Objective Moral Values

[Philosopher]

The correct reading of Matthew 24.3:

Tell, us, when shall these be? And what is the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?

And this statement is in response to this:

Do ye not see all these? Verily I say to you, There may not be left here a stone upon a stone, that shall not be thrown down.

Which is itself referring to this:

and his disciples came near to show him the buildings of the temple…

All this happened in 70AD.

Thus fulfilling this:

Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away till all these may come to pass.

And Matthew 22.7:

And the king having heard, was wroth, and having sent forth his soldiers, he destroyed those murders, and their city he set on fire.

I can’t imagine how a person who predicted the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem close to 40 years beforehand to be a false prophet.

I defy anyone to disprove the above.

[Vangelovski]

Makedonin,

Your insistance on a face value reading of passages outside of their textual, linguistic, historic, cultural and political context, whether for the Bible or any other document continues to demonstrate your compromised intellectual capacity.

Just because some equally intellectually compromised Christian put forward a ridiculous argument, that does not make your idiotic ideas corrrect. There is evidence that the passage in Zechariah does not refer to that prophecy:

1) Zechariah 11:10-13 contains no reference either to a "field" or its purchase. In fact, the word "field" (shadah) occurs only in chapter 10, verse 1, which in no way relates to our subject at all.

2) Regarding the "thirty pieces of silver," the passage in Zechariah speaks of them with approval, while in Matthew they are not spoken of in that way. "A goodly price" (`eder hayekar) signifies "sufficiency," and the verb yakar carries the meaning of being "precious." The text does not indicate that the amount was paltry or that the offer of it was in any sense an insult. However, this latter sense is conveyed in Matthew 27:9-10.

3) The givers were "the poor of the flock," and this enhanced its value, very much as in the case described in Mark 12:43-44.

4) The waiting of "the poor of the flock" was not characterized by hostility but friendliness. The Hebrew word shamar occurs more than 450 times in the Old Testament, of which only about 14 express hostility.

5) Concerning the disposal of the silver, the sense of the verb cast must be determined by the context in which it is used, not by the verb itself. In Zechariah 11, the context shows it to be in a good sense, as in Exodus 15:25, 1 Kings 19:19, 2 Kings 2:21, and others.

6) The "potter" is a fashioner; his work was not necessarily confined to fashioning "clay," but his work extended also to metals. For confirmation of this, compare Genesis 2:7-8; Psalm 33:15; Isaiah 43:1, 6, 10, 21; and others. The verb yazar occurs in the Old Testament about 62 times, and in about 45 of these it has nothing whatever to do with a "potter." Moreover, a "potter" in connection with the temple or its service is unknown in fact or to Scripture. Furthermore, silver would be useless to a potter, but necessary to a fashioner of metallic things or for payment to such artisans. One might as well cast clay to a silversmith as silver to a potter.

7) Note that the persons mentioned in the two passages are different. In Matthew we have "they took," "they gave," "the price of him"; in Zechariah one reads "I took," "I cast," "I was valued." In addition, Matthew names three parties as being concerned in the transaction; Zechariah speaks of only one.

8) In Matthew the money was given "for the field"; in Zechariah it was cast "unto the potter."

9) Matthew not only quotes Jeremiah's spoken words but names him as the speaker. This is parallel to Matthew 2:17-18, where the figure of speech known as "metonymy of cause" is employed, referring to a prophecy of Jeremiah that was spoken as well as written.

[Onur]

All this happened in 70AD.

Thus fulfilling this:

And Matthew 22.7:

I can’t imagine how a person who predicted the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem close to 40 years beforehand to be a false prophet.

I defy anyone to disprove the above.

Simple question to answer; it`s because he didn't predict anything. So, Matthew wrote all of these after 70 AD. It`s simple as that.

Since you call this a prediction, so you claim that Matthew wrote about the destruction of the temple by Romans before 30 AD??? Is this widespread belief among christians? that the new testament has been written while Jesus was alive?


Btw i saw that you guys arguing about Jesus being the God or not. Is there anyone who can explain the concept of holy trinity to me? Jesus was a man or God himself? or he was a man with Godlike abilities or was he both? If he was THE GOD then who is Mary? The women who gave birth to THE GOD? Then does that make her kinda more superior than THE GOD himself? because if Jesus is the God then Mary is the one who created the God. If Mary created THE GOD then doesn't this degrade the concept of God? cuz the God supposedly should be the creator of everything, the omnipotent, not the be the one given birth by a person(Mary).

[Philosopher]

Mark 13.32

And concerning that day and the hour no one hath known—not even the messengers who are in heaven, not even the Son—except the Father.

There are generally two Christological views on this subject. The first, as held by the ancients, esp. those of the Alexandrian Schools, is that Christ did know the day and the hour, but, feigned ignorance of it.

This is a common expression in the Bible.

If we argue, as some suggest, that Jesus cannot be God or equal to God, because God is omnipresent, whereas Christ expresses ignorance, let us consider the following.

And Jehovah God calleth unto the man and saith to him, Where art thou?

Are we to assume that God did not know where Adam was—or was he feigning ignorance in order to read Adam’s response?

When God says in Genesis 18.20

I go down now, and see whether according to its cry which is coming unto Me they have done completely—and if not—I know…

Is God not omnipresent (and therefore not God) because he doesn’t “know,” and has to go “down now” to Sodom to see if it is so?

When Abraham discourses with God about the justice of God and asks whether God will destroy the righteous with the wicked, God states

If I find in Sodom fifty righteous in the midst of the city, then have I borne with all the place for their sake.

Genesis 18.26
Are we to assume that God doesn’t know? If you want to butcher the Bible and take it apart, it is easy to do so. If you are willing to understand the Semitic, Aramaic, and Greek languages and their prose and poetry, their idioms, and the human language the author’s use to convey God, it is easily understood.

And finally in the Book of Acts, 1.7

It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father did appoint in his own authority…

Christ merely hid the day and the hour from the disciples because he did not wish to disclose it; just as Jehovah hid the knowledge from Abraham because he did not wish to divulge it.

It is also illogical for someone (Christ) who knew everything about that day and the hour, for him to have been ignorant of the actual day and the hour.

Let us be consistent when judging the text.

The second Christological argument is that Christ, being in the form of a human being, was naturally limited to human understanding like the rest of us. His ignorance (if he was truly ignorant) is based on his being a servant in human form, and not his eternal nature. Thus, his human form, and not his eternal Godhead, was ignorant.

[Philosopher]

Simple question to answer; it`s because he didn't predict anything. So, Matthew wrote all of these after 70 AD. It`s simple as that.

Since you call this a prediction, so you claim that Matthew wrote about the destruction of the temple by Romans before 30 AD??? Is this widespread belief among christians? that the new testament has been written while Jesus was alive?


Btw i saw that you guys arguing about Jesus being the God or not. Is there anyone who can explain the concept of holy trinity to me? Jesus was a man or God himself? or he was a man with Godlike abilities or was he both? If he was THE GOD then who is Mary? The women who gave birth to THE GOD? Then does that make her kinda more superior than THE GOD himself? because if Jesus is the God then Mary is the one who created the God. If Mary created THE GOD then doesn't this degrade the concept of God? cuz the God supposedly should be the creator of everything, the omnipotent, not the be the one given birth by a person(Mary).

If Matthew was written, along with the gospels of Mark, Luke, and John, all of whom mention the prediction of the Destruction of the Temple (John albeit in a different manner) and the city of Jerusalem being burnt with fire, after 70AD and therefore, after the fact, then why don’t they mention this in their gospels?

Wouldn’t it help the credibility of the authors if they said “and thus were Jesus’ words fulfilled, for the Temple was destroyed as Jesus predicted.” In other words, why not say “Jesus said this would happen and it did.”

In not one book of the New Testament is the Temple mentioned as destroyed, not even in the book of Revelation. In every book, the Temple is standing, which means when the books were written, the Temple was not yet destroyed. This is common sense.

For the Jewish people, the Temple was the most Sacred edifice in the world; it meant everything to them. Believe me, when the Temple was destroyed, and Jerusalem destroyed with it, this would have seemed like the end of the world to them; and in some ways, it was. If this happened before the Gospels were written, believe me, the Jewish writers of Matthew, Mark, and John would have written extensively on it. Yet, not one trace of it appears...

The Gospels were written, as believed throughout Christian history (not in the modern liberal era) within a few years after the Resurrection of Christ, to as late as 68 AD, before the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.

Internal evidence in the New Testament does not allow for a later date.

The Gospels, Matthew the earliest (or Mark) within a few years after Jesus’ Resurrection, Luke’s a few years later, and John’s later still.

Jesus is God, as is the Father, and the Holy Spirit, One God in Three Persons. Mary is not God; Mary gave birth to the human nature of Jesus; the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity, Fathered Jesus in this earth, but Jesus is the Creator of this universe, but became a man for the salvation of his church.

[Onur]

The Gospels were written, as believed throughout Christian history (not in the modern liberal era) within a few years after the Resurrection of Christ, to as late as 68 AD, before the Temple was destroyed in 70AD.

Internal evidence in the New Testament does not allow for a later date.

OK, even if new testament has been written in 68 AD(which i don't believe), this still makes it questionable for new testament being the exact word of God cuz it`s been written at least after ~40 years of the death of christ.

Jesus is God, as is the Father, and the Holy Spirit, One God in Three Persons. Mary is not God; Mary gave birth to the human nature of Jesus; the Holy Spirit, the Third Person in the Trinity, Fathered Jesus in this earth, but Jesus is the Creator of this universe, but became a man for the salvation of his church.

Your explanation arouses new questions in me. If we call the God as father or son, doesn't this makes them(or he) demonstrate human qualifications? Like being a father and a son, just like humans. So, why something(or someone) omnipotent should need to have humanistic abilities? If he has, then why we call him God, the omnipotent one? Isn't this a contradiction with the concept of God?

Btw, you know that the christian world did this argument for centuries and actually the ones who believed the concept of holy trinity was always a minority `till the late 7th century. Even tough the Romans was strictly forcing the belief of trinity, it wasn't that widely accepted theory. Spread of islam fixed this centuries old problem among christians. Most of the middle-eastern christians was Arianists who denied the concept of holy trinity and regarded Jesus as a human but not as God. Also Germanic people in western Europe believed Arianism too. Whole middle-easterner Arianist christians became muslims and Roman church also destroyed Arianism and their churches in Europe. Latest ones was Bogomils in Balkans who also denied the concept of holy trinity and most of them became muslim too. So, the argument of Jesus being the God or not, has been over mostly because of the spread of islam.

AFAIK, today's middle-easterner Arab christians in Egypt, Syria etc. still denies the holy trinity concept and regards Jesus as just a human like us but a messenger of the God.

[Vangelovski]

Onur,

What Philosopher raised about the temple is one of many pieces of evidence in relation to when the Gospels were written. But did you take up any of my previous suggestions about informing yourself in relation to this topic? Or did you think enough time has passed and that was forgotten about?

What is interesting here is the fact that the athiests and the "agnostics" have only managed to come up with idiotic red herrings that no informed atheist would ever use.

But they have never managed to positively defend their worldview, particularly their view that the universe came to exist out of NOTHING. How is that possible? How can something just pop out of nothing? If something can pop out of nothing, then why don't things (like $50 bills) just pop out of nothing? If a simple piece of paper can't pop out of nothing, how could something as emmense and complicated as the universe pop out of nothing?

Makedonin, in all his idiotic irrelevancy, at one point rejected that God was the ultimate cause of the universe and that there were/are an infinite number of causes for the universe, or in other words, the universe has existed for an infinity. But that is ridiculous. If an infinite number of events, or an infinite number of years, needed to pass in order to get to today, today would never come. How can you count down from infinity in order to get to today? If you tried to count back, you'd end up just going deeper into the past without no end, showing that today could never come. But no scientist, mathematician or serious atheist would ever bring up this argument because of its absurdity and yet we have Makedonin throwing his infinite stupidity into the ring.

[Bill77]

OK, even if new testament has been written in 68 AD(which i don't believe), this still makes it questionable for new testament being the exact word of God cuz it`s been written at least after ~40 years of the death of christ.

Well historians wrote about Alexander more than 40 years after his death, yet we seem to believe it.

What is more mind boggling, is the scriptures were written during the time the christians were persecuted. Yet these apostles denied Christ as he was being tortured just prior to his crusafiction. What gave them the strength, what did they see to make them risk their own lives and spread the gospel?

[Vangelovski]

Bill77,

That is a good point and one that atheists fail to address - the apostles had everything to lose and nothing to gain in this world (other than persecution and death) - so why would they spread the Gospel if they knew it was a lie?

[Onur]

Onur,

What Philosopher raised about the temple is one of many pieces of evidence in relation to when the Gospels were written. But did you take up any of my previous suggestions about informing yourself in relation to this topic? Or did you think enough time has passed and that was forgotten about?

What is interesting here is the fact that the athiests and the "agnostics" have only managed to come up with idiotic red herrings that no informed atheist would ever use.

But they have never managed to positively defend their worldview, particularly their view that the universe came to exist out of NOTHING. How is that possible? How can something just pop out of nothing? If something can pop out of nothing, then why don't things (like $50 bills) just pop out of nothing? If a simple piece of paper can't pop out of nothing, how could something as emmense and complicated as the universe pop out of nothing?

Vangelovski, i cant say that i know much about religions but i know enough to have an opinion about it.

Also, if you ask my beliefs, i am not an atheist. I don't believe that universe has been created by a series of coincidences and i don't believe we have been evolved from monkeys either. I believe a superior force who created all of this. It doesn't matter how you call it, as God, Allah or something else. I can add this to your claims too; For example, atheist scientists explains evolution by mutations of the DNA but the thing is, they couldn't observe even one case of mutation yet, which doesn't cause development of cancer. So, all unnatural mutations in DNA causes cancer and leads to the self-destruction of that specimen.

On the other hand, whether Bible or Koran are the words of God(which i don't believe) or not, i believe we don't need religions anymore in 21th century, especially for the administration of states. The religions are getting abused by politicians/leaders as a powerful tool to manipulate masses. So, in my opinion, religions lost their main purpose for a long time. If we, the people would continue to give importance to religions, then it would be strictly limited to the private lives of us and all the so-called mediators between us and God(priests, imams etc.) should be removed. They should let people believe whatever they want and preach however they like.

I believe that these holy books(The laws of Manu, Bible, Koran etc.) was really holy but not because of it was the words of God. It was holy, because it contains the millennium old experiences of human kind came from Sumerians, Hindus, Egyptians etc. But the thing is, we don't really need them anymore.

Well historians wrote about Alexander more than 40 years after his death, yet we seem to believe it.

Bill, i specifically said "exact words of God". Do you believe that everything about Alexander has been written or everything you read about him is totally correct? Dont you think there would be exaggerations, subjective thoughts in the interpretations of him by 3rd persons?

So, cant we claim the same about Jesus too?

[Philosopher]

Matthew and Mark were not written 40 years after the death of Christ. They were written within a few years (maybe 10 or less). We can’t state with absolute precision.

The Gospels, like the rest of the New Testament, makes the argument of being the “Word of God,” not based on the year they were written, but based on the promise of Christ (John 16.12-13

I have yet many things to say to you, but ye are not able to bear them now; and when he may come—the Spirit of truth—he will guide you to all the truth…

.

It was the promise of the Supernatural guidance of the Spirit of God that , as St. Peter states in 2 Peter 1.20-21,

this first knowing, that no prophecy of the writing doth come of private exposition, for not by will of man did ever prophecy come, but by the Holy Spirit borne on holy men of God spake.

So the writers of the New Testament were Supernaturally borne by the Spirit of God to write what God willed them to write.

From the earliest Christian writings, from Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, etc written in the early 100s AD, the very successors of the apostles, all wrote that Jesus Christ is God.

To suggest that up into the 7th century AD there was a dispute about the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ, is nonsense.
The Trinity was defended as official canon by the fourth and fifth centuries AD, it was not invented at this time.

And no, the majority of Middle Eastern Christians, from the Egyptian Coptic’s to the Syrian Orthodox, believe in the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Where you get your information and opinions that Middle Easterners rejected the Trinity—is beyond me.

Although fully integrated into the body of the modern Egyptian nation, the Copts have survived as a strong religious entity who pride themselves on their contribution to the Christian world. The Coptic church regards itself as a strong defendant of Christian faith. The Nicene Creed, which is recited in all churches throughout the world, has been authored by one of its favorite sons, Saint Athanasius, the Pope of Alexandria for 46 years, from 327 A.D. to 373 A.D. This status is well deserved, after all, Egypt was the refuge that the Holy Family sought in its flight from Judea: "When he arose, he took the young Child and His mother by night and departed for Egypt, and was there until the death of Herod, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "Out of Egypt I called My Son" [Mathew 2:12-23]. The Coptic Church has never believed in monophysitism the way it was portrayed in the Council of Chalcedon! In that Council, monophysitism meant believing in one nature. Copts believe that the Lord is perfect in His divinity, and He is perfect in His humanity, but His divinity and His humanity were united in one nature called "the nature of the incarnate word", which was reiterated by Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Copts, thus, believe in two natures "human" and "divine" that are united in one "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration" (from the declaration of faith at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy). These two natures "did not separate for a moment or the twinkling of an eye" (also from the declaration of faith at the end of the Coptic divine liturgy).

[makedonin]

I can’t imagine how a person who predicted the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem close to 40 years beforehand to be a false prophet.

I defy anyone to disprove the above.

Philosopher, you again, I figured out when Prophecies are in question you jump in

First of all, go and complain about C.S. Lewis, he is the one who dropped in the line.

Second no one really knows when Matthews gospel is written. Some suggest that it is written short after the events, and were waiting for Jesus to come! It is easy to prophecy something that you know already!

Here are some thoughts.

According to the Matthew gospel the question was asked as follow:

And when he is sitting on the mount of the Olives, the disciples came near to him by himself, saying, `Tell us, when shall these be? and what [is] the sign of thy presence, and of the full end of the age?'
Matthew 24:3

The NIV translates this passages as follow:

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
Matthew 24:3

Again, Jesus tells his disciples:

and then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in the heaven; and then shall all the tribes of the earth smite the breast, and they shall see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of the heaven, with power and much glory; and he shall send his messengers with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his chosen from the four winds, from the ends of the heavens unto the ends thereof.
`And from the fig-tree learn ye the simile: When already its branch may have become tender, and the leaves it may put forth, ye know that summer [is] nigh,
so also ye, when ye may see all these, ye know that it is nigh -- at the doors.
Verily I say to you, this generation may not pass away till all these may come to pass.
Matthew 24:30-34


Taken from Young's Literal Translation

Mark puts it this way:

Verily I say to you, that this generation may not pass away till all these things may come to pass;
Mark 13:30

Taken from Young's Literal Translation

Luke gospel puts it this way:

verily I say to you -- This generation may not pass away till all may have come to pass;
Luke 21:32


Taken from Young's Literal Translation

Again, Christ describes certain events and warns those who are listening to him that "This generation shall not pass*, till all these things be fulfilled". He is speaking about their present generation. Many have tried to allude that the word "generation" is the generation which will be living on the end of the days but not Jesus generation.
Let's start by examining the meaning of the word "generation." Generation, in our text, comes from the Greek word genea (γενεα), which means, by implication: "an age." In Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, we can see that the "genea" me ans: "The whole multitude of men living at the same time." William F. Arndt and Wilber Gingrich (A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature) define "genea" as: "basically, the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time, contemporaries." This means that the Young's Literal Translation have translated this word exactly as it is meant: "This generation" not "That generation", the present generation was meant, not some generation some two thousand years away.

This very word is used many times in the new Testament when the present generation was meant. Good examples are Matthew 23:35-36 (γενεαν i.e. this generation), Luke 17:24-25 (γενεας i.e. this generation).

(Philosophers petty attempt with subdividing the context is concerned here!)
Also Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 simply have the disciples asking Jesus about "the sign" when "all these things will be," or, "when they are about to take place." There is no "and" in their questions, connecting what some Christian apologists say may be two separate questions. This is important to remember, since many Christian apologists attempt to split the disciple's question [in Mat 24:3] in half, thereby dividing Jesus' predictions in these end-times chapters into:

1) predictions related to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D., and

2) signs that can be used to predict when the Son of Man will come in power to judge the earth two thousand years later. Needless to say, such a dissection of Jesus' apocalyptic discourses (based only on Matthew's version of the disciples' question) does not take into consideration the beliefs and understanding of the audience to whom the discourse was originally addressed. As David F. Strauss pointed out in The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, chapter 115, "The Discourses of Jesus on His Second Advent. Criticism of the Different Interpretations":

The...attempt to discover in the discourse before us the immense interval which, looking from our position in the present day, is fixed between the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of all things, having failed; we are taught in a practical fashion that that interval lies only in our own conception, which we are not justified in introducing into the text. And when we consider that we owe our idea of that interval only to the experience of many centuries, which have elapsed since the destruction of Jerusalem: it cannot be difficult for us to imagine how the author of this discourse, who had not had this experience, might entertain the belief that shortly after the fall of the Jewish sanctuary, the world itself, of which, in the Jewish idea, that sanctuary was the center, would also come to an end, and the [Son of Man] appear in judgment.

David F. Strauss pointed out in The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, chapter 115, "The Discourses of Jesus on His Second Advent. Criticism of the Different Interpretations"

Another way to avoid the obvious non-fulfillment of the prediction in Matthew 24:30-34 is to point out that the end of the World would not come until the gospel is not made known to the whole world, declared in Matthew 24:14 where it is said:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Matthew 24:14

Taken from Young's Literal Translation

Interestingly enough Paul was of other opinion when he claimed that:

but I say, Did they not hear? yes, indeed -- `to all the earth their voice went forth, and to the ends of the habitable world their sayings.'
.........
And to Him who is able to establish you, according to my good news, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the secret, in the times of the ages having been kept silent, and now having been made manifest, also, through prophetic writings, according to a command of the age-during God, having been made known to all the nations for obedience of faith --
Romans 10:18; 16:25-26


Taken from Young's Literal Translation

Paul asserted the Collosians that the gospel was carried through out the whole world as he said:

because of the hope that is laid up for you in the heavens, which ye heard of before in the word of the truth of the good news,
which is present to you, as also in all the world, and is bearing fruit, as also in you, from the day in which ye heard, and knew the grace of God in truth;
........
if also ye remain in the faith, being founded and settled, and not moved away from the hope of the good news, which ye heard, which was preached in all the creation that [is] under the heaven, of which I became -- I Paul -- a ministrant.
Colossians 1:5-6,23

Taken from Young's Literal Translation

Some tried to say that the word "world" in Matthew and in Paul did not mean the same thing! That is naturally absurd.

Paul clearly says that he preached the gospel in the all creation under the heaven! Wonder if the native Indians and Asians were included in his creation!? Another proof of flat earth society of the Bible.

Another will object that the day and hour is unknown as declared in Matthew 24:36.

I'll let David F. Strauss (1808-1874), the German philosopher and historian of religion, sum up the case thus far:

Thus in these discourses Jesus announces that shortly after that calamity, which (especially according to the representation in Luke's gospel) we must identify with the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, and within the term of his own generation, he would visibly make his second advent in the clouds, and terminate the existing dispensation. Now as it will soon be eighteen centuries since the destruction of Jerusalem, and an equally long period since the generation contemporary with Jesus disappeared from the earth, while his visible return and the end of the world which he associated with it, have not taken place: the announcement of Jesus appears so far to have been erroneous ( My add: Exactly what Lewis is talking about.)... Such inferences from the discourse before us would inflict a fatal wound on Christianity; hence it is natural that exegetics should endeavor by all means to obviate them.


David F. Strauss, The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, chapter 115, "The Discourses of Jesus on His Second Advent. Criticism of the Different Interpretations."

Christian apologists have tried to sub-divide the context of this prediction, making, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," refer only to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and not also to "the coming of the Son of Man." They ignore the fact that Jesus' "this generation" prediction is preceded in all three gospels by Jesus' discussion of the "coming of the Son of Man" and intimately linked with it, contextually. Such apologists also ignore that Jesus said, "all these things," and divert attention to Jesus' other saying (which appears a few verses after Jesus' long disproved prediction), that "no man knows the day or the hour." However, they forget that "days and hours" imply nearness in time. "Days and hours" lie within a "generation." As Strauss pointed out over a century ago:

[Naturally there is a distinction] between an inexact indication of the space of time, beyond which the event will not be deferred (a "generation"), and the determination of the precise date and time (the "day and the hour") at which it will occur; the former Jesus gives, the latter he declares himself unable to give.

Ibid

Furthermore, having admitted that he did not know the precise "day or the hour," Jesus continued to address his listeners as though that "day or hour" could not be further than a mere "generation" away:

Watch therefore:, for ye [his listeners, circa 30 A.D.] know not what hour your Lord doth come....Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Matthew 24:36,42,44

Taken from KVJ

Definitely not a "day" or "hour" that was "two millenniums" from then! Compare Luke 21:36:

watch ye, then, in every season, praying that ye [his listeners, circa 30 A.D.] may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that are about to come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.'

Luke 21:36

Taken from Young's Literal Translation

When Jesus sent out his apostles to preach the word, he spoke to his followers again about his second coming:

and ye shall be hated by all because of my name, but he who hath endured to the end, he shall be saved.
`And whenever they may persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for verily I say to you, ye may not have completed the cities of Israel till the Son of Man may come.
Matthew 10:22-23

The NIV puts this as follows:

You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 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.

Matthew 10:22-23

Jesus tells his apostles that they will be hated but if they endure to the end, they will be saved. Also the cities of Israel were not so numerous that it would have taken a fleeing man 2000 years to go over or through them. No man could live that long. Christ said before a fleeing man could go through all the cities, he would come. Again, Christ was speaking of his return in that generation. He left no doubt as to his meaning in this passage.

So C.S. Lewis is not wrong about his observation! The pride of Christian Apologists!

"Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.

"Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side... The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he could really be. For a God who can be ignorant is less baffling than a God who falsely professes ignorance."

C.S. Lewis, The World's Last Night: And Other Essays, p.97

Christian Apologists are having headache from the above.

Because of his statement above, Fundamentalists have questioned his travel to heaven:
Did C.S. Lewis go to heaven?

So, did he go? Go figure out the wannabes and zealots. They praise you one day and send you to hell the other!

PS. Vangelovski you are ignored cause you are time waste!

[makedonin]

Matthew and Mark were not written 40 years after the death of Christ. They were written within a few years (maybe 10 or less). We can’t state with absolute precision.

Nonsense only Christian apologists are claiming that!

The Gospels, like the rest of the New Testament, makes the argument of being the “Word of God,” not based on the year they were written, but based on the promise of Christ (John 16.12-13 .

It was the promise of the Supernatural guidance of the Spirit of God that , as St. Peter states in 2 Peter 1.20-21,

So the writers of the New Testament were Supernaturally borne by the Spirit of God to write what God willed them to write.

Another nonsense. It is a circular argument:

• To understand the Bible you need to be sanctified by the Spirit. BUT
• to get sanctified by the Spirit you have to read the Bible and believe.
• And all who are sanctified are chosen by Jesus:
  

  “All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
  Matthew 11:27

  The Holy Spirit being the revelation of God and the process of sanctification.
  
  So the New Testament writers were supernaturally inspired by God to write what they have written, and all we have is their word for and the word of Apologists and Fundamentalists.
  
  Kiss your logic good bye.

Absurdity in it self. According to that circular argument there is no way to know that the Bible is true other to believe the Church and the Apologists that it is true. To use the Bible to prove the Bibles supernatural inspiration is absurd and no evidence or argument.

From the earliest Christian writings, from Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, etc written in the early 100s AD, the very successors of the apostles, all wrote that Jesus Christ is God.

They could have said what they want. It is their belief and we ought to take their word for. No evidence or proof is there that they did not lie or had their own interests involved in preaching so!

Isn't it the common human nature of the fallen to deceive and lie!

So they could have done so in their own interest, and we can't prove that in any case, because all we have is their word.

To suggest that up into the 7th century AD there was a dispute about the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ, is nonsense.
The Trinity was defended as official canon by the fourth and fifth centuries AD, it was not invented at this time.

It is not a nonsense, but rather proven fact. They voted which book is going into the Bible, and we still have Christian brunches that refer to different books as part of the Kanon.

And no, the majority of Middle Eastern Christians, from the Egyptian Coptic’s to the Syrian Orthodox, believe in the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

Where you get your information and opinions that Middle Easterners rejected the Trinity—is beyond me.

Well the Coptic's and Gnostics have their own Kanon and own views of the Bible which does not fit in the perspective of the modern Christian Church!


What a fraud!

[Philosopher]

Philosopher, you again, I figured out when Prophecies are in question you jump in

You know, I had a really good laugh with that one. I’m still laughing.

First of all, go and complain about C.S. Lewis, he is the one who dropped in the line.

Honestly, it really doesn’t matter what C.S. Lewis believed. He wasn’t even a theologian. And even if he was, it still doesn’t matter. You can’t judge the Bible or its doctrines on the words of its interpreters.

Second no one really knows when Matthews gospel is written. Some suggest that it is written short after the events, and were waiting for Jesus to come! It is easy to prophecy something that you know already!

So no one knows, but you and all the experts “know” that it “had” to have been “after” 70AD. You're bringing pre-suppositions in the text.

Did you even read what I wrote? The internal evidence of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John does not allow a date later than 70AD. Do you really believe that if the gospels were written after the destruction of the temple, that none of the authors would pass judgment on the “alleged” prophecy that Christ made? Whether it was true or not? Woudn’t this help their “fake story,” that the God-Man said it would happen and it did?

Moreover, the fall of the temple was of the most important events in all the history of Israel. Do you really believe authors living after those events, experiencing the death, maiming, destruction, and Jewish enslavement to the Romans would not even mention a single iota about those events? Do you really believe that? Instead, all they say is that Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and never mention whether this happened or not; if they were written after the event, surely they would have mentioned the event.

This is like someone predicting 9/11 and then after the event, no one mentioned the prophecy came true; and no one mentions the details surrounding the events on that day. It is illogical on its most basic level.

Again, Christ describes certain events and warns those who are listening to him that "This generation shall not pass*, till all these things be fulfilled". He is speaking about their present generation. Many have tried to allude that the word "generation" is the generation which will be living on the end of the days but not Jesus generation.

Let's start by examining the meaning of the word "generation." Generation, in our text, comes from the Greek word genea (γενεα), which means, by implication: "an age." In Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the NT, we can see that the "genea" me ans: "The whole multitude of men living at the same time." William F. Arndt and Wilber Gingrich (A Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature) define "genea" as: "basically, the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time, contemporaries." This means that the Young's Literal Translation have translated this word exactly as it is meant: "This generation" not "That generation", the present generation was meant, not some generation some two thousand years away.

We agree. The only Christians who make this argument are the modern day dispensationalists.

(Philosophers petty attempt with subdividing the context is concerned here!)
Also Mark 13:4 and Luke 21:7 simply have the disciples asking Jesus about "the sign" when "all these things will be," or, "when they are about to take place." There is no "and" in their questions, connecting what some Christian apologists say may be two separate questions. This is important to remember, since many Christian apologists attempt to split the disciple's question [in Mat 24:3] in half, thereby dividing Jesus' predictions in these end-times chapters into:

1) predictions related to the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D., and

2) signs that can be used to predict when the Son of Man will come in power to judge the earth two thousand years later. Needless to say, such a dissection of Jesus' apocalyptic discourses (based only on Matthew's version of the disciples' question) does not take into consideration the beliefs and understanding of the audience to whom the discourse was originally s. As David F. Strauss pointed out in The Life of Jesus Critically Examined, chapter 115, "The Discourses of Jesus on His Second Advent. Criticism of the Different Interpretations":

That’s a mischaracterization of my position. I believe Christ did return in 70AD in the clouds of heaven. Everything Christ predicted in Matthew 24 happened in the time of 70AD. I’m not dividing anything or any events. I’m not suggesting that the temple was to be destroyed in 70AD and then his return (spoken of in Matthew 24) was to happen 2000 years later. Don’t mischaracterize me.

Christian apologists have tried to sub-divide the context of this prediction, making, "this generation will not pass away until all these things take place," refer only to the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and not also to "the coming of the Son of Man." They ignore the fact that Jesus' "this generation" prediction is preceded in all three gospels by Jesus' discussion of the "coming of the Son of Man" and intimately linked with it, contextually. Such apologists also ignore that Jesus said, "all these things," and divert attention to Jesus' other saying (which appears a few verses after Jesus' long disproved prediction), that "no man knows the day or the hour." However, they forget that "days and hours" imply nearness in time. "Days and hours" lie within a "generation." As Strauss pointed out over a century ago:

Some have done this; and they have their arguments, which your author Strauss represents.

Originally Posted by Philosopher
To suggest that up into the 7th century AD there was a dispute about the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ, is nonsense.
The Trinity was defended as official canon by the fourth and fifth centuries AD, it was not invented at this time.
It is not a nonsense, but rather proven fact. They voted which book is going into the Bible, and we still have Christian brunches that refer to different books as part of the Kanon.

This happened in the 7th century AD? Really? You need to check your history.

[makedonin]

You know, I had a really good laugh with that one. I’m still laughing.

It was supposed to be a laugh, I am glad you liked it, I like it too! Maybe we ain't that different after all

So no one knows, but you and all the experts “know” that it “had” to have been “after” 70AD. You're bringing pre-suppositions in the text.

Yep, that is true, because if anyone knew really they would all come to consensus, yet secular scholarship says one thing and apologist other.

Did you even read what I wrote? The internal evidence of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John does not allow a date later than 70AD. Do you really believe that if the gospels were written after the destruction of the temple, that none of the authors would pass judgment on the “alleged” prophecy that Christ made? Whether it was true or not? Woudn’t this help their “fake story,” that the God-Man said it would happen and it did?

The internal evidence of the gospel writers is telling everybody another story!

It actually tells you what you want to tell you, and this case to the apologists it tells them what they think will justify their story.

That this is so, you only have to read through the literature and see that every one is turning the water to his mill.

Moreover, the fall of the temple was of the most important events in all the history of Israel. Do you really believe authors living after those events, experiencing the death, maiming, destruction, and Jewish enslavement to the Romans would not even mention a single iota about those events? Do you really believe that? Instead, all they say is that Jesus said the temple would be destroyed and never mention whether this happened or not; if they were written after the event, surely they would have mentioned the event.

See Daniels prophecies of end days is similar construct. It is very accurate and aligns with secular history, but than after certain point it does not preserves it's accuracy, thus apologists are forced to make the time leap and project to the future.

The book was probably composed about 165 BCE, shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164.

VanderKam & Flint 2004, pp. 137–8 , see also Brown, Raymond E.; Fitzmyer, Joseph A.; Murphy, Roland E., eds (1999). The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Prentice Hall. p. 448. ISBN 0138598363

Yet Apologists are wanting us to believe that it is written some 6th Century BC by some Jew in exile and that he made precise prediction of certain events which got fulfilled until a certain point and where the accuracy is gone and we are told that it is yet to happen!

Nothing new to such literature that had it's purpose to inspire and give confidence to the audience that they are secure in Gods hands. The original purpose of the book of Daniel was to comfort and encourage persecuted Jews during the Maccabean revolt.

Also, humans are known to be deceptive to them self when they want certain things to be true, specially when they are attached emotionally with it.

There were end times predictions ever since, and one would have expected that movements that had false end time predictions are going to decompose, they actually reinvented them selfs. See more about the Yehovah Witnesses to name some.

So humans are wannabes and when their hope is concerned they just gladly turn the blind eye!

We agree. The only Christians who make this argument are the modern day dispensationalists.

That is very interesting, I must say I am surprised.

That’s a mischaracterization of my position. I believe Christ did return in 70AD in the clouds of heaven. Everything Christ predicted in Matthew 24 happened in the time of 70AD. I’m not dividing anything or any events. I’m not suggesting that the temple was to be destroyed in 70AD and then his return (spoken of in Matthew 24) was to happen 2000 years later. Don’t mischaracterize me.

That is something new here. I want to see the proof of that, or is it just a belief? I am honestly interested to see your reason for believing that, or is it just another attempt to dodge things? Don't tell me that the parousia was the Church of Christ! Please not that trashed argument!

I really want to know how this was fulfilled:

30 “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[a] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. 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.

“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. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it[c] is near, right at the door.

Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Matthew 24:30-34

(Just for the Vangel likes,"from one end of the heavens to the other". Does the heavens have ends? Ouch flat earth is on the stage again!)

If all the earth have seen the Son of Man coming on a cloud and that all have mourned and he gathered his elected from the four winds, than why are you still here?

Why no one have been writing about it, if everyone have seen him?

I really want to see your argument!?

How do you justify this:

And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

Matthew 24:14

How did the end of days come and no one noticed it? Paul says he did preach the gospel to the whole world (see previous post of mine for passages quotes).

Jesus have described with his parables the end in the previous chapter like this:

36 Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.”

37 He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

40 “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.
Matthew 13:36-41

Paul have told us that he preached the whole gospel to the world (for him the known world i.e. the Roman Empire).

You say that everything happened in 70AD just as Jesus said.

Well Jesus says that when the gospel is preached to the whole world the end of the age or world will come, and that is what Paul claims have done i.e. preached the gospel to the world, than why are still those sinners in the world, since Jesus have said in his parable that on the end of the age or world he will weed out the sinners?

Why was the weed not burned and the Kingdom of Heaven is still not there?

What is missing there?

Originally Posted by Philosopher View Post
To suggest that up into the 7th century AD there was a dispute about the Trinity and the Divinity of Jesus Christ, is nonsense.
The Trinity was defended as official canon by the fourth and fifth centuries AD, it was not invented at this time.

This happened in the 7th century AD? Really? You need to check your history.

I have checked them, and still they say pretty much the same, well maybe don't say strictly 7th Century (I don't even know how this 7th century argument came into the play) but to defend the trinity was not hard, cause there were no living that could have oppose.

All that did not subscribed to the doctrine of Trinity were deemed heretics.

Take Arianism as example:

Arianism is the theological teaching attributed to Arius (ca. AD 250–336), a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt, concerning the relationship of the entities of the Trinity ('God the Father', 'God the Son' and 'God the Holy Spirit') and the precise nature of the Son of God. Deemed a heretic by the First Council of Nicaea of 325, Arius was later exonerated in 335 at the First Synod of Tyre,[1] and then, after his death, pronounced a heretic again at the First Council of Constantinople of 381.[2] The Roman Emperors Constantius II (337–361) and Valens (364–378) were Arians or Semi-Arians. The Arian concept of Christ is that the Son of God did not always exist, but was created by—and is therefore distinct from and inferior to—God the Father. This belief is grounded in John 14:28 "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism