Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magus55 · 06-29-2004, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doubtingthomas

The disciples ask jesus to answer their questions and Jesus addresses the answers to them specifically, there is no sign that he is talking about a future people. In fact nothing in the whole of nt prophecy points to events that are supposed to be fulfilled 2000 years into the future. It is clear after even a cursory reading of the nt that people expected Jesus to return soon.

Except when you read that, you can read it as Jesus speaking directly to everyone. You could be in the general.

Quote:

Now of course the apostles had no need to tell themselves that they would see Jesus' coming; the reason they wrote the scriptures down was to spread the message to the world - not to remind themselves.

And yet the world wouldn't hear about it for a long time to come, so whats the point? Only a small grouping of people would know about Jesus' return when the Apostles heard about it. Most people didn't live very long back then, and the Apostles were probably already in there 30s or 40s. It took at least 20 years for the books to be complete - so if Jesus was actually referring to them, the rest of the world never heard about it when it was intended to happen.

Magus55 · 06-29-2004, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

How, exactly, does this refer to a generation in some distant future? The context (verse 24) is Jesus speaking directly to his disciples.

Yes, chapter 16 is referring to the Apostles, and again its still not a contradiction. It merely says the Apostles shall see the kingdom - it never says physically experience it. Several of the Apostles had visions of the end times and the Kingdom of God coming into power. A vision satisfies this statement. They didn't actually have to be there in person for it.

06-29-2004, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

Except when you read that, you can read it as Jesus speaking directly to everyone. You could be in the general.

Well there's more evidence pointing towards the current time, I'll try to look it up and post it later.

But, as I argued earlier, the scriptures paint a picture in which Jesus' coming is expected soon or within the lifetimes of the followers. One can find evidence of this in the Epistles and in 2 Peter 3 (btw I would like to see your reply to my last post on this verse). So, as I have said before, the evidence points to the present not the distant future.

Magus55 · 06-29-2004, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doubtingthomas

Well there's more evidence pointing towards the current time, I'll try to look it up and post it later.

But, as I argued earlier, the scriptures paint a picture in which Jesus' coming is expected soon or within the lifetimes of the followers. One can find evidence of this in the Epistles and in 2 Peter 3 (btw I would like to see your reply to my last post on this verse). So, as I have said before, the evidence points to the present not the distant future.

I did answer the question about 2 Peter didn't I? And while I disagree with your conclusion, even if the Apostles believed that Jesus was going to return, what would that change? They didn't know the true time of Jesus' return, so it was just an assumption. That doesn't change the validity of the Bible, or present an error.

Gullwind · 06-29-2004, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Yes, chapter 16 is referring to the Apostles, and again its still not a contradiction. It merely says the Apostles shall see the kingdom - it never says physically experience it. Several of the Apostles had visions of the end times and the Kingdom of God coming into power. A vision satisfies this statement. They didn't actually have to be there in person for it.

I see. So the other parallel accounts refer to the future generations, but this one is about the disciple's visions.

Does anyone know if the original phrase for "till they see the Son of Man" supports this?

Gregg · 06-29-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

I agreed with you Mageth ( wow, what a change!

) up until this point. They are quite easily reconciled, although I realize you don't accept the explanation. Matthew specifically states that Judas died by hanging. Acts never said he died by falling on the rocks. It merely said his body had hit the rocks. Matthew may have seen him actually hang himself, where as Luke may have showed up after the hanging, and found the body on the ground ( probably from the weight of the body breaking the branch or rope). Its still an accurate description, its just view points from 2 different points of time. The actual death, and later after the death.

But, Magus, I want to know what you think of my apologetics on the Judas thing. Do you agree with me that "Luke" must have been writing poetically when he said Judas bought the field, when actually the chief priests did? And why did Judas happen to pick that same field to hang himself in? And how did he fall "headlong?"

And exactly how far did Judas have to fall in order to split open when he hit those rocks? Who climbs twenty feet up a tree in order to hang himself? I don't think a fall from even that far would split a body open, unless they were very sharp rocks, or unless the body had hung for a while and gotten all bloated and ready to burst. But didn't Luke see the noose around the neck, or the broken branch? How weird to simply report that Judas fell in a field and split open. Hey, I know it's not newspaper reporting here, but hanging himself, that's a strange thing to leave out. Didn't Luke wonder at all how he happened to get there, or what killed him?

Magus55 · 06-29-2004, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

I see. So the other parallel accounts refer to the future generations, but this one is about the disciple's visions.

Does anyone know if the original phrase for "till they see the Son of Man" supports this?

They aren't parallel accounts. They refer to two separate events. You've picked one verse, and then tried to link it to a verse 8 chapters later.

Gregg · 06-29-2004, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

You're assuming he actually fell headlong while alive.

Actually, no, I'm not. You didn't read my apologetics effort.

06-29-2004, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magus55

I did answer the question about 2 Peter didn't I? And while I disagree with your conclusion, even if the Apostles believed that Jesus was going to return, what would that change? They didn't know the true time of Jesus' return, so it was just an assumption. That doesn't change the validity of the Bible, or present an error.

Well you answered the original post, but I posted a reply to that.

To answer your question: it wouldn't change what Jesus said, only how we interpret it. I think people try to read the Bible in light of what people today say that it means instead of lucking that original context of the time in which it was written. Here you've claimed that Jesus was talking of a future generation. While I admit the possibility of this, I think that in deciding the issue we should try to see it in its historical context. Thus when we have strong evidence from authors who are possibly eye-witnesses writing only a few decades after the event I think we should base our interpretation of the verse on there understanding of it. Since they obviously thought that Jesus told them he was coming in their lifetime I think we should agree on this view of his prophetic verses.

Gregg · 06-29-2004, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

Actually, no, I'm not. You didn't read my apologetics effort.

BTW, I've yet to hear from you on what's so just about Hitler going to hell, when at least six million of his victims are in hell with him.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.