Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 12-09-2007, 12:01 PM

Have you ever heard the phrases, 'many generations ago' or to the third or fourth generation? Simple, generation is another way to express number of years or a specific time. The Generation in which Jesus said he would return in is the generation in which those signs of the end times would take place in. The generation who witness these signs will not pass away to all is fulfilled. Many people believe Jesus was talking about that generation in which He lived that would see His return. No the generation who witness those signs that marks the end times will be the one who witness His return.

Clutch · 12-09-2007, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutch

Earlier source documents (i.e., written within the original generation) + constraints on the ability to universally elide unwelcome verses once entrenched (e.g., the existence of multiple streams of document-copying). Both are perfectly plausible hypotheses. The third ingredient is that already mentioned by JW -- once the passage was already in print, the lack of doctrinal concern with reproducing it need be no more baffling for early copyists than it is for modern translators and copyists.

The difference between then and the time of modern translators and copyists is that we know texts were edited and doctored for quite some time before becoming set in stone.

Neil Godfrey

But in independently. No one person or institution oversaw the individual streams of replication -- at least, not before the texts began to have a growing canonical status.

Toto · 12-09-2007, 01:05 PM

If you look at modern apocalyptic movements, the failure of the prophecy is never the end of the movement. When the prophecy fails, the true believers assume that there was some failure in interpretation, or personal failure on their part, not that the prophet was wrong.

If this pattern held true in the first century, there is no contradiction between the saying being genuine, and being repeated even while it has clearly failed.

Has human nature changed?

Toto · 12-09-2007, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

.... Many people believe Jesus was talking about that generation in which He lived that would see His return. No the generation who witness those signs that marks the end times will be the one who witness His return.

For example, here we have a true believer who has reinterpreted the plain meaning of the text.

neilgodfrey · 12-09-2007, 02:27 PM

The problem I have been trying to address is not the failure of a prophecy that people once had hope in, but how to account for authors of the synoptics appearing to have written a prophecy that to many of us today seems they must have known was already past its use-by date.

Obviously I don't believe the authors knowingly did such a thing, so I conclude that the problem is with our (at least my) understanding of what they were actually thinking they were writing about and when.

Many scholars of course have no problem with this because they take this prophecy as evidence that Mark was written from around 70 ce. But Matthew appears to me to be tying the coming of Christ even more tightly to the fall of Jerusalem than Mark did. So when do we date Matthew? (And is Mark's reference to the parousia enough to overthrow other evidence that he was writing some time after 70 ce?)

I've heard several explanations -- reinterpretations of what they actually said about the Parousia -- but I guess none has really been cogent enough to stick in my head and settle the matter once and for all.

Maybe I'm just going through a thick-headed moment, but this is one topic where I seem to return to thickheaded moments regularly.

Neil

Clutch · 12-09-2007, 05:28 PM

It is certainly an interesting question, Neil. I agree that no simple answer recommends itself.

12-09-2007, 12:01 PM	#31
sugarhitman Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: georgia Posts: 2,726	Meaning of Matthew Generation Have you ever heard the phrases, 'many generations ago' or to the third or fourth generation? Simple, generation is another way to express number of years or a specific time. The Generation in which Jesus said he would return in is the generation in which those signs of the end times would take place in. The generation who witness these signs will not pass away to all is fulfilled. Many people believe Jesus was talking about that generation in which He lived that would see His return. No the generation who witness those signs that marks the end times will be the one who witness His return.

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

12-09-2007, 01:05 PM	#33
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	If you look at modern apocalyptic movements, the failure of the prophecy is never the end of the movement. When the prophecy fails, the true believers assume that there was some failure in interpretation, or personal failure on their part, not that the prophet was wrong. If this pattern held true in the first century, there is no contradiction between the saying being genuine, and being repeated even while it has clearly failed. Has human nature changed?

12-09-2007, 02:27 PM	#35
neilgodfrey Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Darwin, Australia Posts: 874	The problem I have been trying to address is not the failure of a prophecy that people once had hope in, but how to account for authors of the synoptics appearing to have written a prophecy that to many of us today seems they must have known was already past its use-by date. Obviously I don't believe the authors knowingly did such a thing, so I conclude that the problem is with our (at least my) understanding of what they were actually thinking they were writing about and when. Many scholars of course have no problem with this because they take this prophecy as evidence that Mark was written from around 70 ce. But Matthew appears to me to be tying the coming of Christ even more tightly to the fall of Jerusalem than Mark did. So when do we date Matthew? (And is Mark's reference to the parousia enough to overthrow other evidence that he was writing some time after 70 ce?) I've heard several explanations -- reinterpretations of what they actually said about the Parousia -- but I guess none has really been cogent enough to stick in my head and settle the matter once and for all. Maybe I'm just going through a thick-headed moment, but this is one topic where I seem to return to thickheaded moments regularly. Neil

12-09-2007, 05:28 PM	#36
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	It is certainly an interesting question, Neil. I agree that no simple answer recommends itself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.