Transient

Well if there is a god then that could be easily done. So if "Jesus" is the Son of God, part of the trinity or whatever then anything is possible.

bacht

First of all, if you're going to use an Evangelical interpretation of Hebrew prophecy then we're not going to get anywhere. As Sheshbazzar pointed out, the proclamations of Isaiah, Joel et al were written for their own times and situations. Reading the Jewish bible as if it all pointed towards Christ doesn't do justice to the original message.

Second, if we're talking about the synoptic gospels we're really talking about Mark, which apparently was copied and modified by Matthew and Luke. Mark was the one who put together the basic 'biography' of Jesus from his baptism to his crucifixion. We don't know when or why he wrote this, or even if he believed any of it himself. But much of the story seems to be drawn straight from scripture, which is suspicious.

Third, the desire to date all the NT books as early as possible is driven by theology, not history. The early catholic tradition wanted to ascribe apostolic authority to the writings, regardless of whether they were actually written in the 40s or 140s.

Fourth, Jewish writers after 70 had to be very careful to avoid offending Roman readers. Apocalyptic works like Revelation follow the conventions of earlier Jewish books that substitute symbolic names for real persons. The bar-Kochba revolt was a serious matter, drawing in some of the best Roman generals away from other frontiers.

Fifth, gentiles could easily re-interpret the message of the coming new age as the end of Judea and the temple, ie. the end of the world for Jews in the Holy Land. As in all social movements, later generations substituted formalism for enthusiasm, and as the universalist "big tent" church grew in numbers it probably shrank in fervour and anti-establishment sentiment.

Sixth, you should stop telling people here they don't know what they're talking about. Not only are many here well-educated in related subjects, including the ancient languages, but many of us were or are believers in either the Jewish God or Christ. N American fundamentalists may see themselves as some kind of faithful 'remnant' of true believers, but this is a narrow and ultimately childish pov.

Chili

You may want to call them Oxford square-heads who actually think that 'day and night' are real and the celestial light is the illusion, which goes beyond poetic into noetic where the insight of gnosis rules . . . instead of politcis that is mesmerized by prophesy and while armed with warfare to force their ideal (read idol) is looking for 'that day' when peace will return to their mind.

show_no_mercy

If they are not poetic, then you're forced to believe that Jesus was lying. Look at this:

None of the people (οψσεσθε is future plural i.e. "you guys will see") at Jesus' trial saw Jesus coming on the clouds of heaven, sitting at the right side of the Mighty One. So either Jesus was lying, or he was being poetic.

Juststeve

Mercy:

Jesus may have been lying or being poetic, but he may have also been mistaken, if those were the words he uttered, which I doubt.

Steve

aa5874

So, tell what you know Jesus said.

Why do you NOT understand that you cannot just BELIEVE you know history?


We have the four STORIES about Jesus and what he said in the NT.

You cannot CHANGE anything.

You CANNOT change or even DARE attempt to change ONE SINGLE word in Plutarch's Romulus or Homer's Achilles.

You have ZERO external credible sources to show that Jesus was just a man or when he existed as a man and you have ZERO external credible sources to know what Jesus said if he existed.

We are dealing with historical sources not with PLAUSIBLE story-telling.

show_no_mercy

This is only a problem for fundamentalists, who reject all four possibilities.

Godwithus

I was enjoying a steak and had to pause after this.


Jesus lied? Tell me...how was the Rich man able to see into Heaven from Hell, when he looked upon Abraham and Lazarus? Hmmmm?


It appears that all will indeed see His return.

Joan of Bark

Godwithus, are you ever going to respond to my posts, or have you admitted defeat?

And reading scripture converted you, huh? So you read about YHWH allowing (or creating, to be more accurate) floods, hurricanes, earthquakes, malaria, influenza, cholera and small pox into the world, and slaughtering the entire human race in Genesis, save eight people, and about YHWH ordering the Hebrews to slaughter every man, woman and child in a couple of Canaanite cities in Joshua, and you said to yourself, Yeah, this all makes total sense. This is a god I gotta love!?

spamandham

IMHO, this is not a prediction of some imminent future event by the author. Instead, it's a message to the readers that the kingdom, has already come to them. Mark is not a book about the future, it's a book containing messages contemporary to the author, but set in his past.

Jesus' description of the 'kingdom' is not the future theocracy assumed by modern Christians, it's a spiritual kingdom contemporary to Mark's audience. In Mark 4, we have...

The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables

...which is then followed immediately by none other than parables about the kingdom of god.