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?

[Daddieslittlehelper]

[Replying to Daddieslittlehelper]

I ask a straight-forward question and get a passel of obfuscating biblical quotes that makes the Gordian Knot pale in comparison. Why not a straight-forward answer? Probably because there is none. Billions will “burn in hell� because they can’t be brought to unravel the ecclesiastic jargon.

I think I have struck a raw nerve with my OP. The defensiveness of the religious intelligence is a tangled web of possibilities, probabilities, interpretations, opinions and other vagaries. Many of us know full well that it isn’t essential for a good life to be dead-ended by such prattle.



Sorry JW, it was 1213 that quoted ". . . when the Gentiles . . .".

You are not incorrect here, however that is why the Advocate will come, to explain the full truth to everyone. The worldly like yourself will not except him, you can´t.

Well Jesus´secound comming is actually on the Day of judgement.

So you are gonna be waiting a while considering that the day of Judgement happens after the 1000 years of peace.

So it depends on who you are waiting for. If you mean the lamb, then he will be comming at some point Smile and if you mean the Immanuel he´ll be comming at some point later. Very Happy

Just so we are Clear the christians are waiting for the Advocate and the lamb and Jesus.

The Jews are waiting for Elijah, Cyrus the suffering servant, Zerubabbel, Joshua the branch and the Immanuel.

The Muslims are waitng for Isa.

The hindus are wainting for a few people. Very Happy any way.

More of the same! I am happy for you, daddieslittlehelper, that you are happy in your opinion. So which of the above are you waiting for since there are a bunch of religions you mention? I think I'll be happily long gone before any of the above occurs.

Your happy I am happy its not my oppinion, its what scripture says.

No, I think you´ll find all the faiths will still be arround on the day of Judgement, because they are all correct, they are also in places incorrect. but more over they all have some truth in them and the comming prophets will not seek to stop any of them existing rather the comming prophets will help them come together in brotherhood and friendship. under the one true god

[Ancient of Years]

Paul believed that he and at least some of his readers would still be alive when Jesus returned.

1 Corinthians 15
51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

1 Thessalonians 4
13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

"WE" WILL NOT SLEEP

1 Corinthians 15: 51-52 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

1 Thessalonians 4: 13 Brothers and sisters, we do not want you to be uninformed about those who sleep in death, so that you do not grieve like the rest of mankind, who have no hope. 14 For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15 According to the Lord’s word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

QUESTION: Does Paul's commentary above (1 Cor 15: 51-52; 1 Thess 4:13) indicate he believed that first century Christians would not die before christ's return?

No. It is important to note that in the above discussion Paul, addressing the topic of the future resurrection, is using a collective "we" to refer to ALL anointed spirit begotten Christians AS A GROUP and NOT to those exclusively living in the first century; this is not at all unusual and is fairly common in the Christian Greek scriptures.

FOR EXAMPLE : In Paul's letter to the Romans (Chapter 8) he (Paul) speaks about being spirit adopted (verse 14) stating "ALL who are led by God's spirit are indeed God's sons." - NWT but notice Paul that goes on to say "we cry out Abba Father" "WE are God's children" and "provided we suffer together WE may also be glorified together". There are few bible commentors who would suggest that Paul is saying that 2nd and 3rd century Christians do not share that hope of heavenly glorification or that the "we" of being spirit anointed is EXCLUSIVELY for first century Christians and does not apply to Christians into the future.

So when Paul speaks about the "WE" who are still " alive and ... left" at the time of the resurrection there is no reason to limit the application exclusively to century christians rather than spirit anointed christians of later eras.

CONCLUSION: Neither 1 Cor 15:51,52 nor 1 Thess 4:13 are suggesting that Paul is teaching first Century Christians would not die or that they would live to see the future resurrection on the "last day", rather he uses a collective "we" to refer to all spirit anointed Christians as a group and is saying that those Christians alive one earth during that final day would not spend centuries "asleep" in death awaiting Christ’s return but would instantly be “caught up,� “in the twinkling of an eye,� to their glorified position in heaven with Christ. He says nothing to indicate that either he personally or those first century récipients of his letter, would personally be alive to experience the later aspect of this phenonomen.

Further Reading:
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101 ... &p=par#h=6

Paul writes “we� in a letter to people who would have interpreted “we� to mean people currently alive. Making it a universal “we� makes “we will not all die� (sleep) into “the people alive when Jesus returns will not be dead�. That makes no sense. If there were some sort of tradition that everyone would be dead, that there would be no one alive anymore, when Jesus returned, then some sense might be found in Paul saying “we will not all die� with a universal “we�. But Paul is not contradicting some (non-existent) tradition. He is telling his readers that some of the people alive at the time he is writing will still be alive when Jesus returns. Did not happen and thus all of the convoluted apologetics.

If you really think that things said in the NT relate to all Christians rather than the immediate contemporary audience, have you sold all your possessions and given the proceeds to the poor yet?

[Ancient of Years]

Paul and the Synoptic Gospel writers were saying that Jesus was going to come back when some of the people who saw Jesus in life would still be alive. John and Acts were written when it was no longer possible to believe that and changed the story. John does it rather clumsily by omitting the Olivet Discourse and making the "not taste death" be a mistake. The always clever Luke in Acts does a terrific tap dance around it.

To be honest it looks like you're doing a bit of tap dancing yourself. Luke was one of the synoptic authors - the two books take the format of consecutive letters to 'Theophilus,' and there's no reason to suppose that there was any length of time between their writing. So how can the author simultaneously downplay Jesus' imminent return (Acts), yet emphasise that it was going to be very soon (Luke)?

The answer is that he doesn't: Luke quite conspicuously changes the prophetic significance of an 'abomination that desolates' (from Daniel), which is found in Mark 13 and Matthew 21, to the more mundane "Jerusalem surrounded by armies," and adds an indefinite delay to the whole affair:

• Mark 13:14 “But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it should not be (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.
  
  Matthew 21:15 “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), 16 then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.
  
  Luke 21:20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then [l]recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.... 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

Of course that's a bit problematic, because Luke - quite happy to change something like the abomination of desolation in order to show a delay in Christ's return - still incorporated the "this generation" phrase. Obviously therefore, it meant something different to Luke than it does to you. Luke was not sure when Jesus was going to come back, and for him the kingdom of God was already in their midst (17:20-21).

By contrast Matthew, alone amongst the synoptic gospels, frequently changes 'kingdom of God' to 'kingdom of Heaven' and even invents a new passage in which Jesus unambiguously predicts his imminent return (Matthew 10:23): "for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes." Matthew was perhaps written shortly after the temple's destruction, and was certain that this was a sign of the end times.

The only real question here is Mark: Was it written before the war, or in its early stages, and merely drawing on prophecies from the Tanakh (notably Daniel) to infer that the temple would sooner or later be destroyed? I see no reason to suppose that wasn't the case. What is very clear, is that usually in Mark the 'kingdom of God' refers to a here-and-now thing, much as in Luke; the kingship of God in believers' lives. For example the parables in Mark chapter 4 are all about the kingdom of God, yet obviously not about eschatology!

So when Mark writes of Jesus that "some standing here" would not taste death until they see "the kingdom of God present with power" (Mk. 9:1), can we really be sure that he didn't mean it exactly the same way Luke took it? That is, the power of the Holy Spirit and alleged miracles accompanying the growth of the early church - the kingdom of God.

Of particular note is that fact that here also Matthew explicitly changes Mark's wording (Mt. 16:28): "there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Why would Matthew need to change that, if Mark's meaning was clearly eschatological?

Answer: Mark's meaning is ambiguous at best, and more likely in line with Luke's here-and-now "kingdom of God" than with Matthew's eschatological "kingdom of heaven."

Finally someone willing to debate without resorting to cut and paste!

There are different schools of thought on what Mark meant when he referred to the ‘abomination that causes desolation’. One school says that Mark meant the destruction of the Temple. I do not see it that way. Having the abomination be the warning sign to flee to the hills does not work. By the time the Temple is destroyed, Jerusalem has been surrounded by armies for some time and there had already been fighting in the north for years. Too late to flee. Plus he says that the abomination is ‘standing where it does not belong�. The references in Daniel appear to refer to Antiochus IV putting a statue of Zeus in the Temple. A similar event (almost) took place when Caligula attempted to put his own statue in the Temple, causing riots. There was ‘relative’ peace between the Romans and the Jews prior to that. But that was the beginning of the bad times that culminated in the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Note that when Mark references the abomination he speaks directly to the reader: “Let the reader understand�. It is supposed to be something they know about.

The statue of Caligula never got put in the Temple, although his statue was put up in a number of other places. But Mark wants to revivify a fading faith in Jesus returning, especially after the dark shadow the terrible Revolt cast on messianic movements. Turning the destruction of Jerusalem into a sign of the imminent return of Jesus required some kind of prophecy. So Mark uses Daniel, with its Son of Man coming from the clouds (Daniel 7) and the resurrection (Daniel 12) that had been promised by Paul. A near miss prophecy is better than none. His non-specific description of the bad times but pointed reference to the destruction of the Temple works perfectly as a way of convincing an audience of flagging believers that Jesus is going to return very soon after all, only if that audience will immediately recognize events that have already taken place. Mark was written after the destruction of the Temple.

Mark describes all the terrible things that will (did) happen and then he says “in those days, following that distress� (Mark 13:24) various signs will appear described in Isaiah as happening in “the day of the Lord� and “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 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.� (Mark 13:26-27) Mark then refers to the fig tree, which he previously connected with the Temple, as the sign of these things happening. The Temple gets destroyed = the imminent return of Jesus. And “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.� (Mark 13:30) It is now about forty years since Jesus. The generation alive when Jesus is supposed to have said this is fading away. Jesus has to come soon for Paul to be right.

Luke includes the Olivet Discourse that he very clearly relates to the Siege of Jerusalem. He changes the abomination that causes desolation to armies surrounding Jerusalem because that would be more familiar to his Gentile audience than the intricacies of the Book of Daniel. Note that he uses the word ‘desolation’ specifically in relation to Jerusalem. He is otherwise on board with everything Mark says including the imminent return of Jesus before the generation of the time of Jesus dies off. But by the time Acts gets written this is no longer credible. So Luke has the angel say stop looking at the sky waiting for Jesus. The Holy Spirit will be the stand in. Just keep on keeping on. Luke did emphasize the imminent return of Jesus. Later he had to change the story.

Matthew’s audience was Jewish Christians, Luke’s was Gentile. Luke wrote his Gospel to reverse problems that Matthew introduced, specifically:

• The implication that Christianity was highly Jewish in character to the point of requiring all the details of Jewish Law to be obeyed, including (ouch!) circumcision.
  
  The possible interpretation of Matthew’s strong emphasis on King of the Jews as associating Jesus with the Zealot movement and the Revolt, which Mark sought to de-emphasize.

Omitting such key elements of Mark and Matthew as the Olivet Discourse would have cast doubt on Luke as a legitimate Gospel. So he included it, modifying it to be more understandable to Gentiles. If Luke did not want ‘this generation’ to mean the same thing as in Mark and Matthew, he would have omitted it. He clearly meant to keep this key element of Christian expectation exactly because it was a key element. But to then immediately throw it away in Acts sounds very unlikely. Part of Luke’s agenda in writing Acts was explaining away the unexpected delay in the return of Jesus.

Acts was written well after Luke.

I am of the opinion that the self-appointed mission of an actual historical Jesus was to spread true righteousness as a means of justifying the Jewish people as worthy of a Messiah. We see the message of spreading righteousness all over the Gospels. Sometimes we see the growth and spread of righteousness as related to the appearance of the Kingdom of God.

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.�

Matthew 13

31 He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32 Though it is the smallest of all seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds come and perch in its branches.�

33 He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into about sixty pounds of flour until it worked all through the dough.�

Luke continues this tradition. But like the other Synoptic Gospels he also associates the realization of the kingdom with the return of Jesus.

Luke 22

14 When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.�
17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you.18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.�

28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 23

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.�

50 Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51 who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea, and he himself was waiting for the kingdom of God.

Luke is no different in this respect from Mark or Matthew.

Concerning “not taste death�, let us look at those passage again.

Mark 8,9
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.�
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.�

Matthew 16
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�

Luke 9
26 Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.�

Each of these refer to the Son of Man returning in glory with angels while some of his listeners are still alive.

These tie directly into the Olivet Discourse imagery that appears in all three Synoptic Gospels – The Son of Man coming in glory with angels and some people of the time of Jesus still alive.

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.

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.


Matthew 24

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.

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.


Luke 21

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.�

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.

All of them are eschatological in exactly the same way. The Son of Man will come while some of the disciples are still alive, while this generation has not passed away.

But it did not happen.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to JLB32168]

2Dbunk wrote:
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.

“Believe in him� is ambiguous. What exactly does it mean? I’ve heard it said that Satan believes in him.

Believe in him, as in "faith" in him.

2Dbunk wrote:
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.�

If God is ageless then how may one determine a short time?

Excuse me but rational people have instituted a measurement system independent of ecclesiastical jargon -- measurements that are understandable, acceptable and meaningful. "God is ageless" -- yet another unproven assertion!

2Dbunk wrote:
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?

Many people will believe. Your logic would say that because there will be lots of people who don’t believe that the good people that would believe should never be born. Evil has triumphed over good if God refrains from creating simply because some people will choose evil over good.
God cannot win if we apply your logic

How many is "Many"? . . . (to reverse the battle of definitions)

My logic is mathematical -- your logic is melodic (to your ears and way of thinking), but unreal. Imagine two graphs: one being 'time' (horizontal axis), and 'Number of unbelievers' (vertical axis). In my argument the number of unbelievers are increasing exponentially as time goes on. The second graph: 'Gentiles not born' (vertical axis) versus 'time' (horizontal axis), the curve decreases linearly as time goes on (actually exponentially when the number of gentiles are adjusted for the amount of unborn non-believers).

You are RIGHT -- God cannot win (and that's why there is no righteous, personal god). If there is a God, then it's of the deistic variety -- and he / she admits the use of ALL of Nature's numbers (including 666) I think, if you go by the numbers and being a sensible person, you'll agree with what I've argued.

[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?

Why SHOULDN'T a two thousand year history of futility and of being dead wrong be considered more than enough empirical evidence to conclusively establish that Christian claims were nonsense from the very beginning? The claim that Jesus WILL return is vastly outweighed by the preponderance of evidence that shows that all living things eventually die without exception, and without exception remain steadfastly dead. Christians claim that they only have to be right once. The plain fact of the matter is, however, that they have no history of being right EVER.

[JLB32168]

Believe in him, as in "faith" in him.

What does it mean to have faith in someone? Satan has faith in God’s ability to follow through and that he, Satan, has already lost (presupposing that Christian theology is true, of course.)

Excuse me but rational people have instituted a measurement system independent of ecclesiastical jargon . . .

I’m no less reasonable than you and my question is legitimate. All you’ve done is mock it and that hardly means you’ve addressed it. For the sake of the discussion taking place, you are asking a theological question on the Christian deity. Christian theology states that God is timeless. That isn’t an unproven assertion – that’s what the theology says.
Of course, as is typical with atheists, when they cannot actually attack a theological point they simply repair to the standard go-to – that deities don’t exist.
One has to wonder why an atheist even asks a theological question at all if every discussion will end with, “Oh yeah – well your deity doesn’t even exist! Prove it does!�

How many is "Many"? . . . (to reverse the battle of definitions)

Let’s say it’s 10,000. That seems a reasonable underestimate given that 7billion are on the planet right now.
Then let’s figure in the invincibly ignorant, namely, those who will have no opportunity to hear the Gospel presented. They won’t be condemned because of their inability to hear (well, they won’t be if they follow their conscience made in God’s Image and Likeness and which gives everyone a sense of justice, fairness, right/wrong, and empathy for another.)

That pretty much brings the number much higher than the mere 10,000 hypothetical ones.

I stand by my previous statements. Your logic would say that because more people will be condemned that God should just stop creating all people – even the good. I can’t see how that option is the better of the two.

I still have to disagree with you regarding the numbers.

[Daddieslittlehelper]

[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.

[Ancient of Years]

[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.

You are assuming that the Hebrew word spoken was ‘duwr’ or its Aramaic equivalent. (That is, assuming that anything was ever spoken at all.) This is begging the question.

The Greek word that Mark, Matthew and Luke use is γενεά (genea).

This means:

1) fathered, birth, nativity
2) that which has been begotten, men of the same stock, a family
2a) the several ranks of natural descent, the successive
members of a genealogy
2b) metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments,
pursuits, character
2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse race
3) the whole multitude of men living at the same time
4) an age (i.e. the time ordinarily occupied be each successive
generation), a space of 30 - 33 years

http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/1074.html

As I have previously documented every other use of the phrase ‘this generation’ in the Gospels clearly means the generation of people alive at the time of Jesus.

If an age of indefinite or unspecified duration were intended the Greek word used would have been αἰών (aion) which means:

1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age

http://lexiconcordance.com/greek/0165.html

The word ‘aion’ is used in various places in the Gospels in that sense. The Gospel writers knew the difference.

If an indefinite age were meant then “this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened� would mean ‘this age of indefinite duration will not be over until these things that happen at the end of it have happened’. What additional information does that convey over and above the fact that these things have been prophesied to happen at the end of days that justifies saying “Truly I tell you�?

Considering that the Gospel writers used the word ‘genea’ and not ‘aion’ plus the problem with what the statement could mean if the word represented an age of unspecified duration, it is clear that trying to make it have been ‘duwr’ does not work.

[Mithrae]

Finally someone willing to debate without resorting to cut and paste!

Thanks for the thoughtful reply

I think there's two key questions here that have a big impact on how we read the books:
> Was Mark written before or after the temple's destruction?
> Was there a big gap between the writing of Luke and Acts?

In both cases I've seen little reason to suppose that the answers you're going with here are correct. Mark 13 could have been written just as easily by rehashing various prophecies from the Tanakh, and the two other arguments I've seen are unconvincing. (Namely, that the story of the Gadarene demoniac was meant to be an allusion to the Xth legion... yet one so subtle and convoluted that not even Matthew picked up on it, never mind Mark's audience! And that the story of the fig tree represents the temple's destruction; more on that later.)

The assumption of a long gap between Luke and Acts is even more dubious: It would have to be in the order of a decade or more for the author's views to change dramatically enough to serve the purpose you require, but there simply seems to be no evidence for it! On the contrary, the theme for Acts is clearly laid out at the end of Luke, that "repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem... but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high" (Luke 24:47-49).

Why these questions are important is obvious - if there was no long gap between Luke and Acts, then we'd expect the same outlook for both books. In Acts that's clearly an emphasis on the growth of the church through the Holy Spirit moreso than eschatology; Luke might be considered more ambiguous, but that's certainly a consistent interpretation of the 'kingdom of God' present with power. In fact, in the gospel Luke actively goes out of his way to make it so:

• Luke 17:20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.â€�

Written a decade or more after the Jewish war, the expectations that it heralded the return of Christ would be swiftly fading for Luke and other Christians. He still expected Jesus to come back of course, but didn't know when.

Similarly, if Mark was written before the temple's destruction - maybe even before the revolt began - he too would have had little reason to expect Christ's imminent return. Sure, Paul and probably even Jesus both preached that it would be soon, but Paul was now dead and Jesus had been gone for over thirty years. By that stage we would expect - as with Luke - some ambiguity on the matter; a hope that it would be soon, for sure, but no great emphasis on it... just in case they'd somehow misunderstood and turned out to be wrong.

So bearing in mind how the implications of these assumptions will affect our understanding....

Concerning “not taste death�, let us look at those passage again.

Mark 8,9
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.�
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.�

Matthew 16
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
28 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.�

Luke 9
26 Whoever is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
27 “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.�

Each of these refer to the Son of Man returning in glory with angels while some of his listeners are still alive.

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."

There are different schools of thought on what Mark meant when he referred to the ‘abomination that causes desolation’. One school says that Mark meant the destruction of the Temple. I do not see it that way. Having the abomination be the warning sign to flee to the hills does not work. By the time the Temple is destroyed, Jerusalem has been surrounded by armies for some time and there had already been fighting in the north for years. Too late to flee. Plus he says that the abomination is ‘standing where it does not belong�. The references in Daniel appear to refer to Antiochus IV putting a statue of Zeus in the Temple. A similar event (almost) took place when Caligula attempted to put his own statue in the Temple, causing riots. There was ‘relative’ peace between the Romans and the Jews prior to that. But that was the beginning of the bad times that culminated in the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Note that when Mark references the abomination he speaks directly to the reader: “Let the reader understand�. It is supposed to be something they know about.

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.

However if that 'prophecy' (whether from Mark or from Jesus himself) had existed beforehand, it's obvious how Matthew would then take it - as proof that Jesus' return was imminent. And as noted previously, Matthew does indeed emphasise this far more than any other gospel, even to the point of inventing a whole new prediction for it (Mt. 10:23). Luke would take it the same way too, but unlike Matthew he was writing even later and wasn't so sure when Jesus was returning; so he removed the most dramatically prophetic element in the story, turned it into a much more plausible warning for Jerusalem Christians (flee when the armies start to converge), and inserted the indefinite "times of the Gentiles" before the the final showdown.

Mark describes all the terrible things that will (did) happen and then he says “in those days, following that distress� (Mark 13:24) various signs will appear described in Isaiah as happening in “the day of the Lord� and “At that time people will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. 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.� (Mark 13:26-27) Mark then refers to the fig tree, which he previously connected with the Temple, as the sign of these things happening. The Temple gets destroyed = the imminent return of Jesus. And “Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.� (Mark 13:30) It is now about forty years since Jesus. The generation alive when Jesus is supposed to have said this is fading away. Jesus has to come soon for Paul to be right.

Mark probably would have taken the temple's destruction as being hugely important, when it occurred - I can't imagine many Christians or Jews living at the time did not! But again, that doesn't mean he was writing after it happened. In chapter 11 a fig tree is withered because it doesn't bear any fruit - like the temple of Jesus' day - whereas in chapter 13 Jesus speaks of a fig tree in bloom. If that in itself was meant to be a sign, the implication would have to be that he'll return after the temple is finally 'bearing fruit,' not after it's destroyed! But that makes no sense of course. In the words of Freud, sometimes a fig tree is just a fig tree. Mark begins chapter 13 by saying that the temple would be destroyed; but that's the more or less the culmination of it all, not the sign that things are starting to heat up! The big early warning sign was to be the desecration of the temple, not its destruction, the abomination in verse 14. Both of these - desecration and destruction - were predicted in Daniel chapter 9.

Luke includes the Olivet Discourse that he very clearly relates to the Siege of Jerusalem. He changes the abomination that causes desolation to armies surrounding Jerusalem because that would be more familiar to his Gentile audience than the intricacies of the Book of Daniel. Note that he uses the word ‘desolation’ specifically in relation to Jerusalem. He is otherwise on board with everything Mark says including the imminent return of Jesus before the generation of the time of Jesus dies off.

But in Luke, 'this generation' doesn't unambiguously mean that. Luke's audience were Christians, same as Paul's or Mark's, and writing later than them there'd be fewer first-generation believers amongst his readers too. He'd have even more reason to expect them to know the Septuagint than Paul did, probably as well as you'd find in most modern churches. There's certainly no credible reason there for changing the prophecy from something which actually was prophecied centuries earlier by Daniel, to something weak and meaningless. The only plausible explanation - both for this change and for inserting the indefinite "times of the gentiles" into the passage - is that Luke wanted to downplay the prophetic significance of the Jewish war and the corresponding expectation of Jesus' imminent return.

Therefore when he writes a few short sentences later that "this generation" will not pass away, there's little reason to suppose he's referring to the lifetimes of Jesus' listeners - 99% of whom would have already been dead from old age by the time Luke wrote some five decades later, never mind those killed in the war! It doesn't even make much sense (here as in Mark) to immediately follow a statement like that with the boast that "heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will by no means pass away," if they need only endure a few decades of worldly opposition. On the contrary, Luke in particular probably meant 'generation' in the sense of 2b that you posted in #38: "2b) metaph. a race of men very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character 2b1) esp. in a bad sense, a perverse race." For Luke, it probably meant that the Jewish race was still enduring despite recent events, and would continue to do so until the time of Christ's return.

And for Mark? Perhaps the same, if it was written after the war had begun or had started to turn badly for the Jews. In fact Mark quite explicitly notes that "of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mk. 13:32), so it's a bit of a stretch to claim that just two sentences earlier he was saying when it would be. Writing later, Matthew might have rationalised that Jesus might not know the day or hour, but did know the year or decade: But for the original author, if his intent was to set a clear time-frame for Jesus' return he surely would not have put the disclaimer in there at all!



All of this has only limited bearing on what Jesus himself actually believed of course, though Paul obviously thought it would be soon. But Mark was written over three decades after Jesus' death: Short of the assumption that it was written after the temple's destruction (which seems not to make sense in some key respects), the statements in Mark's gospel are ambiguous at best I'd say - open to the possibility that it would be soon, no doubt, but strongly hedging his bets with a here-and-now kingdom of God theology.

Matthew wrote shortly after the revolt, and was adamant it would be soon. Luke wrote later still, and really didn't know when it would be.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to JLB32168]

2Dbunk wrote:

Believe in him, as in "faith" in him.

JLB32168 wrote:

What does it mean to have faith in someone? Satan has faith in God’s ability to follow through and that he, Satan, has already lost (presupposing that Christian theology is true, of course.)

Enough with the word play -- I know you know what I mean.

2Dbunk wrote:

Excuse me but rational people have instituted a measurement system independent of ecclesiastical jargon . . .

JLB 32168 wrote:

I’m no less reasonable than you and my question is legitimate. All you’ve done is mock it and that hardly means you’ve addressed it. For the sake of the discussion taking place, you are asking a theological question on the Christian deity. Christian theology states that God is timeless. That isn’t an unproven assertion – that’s what the theology says.

You are entitled to your opinion. I wasn't mocking you -- just stating a fact.

JLB 32168 wrote:

Of course, as is typical with atheists, when they cannot actually attack a theological point they simply repair to the standard go-to – that deities don’t exist.
One has to wonder why an atheist even asks a theological question at all if every discussion will end with, “Oh yeah – well your deity doesn’t even exist! Prove it does!�

Oh my, you're reading my mind (NOW I'm mocking you). Really, my efforts herein are to counter the smug, set religious assertions that are put out as "true" fact. I don't think you can handle the truth!

Quote: 2Dbunk wrote:

How many is "Many"? . . . (to reverse the battle of definitions)

JLB 32168 wrote:

Let’s say it’s 10,000. That seems a reasonable underestimate given that 7billion are on the planet right now.
Then let’s figure in the invincibly ignorant, namely, those who will have no opportunity to hear the Gospel presented. They won’t be condemned because of their inability to hear (well, they won’t be if they follow their conscience made in God’s Image and Likeness and which gives everyone a sense of justice, fairness, right/wrong, and empathy for another.)

I like to think of myself as you describe in parenthesis. Anyway, where in the Bible does it say this?

JLB 32168 wrote:

I stand by my previous statements. Your logic would say that because more people will be condemned that God should just stop creating all people – even the good. I can’t see how that option is the better of the two.

I still have to disagree with you regarding the numbers.

My word description of the graphs depicting future populations was poor; I'm working on a pictorial of same now. Would it help if the word "axis" was replaced with "scale"?