A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Mithrae
Site Admin
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post by Mithrae »

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.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post by alexxcJRO »

Mithrae wrote:
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.

Please answer this question:

Q: Is Mark 8:38(the part with the angels) talking about the Second Coming of Jesus? (Yes/No question)

A simple answer yes or no will suffice.
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7474
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am

Post by Wootah »

Mithrae wrote: The Christian responses on this topic have not been particularly persuasive, but it seems evident that objectivity and open-mindedness have not been your strong suit either :lol:
Moderator Comment

Way too personal.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... hp?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

Wootah
Savant
Posts: 7474
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am

Post by Wootah »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: Actually, for us Christians in general, "soon" means "Christ will return whenever he damn well pleases". Unlike Jehovah's Witnesses, true Christians don't set time tables, we will just be ready whenever he gets here.

Moderator Comment

No need to swear. The point would be made without the word: damn.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... hp?t=33826

Looking for head to head debates, especially on contradictions or the Trinity. PM me your topic.

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post by Danmark »

Mithrae:
Why are you still talking about doctrine?
Because the doctrine that Jesus is still 'coming' sometime in the future is clearly contradicted by the verses I've listed. You continue with ad hominems, rather than actually address the language of the Bible.
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.
Those FOUR verses (not two) contain very clear expressions of the timing of the return. Plus they are buttressed by other verses than are consistent. I explained carefully, with scriptural references about the 'kingdom of god' and Jesus 'coming in his glory.' Your response is thinly veiled ad hominem with no analysis of what I wrote.
Are you asserting the credibility of Hal Lindsay [sic] for understanding the bible?
Obviously NOT. I wrote just the opposite. Lindsey is an example, one of many, who believe Jesus is still coming sometime in the future, instead of realizing he either already came about 70 CE [full preterism] or his prophecy was wrong.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post by Danmark »

[Replying to post 121 by Mithrae]
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!
First, if Jesus was actually God, he WOULD know.
He isn't and he didn't, but as I have explained several times, he simply said he would come again within [some of] their lifetimes, but they would not know the exact hour. His purpose was to keep them constantly vigilant until his return.
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)
I'm hardly trying to convince YOU. I am simply addressing the argument, that is supported by Christian doctrine, rather than Christian scripture.

Since you have inserted your own beliefs into the argument and state you are not a Christian, then can we assume that you agree with me, that Jesus is not God and is not returning? :D

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Danmark »

As further evidence of the difficulty Christianity has had with these "embarrassing verses," I submit their own fractious, intramural debate on eschatology has become. They have at least four different major approaches:
Preterism, Historicism, Futurism, and idealism. These lead to more arcane disputes about "Premillennialism, Postmillennialism, Amillennialism," each with their own subsets.

Perhaps I should use the word 'discordant' rather than 'fractious,' because the theologians and ministers I've heard discuss this stuff generally have a sense of humor about it, acknowledging as a sort of private joke, that no one knows and tho' they devoted much time to it in seminary, it leads to futile arguments that go unresolved.

I point this out because most of it stems from refusing to take these verses at their plain meaning, along with taking the Revelation of John of Patmos seriously, then trying to make sense of it.

User avatar
Mithrae
Site Admin
Posts: 3863
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post by Mithrae »

Danmark wrote: Mithrae:
Why are you still talking about doctrine?
Because the doctrine that Jesus is still 'coming' sometime in the future is clearly contradicted by the verses I've listed. You continue with ad hominems, rather than actually address the language of the Bible.
What ad hominems? I have tried to understand your perspective by drawing logical conclusions from what you've written - specifically, your constant and wildly inaccurate assertions about my personal motivations. For example:
  • Post #114:
    "the difficult struggle and stretching people go thru to subvert the plain meaning of all these verses....
    ...all you've done is to dilute the meaning of the NT. In order to twist the words to fit the doctrine (ambiguously)
    "

    Post #119:
    "the doctrine being used to change the meaning of the words"

    Post #120:
    "view words that challenge your doctrine as puzzling and then attempt to make them mean something else that fits your belief"
Obviously, these weren't a simple mistake; you have been deliberately and consistently asserting that I lack objectivity because of some kind of "doctrine" which you are imagining. Apparently my more measured response to you, pointing out that these comments of yours imply precisely the opposite, was too personal :lol: And fair enough, if you have found my conclusions to be somehow hurtful, then I do apologize since that really wasn't my intention: I generally try to understand people rather than (or as well as) just banging ideas around, which I suppose can sometimes have its downsides.

Still, I hope you understand that even if you did find them hurtful, these were conclusions derived from your attacks against me, not the ad hominem fallacy of suggesting that your opinions are incorrect because of those things: In fact, technically that was what you were engaging in with all your doctrine accusations - though for what it's worth, for my part I generally don't take stuff like that personally and simply view them as a bit of rhetorical flair spicing things up a little ;)
Danmark wrote:
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.

Those FOUR verses (not two) contain very clear expressions of the timing of the return. Plus they are buttressed by other verses than are consistent. I explained carefully, with scriptural references about the 'kingdom of god' and Jesus 'coming in his glory.' Your response is thinly veiled ad hominem with no analysis of what I wrote.
The two verses I referred to were Mark 8:38 and 9:1; that is what I explained in post #117, which I linked you to in that response and which it seems you did not read. To know what 'kingdom of God' means in Mark 9:1 we need to see what it means throughout the gospel and understand the broader context of that particular passage - not just fixate on the verse immediately preceding it.

Your FOUR verses are Mark 9:1 plus three from Matthew - which is an even more confused way of trying to interpret Mark! Matthew's opinions are not Mark's opinions. Matthew's Jesus is not Mark's Jesus, and neither is likely to be a completely accurate portrayal of the historical Jesus (although being earlier and demonstrably less embellished, Mark is a better source than Matthew). This is what I've tried to explain all along:

Each gospel author wrote in his own time, with his own agenda.

In any case, I'm pretty well content with the information I've provided in posts #113 (showing how the later gospels Luke and John refute specific date-setting, while Matthew alone unambiguously engages in it), #117 (showing that in Mark 8:27-9:1 the 'kingdom of God' clearly is not about Jesus' return) and #121 (showing again that Mark 13 is quite ambiguous and probably depends a lot on when it was written). But judging from all these accusations of 'ad hominem' the topic seems to be straying a little outside of consideration of those individual authors' intentions - or perhaps that was never what it was really about and I shouldn't have butted in on an argument against Christian doctrine to begin with. It's a thread about the historical Jesus rather than doctrine, but even so my apologies again if that was unwelcome :? So while there's probably more that could be clarified, I might be wiser to quietly bow out instead.

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post by Danmark »

[Replying to post 128 by Mithrae]

Before we bother with that bilge, please confirm that since you are not a Christian you agree with me that Jesus is not God and he's not coming back. :D

Or explain to me how you "are not a Christian" yet believe he is God and is coming in the clouds any minute now?

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: A Major Conflict in Jesus Historicity

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Clownboat wrote: Put yourself in Paul's shoes, or Joseph Smith's shoes for another example.

If you were inventing a religion, for which you should agree that man has invented thousands of, would you not also lie about your source?
Paul stated that he endured many hardships...he suffered a lot because what he believed, not because of what he fabricated. People don't suffer for what they KNOW to be a lie...but only for what they believe to be true.
Clownboat wrote: Especially when Paul is making these claims while claiming he is their leader of this new religion.
I wouldn't say "their" leader, but rather "a" leader.
Clownboat wrote: Why is this one example out of thousands of invented religions not also invented?
Because Christianity has the most evidence supporting it.
Clownboat wrote: Matt 23:9 Jesus is claimed to have said: And call no man your father on earth, for you have one father, who is in heaven.
1st Cor 4:15 Now listen to Paul: For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
This was admittedly a tough scripture, I had to do some research and I think the page in this link gives an excellent answer.

http://www.kosmosdalebaptistchurch.org/ ... -father-2/
Clownboat wrote: Matt 23:10 Neither be called leaders, for you have one leader, the Christ.
1st Cor 4:15 Now listen to Paul: For though you have countless leaders in Christ.
Something must be taken out of context here...John the Baptist had disciples, which would make John their "leader"...yet Jesus called John the Baptist the "greatest man born of a woman" (Matt 11:11).
Clownboat wrote: What I want to know is how is Paul any different then a Joseph Smith?
- Paul: No, seriously, I had a vision and I am your leader.
- J Smith: No, seriously, I found golden plates and magic glasses and I'm your leader.
Both of them could have been "leaders" in the sense of the word...the question is, a leader for what cause? Paul was a leader of the early Christian Church, at the forefront of the post-Christ movement. Joseph Smith was at the forefront of a non-orthodox, unbiblical, uninspired, polytheistic movement that arrived centuries of years after Christ.

Paul is a true leader in Christ...Joseph Smith was a false prophet.
Clownboat wrote: It seems to me that there is an incredible need for gullibility to believe either of these claims, especially when these claims are putting the people making said claims in to a position of power.
When in doubt, follow Jesus...as Jesus can put both Paul AND J. Smith to shame.

Post Reply