NOGO

Good! At least you do not deny the facts.
You are only slightly better than fundamentalists.
You however do not permit yourself to make the necessary conclusion from these facts.

Christianity was born as an apocalyptic end-of-the-world religion where the saviour was going to come or return to fix the world. It did not happen and therefore Christianity is false.

Yes, that is my argument and I know that you will not agree there is no need to state it.

I am not saying that this in itself is sufficient to seal the fate of Christianity to my eyes or anybody else's. It is rather one major pillar of why I do not believe.


The ostrich position.


And of course you believe that this has not happened yet.
Further, you claim that it was clearly the intention of the writer of Mt24 that this event would not happen for at least 2000 years.
I will have more to say on this subject.


So you claim that Jesus meant that John of Revelation was standing there when Jesus spoke and that the a vision of his return in Revelation qualifies as "will see the son of man coming in his Kingdom and will reward each according to his works"

Rev 6
9 When the Lamb broke the fifth seal, I saw underneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God, and because of the testimony which they had maintained;
10 and they cried out with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, will You refrain from judging and avenging our blood on those who dwell on the earth?"

This is another indication of the imminent end of the world.
John is talking about people who died for Jesus. He calls for revenge on "those who dwell on earth".

So in the mind of the writer people who killed Christians were still alive on earth when Jesus would return. So not only was the author describing a vision but he also expected that the events in the vision would occur soon (within the generation).

But it was a vision and not the actual thing. I doubt that Jesus was talking about a vision. "Some of you will see a vision before they die" one must admit that as a prophecy it loses something.

You seem determined to avoid the obvious.

All that I need is that 2Thess was written after 1Thess.
In 1Thess the return is not conditional.
In 2Thess the return is conditional.

Obviously somebody felt the need to account for the fact that it did not happen yet. The same can be seen in 2 Peter.

NOGO

Isn't it great. One can pick and chose whatever one wants as the answer to each question.
You must at least admit that some Christian combined these two subjects and these stories found their way into Matthew, Mark and Luke and that many Christians must have bought it in a combined fashion.

Your attempt at separating these two answers is a total failure and is driven by the need to salvage your faith rather then the search for truth.
The two question and the two answers are combined because the author viewed the events as one, that is, the end of the world would immediately follow the destruction of the temple.

Here is where you have erred:

Now learn the parable from the fig tree: when its branch has already become tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near; So, you too, when you see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door. Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.

Compare this with the same verses in Luke

Luke 21:29-32
Then He told them a parable: "Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near. "So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near. "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place.

So what we are talking about is the Kingdom of God which is to come before the generation passes away.
You have therefore placed this passage under the wrong question. Not only that but the reference to the generation passing clearly makes the two events and therefore the two questions as one. The destruction of the temple and the coming of the Kingdom of God were to come before the generation passed away and that is why the texts says "until all these things take place". All these things include both the destruction of the temple and the end of the world.


Another verse which is not placed correctly is

For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

If this is referring to the destruction of the temple then it would be a greater tribulation than the end of the world since it says "nor ever will"
This clearly belongs under the other question or more likely under the combined answer since the end of the world was expected right after the destruction of the temple.

And another ...

Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

"Days cut short" I say this is a reference to the end of the world. Let's see you dance around this one.

Luke 21:36
"But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man."

"all these things that are about to take place" Can it be any clearer. Jesus is addressing his disciples and telling them to be on the alert and pray that they may have the strength to live through the events which he described. He then tells them that these things are about to take place.

Tercel

Er, thanks.

I think you are making unecessary conclusions. Some Christians today think the end of the world will come within their lifetime. Various people have given dates they calculated based on Biblical data: 1976, 1985 etc They were wrong. Does them being wrote constitute the failure of Christianity in general? Of course not. Similarly the idea that some early Christians thought the end of the world imminent does not prove anything. In order to discredit Christianity as a whole you would have to show that most early Christians considered this belief a fundamental part of Christianity. I do not think you can come remotely close to proving this.

This is your assertion. I would say Christianity was born when the teacher Jesus, who claimed to be the Son of God, was resurrected and when the holy spirit came on the disciples at Pentecost. The only thing to do with the end of the world was the belief that Jesus would one day return.

Tercel: No, a critical, skeptical, position. I'm not going to buy into an argument whose only evidence is one interpretation of some ambiguous passages.

Yes and no. I mean: It is possible that the John of Revelation is John the apostle who was standing there when Jesus said those words. I do not believe that: It was a hypothetical scenario. Personally, I doubt John the apostle is the author of Revelation and that Jesus ever spoke the word under discussion meaning them to be understood in the way you interpret them.

This is simply another example of you twisting everything to fit your preconceived theory. There are people alive on earth today who have killed Christians. The passage fits today as well as it does the 1st Century.

That is not all you need at all. You need the assumption that because no conditions are mentioned in 1 Thess, it means there was no conditions at the time it was written. You seem to share the curious Jesus-myther assumption that people write everything they know whenever they write anything. In 2 Thess 2:5 the writer alledges that the Thessalonians already know what he's talking about because he told them in person earlier. That he already knew the receipients had knowledge of the subject would be an entirely adequate explanation for not mentioning it in 1 Thess. (Not that any explanation is even needed)

"Obviously" nothing. Your hypothesis is simply way beyond what the available evidence shows.

2 Peter I am inclined to think you are probably correct about.

Tercel

I doubt many Christians after one generation from Jesus thought Jesus really predicted the end of the world within one generation of his death. And since the Gospels probably weren't written until near the end of that first generation, I doubt many people really have ever believed this prediction.

Someone did certainly. Someone has taken two quite separate statements by Jesus and merged the two.

Actually, to quibble, that things that happen within this generation will signal that the kingdom of God will be near, not necessarily that the kingdom of God will come within this generation.

But anyway, I still disagree with you. I deny that "the kingdom of God" is necessarily to be associated with the end of the world. In some places: certainly. But in others it appears to have a more mystical meaning such as the Church or "Christ within you". Hence I don't think that shows I've placed this passage wrongly.

Yup, it would. If it's referring to the end of the world what is the point in saying "nor ever will"?!? It would be entirely redundant. The writer clearly forsees further tribulations after the event being described which won't be as bad as the event being described. Hence that event cannot be the end of the world.

I say it's still on the subject of the Roman attack on Israel and is saying that this event has been shortened in duration.

I wouldn't have thought so. But you don't seem to get it:
"...all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man"
The things that are about to take place do not include the final judgement at the end of the world before the Son of Man. The end of the world is here being listed separately to things that are "about to take place".

Jesus is telling them they should pray to be able to escape the things about to take place. The idea of escaping the end of the world is absurd and clearly not what Jesus could have had in mind.

NOGO

Tercel, I would not be proud of this answer if I were you. In fact this is an example of you twisting interpretation in order to avoid the only possible conclusion.

What John is describing is the end of the world.
So, at that time, who will be the Christians that have been killed because of Jesus?

The answer must necessarily be all the Christian martyrs.
Those who killed these Christian martyrs cannot all be on earth at that time. Most, if not all, will have been dead for some time.

This passage only makes sense if the end of the world is imminent, that is, within the generation in question. I am not making this up. This is yet another piece in the puzzle and they ALL point to the same thing, that which you so desperately try to avoid.

I will settle for this statement. You then agree that some Christian began apologizing for the fact that Jesus did not return yet. So there were expectations that his return would be imminent.

This all hinges on what you mean by one generation from his death. In fact it hinges on what apologetic Christians mean by one generation when they are trying to explain the failure of their religion.

Jesus specifically stated that he would be 3 days and 3 nights in the womb of the earth. In the end it turn out to be the third day which in fact happened before sunrise on Sunday according to GJohn. So in fact no part of the third day can be included. So you ask how can people believe such a prediction?

The Jehovah Witness believe that we are in the final generation. They claim that this started in 1914, 89 years ago and counting. The interpretation is that a generation is not over until the last person who was alive in 1914 dies. There is plenty of scope here to bring any believer to faith.

So what does "this generation will not pass away" mean?
If GMr was written around 70 CE some 40 years after Jesus' death was the generation passed away? I think not. At least there could be doubt for another 20 years or more. Plenty of time for many Christians to believe that they would witness Jesus' return.

But my claim is that there is plenty of evidence to show thatsuch a belief was already common among Christians before the Gospels were written.


The quibble is not warranted. The text says that "all these things will take place" and it follows the description of the sun going out and the stars falling to earth as well as Jesus' return.

As for the rest you deny what Matthew 24 and Luke 21 describe quite clearly. Obviously you would be happy to remove these verses from the NT.

True, if you expect these writers to be totally logical as you are trying to be here. However humans, being what they, are sometimes use hyperboles and that is what this is. The author is simply trying to say that this event will be historically unique. He could also be saying that such events will never occur after since the Kingdom of God will have started.

Please justify this statement. The first Roman-Jewish war lasted some six years with the total victory of the Romans. In which way was it shortened? I would say, given the forces present, this is what can be expected. Some would say that, Israel, being a very small nation at the time put up an exceptional fight.

Also explain why the end of the Roman-Jewish war would have an impact on the elect who most of which lived outside Israel.

You are also ignoring the fact that Matthew chose to merge the war with the end of the world so how can you now say that he meant the war and not the end of the world?

"Seperately" is just your wishful thinking.


Luke 21:
34 " Be on guard, so that your hearts will not be weighted down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of life, and that day will not come on you suddenly like a trap;
35 for it will come upon all those who dwell on the face of all the earth.
36 "But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man."


So before they can stand before the Son of Man they have to go through "all these things".

What is all these things?

Note verse 34 which says that that day will not come upon you like a trap and is followed by verse 35 which says that all of this will also fall upon all those who dwell on the face of the earth
.

So when verse 36 talks about escaping all these things it is refering to things which will befall all those who dwell on the face of the earth

This is the end of the world and not the Roman-Jewish war. But again the author treats them as one.

No it isn't. Christians wanted to be alive to see Jesus' return. It is entirely possible for them to die in the events leading up to it.
This is not any more absurd to the idea that people need to escape the consequences of war when God himself is watching over them.

NOGO

Tercel.

Have you given up?

Tercel

I wasn't planning on making any further replies. You clearly disagree with me, I'm clearly not going to be able to convince you, and you haven't convinced me. Since little new arguments or information has been produced in these last posts, there seems little point in continuing the discussion. Were I to reply to your last post, it would merely be to say "I disagree" to each point and copy+paste from some of my earlier posts the reasons why. I see little point in doing that.

NOGO

Right!
With this kind of attitude there is no point holding any discussion.
My goal is not to convince you.
I have held many discussions with religious minded people and for many years and have not convinced anyone of anything.
So if that were my goal I would have to be some sort of masochist to keep on going like this.

My goal is to demonstrate that your beliefs are irrational. I think that I have done a pretty good job at that and that you obviously cannot defend your beliefs logically. That is the reason that you are walking away from this one. You have nowhere to go.

Tercel

If it makes you happy to think that, fine.

NOGO

Tercel has given up. Perhaps anothor believer can defend the Christian position on the issue presented in this thread.