Achwienichtig

This is a formal debate between ShockofAtheism and thief of fire.

Debate Topic: Did Jesus' Second Coming Prophecies Fail?

ShockofAtheism will argue the affirmative; Thief of fire will argue the negative.

The debate is found here.

Adam

The ground rules for this debate do not state whether Biblical Inerrancy has to be observed in denying Jesus failed. I suggest in my Post #9 in

Proving History: A Review that analyzying sources within the four gospels can show that Jesus himself did not make such extreme predictions, but the final form of the gospels incorporated misunderstandings that developed in the decades before 70 CE.

"Turning to the OP that everyone has ignored, I agree that reading the gospels gives the most probability that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. It also follows that denying this reduces the probability for HJ. Paradoxically, however, I argue most strenuously for HJ, yet also argue against Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.

How can I do this? By my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread I have derived that the earliest texts about Jesus did not mention apocalypticism much. There is none in the Passion Narrative by John Mark. There is none in the Johannine Discourses written by Nicodemus. Q1 contains much Cynic philosophy and humor with amorphous apocalypticism that could be interpreted as predicting the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The Signs Gospel (in John) has no apocalypticism, nor does what John himself added. The L text in Luke had many parables of uncertain application, without predicting an immediate end of the world. The source from Peter that underlies gMark also does not. None of these seven primary eyewitnesses presented Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, but an eighth writer did combine relatively later sources among these (Q2, which he himself likely wrote, together with Q1 and Ur-Marcus) to make it more clear that Jesus was predicting the end of the world, in gMark as we have it and the subsequent gMatthew. Maurice Casey and James Crossley have attributed this focus to the early Christian hysterical reaction to the Caligula Crisis of 38 CE. After 70 CE these concerns were obsolete, so the Synoptic gospels must have been finished by then. "

=

AdamWho

That was a particularly weak opening by "Thief of Fire".

I don't seem to remember the return of Jesus in history books...

thief of fire

Well I was just following ShockofAtheism's lead, where he stated, "Opening arguments begin in the next round, though I believe it is necessary to give a brief introduction of what my basic arguments will be. "

As opening arguments haven't begun yet, I too just gave a brief outline of what I intend to argue. You can find more detail here.

Neither do I :huh:

The ideas we have about many things are merely what the authorities told us we must believe. I intend to challenge some notions, not necessarily to win or convince anyone, but to think outside what we have been told to think.

thief of fire

There are so many ways we could get caught up in this debate, but I feel that Shockofatheism and myself will avoid that sort of thing.
I am just assuming that the gospels reflect what Jesus said sometime around 30 CE.
If we dont have this as common ground (or something like it) then we cant debate.

thief of fire

Am I allowed to comment in the peanut gallery during the debate?

AdamWho

Generally no.

But it isn't like the debate is actually going to go anywhere with your "history is a giant conspiracy" angle.


You should stick with the text and defend what is written.

It might help if you look at some of the archived debates so you understand the level of rigor that is expected.

AdamWho

So you just plan on making stuff up?

This debate is inherently a Biblical inerrancy topic, if you are not interested in defending this angle, there really cannot be a coherent debate.

Achwienichtig

:blank:

Achwienichtig

If I understand the original proposition by ShockofAtheism, I do not believe he was interested in debating Biblical inerrancy, at least, not in the typical sense. The question, as I understand it, assumes the context of the Bible is correct. Jesus really did make these prophecies. He might even have been raised from the dead. However, this one particular prophecy failed where he said he would return "before this generation is ended." It is a narrow topic.