die before the prophecy of Daniel 7 is fulfilled, in other words, before Jesus receives the kingdom from his Father.

A comparison of Matthew 16:28 with its parallels in Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 lends support to this interpretation. All three sayings are set within the same context immediately before the Transfiguration, yet whereas Matthew speaks of some living long enough to see the coming of the Son of Man, Mark and Luke speak of some living long enough to see the coming of the kingdom of God. The “coming of the Son of Man� then is simply another way of saying “the coming of the kingdom of God.� It is the assumption that the words “coming of the Son of Man� must mean “Second Coming� that has caused much of the confusion. Once we realize that Jesus is simply using a phrase from Daniel 7 to allude to the whole prophecy, texts such as Matthew 16:28 are much more readily understood. Jesus was not predicting that his Second Coming would occur within the lifetime of some of his hearers. He wasn’t speaking of the Second Coming at all.v He was referring to the fulfillment of Daniel 7, his reception of the kingdom from the Father, and this was fulfilled within the lifetime of some of his hearers (cf. Matt. 28:18).vi"

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/some-stand ... chatology/

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to Claire Evans]

I believe it is a case of wishful thinking. It was a widespread belief, and wish, that Jesus would return within their generation. We have the same thinking today. I believe the gospel writers misunderstood Jesus and possibility inserted the Luke 17:25 themselves which Jesus didn't say.

Now you are on a very slippery slope indeed. Because in fact Jesus wrote nothing himself. Every word directly ascribed to him was in fact placed into his mouth by anonymous others decades after his death. This is like pulling a thread and watching the whole garment unravel. Once you begin to discredit portions of the various quotes claimed to have been Jesus' own words, you quickly discover there is no basis for declaring ANY of the quotes attributed to Jesus to be genuine. It allows you, and anyone else, to pick and choose what you wnat to hear and want to believe. It allows you to construct the exact Jesus of your choosing. And of course this is EXACTLY what has been occurring for the last 2,000 years. The historical Yeshua, The individual who wrote NOTHING himself, IF he ever actually existed at all, has been entirely lost under 2,000 years worth of layers of Christian assumptions and assertions concerning the "true" nature of the mythical Jesus. A mix and match Jesus mainly constructed by the fledgling Catholic church from various personal assumptions and declarations as required centuries after Jesus died.

I'm still learning about the meaning of scriptures. I have looked into why there was an misinterpretation. It may have not been a case of putting words in Jesus' mouth but rather miscontruing His words. Perhaps willingly because that is what they wanted to believe.

Claire wrote"
No, it isn't inerrant. Humans are fallible.

Claire wrote:
Just because the Church thinks it's infallible, doesn't make it so. Nobody was in a trance when they wrote it. Being moved by the Holy Spirit doesn't suddenly make one infallible because they have the Holy Spirit in them.

Now you are beginning to see the light. Ultimately it all boils down to this: Just because someone claimed that a corpse came back to life and flew away doesn't make it so. Christians claim that the story of the resurrected Jesus was an "oral tradition" until it first began to be written down decades after Jesus was dead. Notice that "oral tradition" and "rumor" are basically indistinguishable from each other.

Oral tradition is not the same as rumour.


About oral tradition:

"One of the assumptions that is now being overturned in the discipline of orality studies is the longstanding idea that oral traditions are incapable of transmitting extended narratives. It was commonly assumed that long narratives simply would have been too difficult to remember to be passed on reliably. Unfortunately for this assumption, a large number of fieldwork studies over the last several decades have “brought to light numerous long oral epics in the living traditions of Central Asia, India, Africa, and Oceania, for example.� Hence, argues Lauri Honko, “[t]he existence of genuine long oral epics can no longer be denied.� (6) In fact, oral narratives lasting up to 25 hours and requiring several days to perform have been documented! (7) Indeed, oral performances — that is, times when the community’s narrator (or “tradent�) passes on oral traditions to the community — almost always presuppose a broader narrative framework even when the narrative itself is not explicitly included in the performance. (8) There is, therefore, no longer any reason to suspect that the narrative framework of Jesus’ life was the fictional creation of the Gospel authors."

About writing:

"For example, whereas some scholars have argued that only the wealthy in the ancient world could have received the education needed to become literate, we’ve now discovered clear evidence of writing among military personal, builders and even slaves! (1) So too, whereas it was commonly assumed in the past that writing materials were very rare and expensive in the ancient world, we now have evidence that certain kinds of writing materials were actually rather inexpensive and were utilized by significant segments of the middle and lower classes. (2) We’ve also discovered texts that were intended to inform the general public (for example, publicly posted notices), which of course presupposes some degree of literacy among the general populace. (3)

If the ancient world was in general more literate than previously thought, we have reason to believe ancient Jews would have been much more so. After all, as New Testament scholar John Meier notes,

“The very identity and continued existence of the people of Israel were tied to a corpus of written and regularly read works in a way that simply was not true of other peoples in the Mediterranean world of the first century. . . To be able to read and explain the Scriptures was a revered goal for religiously minded Jews. Hence literacy held a special importance for the Jewish community.� (4)



http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-reliable- ... raditions/

"And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power."

Did Jesus ACTUALLY say this? This is contained in Acts 1:7, written by the same individual who wrote Gospel Luke. But this individual has no claim to have ever even met the living Jesus. Traditionally the author of Acts is believed to have been a follower of Paul, who HIMSELF never met the living Jesus. This is an example of you picking and choosing which of the words placed into Jesus' mouth by others you prefer to accept as valid. Employing this "pick and choose" method allows you to fashion exactly the Jesus that pleases you.

Luke knew Peter.

We know that Paul getting killed did not stop the continuation of the church. Anyway, Acts does tell us that Paul was going to die:

In truth we know nothing of Paul's death at all. When last we see Paul he was living under house arrest in Rome for two years awaiting trial.


Acts 28:
[30] And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came in unto him,
[31] Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him.

What was his crime? Not much!



Acts 26:
[31] And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
[32] Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.

Living under house arrest in Rome, and basically charged with nothing more than disturbing the peace in Jerusalem, Paul hardly seems like a man facing the death penalty. And in fact one tradition has him being acquitted of the charges and going off to Spain. One unfounded tradition is as good as another it would seem. But in actual fact no one really knows what became of Paul, although it seems safe to say that he passed at some point. And like EVERYONE who lived 2,000 years ago, HE IS STILL DEAD!
http://www.biblestudy.org/maps/apostle- ... y-map.html

Paul was executed under Nero. That is when Christians were being put to death.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 691 by Claire Evans]

I have to reiterate what Tired of the Nonsense pointed out.
In your exchanges with him, he pointed out that nothing that Jesus is claimed to have said can actually be truthfully determined as such. We have nothing written by Jesus himself.
In response to this, you quote Acts of the Apostles, written by the same author of Gospel Luke, who never met Jesus (or if he did, we have no indication that he did). TotN points out that Luke was a follower of Paul, who never knew Jesus while alive (by Paul's own words, the only kind of contact he had with Jesus was several years after his death, which raises eyebrows among skeptics).
To try and salvage Luke's credibility, you say that he knew Peter.
To which I point out...how does this help the situation any? In my eyes, you've just substituted Peter for Paul. So you trust what is written in Acts because the author knew Peter. Well...this raises the question of why you trust Peter. Why is whatever is written in Acts trustworthy simply because the author knew Peter? Is Peter's credibility above reproach? I think not - especially since the Gospels themselves show him to thrice deny Jesus. So even where I to once again be a Christian and to trust in Scripture...I can't trust what the scripture says because going by your logic, the credibility of one author (Luke) is buttressed by another person, who is according to Scripture a thrice damned liar!

The long and the short of this comment is that it's not enough when trying to save Luke's credibility that he knew Peter. Now you have to establish credibility for Peter as well - you've just made your job that much harder by a factor of two.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 691 by Claire Evans]

Paul was executed under Nero.

Okay, my first question is...why isn't this mentioned in Acts? Or anywhere else in the New Testament? Surely the execution of arguably the most influential person on Christian scripture should have merited a mention somewhere?
Second, I had a brief look at Paul's page on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_ ... _execution

One thing I noticed is that all of these historians (for now, I'm not going to comment on their credibility) are writing multiple centuries after the 'fact'. Nowhere in that list is there mention of someone writing about Paul's execution close to the date. The earliest person there is Tertullian in 200AD.
Now of course Wikipedia isn't the beginning and end of historical research. So if you could show us some historian writing closer to the date please? Someone who wrote abotu Paul's execution before 200AD? As close as possible to the claimed date please.

I'm not saying that there definitely was no execution. I'm just pointing out how it's odd that we have nothing about this execution from the time it actually happened, only multiple decades or even centuries later.

[polonius]

[Replying to rikuoamero]

RESPONSE:

You raise and interesting point. The date ascribed to Acts of the Apostles is about 80 AD. This would be about 25 years after Paul's death.

It is claimed that Luke wrote Acts almost immediately after his Gospel of Luke.

Acts seems to end with Paul still being in Rome. There is no mention of his death.

From the Introduction to Luke, New American Bible.

"Because of its dependence on the Gospel of Mark and because details in Luke’s Gospel (Lk 13:35a; 19:43–44; 21:20; 23:28–31) imply that the author was acquainted with the destruction of the city of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70, the Gospel of Luke is dated by most scholars after that date; many propose A.D. 80–90 as the time of composition."

[marco]

Since poor old Paul had the misfortune to be tried under Nero, there's no doubt he'd have been put to death. Burning might have happened but it's suggested that because he was a Roman citizen he was beheaded. I'm not sure that Nero would have observed this legal nicety.

Even under the reasonable later Emperor Trajan he'd have suffered death since he would not have wanted to "maledicere Christo" - curse Christ.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 695 by marco]

Oh I'm not suggesting here that Paul wasn't executed...just pointing out that it's odd that nothing in the New Testament mentions it, not even Acts which was written afterward, and that the only people who mention Paul being executed do so almost a century after the event at the earliest.