Freethought & Rationalism Archive

CJD · 12-08-2006, 11:38 AM

pre-70 AD. Prophecy does not equal foretelling the future; prophecy = forecasting the future. There are instances where it purports to foretell, but they are rare indeed, and even then they are not absolute.

Ben C Smith · 12-08-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

We need only look at the words, "in those days" (Mark 13:24) to see that the generation (Mark 13:30) of the apocalypse was a long time in the future of the nominal date of the discourse.

That does not work. Luke 5.35 uses in those days to refer to a time that on the Lucan chronology will happen in only a year or two. The phrase in those days means exactly what it says; it means during the time which the author has just been discussing, and there is no implication that such a time will occur either sooner or later, only that it has not occurred yet.

Quote:

Mark 9:1-13 is not the same thing. The some of 9:1 are the Peter, James and John of 9:2a.

So Jesus is promising Peter, James, and John that they will not die before the week is out? That is a typical inerrantist interpretation of this verse, but one that strains at the tethers of plausibility.

Quote:

There is no laundry list of eschatolical events to occur, only that they need to see something, as they are said to do in 9:2b ff.

Modern chapter divisions are deceiving. Here is the passage in question:

[Jesus continued:] For whoever is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the son of man will also be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his father with the holy angels. And Jesus was saying to them: Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power.

That may be a short laundry list, but it is a list nonetheless, and again the connections with Mark 13 are clear. Note the underlined, boldfaced, and italicized words in the passage above, and compare Mark 13.26-27, 30:

Then they will see the son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send forth the angels, and he will gather together his elect from the four winds, from the farthest end of the earth to the farthest end of heaven.

....

Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

I think it would be astonishing if Mark 8.28-9.1 was originally supposed to apply to the transfiguration while Mark 13 was supposed to apply to either the fall of Jerusalem or some other event even more chronologically distant.

Quote:

But I have a question for you Ben. Do you think that the "prophecies" were meant for these four disciples alone?

I think Mark intended his readers to place themselves somewhere on the continuum of what was supposed to happen, as Jesus had predicted it. And I think his readers were supposed to know when Jesus had lived (Mark dates him under Pilate and contemporaneously with John the baptist) and thus to know what the approximate deadline was for his predictions.

Ben.

jakejonesiv · 12-08-2006, 01:27 PM

Hi Ben,

I think we have reached the point of dimishing returns on this point.

Jake

Ben C Smith · 12-08-2006, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv

Hi Ben,

I think we have reached the point of dimishing returns on this point.

Jake

A pleasure, as always, Jake. Godspeed.

Ben.

Johann_Kaspar · 12-09-2006, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

After coming across a passage in Mark 13:1-2, I am of the opinion that the book called Mark appears to have been written after the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.

If we assume Jesus to be an ordinary person, then the passage was not prophetic and was written after the event.

Mark 13:1-2, 'And as he went out of temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buidings are here!

And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

When was the book called Mark in the Christian Bible likely to have been written ?

1. after the fall of Temple of Jerusalem in 70 CE.

2. before the fall of the Temple.

3. don't know.

After "Matthews". This gospel was written and edited before and after the fall of the temple, by several editors...

aa5874 · 12-09-2006, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johann_Kaspar

After "Matthews". This gospel was written and edited before and after the fall of the temple, by several editors...

Could you elaborate a little on your hypotheses, that is, the before and after, and by several editors....?

View Poll Results: When was the book called Mark likely to have been written
After the fall of the Temple in 70 CE	37	63.79%
Before the fall of the Temple	8	13.79%
Don't know	13	22.41%
Voters: 58. You may not vote on this poll

12-08-2006, 01:27 PM	#83
jakejonesiv Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Atlanta Posts: 2,060	Mark 13:30 is speaking of the Sitz im Leben of Mark's generation Hi Ben, I think we have reached the point of dimishing returns on this point. Jake

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-08-2006, 11:38 AM	#81
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	pre-70 AD. Prophecy does not equal foretelling the future; prophecy = forecasting the future. There are instances where it purports to foretell, but they are rare indeed, and even then they are not absolute.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.