Danmark wrote:
[
Replying to post 113 by Mithrae]
You've also missed
Matthew 10:23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.
I agree this is yet another example of Jesus predicting the end is coming VERY soon, before Jesus even finishes his visit to the towns of Israel. This is another example of the failed apocalyptic message. As I said, there are many such references. i did not attempt to give an exhaustive list. BUT, the more accurate way to analyze is to start with the words themselves and their meaning, rather to view words that challenge your doctrine as puzzling and then attempt to make them mean something else that fits your belief.
Why are you still talking about doctrine?
Once again, as long as you keep trying to look at it from that perspective, your objectivity will always remain compromised. This would-be smokescreen that you are somehow concerned about
other people's doctrine is not exactly persuasive when you are talking to me (a non-Christian) and yet still imagining a doctrine where none exists. You're creating shadows in your mind and leaping to attack them.
Yet further proof of this: The verse is an example of
Matthew predicting the end is coming very soon. Unless and until you manage to wrap your head around the fact that the different gospels were written by different authors at different times and with different agendas, your understanding of what they wrote will always be limited by the very doctrines you are imagining yourself to be fighting.
Danmark wrote:
However, those two passages are unique to Matthew. In Mark 9:1 the author writes that "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see that the kingdom of God has come with power." That's a much more ambiguous phrase - earlier in the gospel (especially chapter 4) the author had already established that what he means by the 'kingdom of God' is not a world-shaking eschaton but something much more subtle: The kingship of God in believers' hearts, sown by disciples and growing like a seed rather than forcefully established from on high.
It may be
slightly more ambiguous, but even that is a stretch. The key phrase that makes this almost identical to the "this generation" reference in the Olivet Discourse, is
"... see that the kingdom of God has come with power."
Alexx was obviously unable or unwilling to address
post #117, but perhaps you'd like to have a crack at it. Again the main thrust of that passage in Mark is not about some glorious reign of Christ on earth; it is about
correcting those expectations and preparing them instead for suffering. 'Kingdom of God' is used there in the same way as earlier in the gospel, referring to the new covenant which would be present with power in the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Mark 1:8). According to gJohn that happened after Jesus' resurrection when he breathed on the disciples; according to the book of Acts it occurred (with some more obvious 'power') on the day of Pentecost. Those were both written after Mark, but the charismatic 'gifts of the Spirit' type movement was already established beforehand (eg. 1 Corinthians 14), so regardless of which tradition Mark believed it seems quite clear that's what he meant.
The only way to imagine otherwise is to
- ignore the established meaning of 'kingdom of God' earlier in the gospel,
- ignore the whole context of the passage which that verse ends,
- ignore
Mark's own separation of that 'kingdom of God' bit from the 'coming in glory' bit
- and instead fixate on those two verses, and only those two to the exclusion of all else.
Danmark wrote:
Back in about 1970 I taught a high school Sunday School class, using Lindsey's
The Late Great Planet Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Late, ... anet_Earth
Lindsey famously used 40 years as a 'generation' and strongly suggested 1988 was THE year since that was 40 years after the founding of of modern Israel as a State.
Are you asserting the credibility of Hal Lindsay for understanding the bible? If so, then you surely know what he had to say about it.
- 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, that 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. 32 But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come.
What does that say, to your mind? To me it says first and foremost that
Jesus doesn't know when it will happen. In fact if anything, the boast that his words would never pass away would be rather hollow if he meant nothing more than that his hearers would still remember them when the end came!
The critics' interpretation of the passage depends completely and utterly on the wording being "
this generation" rather than "
that generation." If it were 'that generation,' the meaning of the whole passage would be clear, consistent and unambiguous: Jesus doesn't know when it will be, but believers who are alert and on the lookout will see the signs of its approach and
that generation will see its fulfillment. '
This generation' is ambiguous; it could still mean the same thing (leaving the passage consistent in meaning) or it could mean the generation right there with Jesus (introducing the inconsistency of Jesus setting a time-frame even while claiming not to know when it would be). Obviously 'this generation' is the phrase actually written; which could be a problem of Mark's mediocre Greek, could be a later scribal error, or it could be exactly what he intended.
'
This generation' is ambiguous, and as I said originally, the likely "true" meaning depends a lot on when he actually wrote:
> If Mark wrote in 64-66CE, he probably did not mean 'this generation' in the three-decade sense suggested above.
> If he wrote in 67-69CE, it could go either way; he might have heard enough news of the Jewish Revolt and be theologically inclined to assume that it would lead into apocalyptic events.
> If he wrote after 70CE, he undoubtedly would have viewed the temple's destruction the same way Matthew did.
But again, this still wouldn't tell us with certainty what
Jesus himself actually taught and believed almost four decades earlier. Paul's emphasis to the Corinthian church to expect it at any moment (warnings which are absent from a later epistle like Romans) could be based on his own theology, or simply on comments to "be ready" as in Mark 13:33... or they could have been based on some unambiguous date-setting by Jesus which Mark later revised into the ambiguity we now see. We know that Matthew revised Mark's passages after all - and turned them into clear date-setting which has been proven false - so while the second gospel is arguably the best material on Jesus we have, there's a question Mark over it too.
."
