doubtingthomas

This seems similar to Jesus' statement that no man knows the day or the hour. This doesn't contradict with saying that some of the current generation will see the coming. Notice also, that Paul doesn't claim ignorance of the time; he only says that he has no need to tell them.

Amaleq13

I agree. The Gospel authors who placed these words in the mouth of Jesus were hedging just as Paul did. I think both were motivated by either actual doubts expressed by community members or potential doubts given the persistent delay of The End.

Paul clearly does declare the time unknown with the comparison to a thief since they aren't known to schedule their visits in advance. What that reference fails to do, however, is establish that he still believed the "thief" would be visiting within that generation.

I tend to think (in agreement with you and, I assume, Ichabod, that he still believed it likely that The End would come before he died. My question to him was a "devil's advocate" query intended to determine how strongly he held that conclusion.

I think every generation of Christians since then has believed they might very well be the final generation. Unfortunately for them, Christ is less timely than the cable guy.

doubtingthomas

Well about the specifics I think he does declare ignorance, but I still believe that he thought and preached that it was to occur to some of those presently alive.

Jesus makes a similar statement in the Olivet Discourse saying, "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day" this shows of course that he did not know specifics such as the day or season. However, he later closes by saying that "this generation shall not pass until all these things be fulfilled"; this obviously shows that while be ignorant about some of the specifics Jesus had a general knowledge of the time in which they would occur. So I think it is quite possible Paul would claim ignorance on specifics, but still believe that he knew, like Jesus, the general time frame in which they must take place.

Amaleq13

I agree but I still wonder if he did so because he truly believed it or because of the value such a belief has in obtaining and maintaining group membership. Some might call that cynical.

It shows that the Gospel author(s) did not know specifics but I understand your point.

I would pose the same question for this statement generated by the Gospel author. Did he genuinely believe this or was it an excellent device used to "control" the members of his community? There seems to be no reason to think it was less useful in that regard than it is today.

For Paul, the basis for that false belief was apparently the resurrection experiences claimed by others but mostly his own. The author of Mark may have considered the fall of Jerusalem to be sufficient for that belief. I think we find the authors of Matthew and Luke backing off that belief somewhat and focusing more on the "you never know when" concept. The Fourth Gospel, with more than half a century having elapsed, is so concerned about the delay that the author(s) introduce the idea of The Comforter as somewhat of a babysitter to keep Christians happy until The End finally arrives.

doubtingthomas

Well, to me at least, the idea of hell has always the "control" mechanism used by Christians. A belief in a sort of "any moment now" coming of Christ is inconsequential, I think, to the sort of psychological control christianity has over it's followers. I think the idea of death itself was enough to keep Christians from straying, since while the coming may not have happened to them, they could always be certain of death which could happen at any time. I think that what is behind of the control is the fear of death and its subsequent consequences if one's life was not up to par. Though the fear of an imminent return could have played a role as well.

Magus55

Animals were considered unclean under Mosaic law because they were dangerous to people's health. Pork and shellfish were very unsanitary, so they were banned. 2000 years later - its not an issue. No need to require adherence to a law that has no point any longer. The Pharisee's were becoming too obsessed with tradition.

Magus55

How do you know they actually wrote it? We have God's own words - how do you know He didn't write it?

Sauron

Utter backpedaling nonsense.

1. In the first place, there is no evidence that they were banned because of being dangerous - the instructions in Leviticus don't focus on danger, they focus on the shape of the foot and whether the animal chews the cud, or not;

2. In the second place, if they were dangerous to eat earlier, then they're dangerous during the time of Christ - which is when the prohibitions were lifted.

Magus55

Not a contradiction. Yes, one is a Jew through the mother. But Hebrews referred to the father, even in the geneology of the mother when listing geneologies. The Geneologies were written in Jewish literary style, not Greek. Jews are not Greeks. Greeks are gentiles. Luke wrote the geneology from a biological perspective, Matthew wrote it from a legal perspective.

http://www.carm.org/diff/2geneologies.htm

It never ceases to amuse me to watch atheists hopelessly attempt to convince theists that there is a valid contradiction, when there isn't. Try again.

Magus55

No freakin clue what you're rambling about here, and don't particularly care.

How do you figure? Shellfish and pork weren't properly cleaned or cooked 4000 years ago when the law was made. In the "modern" age of Rome - sanitation and proper cooking had caught up.