Family Man

He tried to do so in this thread but dropped out when it was pointed out that the text doesn't support his interpretation.

DMB

The early translators of the bible into English produced a literary masterpiece. Add that to the genius of Handel and you have a most stirring piece:
I love it as an example of musical theatre.

However, a few difficulties arise if we try to assign a predictive value to this stuff. Since, Magus, you seem to think you have superior interpretative abilities when it comes to the bible, would you please elucidate for us the mysteries of the line:
What does this mean to you? -- in as much detail as possible, please.

Biff the unclean

Which leads to the non-literal interpretation of that prophecy which Christians hold today.

I do not see a problem here. Just atheist nit-picking

The same false prophecy was repeated in unambiguous language not once but more than a dozen times. To try to pass all of them off by saying that they all mean something that they don't say is being dishonest. To try to portray Atheists as nit-pickers because they see your laughable fortune telling failures as the lies they are is also being dishonest. That you do not see a problem with lying for Jesus speaks very poorly of you.

Hedwig

We don't see you as inferior...we see you as misguided.

winstonjen

Right. It's his arguments that are seen as misguided.

Rational BAC

To repeat. The 4 Gospels were written down in the early part of the 2nd century. Obviously no one took them literally at any time in history as far as "this generation will not pass away". Since that generation had already passed away.

It seems the only ones who do take that literally are atheists.
I didn't know atheists could be more fundamentalist than the Fundies.

Magus55

Actually, the Gospels were written at the end of the first century(well between the middle and the end - around 70 AD), Paul being written a decade or more earlier.

However, something to note. If the Apostles were the generation Jesus was referring to ( when He told them of the end times), why is there no record in any of the Gospels, or the rest of the NT for that matter, of them witnessing the end times signs Jesus describes? The NT is targeted at those of the future, who will read the Bible. Had the end times come during the Apostles lives, they would have recorded it for future generations to know.

Of course then again, if Jesus was referring to the 1st Century as the end times, that means Jesus told the Apostles when He would be coming, yet Jesus told us that no one knows the time Jesus will return. He will be quick, like a theif in the night. If the apostles knew the end times would come before they passed away, obviously they have a time frame to gauge Jesus' return.

Also, John wrote Revelation towards the end of his life. Revelation is in future tense. John was in prison while writing it. Since John lived to the end of "his generation", who was he adressing revelation to? How do you prepare for the stuff described in Revelation, if it was going to happen within a short time of writing Revelation?

And finally, other verses in Mat 24 speak of these end times centered around Israel becoming a nation. Israel didn't become a nation until 1947, so how on Earth could Jesus have been talking in present tense, to that generation, when Israel didn't exist yet?

If you read all of the Bible and examine together, in full context, you can figure out the meaning behind "supposed" contradictions.

No matter how you look at it, it is impossible for Matt 24:34 to be referring to the generation of the Apostles.

He was referring to the generation that sees Israel flourish as a nation, and sees the end times described in previous verses.

Biff the unclean

To repeat. The 4 Gospels were written down in the early part of the 2nd century. Obviously no one took them literally at any time in history as far as "this generation will not pass away". Since that generation had already passed away.
To repeat THAT MAKES ALL THE CLAIMS OF JESUS RETURN DURING THAT GENERATION LIES. If they were made before the generation had passed away they are FALSE PROPHECIES. If they were made after the generation had died then they are LIES that are being falsely presented as prophecies.
It seems the only ones who do take that literally are atheists.
Because your silly magic book lies more than a dozen times about this "second coming." Bald-faced lies, blatant lies, obvious lies, provable lies. You aren't taking it literally because you know they are lies and you are in denial. All you can do is claim that it doesn't say what it does say over and over again.

-------

And finally, other verses in Mat 24 speak of these end times centered around Israel becoming a nation. Israel didn't become a nation until 1947, so how on Earth could Jesus have been talking in present tense, to that generation, when Israel didn't exist yet?
When Jesus was talking Israel had not been destroyed. That happened long after he croaked. The KINGDOM of Israel has never and will never return. If he says " This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" then he really can't make it any clearer. He didn't say a thousand years or two thousand he said "THIS generation." In Mark it's spelled out even more exactly-- Mk.9:1 "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." He's talking about the actual people in his audience, standing there as he speaks right in front of him.
No matter how you look at it, it is impossible for Mark 24:34 to be talking about any other generation. No matter how you look at it, it is impossible for Mark 24:34 to be anything but a damned lie.
He was referring to the generation that sees Israel flourish as a nation, and sees the end times described in previous verses. He is referring to the Israel of Jesus' generation. A generation long dead having never seen a rapture.

Don't feel bad, John Frum never returned either

Rational BAC

Now I am a little confused. Magus says the Gospels were written about 70 AD--

--------or about 10 years after the death of Paul. And that would put the Bible quote as pretty close to contemporary-------equals that there were many of Jesus's generation still alive.

Others say the 4 Gospels were written in the early part of the 2nd century. Which would make almost all of Jesus's contemporaries quite dead. (Except for possibly one or two)

Who is correct in this?

Inquiring minds want to know. It is kind of important.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(I know that it is hard to tell exactly what happened 2000 plus years ago whether in reference to Jesus or to Julius Caesar or to Alexander the Grape or to just about anybody living so long ago.

We accept Caesar and we accept Alex the Great and we accept the historical essence of so many so called "historical figures" who could also be completely bogus.

Why does anyone want to completely throw out the historical existance of Jesus? Sounds a little biased to me.

Slavik91

I will ask once, and only once.

Where is the evidence for his existance?