John Kesler

I notice that you didn't mention the preterist viewpoint. Did you not think it worth mentioning, or have you not encountered this belief?

exapologist

I have -- indeed I once toyed with the view. However, I think that the full preterist view is the only one consistent with the NT, and that the partial preterists are fudging to avoid giving up on Jesus. It's similar to the way that many cults predict a specific date for the end, and when it fails to occur the adherents provide a rationalization to salvage the situation and continue on. What's your view?

exapologist

I just wanted to post a link to a great site that nicely summarizes the main contemporary views about the historical jesus:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

funinspace

First welcome to the board! I agree in that this is a very weak notion of a proof against Christianity. The arguments tend to go in circles, with neither side gaining much traction. One of the ironies I see in your defense of the need for faith, is that within the Hebrew canon, this so often wasn't necessary to God. Think of the 2 times God played with the sun/earth rotation; all the miracles getting the Israelites out of Egypt; the walls of Jericho… It seams the further one goes back into the fog of history, the more this God waltzed about much like within a fairy tale. As we enter a more cosmopolitan age, all of a sudden proof is required or there would be no free will or such. Yet what of the northern kingdom of Israel? They departed even with such proofs.

As far as the disciples go and their actions, it is all too human under almost any scenario. Is Joseph Smith true because he had dedicated followers, and the Mormon church is still expanding rapidly to this day? Is any of this a proof against Christianity: no.

Javaman

Just in case you weren't aware, Peter Kirby who runs that site is a member and frequent poster here - FYI.

hatsoff

Here we have the disciples marvelling at worldly beauty, when spiritual matters are at stake. Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what he means, here. It could be a prophecy of AD 70; it could be the natural conclusion, due to the fact that no building is eternal; or it could be a throwback to the symbolism of his crucifixion.

The disciples, because they were initially talking about the structure itself, probably took Jesus to mean that the temple will physically be destroyed. And so they ask him when.

Okay, so again, is Jesus referring to the "end" as his bodily destruction in AD 30, the temple's destruction in AD 70, or something else entirely? Most would take "the end" here as ultra-literal, the end of *everything.* That interpretation is natural, but not necessarily demanded by the text.

Here's an interesting analogy. He describes this time as not only the "beginning," but as the time leading up to a "birth." Is this "birth" the apocalypse? Maybe, but again I don't see the text demanding that interpretation.

Here Jesus takes a break from speaking generically, and goes back to speaking in the second person. The problem is, we don't know who exactly Jesus means when he says "you." Is he speaking only to the disciples? To their contemporaries? To all Christians, present and future? The text is not clear.

Again Jesus speaks of "the end," but again we are left to wonder, the end of what? In this case, however, it is a bit more natural to interpret "the end" as their deaths. Then again, we must not forget about context, and dismiss the adjacent passages. Continuing...

This quotation from Daniel seems to suggest that Jesus is now talking about his death or ascention.

"the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27 He will confirm a covenant... he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."
--Daniel 9:26-27

Here the "end" seems to be the destruction of the temple (AD 70) and the completion of Christ's work (AD 30). Here's where Jesus discussion takes an interesting turn. Before he talked about a "beginning" and a "birth." Maybe the "beginning" is Christ's death/resurrection/ascention and the "birth" is the destruction of the temple. That would give his "end" a sort of duality, to be completed in AD 70.

Now Jesus speaks in a distinct future sense, as if "those days" are yet to come. An AD 30-70 context would support this.

Oh, boy; here's trouble. If "this" is referring to the whole tamale, then the "end times" will span less than three quarters of a year. However, a simpler explanation is that "this" refers back only to the activities in vs.15-17.

Again we have "those days," which may be referring to AD 30-70. But can AD 30-70, a troublesome time indeed for the early Church, really be an unequaled period of "distress"? It might, depending on who he was speaking to. Remember, we still don't know who exactly his audience is at the moment.

Here we have an interesting statement: "no one would survive." This again falls in line with an AD 30-70 interpretation; for if the persecution shown to the early church had continued with the intensity of that period, it might very well have resulted in the destruction of Christianity--the murder or conversion of all Christians. This is consistent with either a disciples-only or Christians-only audience. It might also be consistent with a Jews-only audience; for this was also a period of hostility towards the Jewish race and religion alike.

More to come soon!

John Kesler

To their credit, preterists at least try to make their beliefs consistent with the imminency statements of the NT. However, this view also requires ad hoc declarations of "figurative language" when the context does not require it. I highly recommend a book by Brodrick Shepherd titled Beats, Horns And The Antichrist which discusses various eschatological viewpoints, including preterism, regarding the book of Daniel. The author was a Christian when he wrote the book, but when I last corresponded with him a few years ago, he said that he was now an agnostic.

exapologist

Thanks for the reference. Sounds good! I'll order a copy online.

exapologist

No, I didn't know that -- shows how much of a newbie I am! Thanks, Javaman.

youngalexander

Or perhaps he overlooked it?
The Intelligent Design Creationists certainly think that he did such a rotten job the first time that it has been necessary to keep tinkering and introducing 'irreducibly complex' organic structures every once in a while.

Perhaps it is the same with the 'proof' and we are receiving it by instalments.:grin: