Freethought & Rationalism Archive

KnightWhoSaysNi · 07-12-2004, 01:38 PM

The purpose of this thread is to provide a Peanut Gallery for a FORMAL DEBATE between Jon Promnitz and Jason Gastrich on the following resolution:

Resolved: Jesus Christ promised to return before his generation passed away, not a future generation.

Jon Promnitz will go first, taking the affirmative, and Jason Gastrich will oppose.

We ask that the formal debate participants refrain from posting in the Peanut Gallery until after the debate is over.

Keep in mind that there will always be a link to the Peanut Gallery in the first post of the formal debate thread in case you cannot find the gallery later.

Enjoy the debate!

Jason

Toto · 07-12-2004, 02:45 PM

Jason Gastrich's last debate regarding a BCH topic was Are the post-resurrection accounts contradictory? -- Jason Gastrich vs. Sean McHugh

The peanut gallery for that debate is here. Gastich's performance was roundly panned.

Gastrich has also debated Farrell Till.

Needless to say, we are all looking forward to this. <ahem>

Kosh · 07-12-2004, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Needless to say, we are all looking forward to this. <ahem>

Hopefully he won't make us wait as long as Jesus...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Vinnie · 07-12-2004, 06:50 PM

Can I comment before the bdebate starts?

Facts:

First stratum Multiple attestation of belief in Imminent return. Community at Thessalonica was startled some had died before Jesus returned.

That is simply factual.

Whether this goes back to the HJ or not is unknown. I suggest whoever is arguing it does hits John Meier and John Dominic Crossan's arguments to the contrary on this issue. They believe it was started by Christian prophets//exegetes very early in the church.

Paul used a harvest metaphor for Jesus. Jesus was the first fruits. 2000 is a bit strained for a harvest metaphor isn't it?

At any rate, here is my delineation of a clear progression:

Quote:

Stratification is important for questions of historicity. Take the following example of a progression as evidence of this and the need for methodology:

First Stratum: Paul at Thessalonica. Followers are surprised some have died before Jesus has returned.

1 Thess 4.15-17 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left untill the appearance of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a command, with the voice of an archangel and with a trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be snatched up with them in the clouds to greet the Lord in the air.

E.P. Sander's reconstructs a saying here from this passage and the following two verses:

Matt. 24.27. The sing of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming on clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a trumpet of great voice, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one side of heaven to the other.

Matt. 16.27. The Son of man is about to come in the glory of his father with his angels, and then he will repay each according to his or here deeds. Truly I say unto you, there are some of those standing here who l not taste death, until the see the son of Man coming in his kingdom.

E.P. Sanders (HFJ, 179-180), "Paul and Matthew have essentially the same component parts. If we delete from Paul's version of the saying his new concern about the dead in Christ, if we deleted from the synoptic saying the apparent modification that only some will still be alive, and if we equate 'the Son of man' in the synoptics with 'the Lord' in Paul, we have the same saying.�?

An urgent eschatology is also evident elsewhere in Paul.

Second Stratum: Mark (see v. 9:1, et al) has Jesus say "Some standing here will not taste death."

Some is important. In Thessalonians the community is concerned that "some have died" wheeas Mark, written when many of Jesus origial followers were probably dead or dieing off (ca. 70 C.E.) states that "some standing here." It shows that belief developed from expecting an immintnet return before any had died to somne will die.

Third Stratum: The redaction of GJohn (ch.21) shows that a belief developed then (before the redactor corrected it) that at least one disciple would still remain and not taste death (vv. 22-23).

Fourth Stratum: The author who redacted the Gospel of John cautioned it by saying, [Jesus speaking] "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’"The author then explains, ‘So this rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?�?’ (John 21.21-3).

I think a clear progression is discernable here. Very early it was believed Jesus would return immediately. People started dying and it was preached some would be alive when he returned. When almost the entire first generation had died, they maintained that only or at least one would still be alive. When that one died off it became necessary for a redactor of the Gospel of John to correct this mistaken belief which had arisen. Jesus was simply misunderstood all along.

The Final Progression comes with the closing of the canon in 2 Peter (written ca 130 C.E.) where the return of the Lord has been postponed indefinately. Some scoffers ask, ‘Where is the promise of his coming?’ and the response is, ‘with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ The Lord is not really slow, but rather keeps time by a different calendar." (II Peter 3.3-8).

Obviously people scoffed at the progressing and erroneous Christian notion. Jesus, in fact, never returned so this was expected and Christians natually had to engage in apologetical defenses such as this. In fact, Christians are still waiting 2,000 years alter despite that Paul used a "harvest metaphor" (Jesus is the first fruits). Two-thousand years is a bit strained for a harvest metaphor!.

As I said, the belief existed early and those like Paul held to it and it progressed all the way till the close of the canon ca 130 c.e. but there is considerable difficulty extending the start of this tradition back to Jesus himself.

Crossan and Meier should to be addressed. I honestly don't even remember much of Meier's arguments. Crossan's I do. I'll try to dig up the specific pages later.

Vinnie

Rev Prez · 07-14-2004, 08:48 AM

What Hebrew word is most often substituted with genea in the Greek LXX?

Brother Daniel · 07-28-2004, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Gastrich

“Genea�? means “age.�? See http://www.jcsm.org/StudyCenter/kjv...GRK10.htm#S1074 . Strong’s clearly tells us “an age�? is a valid definition of “genea.�? This verse is referring to the church age which was ushered in at Pentecost.

Perhaps Jason did not expect anyone to bother clicking on his link to Strong's.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strong's Greek Dictionary

a generation; by implication, an age (the period or the persons):--age, generation, nation, time.

The meaning "age" is subordinate to the primary meaning of "generation". In saying "by implication", Strong's is pointing out that "genea" can refer to the time period of a specific generation as well as to the people of a specific generation. The distinction is between the people and the time, not between a generation and a whole religious movement. When "genea" means "age", it is referring only to the age during which a particular generation is alive. Extending it to "the church age" is a serious stretch. (And, of course, utterly unsupported by context.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jason Gastrich

It has already been made clear that Jesus was addressing a future generation. The list of things that had to be accomplished before His return had not been completed in the 1st century. Therefore, we know that verses 32 and 33 weren’t simply directed to His disciples.

Rubbish. As Jon pointed out, the beginning of the chapter makes it perfectly clear that Jesus is talking specifically to his disciples. If other aspects of Jesus' prophecy failed to take place in the 1st century (as Jason argues here), then that is so much the worse for Jesus' reliability.

The blunders continue. Quoting Adam Clarke (to the effect that (a) Jesus didn't return in the first century, (b) Paul was divinely inspired, therefore (c) Paul couldn't possibly have expected Jesus to return in the first century) was particularly hilarious.

I read Jason's post with interest, since I really wanted to see if there was a good case for his position. But I don't think I'll bother now, if this is the best he can do.

Sven · 07-30-2004, 06:30 AM

I don't think Jon Promnitz is on the right track with his latest respone. Trying to prove to a Christian that all the signs were fulfilled in the generation of Jesus is simply futile.

Expecially his repeated argument "Jesus predicted it. [...] Are you saying Jesus lied?" is strange. The argument of Christian apologetics simply is that the prediction wasn't fulfilled yet - so the argument is nothing more than a straw man, presupposing that a future fulfillment already has been proving to be impossible/wrong.

Another great problem is Jasons argument "Can you prove that they were hated by the Chinese?" - which Jon answers with "As for the Chinese, this is as far back as I could find, click here. They were hated after a few centuries, what makes you think they were loved before?". This is simply ridiculous. It's close to certain that no Chinese has ever heard of Jesus/ the apostles during his generation - and one can not hate somebody one knows nothing about.

A far better way of argumentation would be that Jesus only meant the nations he/the Jews of the time knew, that is mainly the oykoumene (sp?). But since this presupposes that Jesus didn't know about the rest of the world, which in turn sheds great doubt on his divinity, Jon would also encounter great problems.

So either way, I don't think that Jon will be able to defend this point against any Christian. I think he should drop all arguments on this and proceed to the more obvious problems - which he hopefully will do in the following rounds of he sticks to the layout he laid out in the beginning of his post.

gregor · 07-30-2004, 01:55 PM

This topic, in my mind, is one of the most problematic for Xians. Only two options exist, the Olivet prophesy is extremely future looking, applying to an unknown generation in the murky distance, or the prophesy was already fulfilled with the Temple's destruction.

Either apologist position is faulty: (i) if it was directed at a future generation, it is inconsistent with the language used and the immediacy already mentioned by Vinnie and (ii) if you're a preterist and argue it already occurred in 70 CE, then the prophesy was too vague and the author of 2 Peter didn't know what he was writing when he wrote in 150 CE that the prophesy hadn't been fulfilled, yet.

-DM- · 08-08-2004, 03:29 PM

In my opinion, this debate should never have gotten started given the opening resolution:

Quote:

Resolved: Jesus Christ promised to return before his generation passed away, not a future generation.

"Christ" is not a name, rather it is a title, a title which grants that Jesus was, in fact, "The Christ." So far as I am concerned, it is obvious that he was not. But of course that is a different topic. Still, more careful wording of the opening resolution would be appropriate, something like:

Quote:

Resolved: Jesus promised to return before his generation passed away, not a future generation.

More on topic: The Lowdown on God's Showdown by Ed Babinski.

Chris Weimer · 08-08-2004, 06:49 PM

I only see one qualm with the Promnitz attack, not a problem essentially but one that doesn't necessarily support the argument. In Latin as well as Greek verbs have a future active participle. It translates as "about to be", and Promnitz used this as one saying about to be was immenent. On the contrary, about to be could mean anytime. Video quid futurum est. -> 'I see what is about to be' or 'I see the future'. But everything else I agree with, so props!

/Edited original video quid futurus est. Mea culpa...

07-12-2004, 01:38 PM	#1
KnightWhoSaysNi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Edmonton, Canada Posts: 2,767	PEANUT GALLERY: Jon Promnitz vs. Jason Gastrich on when Christ said he'd return The purpose of this thread is to provide a Peanut Gallery for a FORMAL DEBATE between Jon Promnitz and Jason Gastrich on the following resolution: Resolved: Jesus Christ promised to return before his generation passed away, not a future generation. Jon Promnitz will go first, taking the affirmative, and Jason Gastrich will oppose. We ask that the formal debate participants refrain from posting in the Peanut Gallery until after the debate is over. Keep in mind that there will always be a link to the Peanut Gallery in the first post of the formal debate thread in case you cannot find the gallery later. Enjoy the debate! Jason

07-14-2004, 08:48 AM	#5
Rev Prez Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Cambridge, MA Posts: 794	Question on "genea" What Hebrew word is most often substituted with genea in the Greek LXX?

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

07-12-2004, 02:45 PM	#2
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Jason Gastrich's last debate regarding a BCH topic was Are the post-resurrection accounts contradictory? -- Jason Gastrich vs. Sean McHugh The peanut gallery for that debate is here. Gastich's performance was roundly panned. Gastrich has also debated Farrell Till. Needless to say, we are all looking forward to this. <ahem>

07-30-2004, 06:30 AM	#7
Sven Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: outraged about the stiffling of free speech here Posts: 10,987	I don't think Jon Promnitz is on the right track with his latest respone. Trying to prove to a Christian that all the signs were fulfilled in the generation of Jesus is simply futile. Expecially his repeated argument "Jesus predicted it. [...] Are you saying Jesus lied?" is strange. The argument of Christian apologetics simply is that the prediction wasn't fulfilled yet - so the argument is nothing more than a straw man, presupposing that a future fulfillment already has been proving to be impossible/wrong. Another great problem is Jasons argument "Can you prove that they were hated by the Chinese?" - which Jon answers with "As for the Chinese, this is as far back as I could find, click here. They were hated after a few centuries, what makes you think they were loved before?". This is simply ridiculous. It's close to certain that no Chinese has ever heard of Jesus/ the apostles during his generation - and one can not hate somebody one knows nothing about. A far better way of argumentation would be that Jesus only meant the nations he/the Jews of the time knew, that is mainly the oykoumene (sp?). But since this presupposes that Jesus didn't know about the rest of the world, which in turn sheds great doubt on his divinity, Jon would also encounter great problems. So either way, I don't think that Jon will be able to defend this point against any Christian. I think he should drop all arguments on this and proceed to the more obvious problems - which he hopefully will do in the following rounds of he sticks to the layout he laid out in the beginning of his post.

07-30-2004, 01:55 PM	#8
gregor Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 932	This topic, in my mind, is one of the most problematic for Xians. Only two options exist, the Olivet prophesy is extremely future looking, applying to an unknown generation in the murky distance, or the prophesy was already fulfilled with the Temple's destruction. Either apologist position is faulty: (i) if it was directed at a future generation, it is inconsistent with the language used and the immediacy already mentioned by Vinnie and (ii) if you're a preterist and argue it already occurred in 70 CE, then the prophesy was too vague and the author of 2 Peter didn't know what he was writing when he wrote in 150 CE that the prophesy hadn't been fulfilled, yet.

08-08-2004, 06:49 PM	#10
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	I only see one qualm with the Promnitz attack, not a problem essentially but one that doesn't necessarily support the argument. In Latin as well as Greek verbs have a future active participle. It translates as "about to be", and Promnitz used this as one saying about to be was immenent. On the contrary, about to be could mean anytime. Video quid futurum est. -> 'I see what is about to be' or 'I see the future'. But everything else I agree with, so props! /Edited original video quid futurus est. Mea culpa...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.