Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jane H · 08-17-2006, 07:51 AM

I probably shouldn't pick up a thread knowing that the arguments to follow are lengthy, as I'm going off on hols soon. However...

Recent moves in theology have argued, successfully I believe, that Mark 13 and the related passages do not refer to the second coming. This change is going to take a while to get through, given the entrenched "traditional" reading of the passages, especially following Schweitzer.

The passages do refer exclusively to the AD 70 events. This is NOT a comment on the rest of the preterist viewpoint, simply a position on the passages themselves. Therefore I'll leave 2 Peter 3 and other similar passages out.

To summarise only:

Essentially Jesus was asked about the destruction of the temple. There is no indication in the texts that he was answering any other question. The main issue is that he appears to have something more than that in mind when he gets into his answer. However, a careful reading of the passages needs to be combined with a knowledge of 1st century Judaism, its use of "apocalyptic" form and language, understanding of OT prophecy, use of known historical elements, knowledge of relevant 1st century politics... etc. This makes it far more likely that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple, the existing religious systems and the expectation of Jewish national independence.

To pick a verse as an example at random: Mk 13:23b "But in those days, after that time of distress, the sun will be darkened, the moon will lose its brightness, the stars will come falling from heaven and the powers in the heavens will be shaken". This does not refer to some very nasty pre-apocalyptic weather as the Rapture brigade would have you believe. A careful reading of chapers of OT such as Isaiah 13, 14, 34; Ezekiel 32; Joel 2, 3; Amos 8; Zephaniah 1; reveals that it is extensively used as a prophetic idiom for the destruction of a nation (such as Babylon). Jesus was alluding to these passages and giving Jerusalem and the Judaic system as the latest for a Babylon style destruction. "Punch your lights out" is part way there as equivalent, although the text is stronger.

I could go on and argue similarly for each verse of the passage, but time...

Decypher · 08-19-2006, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Recent moves in theology have argued, successfully I believe, that Mark 13 and the related passages do not refer to the second coming.

What is your explanation for the verses which suggest a judgement?

Quote:

For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:27-28 KJV)

Quote:

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. (Matthew 25:31-46 KJV)

Decypher · 08-19-2006, 05:38 AM

With regard to which generation is being talked about in Matthew 24:34:

Quote:

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:25-36 KJV)

Quote:

But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (Matthew 10:17-23 KJV)

They seem to be talking about the same persecution from different perspectives. And Matthew 23:36 is clearly about the generation alive at that time.

Jane H · 08-19-2006, 08:01 AM

My point was about the Matthew 24 passage only.

However...

Matt 16:27-28 Peter has told Jesus not to throw away His life. Jesus has two comments. Matt 16:27 follows on from 16:26 as describing why death is not such a disaster for someone obedient to God. Matt 16:28 is the second thing Jesus needed to say, and is that the Kingdom of God (which 1st century judaism thought of as the establishment of a theocratic nation) comes about only through Jesus death and the destruction of the Temple.

Matt 25 looks at first sight like a Second Coming saying, but I could see an argument for it being a New Kingdom saying. When I have more time...

Matt 23:25-26 is very likely a 1st century referenced AD70 saying- God has had enough of being ignored and his holy men mistreated, and hence the scribes and pharisees can join the bonfire of 1st century Jewish national aspirations on Gehenna (generally translated as Hell, but better viewed here in its 1st century Jewish context of the Jerusalem rubbish tip).

Matt 10:17-23 is also a first century referenced saying- I agree it's about the same persecution. I think the phrase that's causing you problems is "till the Son of Man come". This is, as it is in Daniel, 1st century metaphorical language for the defeat of the enemies of God, and the vindication of the people of God. Thus it describes the whole death, resurrection, AD70 process which occurs within the generation of the disciples. (I can only summarise the argument here; there's a lot of detail behind it.)

Decypher · 08-20-2006, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

My point was about the Matthew 24 passage only.

However...

Matt 16:27-28 Peter has told Jesus not to throw away His life. Jesus has two comments. Matt 16:27 follows on from 16:26 as describing why death is not such a disaster for someone obedient to God. Matt 16:28 is the second thing Jesus needed to say, and is that the Kingdom of God (which 1st century judaism thought of as the establishment of a theocratic nation) comes about only through Jesus death and the destruction of the Temple.

Could you explain and justify all this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Matt 10:17-23 is also a first century referenced saying- I agree it's about the same persecution. I think the phrase that's causing you problems is "till the Son of Man come". This is, as it is in Daniel, 1st century metaphorical language for the defeat of the enemies of God, and the vindication of the people of God. Thus it describes the whole death, resurrection, AD70 process which occurs within the generation of the disciples. (I can only summarise the argument here; there's a lot of detail behind it.)

If it is, "1st century metaphorical language for the defeat of the enemies of God", then wouldn't that be perfectly compatible with the second coming? Why should we think it about the, "whole death, resurrection, AD70 process" and not the second coming?

Decypher · 08-20-2006, 03:42 AM

Quote:

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him. (Deuteronomy 18:18-22 KJV)

It is the responsibility of Jesus to make his prophecies crystal clear so we can judge him on this criteria. If his prophecies aren't clear and so aren't testable then we should reject him as a false prophet.

The Bible doesn't tell us to simply have faith in Jesus. Instead it gives us criteria by which we can identify false prophets.

Jane H · 08-20-2006, 07:40 AM

Matt 16- I don't see how I can explain any more clearly. When theological thinking moves on from the Schweitzer fuelled eschatological obsession that has frozen theology until recently on these sorts of passages, it will become quite clear that Jesus was responding to Peter's "don't die" remonstrations with: (1) Dying may be a necessary corollary of Christian faith (something that Christians have had to put into practice rather more than we would like) and (2) In any case this Christ's death is necessary for the New Covenant to take place. It fits very well into the relevant contexts.

Matt 10- I'm not saying it is incompatible with a Second Coming statement, and may have a double meaning, I suppose, but amongst the range of competing hypotheses it seems to fit much better with an AD70 interpretation than any other. Look at where it goes in Jesus ministry in the Matthew account- no hint of any end to the space-time universe at all.

Deuteronomy- The lack of any worry about any Second Coming cancellation in all the literature post AD70 tells us that the early Christians knew exactly how to interpret Jesus words. (2 Peter could be enlightening non-Jewish audiences about Jewish apocalyptic language, and is very much the exception to the rule. It fits well enough into the scheme I've outlined, anyway.) They clearly viewed Jesus as having kept the relevant prophecies in AD70, and hence as a reliable prophet, reliable enough to be worthy ultimately of worship. It is later scholarship, detached from the historical context, which has created error.

The different question of general biblical clarity I'm not going into here. GRD? In any case, packing...holiday...now!

GenesisNemesis · 08-20-2006, 06:35 PM

Whoa whoa whoa, guys, two words here: JESUS LIED. Get used to it.

Is it really that simple? Yes, it is.

Decypher · 08-23-2006, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

Deuteronomy- The lack of any worry about any Second Coming cancellation in all the literature post AD70 tells us that the early Christians knew exactly how to interpret Jesus words. (2 Peter could be enlightening non-Jewish audiences about Jewish apocalyptic language, and is very much the exception to the rule. It fits well enough into the scheme I've outlined, anyway.)

Well there are a couple of parts of the Bible (including 2 Peter) which may be trying to explain the problem away. How guilty does that make Jesus look? That counts against any preterist or partial preterist position.

Decypher · 08-23-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jane H

(2) In any case this Christ's death is necessary for the New Covenant to take place. It fits very well into the relevant contexts.

Again, could you explain this theory?

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

08-17-2006, 07:51 AM	#31
Jane H Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: UK Posts: 186	I probably shouldn't pick up a thread knowing that the arguments to follow are lengthy, as I'm going off on hols soon. However... Recent moves in theology have argued, successfully I believe, that Mark 13 and the related passages do not refer to the second coming. This change is going to take a while to get through, given the entrenched "traditional" reading of the passages, especially following Schweitzer. The passages do refer exclusively to the AD 70 events. This is NOT a comment on the rest of the preterist viewpoint, simply a position on the passages themselves. Therefore I'll leave 2 Peter 3 and other similar passages out. To summarise only: Essentially Jesus was asked about the destruction of the temple. There is no indication in the texts that he was answering any other question. The main issue is that he appears to have something more than that in mind when he gets into his answer. However, a careful reading of the passages needs to be combined with a knowledge of 1st century Judaism, its use of "apocalyptic" form and language, understanding of OT prophecy, use of known historical elements, knowledge of relevant 1st century politics... etc. This makes it far more likely that Jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple, the existing religious systems and the expectation of Jewish national independence. To pick a verse as an example at random: Mk 13:23b "But in those days, after that time of distress, the sun will be darkened, the moon will lose its brightness, the stars will come falling from heaven and the powers in the heavens will be shaken". This does not refer to some very nasty pre-apocalyptic weather as the Rapture brigade would have you believe. A careful reading of chapers of OT such as Isaiah 13, 14, 34; Ezekiel 32; Joel 2, 3; Amos 8; Zephaniah 1; reveals that it is extensively used as a prophetic idiom for the destruction of a nation (such as Babylon). Jesus was alluding to these passages and giving Jerusalem and the Judaic system as the latest for a Babylon style destruction. "Punch your lights out" is part way there as equivalent, although the text is stronger. I could go on and argue similarly for each verse of the passage, but time...

08-19-2006, 08:01 AM	#34
Jane H Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: UK Posts: 186	My point was about the Matthew 24 passage only. However... Matt 16:27-28 Peter has told Jesus not to throw away His life. Jesus has two comments. Matt 16:27 follows on from 16:26 as describing why death is not such a disaster for someone obedient to God. Matt 16:28 is the second thing Jesus needed to say, and is that the Kingdom of God (which 1st century judaism thought of as the establishment of a theocratic nation) comes about only through Jesus death and the destruction of the Temple. Matt 25 looks at first sight like a Second Coming saying, but I could see an argument for it being a New Kingdom saying. When I have more time... Matt 23:25-26 is very likely a 1st century referenced AD70 saying- God has had enough of being ignored and his holy men mistreated, and hence the scribes and pharisees can join the bonfire of 1st century Jewish national aspirations on Gehenna (generally translated as Hell, but better viewed here in its 1st century Jewish context of the Jerusalem rubbish tip). Matt 10:17-23 is also a first century referenced saying- I agree it's about the same persecution. I think the phrase that's causing you problems is "till the Son of Man come". This is, as it is in Daniel, 1st century metaphorical language for the defeat of the enemies of God, and the vindication of the people of God. Thus it describes the whole death, resurrection, AD70 process which occurs within the generation of the disciples. (I can only summarise the argument here; there's a lot of detail behind it.)

08-20-2006, 07:40 AM	#37
Jane H Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: UK Posts: 186	Matt 16- I don't see how I can explain any more clearly. When theological thinking moves on from the Schweitzer fuelled eschatological obsession that has frozen theology until recently on these sorts of passages, it will become quite clear that Jesus was responding to Peter's "don't die" remonstrations with: (1) Dying may be a necessary corollary of Christian faith (something that Christians have had to put into practice rather more than we would like) and (2) In any case this Christ's death is necessary for the New Covenant to take place. It fits very well into the relevant contexts. Matt 10- I'm not saying it is incompatible with a Second Coming statement, and may have a double meaning, I suppose, but amongst the range of competing hypotheses it seems to fit much better with an AD70 interpretation than any other. Look at where it goes in Jesus ministry in the Matthew account- no hint of any end to the space-time universe at all. Deuteronomy- The lack of any worry about any Second Coming cancellation in all the literature post AD70 tells us that the early Christians knew exactly how to interpret Jesus words. (2 Peter could be enlightening non-Jewish audiences about Jewish apocalyptic language, and is very much the exception to the rule. It fits well enough into the scheme I've outlined, anyway.) They clearly viewed Jesus as having kept the relevant prophecies in AD70, and hence as a reliable prophet, reliable enough to be worthy ultimately of worship. It is later scholarship, detached from the historical context, which has created error. The different question of general biblical clarity I'm not going into here. GRD? In any case, packing...holiday...now!

08-20-2006, 06:35 PM	#38
GenesisNemesis Contributor Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A pale blue oblate spheroid. Posts: 20,351	Whoa whoa whoa, guys, two words here: JESUS LIED. Get used to it. Is it really that simple? Yes, it is.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.