Logical

Jesus supposedly talks about the end of the world and the coming of the Kingdom of God in all its glory, in one of his sermons. He then addresses his audience by saying that some of the people sitting there would "not taste death" (i.e. would not die) before it all happens.

Critics traditionally point to this as an example of a failed prophecy, since obviously Jesus' contemporaries all died 2000 years ago and he hasn't come back yet.

Apologists usually attempt to solve the problem by reinterpreting the meaning of Jesus "coming back". I won't delve into the details here since a google search would provide all the background details for those unfamiliar with the issue.

Here's my question:

Has anyone from the early days of Christianity ever dealt with this problem? Assuming the critics' claims are right, one could understand why no one saw the problem at first, during the first decades after Jesus' death, and during Paul's mission, since some of Jesus' contemporaries were alive still, and Paul assumed the end was near. But what about after that, after they all died? Did anyone see the problem and attempt to address it?

If not, then are we wrong today to think there is a problem at all? Could it be that the apologists and their seemingly acrobatic reinterpretations are correct, and since there is no problem, none of the early Christians felt the need to address it? Notice also the early scribes didn't feel the need to correct it either or to clarify this seemingly "difficult" passage.

judge

One thing to consider is what was meant by world?
IIUC Correctly the word translated world means "age" also.

If the texts about the end of the world mean the end of the age then it might make more sense.

The end of an age might mean, the end of a stage of development, then end of the old and the beginning of the new.

Consider the story of the flood. Now we know there was no universal flood. So what is the story about?

Mytholicically it is perhaps about the change from one age to another, with the coming of chaos, the loss of balance, the breaking down of old structures.

Perhaps the gospels work on similar themes.

aa5874

Once Jesus was just a man why did NOT early christians see any problems with the third day resurrection.

Surely when Jesus claimed he would resurrect no such thing ever happened yet it can still be found in ALL the gospels and in virtually the whole NT Canon.

Once Jesus was just an ordinary man surely he could NOT ascend through the clouds and still it is found in the gospels that Jesus did ascend to heaven.

Why did early christians NOT see the ascension of a mere man through clouds as a problem?

Once Jesus was just a man why did not early christians see the walking on the sea by Jesus as a problem?

It would appear that the "failed prediction" about the second coming is merely an indication or clue of the time the story was first written.

The first Jesus story was probably written within a generation of the governorship of Pilate and very likely AFTER the Fall of the Temple and the writings of Josephus

It must be noted that the author of gJohn did NOT make the same mistake as the authors of the Synoptics. The Johanine Jesus did not say that "many will NOT see death" before he returned just a "in a little time".

The words of Jesus according to gJohn 17.16-18

spamandham

I believe that is indeed the case. IMHO, the end had already come by the time that phrase was penned in the gospels. The modern idea of Jesus returning as some dude in the clouds is not what ancient Christians had in mind. Instead, they viewed the "end" as the end of the old way of thinking of political dominance, and the dawning of a new spiritual kingdom within the heart of the believer. It's a complex mismash of crap spawned in large part by the new age of Pisces at the time (hence all the fish imagery in the gospels).

Jesus is allegorical in my model, and "this generation" was understood as referring to those reading the gospel. Jesus was *intentionally* set a symbolic 40 years prior to the fall of the temple.

I really don't see how anyone can seriously not view early Christianity as the new age Judaism of it's time. 2000 years from now, people will be reading the epistles of Deepak Chopra the same way modern Christians read Paul.

GakuseiDon

Depends on who you ask.

1. Atheists who are not mythicists see it as Jesus making a failed prophecy (since Jesus was just a man, and could be wrong).
2. Mythicists see it as Mark making a prophecy for his particular generation (since Mark obviously wouldn't put a failed prophecy into the mouth of his character).
3. Conservative Christians as something relating to later generations (since the Jesus can't be wrong, therefore the prophecy was mistakenly misinterpreted).
4. Preterists as something that actually happened in 70 CE, when Jerusalem was destroyed (since the Bible can't be wrong, therefore what Jesus said must have occurred).

2 Peter:3 indicates that, whatever the answer, some people were complaining that the end of the world hadn't happened yet:

[1] This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
[2] That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
[3] Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
[4] And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
[5] For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
[6] Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
[7] But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
[8] But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
[9] The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
[10] But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
[11] Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
[12] Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?

GakuseiDon

Something that might be useful: "Teach the End Times Controversy".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU0DrAQXOz4

God has an Intelligent Plan for how we will all die.

Mod note: satirical video from the Onion. Not useful

aa5874

Your claim has the same evidence as "God has dentures due to old age".

There will always be people who will convert to Christianity because of the terrifying threats made by the character called Jesus in the NT Canon.


The "BELIEVE or BURN" doctrine in the NT has produced followers, as it were, LIKE victims of the "Stockholm Syndrome".

The claims by ANONYMOUS writers of death, destruction and the return of Jesus within a GENERATION of the reign of Tiberius most likely did have some impact on those who read their Jesus stories.

Roller

Jesus' apocalyptic procalmations tend to get "defused" as you move from Mark to Luke to John. John and Thomas (though not canon) are explicitly against "end of times". You can see how this "de-apocalypticism" becomes stronger as you move away in time from Mark (and Paul since he precedes Mark).

Take for example what Jesus says in Mark 14:62 and how Luke mutes that (I can't remember exact passage).

Even in Paul's time people were freaking out why end didn't come yet. From what I remember 1 Thessalonians was written to address that. Paul confirms "rapture" in 1 Thess. 4:15-17 and thinks that it will happen during his life (notice "we" in that passage). Then 2 Thess was written to counter 1 Thess (possibly by someone else than Paul). There is also 2nd Peter quote that GakuseiDon posted.

sugarhitman

Yeshua said that some of those standing there (the disciples were the only ones there) would not taste death "UNTIL" (not "before") they "see" his coming. The word "until" shows that believers are to die after they witness his coming...which contradicts the Gospel message of eternal life for believers after his return. In short there is another meaning...which we find later in the Apostles' writings such as John...that is indeed some of the Apostles saw His return in advance in visions...and died afterwards.


So, yep...the critics got it wrong again. Quite surprising that these educated folks failed to see the word "Until".

Joan of Bark

Whether it's 'before', or 'until' depends on which inerrant Bible you're using.

The NIV, Contemporary English Version, and New Jerusalem Bible use the word 'before'.