Answerer

The rationality of some christians and their pride of not recognizing alternate views never fails to amaze me.......

Jack the Bodiless

Yes, he's plainly "blowing smoke" now.

As far as I can see, the first section of his September 19th post can be summarized thusly:

Full Preterism Weakness #1: the destruction of the temple in 70 AD didn't meet ALL of the requirements of the Second Coming. As Jon is under no obligation to demonstrate that it did, this misses the target.

Full Preterism Weakness #2: Jesus implies that the destruction of Jerusalem won't coincide with his second coming and the end of the world. Jason fails to elaborate on this, attempting "argument by hyperlink". He should have taken the time to present his own case here.

Full Preterism Weakness #3: the Reformed Church doesn't like preterism. So what?

Full Preterism Weakness #4: somebody called Todd Dennis doesn't like preterism. So what?

After that, all we have is denial and baseless assertion: "No, they don’t", "No, you didn’t", "No, genea refers to the church age when it is translated “generation� in the scriptures".

And Jason is right because it's "obvious" that he's right:
It would only be "obvious" to someone already committed to the view that Jesus actually exists, yet apparently hasn't returned.

And, even though he appears to have briefly remembered that Jon is an unbeliever:
...he then forgot again!
There was also this:
Biblical inerrancy is also a minority viewpoint and there are mountains of scholarship against it. But this doesn't appear to bother Jason. Apparently, "those who share my beliefs are not preterists" is an argument?

And just how desperate does a man have to be, to argue that sorcery isn't miraculous?
This is then followed by an attempt to pretend that "the word implies a setting contemporary to the subject" means the exact opposite of what it says.
They can be dealt with as follows: Revelation does NOT contain the words of Jesus Christ.

If Jason is now attempting the extraordinary claim that Jesus Christ actually inspired Revelation, the burden of proof is on him.

Jabu Khan

He kept his promise he rose three days later give or take. That is within that generation. Sorry deal wit it the second coming happened we all missed the boat.

Jesus came back but the battle plans got lost in the flux so he went back for them. The 4 horsemen were dispatched but they took a wrong turn in Alberqurqe they seem to be tittering about in sub-Saharan Africa. Theses things happen. The big g is all knowing but terribly senile.

doubtingthomas

One problem that comes to mind regarding CJD's conditional prophecy defense is that statements similar to Jesus' in Matthew 24 are made in books writtenlater than 2 Peter, assuming that 2 Peter was written by the apostle Peter shortly before his death.

"1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass" Revelation 1:1

"7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him" Revelation 1:7

Assuming the authenticity and divine inspiration of both of these books, one must wonder why God would retract his first statement about the second coming, and then 30 years later say essentialy the same thing.

CJD

Firstly, conditional prophecy ought to be seen as the default position, and therefore is no 'defense' at all. Besides, it is no more a 'defense' than the 'defense' of those who insist (with little proof) that the "coming son of man" phrases have anything to do with a "second coming" (like many modern xians and ironically, most skeptics; the former faced with forcing the text to mean something other than what it plainly says, the latter exploiting this and arguing for its lack of fulfillment).

The main question, then, is precisely what everyone seems to be taking for granted: To what is Jesus referring when he employs the Danielic "coming son of man" imagery in the Olivet Discourse?

To begin with, "the coming of son of man" does not refer to what is referred to in scholarly circles as the "parousia" (second coming) or in popular circles, that scene in which a human figure is seen traveling on cloud down to earth. Nor does it refer to some kind of extraterestial godman. Not at the time of the Daniel pericope, not in the first-century interpretations of it, and not in the teachings of Jesus do we see reason for taking the phrase to mean this.

Quite simply, what do celestial figures refer to in language such as this? The answer is always socio-political upheaval. The fact that the "son of man" is "coming" (if that's the right rendering) does not lend itself to either the popular, modern xian or skeptic interpretation of it. For in Daniel 7, the "coming" is from the perspective of heaven, not earth. It's not a downward cloudborne movement; it's upward. Just as it was understood in the first century, the Daniel pericope was always a story of vindication and exaltation.

So, what was Jesus getting at? Two things: 1) that the enemies of the true people of God will be defeated and 2) the true people of God will be vindicated. The ultimate form that this vindication takes is, ironically, the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple (remember the context of this particular discourse). This should come as no surprise since the whole discourse has been about this from the start. Some prophecies are not conditional, and this was one of them. In AD 70, Jesus' words were vindicated. Keep in mind that the world was too small for two Temples (Jesus vs. the site itself). One had to go. And when one went, one was vindicated as seen to be the "son of man" — coming into his own as ruler in the throneroom of the Ancient of Days — in the process.

Thus the imagery employed by Jesus here describes earth-shattering events, ones that would bring the story of Israel to its climax. From that catastrophe, his messengers (or "angels" if you prefer) would be scattered abroad and begin the work of summoning people from around the globe to enter the kingdom of God.

I've written it a bunch, but it's worth writing it again: Exile, Repentance, Restoration. This theme is told and retold throughout the stories of scripture, and the Olivet Discourse is nothing less than the pronouncement that the exile is at long last over. All of the promises of God now belong to Jesus and his people (Jews and Greeks, in Paul's language). Finally, Schweitzer's poppycock can be brushed aside:

This is both the prevailing skeptic's view and, unfortunately, the popular xian view, as well (though the latter redefine "this generation" to mean something entirely different). But it must go. No text can support it.

All this to say that while the parousia is believed in the NT, very little is said about it, and the Olivet Discourse is not the place to look.


Regards,

CJD

Amaleq13

Doesn't the former tend to be a response to the latter rather than an independent conclusion?

Why, in your view, has this mistaken belief become so popular?

Kosh

Ah, I see! Only YOUR interpretation is the right one!

You must have moved to Orlando from Scotland!

CJD

Greetings to the both of you.

Indeed. But we mustn't forget at the same time that a good many skeptics were visible members of the Christian Church at one time or another. This is to say nothing more than ideas are not formed in a vacuum.

But what say you? What weaknesses hath this view?

Note, too, that this view in some sense brings the 'little apocalypse' back to Jesus and away from an early church redaction if for no other reason than it fits perfectly well with a Jewish redemptive-historical understanding of the so-called 'last days'.

I gather the reasons are multi-faceted. One in particular might be the great mess of what is known as 'eschatology', according to scripture as a whole. That botch-job, like all bits of knowledge, has been objectified and subsequently institutionalized by the mere handing down of tradition from one generation to the next. Add 'scholarship' and then you've got control. In this case, "the coming son of man" references as a reference to the second-coming is frustratingly taken for granted. I rarely see anyone take the time to actually defend this first step in the argument.

I think the main reason the popular view is popular is that in the majority of modern Christian theology the fall of Jerusalem has little theological significance (it is a relatively short tradition, but it runs very deep — from books, sermons and headings in Bibles to the people in the pews). Thus the text is read pietistically (i.e., existentially). Warnings about a literal and physical divine judgment through the Roman Empire become general warnings about hellfire in an afterlife. Go figure.

Maybe another reason the view is popular is simply because modern man is so far removed from the time when the alleged events took place that the more details we can find about the return to come, the better it makes us feel?

Hehe. But I hardly stand alone in this, even though current trends suggest otherwise. If it were original to me, I'd be known around here for all the books I've written, not as a 'blatherskite'. This is beside the point, anyway. Have you no intelligent counter-point?

Regards,

CJD

Amaleq13

If Crossan is correct, Jesus only used "son of man" as a way of referring to himself and the Daniel-influenced application was a post-execution addition/reinterpretation.

If Jesus was making such public proclamations, why wouldn't Paul repeat them? Why wouldn't he at least make a reference to Christ as the "son of man"?

CJD

With the tradition running as deep and as early as it did (even Crossan admits this), his decision that this is a later redaction seems a bit arbitrary. The way I explained the passage above is thoroughly Jewish in its particulars and not only makes for a more natural reading, it fits perfectly with the notion that a sectarian prophet from Nazareth deliberately puts himself in the shoes of the Danielic 'son of man'.

The question about Saint Paul, though interesting, has little relevance. The first question to answer is "Why have you asked this question?" Tell me why Paul's corroboration by using the titular 'son of man' makes the Olivet pericope inclusion of a 'son of man' valid? Why must something appear twice before it is deemed historically probable? This, by the way, is one of Crossan's weakest planks.

Secondly, Jesus wasn't making "public proclamations" about this. According to the text, he was speaking privately with his disciples on Mount Olives.

Thirdly, no one pretends those early years (35 AD ff.) contained a monolithic Christianity. The 'essentials' notwithstanding (that this Jesus was shown to be the Lord Messiah and son of God in power when the Father raised him from the dead), there were as many different flavors of the followers of Jesus as there were geographical locations where said followers were found. What is more, Paul supposedly wrote to a majority of Gentiles; what would be more effective, an emphasis on an esoteric 'son of man' (a concept that includes the entire history of Israel; note that Gentiles — not the 'god-fearing' ones — mostly got from Paul only Creation then the Christ, cf. Acts 14:15ff.; 17:22ff.) or an emphasis on the idea that this Jesus was both Lord and Christ, contra Caesar?

Regards,

CJD