Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vinnie · 07-03-2003, 11:43 AM

Many early Christians (including the apostle Paul) were mistaken on the second-coming. They expected Jesus to return within their life-times. To their astonishment, some had already died before Jesus returned and Paul had to comfort them with the passage in 1 THess 4 (I think its ch. 4).

This is pretty much a certainty that is found attested in other Christian writings of the first century. The only real question open for discussion is does the mistaken timetable go back to Jesus himself or to very early after his death (an early Christian prophet or something).

The focus should be on this question rather than on whether Thess was mistaken on the return of the Lord. Clearly, the text was. Some might try to twist and turn it to say otherwise but its pretty obvious paul was mistaken. Even Raymond Brown (the archetpe of a cautious, conservative, critical scholar) agreed with this view (See intor to the NT). I believe Sanders thinks it goes back to Jesus whereas Meier attributes it to a prophet in the early church? and Crossan doesn't attribute it to the HJ either.

Vinnie

CJD · 07-03-2003, 12:29 PM

Funny how the whole concept of how predictions are to be understood conditionally is entirely missed here. I mean, it's not even mentioned as an option. And yet it seems to me to be the most plausible approach to Hebrew literature. What follows is a brief paragraph that I wrote during a discussion with Peter Kirby. I think the reader will see where it relates to the current discussion as directed by Vinnie:

Quote:

You write, "Granted, the whole second coming bit is an adaptation to what the apostles believed had taken place, but it is a non sequitur to argue that it is therefore not viable." Can you expand on that thought?

Starting from the premise that nearly all OT prophecies have implicit conditions attached to them (save the one or two where YHWH swears by his own name, etc. But even then . . . ), that they shift and shape accordingly to the events that transpire, the adaptation (the 2nd coming) is something that, from an apostle's point of view (if I can say such a thing) was a necessary point of doctrine given that they were absolutely convinced that Jesus was the coming anointed one. If convinced of this, then they had to make sense of the situation as it transpired. The fullness of the kingdom had yet to come into fruition, while many of the blessings had nonetheless already begun. So, what gives? Ah, it must be that he "desires none to perish," so, "he does not count slowness as is commonly understood . . . ." Also, given the conditional aspects of prophecy, which I think the apostles knew full well, the expected imminent return of X (read=return from exile) was not in the end a failure, but a direct result of a condition not being met, which was, to put it in the old covenantal way of saying things (Jer. 22:8ff.):

"Why then has the health of the daughter
___of my people not been restored? . . .
[because] they are all adulterers,
___a company of treacherous men.
They bend their tongue like a bow;
___falsehood and not truth has grown strong in the land;
for they proceed from evil to evil,
___and they do not know me . . . ."

In other words, just like in Daniel's day, when he saw that the predicted years had passed for Israel's restoration, and, after pleading with YHWH to return his people to the land, he finds not only will God not restore them presently, but the exile will be prolonged sevenfold (cf. Dan. 9) because "we have not entreated the favor of the LORD our God, etc.," so, too, we are denied restoration for lack of repentance. As you may have guessed, Peter, the adaptation cannot be considered implausible from my perspective because it is, first and foremost, biblical (in the textual analysis sense of the word). To put it differently, the whole second-coming bit was necessary, not for the sake of disillusioned followers, but demanded by the conditional nature of predictions and revelations.

In other words, Vinnie, you overstep your bounds if you suggest that there was no way that X could have returned during those early years. This cuts both ways, of course. Thus, I can only tentatively suggest that X could have come back, and the reason(s) he did not are found in the above paragraph. At least I offer textual analysis to that affect. The focus, it seems to me, is not finding where this mistaken timetable was first promulgated; rather, it to be understood Christianly, that is, the focus is theological and should motivate us to repentance. Or is that too irrelevant of a word for Borgians?

Regards,

CJD

Paul Baxter · 07-03-2003, 02:45 PM

Steven,

you came up with almost the same analogy I did as I was driving to work. I was thinking of the term "Washington". If a BBC reporter says "Washington has responded to this even such and such a way . . ." they don't necessarily mean the city. They mean the government spokesmen. Their expression would not be invalid if the gvt spokesman was in Arlington, or Boston, or even in Australia. So Washington, as a symbol of the US gvt, while certainly tied to the city in some way, functions also independently of geography. If we say, somewhat similarly to the expression in this passage, that we are "waiting for some help from Washington", we won't necessarily be amazed if the check we recieve is actually sent from some other city, as my tax refund check was.

In any event, what difference does it make to you. You sound as if you are arguing against something completely different from what I am saying, so maybe you could spell it out a bit more clearly for me.

Also, though I could take it as flattery, you shouldn't attribute my statements to Wright (the term "uncomprehending").

And lastly, I don't particularly see the dichotomies you mention. The exact point he is making is that when Paul speaks of Jesus appearing and Jesus descending, he is talking about precisely the same event.

Since there seems to be so much confusion here, could I beg you to state your own position on the passage in a bit more length than you have thus far, just so I get some idea of where you are coming from (so to speak).

Paul Baxter · 07-03-2003, 02:49 PM

Vinnie,

I'm not so certain as you about your point, but it is a troublesome one, I admit. You would, I think, be correct to say that it is a quite common view among NT scholars.

CJD,

interesting thought, and not one I think I've really seen before. Will give it consideration in the future.

Steven Carr · 07-03-2003, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Baxter
Steven,

you came up with almost the same analogy I did as I was driving to work. I was thinking of the term "Washington". If a BBC reporter says "Washington has responded to this even such and such a way . . ." they don't necessarily mean the city. They mean the government spokesmen. Their expression would not be invalid if the gvt spokesman was in Arlington, or Boston, or even in Australia. So Washington, as a symbol of the US gvt, while certainly tied to the city in some way, functions also independently of geography. If we say, somewhat similarly to the expression in this passage, that we are "waiting for some help from Washington", we won't necessarily be amazed if the check we recieve is actually sent from some other city, as my tax refund check was.

Clearly your, and my, analogy is dependent upon Washington being a physical place, and the power of Washington being either in that place or delegated from that place.

People are quite aware that there is a difference between Washington the city and Washington the seat of government, yet they do not believe that Washington the seat of government is not based in Washington the city.

So yours and Wright's claim that people were aware of this difference does not lead to the conclusion that Paul did not think of Heaven as above us.

I notice you never attempted to give any evidence that Paul , or any other Jew, thought there was only sky above us, and that Heaven was not above us.

You still have not attempted to tell us why the poetic metaphor Paul came up with for what would happen to those still alive (rising to meet the Lord in the air), works as a metaphor for what would happen to them. What does the 'air' image mean for example?

Quote:

Also, though I could take it as flattery, you shouldn't attribute my statements to Wright (the term "uncomprehending").

And lastly, I don't particularly see the dichotomies you mention. The exact point he is making is that when Paul speaks of Jesus appearing and Jesus descending, he is talking about precisely the same event.

Wright wrote '
'The language of 'descending' is the risky metaphor--all metaphors are risky when talking of the future--that Paul here chooses. Elsewhere (e.g. Col 3:4) he can speak simply of Jesus 'appearing', emerging from the presetnly hidden world of heaven, as heaven and earth are at last united, visibly present to one another' '

Wright wanted to claim that talk of 'appearing' negates the talk of 'descending'. Now you claim that 'appearing' and 'descending' are synonymous.

So what point was Wright trying to make? If I cross the Atlantic to talk to you, that is the same event as me appearing before you, but the fact that I can talk about appearing does not negate the literal nature of my crossing.

Quote:

Since there seems to be so much confusion here, could I beg you to state your own position on the passage in a bit more length than you have thus far, just so I get some idea of where you are coming from (so to speak).

Clearly Paul thought Jesus would descend from Heaven while some of his readership were still alive, and that the living Christians would be transformed into some sort of ethereal, spiritual substance which would , in the worldview of that time, try to find its natural home - which was up in Heaven.

Paul Baxter · 07-03-2003, 03:57 PM

I still don't understand your question about heaven. Try again.

Of course if you ask the question Where is heaven? the answer is above, if you are speaking about the sky. If you ask the question Where is Washington, the same applies.

If one is speaking of Washington as gvt, one can still use, as you say, the geographical language along with it. One can mix the uses. But they are different uses.

Since God is not a physical being in Jewish or xian thought, he doesn't live in a "place" generally speaking. So when speaking of heaven as equalling God's throne, as Jesus does in Matt 22, direction doesn't really matter. He's not talking about the heaven where the birds live. You can still mix things together by saying "heaven above", but one should be conscious that there is something of a mixed meaning here. I still don't see the relevance of ANY of this to the original question.

When Paul uses the language of "coming down from heaven" and "up in the clouds", how can one not see an echo of Dan 7:13,14, and also in context see Dan 12:2-4.

These ideas were quite at the forefront of Jewish thought in the 1st century, as is evident both in the apocalyptic literature and in the essene literature (See Ascension of Moses ch 10 e.g.). To suggest that Paul had to mean what the followers of Scofield and Darby said seems extremely anachronistic to me.

Vinnie · 07-03-2003, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CJD

In other words, Vinnie, you overstep your bounds if you suggest that there was no way that X could have returned during those early years. This cuts both ways, of course. Thus, I can only tentatively suggest that X could have come back, and the reason(s) he did not are found in the above paragraph.

Actually, I overstep nothing. Dead men do not return years after their deaths. This empirical fact has been observed and verified billions of times over.
.
Furthermore, it doesn't cut both ways if Jesus is responsible for the mistaken timetable. And that, is what I said was the actual issue that should be discussed here.

Basically, if it goes back to the HJ, you are saying Jesus said to his followers, "I might be back in a few years if you folks are good". Is this assessment correct or am I missing something?

If a Jewish person said this two-thousand years ago we should take up Lewis' trilemma and call him a liar and a lunatic. But if Jesus said "maybe" why were the Thessalonians so troubled by the fact that some members of the congregation had already died? Why such apologizing by other texts for the apparent mistake if it was a maybe, maybe not situation. 2 Peter tells how people were scoffing at the Christian nonsense of a returning Lord. Where is he? The text must apologize and say a day is like a 1000 years to the Lord blah blah. The apologizing in ch. 21 by the redactor of GJohn (see Sanders on this).

All these texts clearly indicate a mistaken timetable that developed very early. The only issue up for discussion, as stated before, is who started this mistaken belief?

My post could have been documented much better but I simply and pressed for time this weekend. So my apologies.

Vinnie

Steven Carr · 07-03-2003, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Baxter

Since God is not a physical being in Jewish or xian thought, he doesn't live in a "place" generally speaking. So when speaking of heaven as equalling God's throne, as Jesus does in Matt 22, direction doesn't really matter. He's not talking about the heaven where the birds live.

When Paul uses the language of "coming down from heaven" and "up in the clouds", how can one not see an echo of Dan 7:13,14, and also in context see Dan 12:2-4.

You should ask yourself the same question, as yesterday you did not see these references.

You are doing Wright's trick of citing scripture without explaining how it serves your case.

Daniel 7:13-14 '"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.'

How does that prove that Paul thought there was only sky above us?

Daniel 12:2-4 '2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt. 3 Those who are wise will shine like the brightness of the heavens, and those who lead many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. 4 But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."

How does that prove that Paul thought there was only sky above us?

Quote:

These ideas were quite at the forefront of Jewish thought in the 1st century, as is evident both in the apocalyptic literature and in the essene literature (See Ascension of Moses ch 10 e.g.). To suggest that Paul had to mean what the followers of Scofield and Darby said seems extremely anachronistic to me.

I see you dare not attempt to show why Paul's poetic metaphor that 'we who are still alive will rise to meet the Lord in the air' is a good metaphor of what will happen to those who are still alive.

Paul obviously intended it to be literal. You cannot make it work as a metaphor, and don't even try.

And you are still doing the 'citing scripture proves my case' trick.

Where does Paul ever refer to the Ascension of Moses as scripture?

Can you show that all the ideas in the Ascension of Moses were at the forefront of Paul's thought?

Is Wright doing a switch-and-bait? He cannot show that 1 Thess. 4 is meant to be metaphorical, so he takes a couple of words from it, scours Jewish literature and to find metaphorical uses of those words, and then declares that this work is what Paul meant , although it was not written by Paul, and there is nothing in Paul's writings to show that he approved of it?

Please tell us what on earth 'Ascension of Moses' chapter 10 has to do with your claim that Paul thought there was only sky above us, that Paul did not think Jesus would literally descend from a heaven which was (in some way Paul could not prove) above us, and that people alive would not meet him half way

Here is chapter 10 :-
And then His kingdom shall appear throughout all His creation,
And then Satan shall be no more,
And sorrow shall depart with him.
Then the hands of the angel shall be filled
Who has been appointed chief,
And he shall forthwith avenge them of their enemies.
For the Heavenly One will arise from His royal throne,
And He will go forth from His holy habitation
With indignation and wrath on account of His sons.
And the earth shall tremble: to its confines shall it be shaken:
And the high mountains shall be made low
And the hills shall be shaken and fall.
And the horns of the sun shall be broken and he shall be turned into darkness;
And the moon shall not give her light, and be turned wholly into blood.
And the circle of the stars shall be disturbed.
And the sea shall retire into the abyss,
And the fountains of waters shall fail,
And the rivers shall dry up.
For the Most High will arise, the Eternal God alone,
And He will appear to punish the Gentiles,
And He will destroy all their idols.
Then you, O Israel, shall be happy,
And you shall mount upon the necks and wings of the eagle,
And they shall be ended.
And God will exalt you,
And He will cause you to approach to the heaven of the stars,
In the place of their habitation.
And you will look from on high and see your enemies in Ge(henna)
And you shall recognize them and rejoice,
And you shall give thanks and confess thy Creator.

How does this prove that Paul did not think that Jesus would descend from Heaven?

As this is figurative , what metaphor is implied by 'He will destroy their idols', or 'punish the Gentiles'?

What meatphor is meant by 'the moon shall not give her light and be turned wholly into blood'? How does the metaphor work?

When the day of judgement happens, what will people see which will make them say 'Yes, that is what Jewish apocalyptic litertature meant when they said that the moon would give her light and be turned wholly into blood?'

CJD · 07-04-2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Vinnie
Dead men do not return years after their deaths. This empirical fact has been observed and verified billions of times over.

Insofar as the dead men are not the Son of God, we agree.

Furthermore, it doesn't cut both ways if Jesus is responsible for the mistaken timetable.

I suggest to you that the Tanak is responsible for the potential timetable.

With this said, (and if I am correct), the rest of your post is irrelevant. You do, however, posit an interesting question. I'll rework it to fit my thesis: "But if [the Tanak] said "maybe" why were the Thessalonians so troubled by the fact that some members of the congregation had already died?"

Simply put, because they understood that the coming of the Messiah was to be the beginning of a glorious inaugeration of the heavenly kingdom on earth. It did not seem that way since the Messiah had left the scene and people had actually died without the final inaugeral act taking place. It is far more related to the covenant and the BCE nation of Israel than I think you realize.

Why such apologizing by other texts for the apparent mistake if it was a maybe, maybe not situation?

To make the point that YHWH had not failed the covenant; on the contrary, the apostles argued, he is utterly faithful to the covenant (as the Messiah has shown on your behalf), and has responded to the current situation by, to put in Vinnie's words, "saying a 1000years is like a day to the Lord blah blah." What's more, Saint Peter contends, is that he desires none should perish. Repent, or expect the restoration from exile to be delayed (as it was in Daniel's own day).

What these texts indicate, Vinnie, is that God is steadfast--all else is subject to change.

CJD

Paul Baxter · 07-04-2003, 12:55 PM

This is getting frustrating, Steven. You and I are arguing about two different things apparently. When I try to explain my thoughts, you questoin them on entirely different grounds. So either 1 I'm not at all making myself clear or 2 you, for whatever reason, are not understanding me at all.

The point I am making is not, by any means, that "there is only sky above us". It is that the term heaven can MEAN something other than sky. For instance, as if any proof was needed, in I Maccabees 12 Jonathan writes to the Spartans, "We were unwilling to trouble you or our other allies and friends during these wars, since we have the support of Heaven to help us, thanks to which we have been delivered from our enemies, and they are the ones who have been brought low." I don't think anyone would want to argue that "Heaven" here means anything besides God (or perhaps angels--but that seems less likely).

The point of both the Daniel quote and the "Moses" one was that the language of clouds and heaven was used to speak of the day of God's judgment. The language means that God visits from his home in heaven to earth to vindicate the righteous and punish the wicked. This is, as we can all see thanks to your patient transcription, what the writer of "Moses" said.

I have to say though, given the amount of talking past each other we have done, that I won't write one more word 'til I see your idea of what I Thes 4 means. Then at least I can tell YOU where I disagree with you.

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

07-03-2003, 11:43 AM	#11
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Many early Christians (including the apostle Paul) were mistaken on the second-coming. They expected Jesus to return within their life-times. To their astonishment, some had already died before Jesus returned and Paul had to comfort them with the passage in 1 THess 4 (I think its ch. 4). This is pretty much a certainty that is found attested in other Christian writings of the first century. The only real question open for discussion is does the mistaken timetable go back to Jesus himself or to very early after his death (an early Christian prophet or something). The focus should be on this question rather than on whether Thess was mistaken on the return of the Lord. Clearly, the text was. Some might try to twist and turn it to say otherwise but its pretty obvious paul was mistaken. Even Raymond Brown (the archetpe of a cautious, conservative, critical scholar) agreed with this view (See intor to the NT). I believe Sanders thinks it goes back to Jesus whereas Meier attributes it to a prophet in the early church? and Crossan doesn't attribute it to the HJ either. Vinnie

07-03-2003, 02:45 PM	#13
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	Steven, you came up with almost the same analogy I did as I was driving to work. I was thinking of the term "Washington". If a BBC reporter says "Washington has responded to this even such and such a way . . ." they don't necessarily mean the city. They mean the government spokesmen. Their expression would not be invalid if the gvt spokesman was in Arlington, or Boston, or even in Australia. So Washington, as a symbol of the US gvt, while certainly tied to the city in some way, functions also independently of geography. If we say, somewhat similarly to the expression in this passage, that we are "waiting for some help from Washington", we won't necessarily be amazed if the check we recieve is actually sent from some other city, as my tax refund check was. In any event, what difference does it make to you. You sound as if you are arguing against something completely different from what I am saying, so maybe you could spell it out a bit more clearly for me. Also, though I could take it as flattery, you shouldn't attribute my statements to Wright (the term "uncomprehending"). And lastly, I don't particularly see the dichotomies you mention. The exact point he is making is that when Paul speaks of Jesus appearing and Jesus descending, he is talking about precisely the same event. Since there seems to be so much confusion here, could I beg you to state your own position on the passage in a bit more length than you have thus far, just so I get some idea of where you are coming from (so to speak).

07-03-2003, 02:49 PM	#14
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	Vinnie, I'm not so certain as you about your point, but it is a troublesome one, I admit. You would, I think, be correct to say that it is a quite common view among NT scholars. CJD, interesting thought, and not one I think I've really seen before. Will give it consideration in the future.

07-03-2003, 03:57 PM	#16
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	I still don't understand your question about heaven. Try again. Of course if you ask the question Where is heaven? the answer is above, if you are speaking about the sky. If you ask the question Where is Washington, the same applies. If one is speaking of Washington as gvt, one can still use, as you say, the geographical language along with it. One can mix the uses. But they are different uses. Since God is not a physical being in Jewish or xian thought, he doesn't live in a "place" generally speaking. So when speaking of heaven as equalling God's throne, as Jesus does in Matt 22, direction doesn't really matter. He's not talking about the heaven where the birds live. You can still mix things together by saying "heaven above", but one should be conscious that there is something of a mixed meaning here. I still don't see the relevance of ANY of this to the original question. When Paul uses the language of "coming down from heaven" and "up in the clouds", how can one not see an echo of Dan 7:13,14, and also in context see Dan 12:2-4. These ideas were quite at the forefront of Jewish thought in the 1st century, as is evident both in the apocalyptic literature and in the essene literature (See Ascension of Moses ch 10 e.g.). To suggest that Paul had to mean what the followers of Scofield and Darby said seems extremely anachronistic to me.

07-04-2003, 12:03 PM	#19
CJD Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: greater Orlando area Posts: 832	Originally posted by Vinnie Dead men do not return years after their deaths. This empirical fact has been observed and verified billions of times over. Insofar as the dead men are not the Son of God, we agree. Furthermore, it doesn't cut both ways if Jesus is responsible for the mistaken timetable. I suggest to you that the Tanak is responsible for the potential timetable. With this said, (and if I am correct), the rest of your post is irrelevant. You do, however, posit an interesting question. I'll rework it to fit my thesis: "But if [the Tanak] said "maybe" why were the Thessalonians so troubled by the fact that some members of the congregation had already died?" Simply put, because they understood that the coming of the Messiah was to be the beginning of a glorious inaugeration of the heavenly kingdom on earth. It did not seem that way since the Messiah had left the scene and people had actually died without the final inaugeral act taking place. It is far more related to the covenant and the BCE nation of Israel than I think you realize. Why such apologizing by other texts for the apparent mistake if it was a maybe, maybe not situation? To make the point that YHWH had not failed the covenant; on the contrary, the apostles argued, he is utterly faithful to the covenant (as the Messiah has shown on your behalf), and has responded to the current situation by, to put in Vinnie's words, "saying a 1000years is like a day to the Lord blah blah." What's more, Saint Peter contends, is that he desires none should perish. Repent, or expect the restoration from exile to be delayed (as it was in Daniel's own day). What these texts indicate, Vinnie, is that God is steadfast--all else is subject to change. CJD

07-04-2003, 12:55 PM	#20
Paul Baxter Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Mebane, NC Posts: 64	This is getting frustrating, Steven. You and I are arguing about two different things apparently. When I try to explain my thoughts, you questoin them on entirely different grounds. So either 1 I'm not at all making myself clear or 2 you, for whatever reason, are not understanding me at all. The point I am making is not, by any means, that "there is only sky above us". It is that the term heaven can MEAN something other than sky. For instance, as if any proof was needed, in I Maccabees 12 Jonathan writes to the Spartans, "We were unwilling to trouble you or our other allies and friends during these wars, since we have the support of Heaven to help us, thanks to which we have been delivered from our enemies, and they are the ones who have been brought low." I don't think anyone would want to argue that "Heaven" here means anything besides God (or perhaps angels--but that seems less likely). The point of both the Daniel quote and the "Moses" one was that the language of clouds and heaven was used to speak of the day of God's judgment. The language means that God visits from his home in heaven to earth to vindicate the righteous and punish the wicked. This is, as we can all see thanks to your patient transcription, what the writer of "Moses" said. I have to say though, given the amount of talking past each other we have done, that I won't write one more word 'til I see your idea of what I Thes 4 means. Then at least I can tell YOU where I disagree with you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.