Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mdarus · 08-03-2006, 09:50 AM

The issue of whether Jesus promised to return while some of his disciples were still alive earns the reward for "The First Misunderstanding of What Jesus Said." It is also the first one (and maybe the only one) that got a quick, great explanation:

Quote:

John 21:
20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"

22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

This passage projects to a time when all of the disciples had been martyred or otherwise died except for John. It was already clear that Jesus' disciples had misunderstood him on this point.

The question revolves around the meaning of "see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." Your interpretation that it means Jesus' second coming is natural, literal, and apparently obvious but clearly wrong. In Matthew, one of the major themes of Jesus is the present reality of the kindgdom of God. The disciples were daily seing examples of "Your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." More to the point, in Matthew 17, immediately following this passage, three of Jesus' disciples see him transfigured.

They saw plenty of the Son of Man coming in his kingdom before they died.

Chili · 08-03-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chili

They are not insiders except that the rest are outsiders: "lost brethren" is what we call them.

Sorry, that would be "separated brethren" in politically correct language.

gstafleu · 08-03-2006, 12:52 PM

Interestingly, this issue was already addressed in an Epistle of Peter:

Quote:

2 Peter 3 (New International Version)
1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, "Where is this 'coming' he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation." 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Damage control just can't start soon enough! And, One_Of_Logic, you are obviously just one of these scoffing scoffers

.

Mythra · 08-03-2006, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

That some would not taste death does not limit the time to that generation, not tasting death, they remain alive through all succeeding generations until the generation that actually sees the completion of all the things predicted.

How convenient is that apologetic? A prophecy that never ends. 10,000 years from now, they can still be predicting that Jesus will return in their lifetime.

Oh, and I noticed you left out the "some who are standing here" part.

If I were you I'd go outside and stare at the clouds right now. Today could be the day for Jesus to come back.

Chris Weimer · 08-03-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffevnz

It's pointless to debate these things. There's two kinds of Xtians out there: 1) inerrantists and 2) those who admit non-literal interpretations.

Since members of (1) take the literal and complete truth of the Bible as an axiom, you might as well argue with a brick wall. Members of (2), OTOH, will simply interpret away the contradictions and absurdities, so that there's nothing to argue about. Nontrivial debates don't happen in either case. The first one ends in an immediate standoff, and the second comes to a quick and meaningless resolution.

Actually, you'll find a third kind here, of the scholarly sort, who have no problem saying that either Jesus didn't say it, or that Jesus was wrong.

Family Man · 08-03-2006, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The difference is that the claim being made in the OP

is invalidated by the evidence of the text, in which the prophecy is specific that The Second Coming would follow the darkening of the sun and the moon, and the stars falling from heaven, in as much as these events have not yet transpired, the truth of the remainder of the prophecy ("and then shall...") has yet to be tested.
That some would not taste death does not limit the time to that generation, not tasting death, they remain alive through all succeeding generations until the generation that actually sees the completion of all the things predicted.

That's logical nonsense. Here's what you appear to be claiming.

Person X claims that A will happen before B happens. In addition, someone else claims that C and D will happen before A happens.

B happens, but neither A,C, or D happens.

Now, rather than coming to the obvious conclusion that A, C and D were false claims, you come to the remarkable conclusion that Person X's statement must be reinterpreted because C and D didn't happen, even though we have no good reason to believe that C and D will ever happen.

The context of Jesus's claim and its language is quite clear: he would come back before at least of the people listening to him would die. That didn't happen. It was a false claim. So were all those other bible verses you mention.

Your argument is patently absurd.

Family Man · 08-03-2006, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Actually, you'll find a third kind here, of the scholarly sort, who have no problem saying that either Jesus didn't say it, or that Jesus was wrong.

But Chris, why say that when you can torture Jesus's words into meaning something completely ridiculous?

Chris Weimer · 08-03-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Family Man

But Chris, why say that when you can torture Jesus's words into meaning something completely ridiculous?

Some people prefer to be more honest with themselves and the texts, I suppose.

Beetle · 08-04-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

That some would not taste death does not limit the time to that generation, not tasting death, they remain alive through all succeeding generations until the generation that actually sees the completion of all the things predicted.

Are you redefining the meaning of "death" or are you claiming that one or more of the people that heard Jesus are still physically alive? If the latter, what is your evidence for such a claim?

GenesisNemesis · 08-04-2006, 11:45 AM

But ma, I dun wan be a scoffer! (Sorry bout the no posting during my thread stuff, I like to read)

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

08-04-2006, 11:45 AM	#30
GenesisNemesis Contributor Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A pale blue oblate spheroid. Posts: 20,351	But ma, I dun wan be a scoffer! (Sorry bout the no posting during my thread stuff, I like to read)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.