Why Didn't Jesus stay around long after the resurrection

MooseJam

He only stayed around a few days and appeared to a few people, why didn't he proclaim his resurrection from the highest hill or go on a tour or something was it because he didn't want to be crucified again ? sorry if this has been asked before

Pompey Magnus

I guess he figured that making a few brief appearances to a handful of relatively primative people at a time when numerous other pagan cult leaders were doing similar miracles and then leaving it up to four anonymous men decades later to write often contradictory accounts of his life was plenty of evidence and more than sufficient to convince people of his extraordinary claims for millenia to come. How right he was.

SuperSean11

MooseJam wrote: »

He only stayed around a few days and appeared to a few people, why didn't he proclaim his resurrection from the highest hill or go on a tour or something was it because he didn't want to be crucified again ? sorry if this has been asked before

Because there was no need

Zombrex

MooseJam wrote: »

He only stayed around a few days and appeared to a few people, why didn't he proclaim his resurrection from the highest hill or go on a tour or something was it because he didn't want to be crucified again ? sorry if this has been asked before

Well he wasn't supposed to be gone that long, so maybe it didn't matter

Matthew 24:34
Truly I say to you, as this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

-ASIDE-
And before anyone starts giving out, the word is γενεά (genea) and it means a generation, as in a period of time between father and son. You have to bend over backwards to make it mean something else, so don't anyone give me a lecture on how it really must mean the Jewish race or any such nonsense (genos is the word for race in that context). A prophecy is not a prophecy if you have change the prophecy to make it fit :pac:

PDN

MooseJam wrote: »

He only stayed around a few days and appeared to a few people, why didn't he proclaim his resurrection from the highest hill or go on a tour or something was it because he didn't want to be crucified again ? sorry if this has been asked before

Because Jesus was limited by a human body. It was better that He would send the Holy Spirit who could dwell in the heart of millions of believers in diverse geographical locations.

"Now I am going to him who sent me, yet none of you asks me, 'Where are you going?' Because I have said these things, you are filled with grief. But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will convict the world of guilt in regard to sin and righteousness and judgment: in regard to sin, because men do not believe in me; in regard to righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can see me no longer; and in regard to judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come. He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you. All that belongs to the Father is mine. That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you. (John 16:5-15)

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

Because Jesus was limited by a human body. It was better that He would send the Holy Spirit who could dwell in the heart of millions of believers in diverse geographical locations.

Why would he be limited by a human body? The idea that God, an 'omnipotent' being would be limited by anything is ludicrous. Jesus/God could have simply willed away any limitations that mortal people have. Jesus could have hung around a bit in his corporeal form, but no longer a mortal.

Jesus is supposed to have ascended into heaven in full body form. How could a body be a limitation on earth, but not a limitation in heaven?

PDN

Akrasia wrote: »

Why would he be limited by a human body? The idea that God, an 'omnipotent' being would be limited by anything is ludicrous. Jesus/God could have simply willed away any limitations that mortal people have. Jesus could have hung around a bit in his corporeal form, but no longer a mortal.

Jesus is supposed to have ascended into heaven in full body form. How could a body be a limitation on earth, but not a limitation in heaven?

It's called the Incarnation - a basic tenet of Christian belief. God the Son took the form of a human body. As such He could only be in one place at one time. Even after His ascension into heaven Jesus is still described as "the man Christ Jesus".

Mortal or not it is impossible for a physical Jesus to be constantly with me in Ireland and also with millions of others in all parts of the world. Instead we have the constant presence of God the Holy Spirit with us.

The idea that God could be limited by anything is not ludicrous. God is limited by His holy nature (He cannot sin) and by the law of non-contradiction (He cannot create a square circle).

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well he wasn't supposed to be gone that long, so maybe it didn't matter

Matthew 24:34
Truly I say to you, as this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

-ASIDE-
And before anyone starts giving out, the word is γενεά (genea) and it means a generation, as in a period of time between father and son. You have to bend over backwards to make it mean something else, so don't anyone give me a lecture on how it really must mean the Jewish race or any such nonsense (genos is the word for race in that context). A prophecy is not a prophecy if you have change the prophecy to make it fit :pac:

Apparently Homer, Herodotus and Plutarch all use genea to refer to a race. However, my own opinion is that it probably does refer to a generation, namely the generation that will see all the signs Jesus speaks of in the rest of the Chapter.

A little bit of context is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately it is often missed by the good folks at infidels.org who see the Bible as a quarry to be mined for weapons against Christianity. It is good sometimes to read a Biblical book all the way through from start to finish, as with any book, to appreciate the flow of the argument.

I've always understood it as describing a generation that will see all kinds of events and suffer a period of hardship such as the earth has never seen. Indeed in verse 22 Jesus says, "If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened." Then, after listing a few more signs, He reinforces the fact that the generation of which He is speaking ("this generation") will indeed survive and will not pass away until all the signs are finished.

In other words "these things" refers to the future events of which Jesus is talking, and "this generation" refers to the future generation of which He is talking. That would appear to me to be the most natural interpretation of the phrase.

Pompey Magnus

The predictions of the end of time are some of the clearest statements Jesus makes in the Gospels. It isn't just a case of writing off his claims as referring to some mysterious future generation, in Matthew 26:64 he tells Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin that they will "see the son of man sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven" and Matthew 10:23 he tells his disciples that the Son of Man will arrive before they have gone through all the towns of Israel, Matthew 16:28 he said "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the son of man coming in his kingdom". In all of these examples he is speaking to individuals and there could have been no doubt in their minds that he was talking about them in particular and not their descendants thousands of years later.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Well he wasn't supposed to be gone that long, so maybe it didn't matter

Matthew 24:34
Truly I say to you, as this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

-ASIDE-
And before anyone starts giving out, the word is γενεά (genea) and it means a generation, as in a period of time between father and son. You have to bend over backwards to make it mean something else, so don't anyone give me a lecture on how it really must mean the Jewish race or any such nonsense (genos is the word for race in that context). A prophecy is not a prophecy if you have change the prophecy to make it fit :pac:

Test without context is err. PDN explained it best but let us focus on the chapter at hand now that you've brought it up:

Matthew 24: 4-41

4Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come (future) in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars (future), but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come (future). 7Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom (future). There will be famines and earthquakes in various places (future). 8All these are the beginning of birth pains. (We see these happening today so it might the case that we are this generation he is referring to below but keep reading)

9"Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death (future from the time Jesus was prophesying but passed tense to us with regard to the disciples but persecution of Christians is still ongoing in the world today so you could say that this is present tense for us now), and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other (has happened and is still happening), 11and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. (Jimmy Jones and David Koresh to name but two spring to mind) 12Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. (Has the end come yet? No, so we can assume this is a future event. Plus the book of Revelation in Chapter 14:6 makes it clear that the gospel will be not be proclaimed to the whole world by the chruch)

15"So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel (not happened yet, and its interesting to note that Jesus believed in the book of Daniel)—let reader understand— 16then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21For then there will be great distress, unequalled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it. 24For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. 25See, I have told you ahead of time. (He told them ahead of time so these things we not happening when Jesus was speaking at least so he could not have been referring to them as the generation that will not pass away)

26"So if anyone tells you, 'There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, 'Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

29"Immediately after the distress of those days
" 'the sun will be darkened,
and the moon will not give its light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.' (These things have not happened yet)

30"At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (Future event)

32"Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33Even so, when you see all these things, (we are seeing some of these things happen in our time, according to the records earthquakes have increased significantly since 1995) you know that it is near, right at the door. 34I tell you the truth, this generation (What generation? The generation that sees these things begin to come to pass, namely our generation) will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father (He tells us that we can know when the time is at hand for the birth pains, but then He says that no man knows the hour or day. What hour and day is He talking about? The hour and day of when heaven and earth will pass away not the birth pains). 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood (interesting, Jesus actually believed in Noah and the flood story), people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."

If you red the the verse you quote in context with th erest of the chapter then you will see that it is the generation that sees these things begin to come to pass that will not pass away until all the things spoken of have come to pass. The question now is, how long is a generation? And as it was Jesus who used the word generation in Mattew then Matthew is probably a good place ta start when calulating how long a generation is.

So how Long is a Generation? From Philologos.org

"Matthew 1 :17 tells us that all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations and [all the generations] from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and [all the generations] from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. When we add fourteen plus fourteen plus fourteen, the total is forty-two generations from Abraham to Christ.

The great chronologist, Thiele, says that from Abraham to Christ, we have a total of 2,160 years. Divide forty - two generations into that, and the length of a generation becomes 51.4."

If we take this as being what Jesus said was a generation then from 1995 (the begining of birth pains see earthquake chart) to 51 years later will bring us to 2046.

Oooooohhh scary :eek:

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

If you red the the verse you quote in context with th erest of the chapter then you will see that it is the generation that sees these things begin to come to pass that will not pass away until all the things spoken of have come to pass. The question now is, how long is a generation? And as it was Jesus who used the word generation in Mattew then Matthew is probably a good place ta start when calulating how long a generation is.

Ok, I wasn't going to respond, but since people seem so determined.

"A generation" is the length of time between a father and son. The reason the generations in the Old Testament are long is because people were supposed to live hundreds of years. It is still between father and son.

As DP points out it is mentioned a number of times that the people alive in the time of Jesus would witness the second coming. The generation that would witness all of what Jesus described was the generation he is talking to. He is not referring to the generation that will witness it, he is referring to that generation telling them that they will witness it.

There is no serious Biblical hermeneutics that doesn't view the author as meaning a normal generation. This is what the early Christians believed. Obviously it didn't happen, so in hind sight later Christians have looked back on the passage and decided that it must means something different.

But as I said, a prophecy isn't much of a prophecy if you simply alter its meaning once it doesn't happen.

bonkey

Wicknight wrote: »

The generation that would witness all of what Jesus described was the generation he is talking to. He is not referring to the generation that will witness it, he is referring to that generation telling them that they will witness it.

Is he?

Leaving aside the trickiness of translation, the distinction you would appear to be making is between "this generation" and "that generation".

The problem is that the terms "this" and "that" are all-too-often interchangeable, particularly depending on your sentence structure.

Somewhat tangentially, I'm reading Melvyn Bragg's 'The Adventure of English' at the moment, taking time out from it on occasion to pick up some of my Old and MIddle English texts that my wife studies. Its fascinating to realise not only how different language was back then, but also how the rules of both spelling and grammar were effectively non-existent in comparison to modern terms.

Even more tangentially, my brother-in-law studied english linguistics. He often uses "that" where I would use "this", and vice versa. As a linguist, he's able to argue me into a cocked hat about how his usage may be uncommon and even unorthodox but is not incorrect.

Now...I'm no scholar. I'm also as skeptical as you are about prophecy. However, unless someone can show to me that at the time of writing there was and could not be any confusion between the usage of 'this' and 'that', then I would find it somewhat tenuous to insist that it must mean one or the other.

For example...if someone were to say that "The day will come when <blah blah blah> and on this day <waffle waffle waffle>", I would not assume they meant that the waffles are being served today, but rather on blahsday.

(Edit To Add : I would also suggest that anyone who believes 'On this Day' could only refer to today should do a google search on those three words. Their most common usage would appear to be referring explicitly to a day other than today)

Zombrex

bonkey wrote: »

Is he?

Leaving aside the trickiness of translation, the distinction you would appear to be making is between "this generation" and "that generation".

Very true, "this generation" can mean many different things when you remove it from the context of the passage it is found in, but you need to look at the sentence about the fig tree that comes before the dreaded "generation" line.

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.

Jesus is talking to his disciples here (which is a larger group than the 12 apostles). They will witness these events, and they will witness the second coming. In the context of this sentence it is clear that Jesus is warning that the second coming will come soon and that people need to prepare as if it can happen at any time. He is warning is disciples to not get lazy, or to say that they will have time before the second coming, not really something you would say if it wasn't going to happen for 2,000+ years.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

....The idea that God could be limited by anything is not ludicrous. God is limited by His holy nature (He cannot sin) and by the law of non-contradiction (He cannot create a square circle).

No because then he is not worthy of worship. He is merely a very powerful being not an all powerful being.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

God is limited by His holy nature (He cannot sin)

Just noticed this. Isn't "sin" simply disobedience of God? By definition nothing God does will be an act of disobedience. Its not that he cannot sin, its that nothing he does, no matter what it is, will be a sin because such a concept doesn't make sense.

Or are you saying that God cannot carry out an action that he has commanded is sinful for others to do? If so a few other posters, such as Wolfsbane, appear to disagree with that assessment.

Pompey Magnus

Alright, lets say we accept that Jesus was referring to some far off generation when he says "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened".

Now let us just think about this for a second. What Jesus is saying in this case is that the generation that is alive to witness the end of the world will be alive to witness the end of the world. It becomes a completely redundant statement if we accept the Christian interpretation. It is the equivalent of Jesus saying 1 = 1.

The only way that the statement can have any meaning is if he is refering to a definite, specified generation, in other words the generation of his audience.

The ambiguity is in what Jesus meant by "this". However I have read Christian justification for the late writings of the four Gospels that the followers of Jesus all expected the end of the world to occur in their immediate future and so there was no need for written records. This tells me that the very people who Jesus was talking to had little doubt that he specifically meant their generation.

To my mind both of these reasons are pretty good evidence to support the claim that Jesus was referring to the end of the world being in the very near future and that he was wrong.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Alright, lets say we accept that Jesus was referring to some far off generation when he says "this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened".

Now let us just think about this for a second. What Jesus is saying in this case is that the generation that is alive to witness the end of the world will be alive to witness the end of the world. It becomes a completely redundant statement if we accept the Christian interpretation. It is the equivalent of Jesus saying 1 = 1.

No it is not. Jesus, in Matthew 24, said that the generation which would witness the end times would go through a time of tribulation more severe than anything ever seen in history. This would be so severe that it would seem to many as if all of the elect would be killed, but that the time would be shortened to ensure that some of that generation survived. Then, just to stress the point again, He said that the generation in question would still be alive when all the things prophesied were completed.

When you read things in context it makes perfect sense. Jesus is saying that the generation that witnessed the signs announcing the end was near, and which was alive when the time of great tribulation began, would still be alive at the end of the process.

No need to try to create difficulties where none exist.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

When you read things in context it makes perfect sense. Jesus is saying that the generation that witnessed the signs announcing the end was near, and which was alive when the time of great tribulation began, would still be alive at the end of the process.

It only makes perfect sense now because the alternative has been shown to be false. It did not make perfect sense to the very early Christians who only recorded the sayings of Jesus 40-60 years after his death because it was clear that the end was not coming in the immediate future. Obviously they understood it differently and they had the opportunity to actually hear and see Jesus speak and so pick up details that we do not have. It also does not explain Matthew 16:28 "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the son of man coming in his kingdom". How can that be interpreted any other way other than an immediate end of the world?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It only makes perfect sense now because the alternative has been shown to be false. It did not make perfect sense to the very early Christians who only recorded the sayings of Jesus 40-60 years after his death because it was clear that the end was not coming in the immediate future. Obviously they understood it differently and they had the opportunity to actually hear and see Jesus speak and so pick up details that we do not have. It also does not explain Matthew 16:28 "some who are standing here will not taste death before thehttp://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
:rolleyes:y see the son of man coming in his kingdom". How can that be interpreted any other way other than an immediate end of the world?

The teaching of the New Testament about the timing of the Second Coming is clear - that we should be ready for the event at any time, but that we do not know when it will happen. Therefore every generation should have an expectation of the imminent return of Christ, yet they plan for future generations just the same.

As for Matthew 16:28, maybe you should have read on into Matthew 17 where that saying is immediately followed by the Transfiguration, which was a vision of the Second Coming. Again, when taken in context, there is no difficulty. Some of those standing there (Peter, James and John) saw the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom. If you bother to look up the parallel accounts of this same saying (Mark 9 & Luke 9) then you will see that they are also immediately followed by an account of the transfiguration.

You guys really need to learn to read stuff in context. :rolleyes:

JimiTime

Just to point out also. Jesus didn't know when the day was i.e. Judgement Day. He told them that only his Father knew.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

No it is not. Jesus, in Matthew 24, said that the generation which would witness the end times would go through a time of tribulation more severe than anything ever seen in history.

Well no that isn't actually what he said. He said that they (his disciples) will face a time of tribulation more severe than anything ever seen in history. He mentions them throughout the entire passage, the "this generation" bit comes later on in the passage. If you remove that line he is still talking to the disciples about what will happen to them.

Matthew 24
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

The key bit being "your flight". Jesus is talking to the disciples and explaining what will happen to them

This is supported in Matthew 24:4

And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.

The passage is the sign of how they (the disciples) will know the second coming is upon them so that they will not be deceived by false prophets.

PDN wrote: »

When you read things in context it makes perfect sense.

Well in fairness to DP PDN you seem to be doing anything but reading this in the context of what it actually was, Jesus explaining to his disciples how they will recognise the second coming.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

As for Matthew 16:28, maybe you should have read on into Matthew 17 where that saying is immediately followed by the Transfiguration, which was a vision of the Second Coming.

The Transfiguration is Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah, is it not?

Are you saying that this is what Jesus said his disciples would witness before they died?

Stretching a bit isn't it? The Transfiguration was not the Second Coming, nor was it a vision of it. It was supposed to be a demonstration that Jesus had the authority of God.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

The Transfiguration is Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah, is it not?

Are you saying that this is what Jesus said his disciples would witness before they died?

Stretching a bit isn't it? The Transfiguration was not the Second Coming, nor was it a vision of it. It was supposed to be a demonstration that Jesus had the authority of God.

Wicknight making theological pronouncements again?

The Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming. It is recognised as such both by the Orthodox tradition, as in St Basil the Great, and by evangelicals. The fact that Wicknight doesn't like this interpretation will, I suspect, worry neither Orthodox nor evangelical believers.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

Wicknight making theological pronouncements again?

The Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming. It is recognised as such both by the Orthodox tradition, as in St Basil the Great, and by evangelicals. The fact that Wicknight doesn't like this interpretation will, I suspect, worry neither Orthodox nor evangelical believers.

As I am saying this, a pig has just flown in my window!:) But, to play wicknights advocate, how is this a vision of the second coming? I'm not putting up a conradiction btw, just wondering the reasoning og such a conclusion?

Pompey Magnus

The funny thing is that Jesus could have prevented all this confusion by just being clear about what he meant.

As for Matthew 16:28, maybe you should have read on into Matthew 17 where that saying is immediately followed by the Transfiguration, which was a vision of the Second Coming. Again, when taken in context, there is no difficulty. Some of those standing there (Peter, James and John) saw the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom. If you bother to look up the parallel accounts of this same saying (Mark 9 & Luke 9) then you will see that they are also immediately followed by an account of the transfiguration.

So do you really believe that when Jesus said that "some here will not die until they see the Son of Man come as King" Jesus was actually referring to an event which happened six days later? If so he could have said that "some here will see the Son of Man come as King in less than a week", a much more accurate prophecy in my opinion. Also in this case you are missing the context as in the line beforehand he refers to the Son of Man coming to "repay everyone acording to his deeds", he obviously was not referring to the Transfiguration.

Just to point out also. Jesus didn't know when the day was i.e. Judgement Day. He told them that only his Father knew.

This claim does somewhat affect Jesus' claim to be part of a triune God as it shows tht Jesus was ignorant on details that an omniscient God would presumably be aware of. In fact this claim that only the Father knows when the end was posed such an obvious problem that a number of early Christian scribes completely removed it from the Gospels of Mark they wrote.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

As I am saying this, a pig has just flown in my window!:) But, to play wicknights advocate, how is this a vision of the second coming? I'm not putting up a conradiction btw, just wondering the reasoning og such a conclusion?

On the way down from the mountain the three disciples immediately began asking Jesus about the relationship of Elijah to the coming of the Messiah, because the Jews taught that Elijah must return before the Day of Judgement in accordance with Malachi 4:5

Elijah and Moses represent the Law and the Prophets that will be finally fulfilled at the Second Coming. They also represent those who are still alive at Christ's Return and will be caught up to be with the Lord (remember, Elijah never died) and those who have already died (Moses died and was buried).

Many commentators also believe that Elijah and Moses will be the two witnesses of Revelation 11 of whom it is said, "These men have power to shut up the sky so that it will not rain during the time they are prophesying; and they have power to turn the waters into blood". Remind you of anyone?

Also, Peter himself referred to the Transfiguration in terms of Christ's coming in glory in 2 Peter 1:16-19

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain. And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

This claim does somewhat affect Jesus' claim to be part of a triune God as it shows tht Jesus was ignorant on details that an omniscient God would presumably be aware of. In fact this claim that only the Father knows when the end was posed such an obvious problem that a number of early Christian scribes completely removed it from the Gospels of Mark they wrote.

The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation as historically understood by Christianity include the idea of kenosis (emptying). For Jesus to become man meant he voluntarily laid aside the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence. The Bible tells us that Jesus grew in wisdom as he grew up, that he got tired, hungry and thirsty, and we only ever read of Him vbeing in one place at one time.

Pompey Magnus

Off topic I know but as I was reading my Gospel of Matthew I realise that Simon Peter calls Jesus the Messiah (in other words "The Anointed One") in Matthew 16 even though he only becomes a Messiah at Bethany in Matthew 26. Is this not a bit like Gordon Brown ringing up Barack Obama tomorrow and congratulating him on currently being the President of the USA even though he is still only a contender in an election that has not yet taken place?

It is only a little detail I know but it seems a bit strange to me, almost like the author knew the end of the story and slipped up by forgetting that at that stage Jesus was not a Messiah / Christ.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Off topic I know but as I was reading my Gospel of Matthew I realise that Simon Peter calls Jesus the Messiah (in other words "The Anointed One") in Matthew 16 even though he only becomes a Messiah at Bethany in Matthew 26. Is this not a bit like Gordon Brown ringing up Barack Obama tomorrow and congratulating him on currently being the President of the USA even though he is still only a contender in an election that has not yet taken place?

It is only a little detail I know but it seems a bit strange to me, almost like the author knew the end of the story and slipped up by forgetting that at that stage Jesus was not a Messiah / Christ.

What on earth are you talking about? Jesus did not become the Messiah at Bethany. He identified Himself as the Messiah much earlier in John 4:26

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

The doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation as historically understood by Christianity include the idea of kenosis (emptying). For Jesus to become man meant he voluntarily laid aside the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence.

Perhaps, but this is not confirmed by Jesus. It might be true but at the end of the day it is just a guess by Christians who try to explain the imperfect attributes of Jesus. It also doesn't fit with what we read in the Gospels as we see Jesus making predictions of future events which requires him to be omniscient.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Jesus did not become the Messiah at Bethany. He identified Himself as the Messiah much earlier in John 4:26

The Messiah in Judaism was a very particular role, it required the anointing of oil for a man to become a Messiah/Christ. In John 4:26 he may have identified himself as a Messiah but it made no sense as he had not been anointed at that time. He was in effect saying "I am the anointed one" even That is whole point of the anointing story in Bethany, it is the moment Jesus is made "The Anointed One" and becomes a Mosciach.

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The Messiah in Judaism was a very particular role, it required the anointing of oil for a man to become a Messiah/Christ. In John 4:26 he may have identified himself as a Messiah but it made no sense as he had not been anointed at that time. He was in effect saying "I am the anointed one" even That is whole point of the anointing story in Bethany, it is the moment Jesus is made "The Anointed One" and becomes a Mosciach.

Sorry, you are way off base. There were plenty of anointed people in Jewish history (every king and every priest, for example) but the Messiah referred to in the New Testament was anointed by God, not by man (Hebrews 1:9 - quoting Psalm 45). Indeed, this anointing applies to all Christ's followers as well (1 John 2:20).

The idea that Jesus only became the Christ at Bethany is, theologically speaking, sheer bunk. The New Testament refers to Him as being the Christ, or Messiah, numerous times prior to the anointing at Bethany.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

but the Messiah referred to in the New Testament was anointed by God, not by man.

This is what is confusing me though. Jews back then (like Jews today) would have understood the role of Messiah as simply a man who is anointed with oil which signifies he holds an important role among the Jews. They did not have the New Testament, only the Old Testament and that was very clear what a Messiah was and it was not a supernatural position reserved for Jesus. Cyrus was a Messiah, Saul was a Messiah, Joshua was a Messiah. This is what a Jewish person like Simon Peter would have understood the term to be.

I do not understand how these people all abandoned Jewish scripture so easily in declaring Jesus as another Messiah even though to them in order for someone to attain that position a specific anointing ritual must first be carried out. They did not have Hebrews 1:9 or 1 John 2:20 to tell them that a Messiah can also be anointed by God.

Soul Winner

I'd love to have the time you guys obviously have to post here. My Lord yous are never off it. Damn it :mad:

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The predictions of the end of time are some of the clearest statements Jesus makes in the Gospels. It isn't just a case of writing off his claims as referring to some mysterious future generation, in Matthew 26:64 he tells Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin that they will "see the son of man sitting on the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven

That is a good one. Will reply but from a different angle below the next two post quotes.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

The ambiguity is in what Jesus meant by "this". However I have read Christian justification for the late writings of the four Gospels that the followers of Jesus all expected the end of the world to occur in their immediate future and so there was no need for written records. This tells me that the very people who Jesus was talking to had little doubt that he specifically meant their generation.

To my mind both of these reasons are pretty good evidence to support the claim that Jesus was referring to the end of the world being in the very near future and that he was wrong.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

It did not make perfect sense to the very early Christians who only recorded the sayings of Jesus 40-60 years after his death because it was clear that the end was not coming in the immediate future. Obviously they understood it differently and they had the opportunity to actually hear and see Jesus speak and so pick up details that we do not have. It also does not explain Matthew 16:28 "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the son of man coming in his kingdom". How can that be interpreted any other way other than an immediate end of the world?

So let us assume that these writings were written after AD70 and that all the disciples were lying about their accounts of Jesus or at least exaggerating the truth. Then wouldn't it follow that they would have known that the part about the priests being around when Jesus comes would have been a stupid thing to add? It’s most likely the priests would have been killed in the sacking of Jerusalem. Yet Matthew who you say wrote his account 40-60 years later adds this stupid prophecy in? I know it is a side road but it is worth noting. Why Jesus said this to the priest is a mystery to me, but one I will endeavour to check out. The Deuteronomic test of a prophet is what he says comes to pass. If Jesus said this then He is not a prophet never mind the son of God because it did not come to pass in the way the verse as it has come down to us suggests. Like I said it is a good one.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Matthew 10:23 he tells his disciples that the Son of Man will arrive before they have gone through all the towns of Israel

From Biblos.com

"Till the Son of man be come. A reference primarily, no doubt, to the Lord coming into his kingdom. See Mt 16:28. He was thus to come in the life time of some of the apostles. He did thus come in the establishment of his kingdom in power on the day of Pentecost. He also came in judgment on the Jews at the destruction of Jerusalem. This event ended Jewish persecution. There is also the final coming to judge the world, but the meaning here does not include that."

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Matthew 16:28 he said "some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the son of man coming in his kingdom". In all of these examples he is speaking to individuals and there could have been no doubt in their minds that he was talking about them in particular and not their descendants thousands of years later.

Good explanation here

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

This is what is confusing me though. Jews back then (like Jews today) would have understood the role of Messiah as simply a man who is anointed with oil which signifies he holds an important role among the Jews. They did not have the New Testament, only the Old Testament and that was very clear what a Messiah was and it was not a supernatural position reserved for Jesus. Cyrus was a Messiah, Saul was a Messiah, Joshua was a Messiah. This is what a Jewish person like Simon Peter would have understood the term to be.

I do not understand how these people all abandoned Jewish scripture so easily in declaring Jesus as another Messiah even though to them in order for someone to attain that position a specific anointing ritual must first be carried out. They did not have Hebrews 1:9 or 1 John 2:20 to tell them that a Messiah can also be anointed by God.

Maybe you need to do some reading up on the development of the idea of the Messiah throughout the Old Testament up to the time of Jesus. That might help remove some of your confusion.

Here's a start: http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible%20Studies/The%20Concept%20of%20the%20Messiah%20in%20the%20Old%20Testament.pdf

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The Transfiguration was a vision of the Second Coming. It is recognised as such both by the Orthodox tradition, as in St Basil the Great, and by evangelicals. The fact that Wicknight doesn't like this interpretation will, I suspect, worry neither Orthodox nor evangelical believers.

Or, you know, all the other Christians who aren't Orthodox or evangelical ... :rolleyes:

You seem to be slightly missing the point here. I'm not really interested in how later Christians fixed the problem of Jesus' prophecy to return within the life time of the disciples not being fulfilled. You can fix anything with hindsight

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Or, you know, all the other Christians who aren't Orthodox or evangelical ... :rolleyes:

Ah, sorry, how remiss of me not to mention that the same interpretation of the Transfiguration as a foretaste the Second Coming is also contained in the Second Catechism of the Catholic Church - Article 556.

You seem to be slightly missing the point here. I'm not really interested in how later Christians fixed the problem of Jesus' prophecy to return within the life time of the disciples not being fulfilled. You can fix anything with hindsight

Yet, for some reason, you think we should be interested in how later atheists attempt to put a negative spin on Jesus' prophecy to make it seem like it was unfulfilled.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yet, for some reason, you think we should be interested in how later atheists attempt to put a negative spin on Jesus' prophecy to make it seem like it was unfulfilled.

Well not really. I don't think you guys would ever accept that the prophecy (or any prophecy in the Bible) wasn't fulfilled, to do so would mean a rejection of your faith, which clearly is not something open for discussion. It does weaken though your argument that the Bible convinced you guys that all this was real. It seems more likely that you convinced yourself that the Bible was real.

I'm more interested though in the rather annoying habit you guys have of lecturing the rest of us on how important Biblical hermeneutics is.

This seems to hold right up to the point where that might actual cause a problem at which point it is dropped in favour of a more pleasing interpretation, even if this is not based on the actual Bible text itself (such as in this case where you are supporting your position with doctrine of the later Churches)

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well not really. I don't think you guys would ever accept that the prophecy (or any prophecy in the Bible) wasn't fulfilled, to do so would mean a rejection of your faith, which clearly is not something open for discussion. It does weaken though your argument that the Bible convinced you guys that all this was real. It seems more likely that you convinced yourself that the Bible was real.

I'm more interested though in the rather annoying habit you guys have of lecturing the rest of us on how important Biblical hermeneutics is.

This seems to hold right up to the point where that might actual cause a problem at which point it is dropped in favour of a more pleasing interpretation, even if this is not based on the actual Bible text itself (such as in this case where you are supporting your position with doctrine of the later Churches)

Well, hermeneutics is based on several principles, one of which (context) we have had to repeatedly refer to in this thread due to yourself and Depeche Mode ignoring it.

It is also reasonable to point out that a particular interpretation has been viewed as eminently reasonable by theologians & Christians of various traditions. This is particularly so when someone with no knowledge of the field at all has the effrontery to declare to the rest of us that such an interpretation is wrong - yet without presenting any evidence to support such a pronouncement. Think of it as peer review.

What you are in effect saying is that you (someone who has no knowledge of theology or biblical studies and regularly drop clangers when you try to debate these subjects) holds the right interpretation - and that you don't really care about the conclusions of others who have spent time studying the subject.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Well, hermeneutics is based on several principles, one of which (context) we have had to repeatedly refer to in this thread due to yourself and Depeche Mode ignoring it.

PDN, the context of those passages is clear if someone is prepared to accept that it is a prophecy that wasn't fulfilled. Jesus is telling the disciples how to know the second coming because they will witness it.

Of course given that they didn't witness it it becomes necessary for later Christians, right up to today, to re-interpret those passages in a framework where the second coming isn't supposed to be witnessed by the disciples.

That isn't particularly difficult, it is relatively easy to do that with any passage of text once you have a fixed interpretation that you must get the text to match.

Again, I don't really care if you wish to do this, these passages are no worse than a lot of other things I have trouble with in the Bible (I certainly wouldn't call it the most embarrassing Bible passage, as C.S Lewis did).

The issue I have is your insistence that you are being true to the original meaning and open to what that tells you while simultaneously criticising others for not being.

PDN wrote: »

It is also reasonable to point out that a particular interpretation has been viewed as eminently reasonable by theologians & Christians of various traditions.

Well only if you are prepared to accept in other arguments that same position. Which you most often are not, citing that only the meaning of the original text is important or relevant to studying the message of Jesus.

PDN wrote: »

This is particularly so when someone with no knowledge of the field at all has the effrontery to declare to the rest of us that such an interpretation is wrong - yet without presenting any evidence to support such a pronouncement. Think of it as peer review.

The evidence is the original text.

Put it this way. Given a completely non-bias reading of the text can you find as the most likely interpretation is that Jesus is not telling the disciples what to look out for in the second coming.

The only reason to go searching for a more complicated interpretation is that the second coming clearly didn't take place within the life time of the disciples.

Can you honestly say that a non-believer reading that text wouldn't come to that conclusion first before having to have it explained to them that the second coming clearly can't have been supposed to take place within the life time of the disciples so a different interpretation is needed.

PDN wrote: »

What you are in effect saying is that you (someone who has no knowledge of theology or biblical studies and regularly drop clangers when you try to debate these subjects) holds the right interpretation

No, I'm effectively saying that Christians choose interpretations of passages to make them fit their beliefs, and push comes to shove they will disregard a more likely interpretation if that conflicts with their beliefs.

It is almost a given by definition that a Christian will not end up with "my" interpretation of this passage because doing so would probably mean they wouldn't be a Christian any more.

To therefore roll out Christian after Christian who hasn't amazingly come to the conclusion that Jesus' prophecy was not fulfilled, is hardly shocking is it.

It would be like asking a Man Utd if he ever came to the conclusion that Man Utd were a sucky team not worth supporting. If he did he wouldn't be a Man Utd fan, would he.

Zombrex

Oh and FYI, peer review requires people without a vested interest in your interpretation being correct.

You need to show me a Hindu who agrees with the interpretation. Or an atheist. Or a Buddhist.

A bunch of Christians all coming to the conclusion that fits with Christianity is not peer review.

robindch

(darn, missed wicknight making just this point on the next page; oh well, it's late...)

PDN wrote: »

It is also reasonable to point out that a particular interpretation has been viewed as eminently reasonable by theologians & Christians of various traditions.

Indeed, the very same theologians who presumably earn some, or even all, of their daily bread by pointing out how eminently reasonable some particular interpretation is. I can't imagine the pope, for example, keeping his job or his rep for very long if he announced to the city and the world that "generation" really did mean "generation" and clearly, the prophesy was wrong and Jesus isn't coming back.

In economic terms, what's going on here is similar to the well-attested phenomenon of Regulatory Capture, when the prosecution finds itself simultaneously acting as defence or judge or both. This is a serious offense in law and science, but seems to be a cheerful feature of most religions (people like the excellent Bart Ehrman notwithstanding).

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh and FYI, peer review requires people without a vested interest in your interpretation being correct.

You need to show me a Hindu who agrees with the interpretation. Or an atheist. Or a Buddhist.

A bunch of Christians all coming to the conclusion that fits with Christianity is not peer review.

So what would you say to the following esteemed minds? Had they got vested interests? Before they were converted they exposed themselves to the evidence of the resurrection of Christ with open and in some cases contrary minds and came back convinced.

Taken from "Evidence for the Resurrection" from Debate.org.uk

Brooke Foss Wescott (a textual critic) who says: "There is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ."

Dr. Paul L. Maier (professor of ancient history) maintains: "No shred of evidence has yet been discovered in literary sources, epigraphy or archaeology that would disprove that the tomb in which Jesus was buried was actually empty on the morning of the 1st Easter."

Dr. Simon Greenleaf (a Harvard University professor of Law) states: "According to the laws of legal evidence used in courts of law, there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ than for just about any other event in history."

Dr. Frank Morrison (a rationalistic lawyer) decided to take three years off from his practice to disprove the resurrection. After three years of study, he found that the sheer weight of the evidence compelled him to conclude that Jesus actually did rise from the dead. As a consequence he wrote the book: Who Moved the Stone?

C.S.Lewis (a literary genius) was also interested in the accuracy of the resurrection. After evaluating the basis and evidence for Christianity, Lewis concluded that in other religions there was 'no such historical claim as in Christianity.' He was too experienced in literary criticism to regard the Gospel as myth. He had no other choice but to accept the resurrection as fact.

Surely these gentlemen can be respected as the equivalent of a peer review. Yes? No? Any takers?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Oh and FYI, peer review requires people without a vested interest in your interpretation being correct.

You need to show me a Hindu who agrees with the interpretation. Or an atheist. Or a Buddhist.

A bunch of Christians all coming to the conclusion that fits with Christianity is not peer review.

So Christian belief should be determined by people who have a vested interest in denying Christianity?

That is like saying that no evolutionist hypothesis can be accepted as scientific until it is favourably assessed by creationists.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Put it this way. Given a completely non-bias reading of the text can you find as the most likely interpretation is that Jesus is not telling the disciples what to look out for in the second coming.

Jesus was certainly telling the disciples what to look out for in the Second Coming. No-one is denying that at all.

Jesus told them the signs to watch out for - signs that would let them know if they were the generation that would see the return of Christ or not. Since nobody, not even Jesus Himself, knew the day or hour of His return, then each successive generation must be aware of the possibility that they will be that generation.

Even the fact that Jesus used the word "you" to the disciples is entirely consistent with the norms of biblical prophecy. In the Old Testament prophets would tell the people "God will take you into captivity" even though the prophesied event was not to occur for generations to come.

MooseJam

PDN wrote: »

and by the law of non-contradiction (He cannot create a square circle).

this means he can´t bake a cake so big he can´t eat it and similar right

PDN

MooseJam wrote: »

this means he can´t bake a cake so big he can´t eat it and similar right

You got it. We'll make a theologian out of you yet.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So Christian belief should be determined by people who have a vested interest in denying Christianity? That is like saying that no evolutionist hypothesis can be accepted as scientific until it is favourably assessed by creationists.

That misses the point quite spectacularly.

What Wicknight and I are saying is that, just like in anything else, the accuracy of something is not best judged by people who have a substantial stake in it being true.

robindch

MooseJam wrote: »

this means he can´t bake a cake so big he can´t eat it and similar right

That's one kind of omnipotence and seems to be reasonably widely accepted within christian, jewish and islamic religious circles. But there are other classes of omnipotence too and which one you accept is up to you, if you accept it to start with. See the wiki article which goes into detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_Paradox#Types_of_omnipotence

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Brooke Foss Wescott (a textual critic)

Wescott was a 19th century theologian and Bishop of Durham.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Dr. Paul L. Maier (professor of ancient history)

Maier was the Second Vice President of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Dr. Simon Greenleaf

Greenleaf as one of the first modern (19th century) Christian apologetics

Soul Winner wrote: »

Dr. Frank Morrison (a rationalistic lawyer)

Morrision is interesting has he claims he was a sceptic and was convinced by the "shear weight of evidence". He appears though to take the entire Bible as factual evidence, which seems a bit of a funny place for a sceptic to start.

Soul Winner wrote: »

C.S.Lewis

Raised Church of Ireland, "re-converted" to Christianity in his 30s.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Surely these gentlemen can be respected as the equivalent of a peer review. Yes? No? Any takers?

No. Not in the slightest.

Do you understand what peer review actually means?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So Christian belief should be determined by people who have a vested interest in denying Christianity?

This isn't about Christian belief, though the fact that you said that is very telling (it obviously is to you)

This is about what the authors of those passages actually meant. If Christian belief requires an interpretation of these passages in one particular way then Christians are not the best people to assessing these passages.

PDN wrote: »

That is like saying that no evolutionist hypothesis can be accepted as scientific until it is favourably assessed by creationists.

Yes, it kinda is.

Darwinian evolution has favourably assessed by creationists (pretty much everyone in Darwin's time was a creationist). The support it had was considered so over whelming that even scientists who were opposed to the very idea were eventually convinced by it.

That was a good thing.

PDN wrote: »

Since nobody, not even Jesus Himself, knew the day or hour of His return, then each successive generation must be aware of the possibility that they will be that generation.

Jesus knew that the coming would be soon (within the life time of the disciples). He tells us as much.

The fact that you are fudging this (you know perfectly well that the hours and day line does not mean that Jesus had no idea what century his return would be), demonstrates my point above.

The most obvious and clear interpretation of these passages is that Jesus did not know exactly when the second coming would be so he told his disciples to be ready at any time, but he did know that it would happen to them so they were to prepare.

A much less obvious interpretation is that Jesus did not know at all when the second coming would take place, and told his disciples the signs just on the off chance they would experience it.

The reason to pick the second interpretation is simply that the first has been shown to be not based on reality.