username

That is because your brain thinks in terms of simple logic rather than mental masturbatory logic.

Please correct yourself.

Minimalist

Toto

The "Belief in Zeus" digression has been split off here along with the subsidiary belief in Allah.

Craigart14

Then why put the words in Jesus' mouth? Isn't the idea that 40 years have passed since Jesus made this prophecy? That practically everyone who heard them is dead, and that any who aren't dead are very old and could die any minute, so you better get right with God now because the parousia might occur before dinner? Threat level orange?

Craig

Toto

Because this is not a historical document where time is important. This is a drama, meant to draw in the audience / reader.

Clouseau

Allegedly, of course.

karlmarx

I liked Chris's suggestion that Mark could have been meant to say _everyone_ in this generation. If Mark was trying to get the point across that Jesus' return is imminent, and he happened to be writing in 70CE, then it's totally reasonable for him to put this in Jesus' mouth. Mark, in fact, could have placed Jesus' crucifixion around 30CE for this exact reason, so he could have Jesus say this. The point of Mark would be, then, to drive the point that the parousia is imminent.

I also liked the suggestion that the parousia could have been figurative speech - perhaps even a return of the Pauline "Christ within". This fits well with an imminent parousia, as then the parousia becomes a personal experience rather than a historical event. If Mark had a MJ in mind, there's no reason to think that his view of the parousia would be any more historical than Jesus' ministry.

Mark, of course, had no idea that his work would still be studied much later - and that this "prophecy" would not age very well. I liked the suggestion that Matthew, writing much later, seems to have picked up on this point, and "fixed" this prophecy.

Comments?

judge

Matthew doesn't seem to have fixed it though.

Matthew still says the parousia will happen immediately after the distress of those days.
If Matthew is writing in 80 CE at the earliest then by using immediately the parousia would still be a past event at the time of writing.
Either it happens immediately OR there is a possibility it might be delayed. We can't have both.

Chris Weimer

Allegedly? Ridiculous to say, it hasn't merely been alleged, but has been thoroughly rejected by the establishment. But then again, Toto's anti-establishment...well, only when it comes clashes with his beliefs. :huh:

Toto

Can you give me some cites from the "Establishment" rejecting this?