Godwithus

Luke 21


So how can this be written after the events of AD 70, if it is about AD 70?


So you have two choices...either they were written before, (to fit a false prophecy view)..but that would then give an early date for the writings...or that they were written afterwards, which would be absurd if its about AD 70 because that would make it a failed prophecy, so no reason to include this into the texts without major editing. Or its about future events that have not yet transpired.


Take you pick.

Godwithus

No, a prophetic vision. Due note "shall not die UNTILthey see the Kingdom of God coming with power."


Believers to die after Christ come? That destroys the whole Gospel message. There no point in waiting for the Kingdom if im going to die afterwards. So one must look deeper into what Jesus meant. The Apostles did indeed see this in advance to strengthen their faith, and died afterwards.

creature

I think the kingdom coming with power refers either to the vision related in Mark 9:2ff or to the death and resurrection of Jesus and the pouring out of the Holy Spirit or to both.

I also wonder somewhat if, for "Mark," (whoever wrote the gospel of mark) there was no longer or shorter ending and that, for his version of the resurrection appearances he, for some reason of his own, moved it as if backwards in time, from where it would have been in Mark 16 to Mark 9.

The placement together of the prophecy of 9:1, together with the vision that immediately follows it, was meant to convey that the vision was the fulfilment of the prophecy. And, if the vision of the transfigured Jesus in Mark 9 is actually another version of the resurrection, then, it is the kingdom coming with power.

For God has shown He will raise the dead to make known Jesus and will pour out His Spirit with power, Acts 1:8, for the spreading of his kingdom.

What would help, I suppose, would be some literary reasons that would help us prove or establish that Mark 9 is really a reworked resurrection account, and that its presence helps explain the absence of a resurrection account in the original version of mark 16.

Juststeve

If you want to make sense of what Jesus said you need to ask what would the people listening to Jesus have made of what he said at the time. It just won't do to impose a fanciful construction of words that seem quite plain just to avoid the obvious conclusion that Jesus was mistaken. Jesus was a man who thought the end of time was imminent. He was obviously wrong.

Steve

Sheshbazzar

Nah, Jebus cain't be wrong,
Yer jus gotter unnerstand Jebus done got alla dee's spies of His'n out a'walkin about and a'spying on us'uns!

Reverend Clyde ses so! And he be a preacher man! one done filled wid the Hol'ee Ghost!
Your be'in watched right now sonny-boy. Yer hear me a'talkin to ya boy?
Do ya?


Coming straight at ya from the foothills hills of The Appalachians

schriverja

You missed my point. No Apostle did see this, at least according to the text. You're writing that in between the lines...

Godwithus

2 Peter


2 Peter



They saw....and died afterwards...just as Jesus said.

judge

Because in the hebrew bible and in other ANE mythology gods often came on clouds with glory, with trupmets sounding, with stars falling etc etc etc....but it didnt mean that the gods visibly appeared.
It was, ofetn, a metaphor for judgement of some kind.

So if we have a writing coming from an hebrew angle telling us some god will come on cloud we shouldn't think it is going to be an event where the god is visibly seen.

Godwithus

That is not an answer for the above. The NT writers believes that Christ will literally return in the clouds. So if they wrote the NT after AD. 70, where Christ returns during this event, why include this in the text after the event knowing that Christ hasnt returned? Or maybe it wasnt about AD 70.



If you choose to believe it was written before the event, then its a failed prophecy (only if its about AD 70)...but then it give it an earlier date for the authorship of the texts...but if written afterwards then its not about AD 70, so restored Israel becomes quite relevant...Take your pick.

bacht

There's also the possibility that the Little Apocalypse of the synoptics refers to the bar-Kosiba revolt in the 130s.

Then we could talk about Revelation: how exactly was that fulfilled if the anti-Christ was Domitian? Somehow the Roman empire survived another several centuries, while the Jewish state did not reappear, nor did Christ in the clouds.

If the early Christians expected the end of the world in their lifetime they were wrong. Why should we consider them credible? Did God trick them? Did God give John the Baptist the wrong message? Did all Jesus' followers misunderstand him (as Mark has it)?