Regarding the end of days.

[Elijah John]

Consider this summary of Albert Schweitzer's position from Wikipedia regarding the end of days:

The concept that Christianity started as a Jewish apocalyptic movement is evidenced by the teachings of the Historical Jesus concerning the end of days. Not only did he preach he would rise from the grave, but that he would also ascend to the Heaven and one day return to judge and rule over the world, saying that no one, including himself, knew the exact time of his return, but it would be before the end of his generation. Schweitzer verified the many New Testament references clearly explaining that 1st-century Christians believed in the imminent fulfillment of the promise of the World's ending, within the lifetime of Jesus's original followers.[37] He noted that in the gospel of Mark, Jesus speaks of a "tribulation", with his coming in the clouds with great power and glory" (St Mark), and states when it will happen: "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (St Matthew, 24:34) (or, "have taken place" (Luke 21:32))
In The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Schweitzer observes the Bible contradicting the possibility of important events that never took place and never can take place as they are described; Jesus specifically states that we are to "not seal up the words of the prophecy" and promises that some of his listeners as well as the high priest at his trial would be alive to see him return to the Earth. "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near" (Revelation 1:3). Saint Paul spoke of the "last times": "Brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none" (1 Corinthians 7:29); "God hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" (Hebrews 1:2); "There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" (Matthew 16:28) (or, "until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power" (Mark 9:1); or, "till they see the kingdom of God" (Luke 9:27).)
Schweitzer continues writing in The Quest of the Historical Jesus that it is totally unreasonable to think that "coming quickly", "near", and "soon" could mean hundreds of years, much less, thousands of years in the future. "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Revelation 1:3) "And he said to me, 'These words are faithful and true'; and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must soon take place." "And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book." And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near" (Revelation 22:6, 7, 10, 12). "All these things shall come upon this generation" (Matthew 23:36). Schweitzer concludes that the 1st-century theology, originating in the lifetimes of those who first followed Jesus, is totally incompatible with modern Christian belief.
In The Quest of the Historical Jesus, Schweitzer notes the passage "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near." (Revelation 1:3) Similarly in St Peter: "Christ .. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you" (1 Peter 1:20), and "But the end of all things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7). "Surely I come quickly" (Revelation 22:20). Schweitzer felt that St. Paul clearly believed in the immediacy of the Second Coming of Jesus, in stark contrast to modern organized Christianity.

For debate,

-how well does Schweitzer make the case that Jesus and the New Testament writers believed his "2nd coming" would occur in the lifetimes of Jesus' own apostles, and the New Testament writers themselves?

-Is this a good case that Jesus and/or the New Testament writers were wrong in this regard?

-What are the ramifications of them being so clearly mistaken?

-If Jesus and/or the NT writers were not mistaken, how do you explain away the many verses cited as evidence?

In light of the evidence given in this article, what happens to the doctrine of Bible perfection? Or the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus?

[1213]

"This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled"
Matt. 24:34

Interesting question is, has all the things already happened. It may be so.

There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom"
Matt. 16:28

That happened according to the Bible few days later:

After six days, Jesus took with him Peter, James, and John his brother, and brought them up into a high mountain by themselves. He was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his garments became as white as the light. Behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them talking with him.
Matt. 17:1-3

That is why I think Matt. 16:28 is poor argument for that final days should have happened. Jesus says in that only that some of them see Son of man coming in his kingdom, nothing else.

Schweitzer continues writing in The Quest of the Historical Jesus that it is totally unreasonable to think that "coming quickly", "near", and "soon" could mean hundreds of years, much less, thousands of years in the future.

That seems to be very subjective opinion that I think most atheists reject automatically. And certainly, I disagree with Schweitzer.

But on the other hand, Jesus returned from the death after 3 days. What if the soon prophesies were about that?

Also, I think it is good to notice that Jesus said he doesnt know when the last day comes. If people think they know, it is odd, if even Jesus didnt know.

But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Matt. 24:36

That is why Jesus couldnt be wrong, because he admits he doesnt know.

[Kenisaw]

Schweitzer continues writing in The Quest of the Historical Jesus that it is totally unreasonable to think that "coming quickly", "near", and "soon" could mean hundreds of years, much less, thousands of years in the future.

That seems to be very subjective opinion that I think most atheists reject automatically. And certainly, I disagree with Schweitzer.

It's a "very subjective opinion" to consider multiple words of similar meaning don't mean something that is outside the standard definition of the words? That is rather stretching the bounds of credibility, don't you think?

Also, I think it is good to notice that Jesus said he doesnt know when the last day comes. If people think they know, it is odd, if even Jesus didnt know.

But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Matt. 24:36

That is why Jesus couldnt be wrong, because he admits he doesnt know.

C'mon, let's not pretend that Jesus and god are not one and the same entity. Sure they are separate and yet the same at the same time if you suspend rational thinking for a moment and accept that false logic loop as reality, but we all know that "Jesus" and "god" are the same being. Pretending that Jesus/god doesn't know something (when the Bible tells us that being is all knowing) is poppycock.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

In light of the evidence given in this article, what happens to the doctrine of Bible perfection? Or the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus?

In another thread, you made the following claim;

All evidence is that Jesus worshipped Yahweh

[post#6]

In relation to YHVH and your theological positions you state;

- YHVH is LORD
- I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.
- I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

In light of all the above, what happens to the doctrine of a perfect all knowing YHVH?

Why are you still inspired by someone who got this so very wrong?

In the story, Jesus claims to have been with The Father before incarnating into human flesh, and that The Father told him everything that he had to say and do while he was on the planet.

If Jesus can be so wrong about this doctrine of returning and setting up a kingdom, why would anyone believe he could be right about these other important claims he made? Why are you inspired by someone you claim comes from a GOD you worship but got so much wrong?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 3 by Kenisaw]

The Bible never uses the simple three word declaration, "Jesus is God". The Bible does, however, use the the simple, three word declaration, YHVH (the LORD) is God. Jesus and Jehovah are not one in the same.

Jesus never said, "I am God" nor did anyone else say "Jesus is God". Not in the Bible anyway.

I would agree, however, that Jesus did seem to claim near omniscience when he (erronously) predicted his 2nd coming in the liftime of his own apostles.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 4 by William]

I put far more stock in Jesus teachings about the Father and his mercy, the importance of repentance and humility, etc, than I do about the extravagant claims the Evangelist John put on Jesus lips.

Because Jesus is not Jehovah, nor is he Jehovah Incarnate. The way I see it is that the Bible is inspired, (not dictated) and only imperfectly refects the perfection of YHVH. It is tainted by human, cultural bias and projection. But I do beleive there is Divine reality at it's core, and this core is in harmony with other great, world religions.

In this, I differ strongly with John 14.6 Jesus-worshipers.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 3 by Kenisaw]

The Bible never uses the simple three word declaration, "Jesus is God". The Bible does, however, use the the simple, three word declaration, YHVH (the LORD) is God. Jesus and Jehovah are not one in the same.

Jesus never said, "I am God" nor did anyone else say "Jesus is God". Not in the Bible anyway.

I would agree, however, that Jesus did seem to claim near omniscience when he (erronously) predicted his 2nd coming in the liftime of his own apostles.

John 10:30 I and the Father are one.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.

Sounds like the same being to me. Jesus and the Father are one. The word was god, and the word became flesh.

It's easy to understand why Christians need to claim they are the same. Otherwise the disciples and many sects of modern Christians praying to Jesus would be praying to a god OTHER than the Abrahamic god, and that is a no-no in the Bible. No one wants to think that Thomas was calling Jesus a god if he wasn't the same god as the creator, eh?

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, My Lord and my God!

[Elijah John]

It's easy to understand why Christians need to claim they are the same. Otherwise the disciples and many sects of modern Christians praying to Jesus would be praying to a god OTHER than the Abrahamic god, and that is a no-no in the Bible. No one wants to think that Thomas was calling Jesus a god if he wasn't the same god as the creator, eh?

John 20:28 Thomas answered him, My Lord and my God!

That is the unsettling but unavoidable ramification, if indeed Jesus is NOT God. It sure does seem a violation of the First Commandment.

It is no wonder that apologists fight tooth and nail to uphold the notion of Jesus Divinity. Especially by denying that verses like Matthew 16.28 are evidence that Jesus was mistaken. If Jesus is mistaken, then he is not God. If the Bible is imperfect, is there any reason to believe that Jesus is God? Perhaps, perhaps not. And if indeed, Jesus is not God, then Jesus-worship seems to come awfully close to idolatry.

[William]

[Replying to post 6 by Elijah John]

So are you saying that if it is physical of form, be that a book or a human or even a universe, it is imperfect as a means in which to portray the perfection of YHVH?

So are you saying that this divinity is at the core of physical reality, but cannot use physical reality to accurately portray the true idea of GOD...even when names are applied to GOD...names such as YHVH?

I see you broach again on the subject of 'Jesus worshipers' which we are also discussing in another thread [here] so I have responded to your A re my Q to as to what is it you think is 'worship' - as can be seen, my response asks you for more clarity.

You also now mention other 'great, world religions.' which are in harmony with the idea that the Divine is at the core of biblical writ - and obviously other religions writ as well - my response in the other thread has much to do with this idea...

Here is a sample of writ which is not from any of the worlds great religions writ. Can you see this divine core therein?

Do you realize how I am unfathomable? I am not what you can know, or see, or understand. I am outside comprehension. My vastness makes me invisible and unavoidable. There is nowhere you can be without me. My absence does not exist. It is this very nature that makes me unique. I am First Cause and Last Effect connected in an undivided chain.

There is no supplication that stirs me. No prayer that invites me further into your world unless it is attended with the feeling of unity and wholeness. There is no temple or sacred object that touches me. They do not, nor have they ever brought you closer to my outstretched hand. My presence in your world is unalterable for I am the sanctuary of both the cosmos and the one soul inside you. Attributed to First Source - "My Central Message" WingMakers.com

[PinSeeker]

... but worth posting here:


"Matthew 24-34 and Luke 21.32; Revelation 1.3; 1 Corinthians 7.29; Hebrews 1.2; Matthew 16.28; Mark 9.1; Luke 9.27; Revelation 22.6,7,10,12,20; Matthew 23.36; 1Peter 1.20; 1 Peter 4.7"

"These verses are relevant to the OP in establishing the context of the times, that of the prevailing expectation of the end of days in the lifetimes of the New Testament writers."

It is true -- I agree with you -- that, generally speaking, the prevailing expectation of the end of days was that they would occur in the lifetimes of the New Testament... well, hearers, not the writers. The same thing could be said of the "prevailing expectation" at any time over the past 2000+ years, and that will continue to be the case. And that's not a bad thing; we should all live now as if Jesus will make His return in the next five minutes.

However -- and making a point that here that I've already made at least a couple of times -- if I engage in a discussion with talk about... something, does/do the receiver/receivers of my comments get to determine the context in which my comments are meant? That's a rhetorical question, but of course the answer is no.

So, applying that to Matthew 16, Jesus did not have in view, in this particular passage, His second coming. At all. The whole of Matthew 16 is about salvation. And the point is made in three different ways, first to the Pharisees, who are unable to discern the times (because it has not been given them by God to do so), then to Peter, who is only able to confess that Jesus is the Christ because of God's opening his eyes and revealing it to him, and finally to the disciples as a group by telling all of them (although he addresses Peter specifically) what He must do to finish His work and make God's salvation possible.



"And Matthew 16.28 fits that context."

Clearly, it does not.



"Could be wrong, but I doubt that the refutation you attempted for Matthew 16.28 would fit all those other verses, which combined create a very solid argument that "Matthew" as well as most of the other NT writers, (including Paul), and by extention, Jesus himself, were clearly mistaken in predicting the timing of the apocalypse."

Yes, you are wrong. I've already addressed some of the citations above, but I'll do so again while addressing the others also:



Revelation 1.3
You seem to be under the mistaken expression that Revelation is merely about Jesus's triumphant return (His second coming, as it were). That's not the case. "Prophecy," as it is used in the Bible, does not denote a prediction of future events; it denotes the the relating God's word to man -- "Thus says the Lord." Revelation is about the whole of human history from beginning to end. The time is indeed near -- even at hand -- throughout all the generations since John's writing. You're reading it in the Dispensational light, which is... well, the wrong light to read it in. Revelation is the story of history, from beginning to end, and that God is always in control (He is the Great I AM, after all), even though it may not seem that way at times, and that in the end, Jesus... wins. So in reading the words of Revelation 1:3, yes, because God knows what's happening and is in total control, coupled with the fact that no matter what happens, Jesus wins (and we are co-heirs with Him) in the end, we can be comforted and blessed right now, no matter when or in what generation that "right now" is.

1 Corinthians 7.29
The purpose of Paul's first letter to the Corinthian church is in large part to encourage Christians to attend to the kinds of daily affairs that would be -- would be -- unimportant if Christ were returning within weeks or months. Thus Paul provides practical teaching concerning marriage, what type of food to eat at a dinner party, collecting money for the needy, and future travel plans. Like other NT writers, Paul considers all of time from the Cross forward to be the "last days" and counsels Christians to live in the light of Christ's certain return at an unforeseen moment. Paul's point here is simply that the form of this world, or its day-to-day affairs, is not eternal. Christians should prioritize their human relationships, marital possessions, and worldly dealings accordingly.

Hebrews 1.2
Here, too, "last days" is all of time from the Cross forward. Nothing is to be read into that concerning how long this "last days" period really is, but merely that it is of utmost importance to always be living in light of Christ's death and resurrection and certain return.

Matthew 16.28
We've discussed this one at length. Christ is not speaking of His return.

Mark 9.1, Luke 9.27
Mark's and Luke's recounting of the same events Matthew is recounting in Matthew 16:27-28. Just as in Matthew 16, Christ's return is not in view, here, either.

Revelation 22.6,7,10,12,20
What I said above concerning these "last days" applies here, also. No need to repeat.

Matthew 23.36
What I have said above certainly relates here, also, but what Jesus is saying here is that, rather than respond to the unique opportunity to receive their Messiah (Him) and participate in the kingdom of heaven, the religious people of "this generation" would continue to spill innocent blood -- now that of Jesus and His followers -- and so face the wrath of God. Jesus's return is not in view here, either.

Are you sensing a pattern here? Wink

1 Peter 1.20
"Last times" equals "Last Days" -- all of time from the Cross forward. See above.

1 Peter 4.7
"The end of all things is at hand" dose not mean Peter was expecting Christ to return in a few weeks or months (or even years). It means, rather, that all the major events in God's great salvation plan -- culminating in the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ and the outpuring of the Spirit at Pentecost -- had already occurred. Therefore Christ's return could happen at any time; it was "at hand" in Peter's day, and it still is today. But the imminent arrival of the end is not a call simply to look into heaven and wait for Jesus's return; instead, believers are to be self-controlled and sober-minded, so that they may be devoted to prayer and maximize their usefulness in God's kingdom.



You can keep on banging your head against that wall as long as you want, my friend. I'd stop it if I were you, but you are, after all is said and done, your own man.