Saturday, August 19, 2006

Did Jesus And The Earliest Christians Teach That The Second Coming Would Occur Within Jesus' Generation?

In other threads, I've been discussing early Christian eschatology with Jon Curry. For those who don't know, Jon recently left Christianity and now maintains that Jesus didn't exist. Our eschatological discussions have primarily been about Matthew 16:28 and 24:34, though he's recently put more emphasis on Paul's eschatology. I want to quote, below, some portions of my most recent response to him, since I think these things might be helpful to some of you. Knowing the background of my discussions with Jon would make some portions of what's below easier to understand, but I think anybody should be able to follow the general thrust. In addition to addressing Matthew 16 and 24 and the eschatology of Paul, I'm addressing Jon's argument that 2 Peter 3 is "making excuses" for a false prophecy that Jesus would return within His generation. My response to Jon consists of more than what I quote below, and those interested can read that other thread for more.


People can ask why God hasn't done something yet even if He didn't set a generational time limit on it. See the examples I cited from the Old Testament in my previous post (Isaiah 5:19, Jeremiah 17:15, Ezekiel 12:22). Similarly, there are references in ancient extra-Biblical Jewish literature to people objecting to the lack of fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies, regardless of whether the prophecies had any time limit on them (Michael Green, 2 Peter & Jude [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987], pp. 139, 148). Jews had believed for centuries that the day of the Lord was at hand without setting generational or other dates (Joel 2:1, Obadiah 15, Habakkuk 2:3), and Psalm 90:4 had been cited in this context by Jews before Peter cited it (Craig Blomberg, The Historical Reliability Of The Gospels [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1987], p. 34). No generational time limit is mentioned in 2 Peter 3, and a promise without a generational limit makes more sense of 2 Peter 3:9....

If Jesus had said that His second coming would occur in His generation, then why would the scoffers Peter refers to not cite that promise of Jesus, but instead object to the slowness of a promise that could still be fulfilled in the future (2 Peter 3:9)? There's a difference between the slowness of a fulfillment that could still happen and the failure of a promise that can't be fulfilled as a result of the time limit having already passed. The situation addressed in 2 Peter 3 is the former, not the latter. We should ask, then, why scoffers would object to the delaying of the day of the Lord, much as people did in Old Testament times, rather than citing something more explicit, like a promise by Jesus that His second coming would occur before the end of His generation. They probably didn't cite such a promise because there wasn't one.

You still haven't given any examples of the earliest Christians responding to a false prophecy made by Jesus, with the sort of shift in belief and counterarguments we would expect to accompany such a false prophecy. Christians living after Jesus' generation continued to view Christ's return as imminent and continued to cite the comments of Jesus about not knowing the day or hour, as if they applied beyond the lifetime of Jesus' generation. Documents like Aristides' Apology and Justin Martyr's Apologies and Dialogue With Trypho address non-Christians and discuss many objections to Christianity, but they don't address any alleged false prophecy of Jesus, even when the second coming is discussed. Some of the early sources who comment on eschatology were eyewitnesses or contemporaries of the apostles (Clement of Rome, Papias, etc.). Their lives overlapped both the first and the second generations of Christianity. If a shift had occurred in eschatology like the one you're suggesting, with such significant implications, these people should have known about it. As David Aune notes, "The very paucity of references to a supposed delay of the eschaton is indicative of the fact that the delay of the Parousia was largely a nonproblem within early Christianity" (cited in Ralph P. Martin and Peter H. Davids, editors, Dictionary Of The Later New Testament & Its Developments [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1997], p. 873). Christian sources of the second century (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter To The Ephesians, 11; The Epistle of Barnabas, 4; Second Clement, 12; etc.) make the same sort of references to living in the end times, the imminence of Christ's return, etc. that we find in first century sources. Ignatius even refers to Christ's coming, more than a century earlier, as occurring "in the end" (Letter To The Magnesians, 6)....

Matthew 16:27 also speaks about the glory of Jesus, which is reflected in the Mount of Transfiguration. So are His identity and His authority, which are relevant to His power to judge and His relationship to the angels....

The Mount of Transfiguration involves more than "seeing Jesus shining". Jesus is visited by Moses and Elijah, an eschatological figure, He's overshadowed by a bright cloud reminiscent of the Shekinah, and He receives Divine sanction. It's a foretaste of the "glory of the Father" referred to in Matthew 16:27. The Father says that the Son is to be heeded, in language reminiscent of Moses' comments about heeding the Messianic prophet to come (Deuteronomy 18:15). The passage doesn't just involve "Jesus shining", but involves a manifestation of His identity, glory, and authority. It is a foretaste of Matthew 16:27....

The phrase "we who are alive" [in 1 Thessalonians 4:15] doesn't reflect an assurance that Paul and all of the living people he was writing to would live until Jesus' return. People in the churches of the first century were dying on a regular basis, just like people outside the church. Paul would have known that some of the people living when he wrote could die, just as he knew that his own death was a possibility once he finished the work he was called to do (Acts 21:13, Philippians 1:22-23, 2 Timothy 4:6). Thus, in 2 Corinthians 5:1-9, Paul can refer to how "we" might be in the body or out of the body through death. The same Paul who refers to "we" who are alive at the time of Jesus' second coming in 1 Thessalonians 4 goes on in the next chapter to refer to how "we" might be alive or dead (1 Thessalonians 5:10). Similarly, Paul refers elsewhere to how "we" will be raised (1 Corinthians 6:14, 2 Corinthians 4:14), which assumes that "we" would first die, in contrast to other passages where "we" are transformed without having died (1 Corinthians 15:51). Apparently, Paul thought it was possible that he and his contemporary Christians would be alive or dead at the time of Jesus' second coming, so he assumes one possibility in some places and the other in other places....

We're discussing Matthew 24:34. I'm appealing to the same phrase ["all these things"] in verse 33. You're appealing to a different phrase in verse 3. My reference to verse 33 is more relevant. But if we look to verse 3, the closest parallel to "all these things" is what the disciples asked about the temple (they use the phrase "these things"), not all of their questions collectively....

Matthew 24:33 tells us that "all these things" happen before Jesus' second coming. The "all these things" indicate that Jesus is at hand. The second coming itself isn't included in the "all these things". If by "apocalyptic events" you're including the second coming itself and the events that follow it, then those events can't be included in the "all these things" of verse 33....

The "all these things" of Matthew 24:34 are general signs, types of events, like the ripening of a fig tree. He's addressing the signs of the end times, not the end time events themselves. Jesus can't be referring to everything discussed earlier in the chapter, since the second coming itself and the events following it were part of what was discussed, yet we know that He wasn't including those events.

What all would be included in the "all these things"? Apparently, what's in view is all of the signs that are comparable to the signs a fig tree gives as it ripens. The ripening suggests that summer is coming, but it doesn't give the specifics of the timing. Similarly, the general birth pangs Jesus referred to earlier (Matthew 24:4-8) are signs of something coming, but only in a general sense, since "that is not yet the end" (verse 6) and "all these things are merely the beginning of birth pangs" (verse 8). General signs lead to a brief sequence of specific events, including the second coming itself and the events that follow it (angels gathering people, etc.). Jesus' generation would see the general signs, which would warrant their preparation for Jesus' return. They shouldn't be like the foolish virgins or the unfaithful slaves who were unprepared. Once the general signs are in place, Jesus' return is at hand. It could happen quickly, like a thief coming in the night (Matthew 24:43). What Jesus is conveying in verses 33-34 is the fact that those general signs, like the ripening of a fig tree, will be present as early as that current generation. That generation has to be watchful. They can't assume that the Master will delay His coming....

Shortly after Jesus' comments in Matthew 24:33-34, He addresses the theme of watchfulness and ignorance of the timing of His coming. You've argued that people wouldn't know the timing within Jesus' generation, but that they did know that it would happen within that generation at some point. Against that conclusion, I've cited the language of Acts 1:7, which uses the broad phrase "times or epochs". Notice, also, that a variety of phrases are used in the Synoptic accounts. We see "day" at one point (Matthew 24:42), "hour" at another point (Matthew 24:44), and "day or hour" (Matthew 24:50), "watch" (Luke 12:38), or "time" elsewhere (Mark 13:33). Hours and days wouldn't be the only units of time that would be unknown within a generation. Minutes, weeks, years, decades, etc. would also be unknown. It's likely that Jesus had more than just units of hours and days in mind. The rabbis of ancient Israel generally condemned the setting of dates in general, not just hours and days (Craig Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], p. 590). Jesus probably was agreeing with general Jewish condemnations of setting dates. It would make less sense for Jesus to agree with Jewish opposition to setting hours and days while disagreeing about setting a generational date. And if Christians had an assurance of a second coming within Jesus' generation, it doesn't seem that unpreparedness would be as much of a problem as Jesus goes on to suggest in the remainder of Matthew 24 and in Matthew 25.

Since Jesus wanted people to be in a state of readiness, it wouldn't make sense to expect Him to make explicit reference to His second coming not occurring until a future generation. The most we can expect is the suggestion of the possibility of a longer period of time. Some of the illustrations Jesus goes on to use allow for a return within a short amount of time, but others suggest the possibility of "a long time" (Matthew 25:19) or involve events that would never have something like a generational time limit set on them (Matthew 24:43). The spreading of the kingdom and the spread of the gospel (Matthew 13:24-32, 24:9-14) make more sense as occurring over a longer period of time, even though a shorter time would be possible. Paul refers to how Christians of his day could be "waking or sleeping" (alive or dead) when the second coming happens (1 Thessalonians 5:10). Paul also repeats, in a passage addressing children, the Old Testament concept that children will tend to live lengthy lives on earth if they obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1-3), suggesting that Paul thought it was possible for people who were only in childhood at that time to live to an old age. Those children wouldn't reach an old age until after Jesus' generation had passed. When Paul wrote Ephesians, it had been more than 50 years since Jesus' birth. Clement of Rome, who was at least a contemporary of the apostles and probably was one of their disciples, refers to how the apostles themselves had made preparation for future generations of church leadership (First Clement, 44 - see the translation and notes in Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2005], pp. 77, 79). The apostles did think that it was possible, and in some cases apparently probable, that Jesus would return in their lifetime. But they also seem to have thought that it was possible that there would be future generations. It doesn't seem that they thought they had any assurance from Jesus that He would return by the end of His generation....

If the gospels are dated much past 70, then, according to your reasoning, the authors were recording statements attributed to Jesus that were known at the time to be false prophecies. For example, you maintain that the events of Matthew 24 didn't occur surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century. And if you date the documents earlier, then eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus (if He existed) and the apostles were still alive. The year 70 would be less than a decade after Paul's death. Think of all the churches he influenced, how widely he traveled, how well he got along with other leaders like James and John (Galatians 2:9-10), etc. If he taught that Jesus existed in some non-earthly realm, are we to believe that Greco-Roman biographies addressing an earthly life of Jesus were circulating among Christians beginning less than a decade after Paul's death? Wouldn't Paul's disciples (and those of James, Peter, John, etc.) object? Both from what we know of human lifespans and from what early sources report about specific individuals, we know that disciples of the apostles would have lived into the second century. Polycarp lived into the second half of the second century.

Even if you put every gospel in the 90s, for example, you still have eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus and the apostles alive at the time. How would the children of men like James and Jude, who had been told all their lives that Jesus was a non-earthly figure, react to the new claim that Jesus was actually their biological uncle? How would the children, associates, etc. of men like Pilate, Joseph of Arimathea, and the apostle Peter react when false claims began circulating about how these people supposedly interacted with a historical Jesus? Etc.

Whether you date the gospels earlier or later, your theories have major problems either way. Eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus and the apostles would have lived into the second half of the second century. If you put the gospels early, then you have them close to the time when belief in a non-earthly Jesus supposedly was popular, and you have them at a time when eyewitnesses and contemporaries were still alive. But if you give them a late dating, then, according to your assertions about Christian eschatology, you have people putting eschatological material in the gospels that they knew to be false. And why do people in the early second century refer to written documents called "gospels" (or "the gospel" collectively), and refer frequently in their writings to the concepts we find in our gospels, if our gospels didn't exist at the time? Who could have composed the gospels after the apostles were dead, then got them to be nearly universally accepted, by both Christian and non-Christian sources, as works of the apostolic era? Etc.

As difficult as some elements of Christian eschatology are, I would say that they're gnats in comparison to some of the camels you're swallowing. You tell us that you "haven't looked into it [the dating of the gospels] in enough detail", and it seems that the same could be said about much of the rest of your analysis of Christianity.

7 comments:

  1. He also said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come in power." (Mark 9:1 NAB)

    Amen, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. (Matthew 23:36 NAB)

    So, if someone told you on Sunday that they would arrive "this day" and didn't show up until the following Thursday, would you accept their excuse that they were speaking "figuratively" or would you insist that they had lied to you?

    Just wondering.

    - Todd

    ReplyDelete
  2. Todd,

    You need to be more careful. Did you read my post before responding to it? I addressed Matthew 16:28, which is parallel to Mark 9:1, so why would you cite Mark 9:1 as if that citation alone is sufficient to refute my position? And what's the relevance of Matthew 23:36? Read verses 34-35. The "all these things" phrase refers to the results of what happened to servants of God sent to Israel. The "all these things" wouldn't include the second coming. The second coming wouldn't be needed to bring "all these things" on Jesus' generation. Instead of illustrating the unreasonable nature of Christianity, your post illustrates the unreasonable nature of critics who quote the Bible out of context and don't give much thought to what they're responding to.

    You write:

    "So, if someone told you on Sunday that they would arrive 'this day' and didn't show up until the following Thursday, would you accept their excuse that they were speaking 'figuratively' or would you insist that they had lied to you?"

    When did Jesus say that He "would arrive" at one time, but didn't arrive then? You're assuming what you need to prove.

    But as far as language use in general is concerned, you do have to give attention to historical context. Figures of speech, apocalyptic language, etc. were common in ancient Jewish contexts. There is some difficulty involved in understanding such documents (reading Biblical commentaries, taking the time and effort to think through the issues involved, etc.). If you don't like the difficulty involved, then say so. But don't act as if you're interacting with what the documents actually say when all you're doing is assuming that the passages mean whatever quickly comes to your mind without giving the relevant issues much thought.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is also another interpretation which does say Jesus returned in judgment.

    The Bible does use the word "coming" for judgment.

    The Bible does use the language of "coming (or, riding) on the clouds" as judgment.

    Jesus did come back, not bodily (again, in 'come' in the sense described above) in 70 AD to judge the Jews - the ones who were to be blamed for all the murders of the prophets.

    If this preterist (not hyper) position is correct, then we have an easily demonstarted fulfilled prophecy and the atheists should believe. They won't, though, because nothing can change their minds. Prophecy is a priori ruled out.


    Or, take the idealist interpretation, on this view there are many comings of Christ. So, Christ did "come" then, and he "comes" now. We shouldn't read "come" as if there was only one usage in OT and NT times.


    Based on the above, and Jason's arguments, I think the atheist is hard pressed to try and make a case here. And, as I said, given the preterist interpretation, we have a pretty unambiguous example of a prophecy being fulfilled. It's also interesting to note that none of the NT writers mentioned the destruction of the temple.

    We must all agree that Jesus did prophecy this would happen. The authors surely would have drawn our attention to it if it had happened. That's an example of internal evidence for an early date. Let's also note that AT Robinson has dated the NT before 70 AD as well.

    Anyway, some food for thought.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous,

    You make some good points, and I should explain that my discussion with Jon Curry hasn't focused on alternative prophetic frameworks, such as preterism. I have mentioned the preterist view in passing, but I've mostly assumed the sort of futurist perspective that Jon and other critics usually come to the text with. Even if we remain within a futurist framework, or more generally within a framework that applies a more literal interpretation to early Christian eschatology, the evidence still doesn't support their conclusions. I agree, though, that the preterist approach makes their objections even less relevant. Either way, they don't have a case.

    Something preterists and futurists (I'm a futurist) can agree about is that Jesus suggests the possibility of future generations arriving prior to His second coming and that Paul and the other early Christians allowed for the same possibility. My arguments from 1 Thessalonians 5, Ephesians 6, First Clement 44, etc. are acceptable both within a preterist framework and within a futurist framework. If the earliest Christians thought that Jesus' second coming within their generation was certain (not just possible or probable), then they shouldn't have made some of the comments they made, and we should see major strands of evidence in the historical record reflecting the sort of large shift in belief, disappointment, criticism, etc. that would have accompanied such a falsified eschatology. The fact that the scoffers of 2 Peter 3 weren't appealing to any generational time limit is significant evidence that they weren't aware of any such limit, and none of the other early sources mention one either.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jason,

    I think it would depend on how we defiend "coming."

    As a preterist, I would say that Jesus did not allow the generation he spoke to to "pass away" before he "came" in judgment. So, yes, other generations were on the scene, but I would say that Jesus did return to the Generation he was speaking to, and that, in my view, on my interpretation, He could not have let it pass away.

    I like to draw the distinction between 'advent' and 'coming.' I agree that with respects to the second advent, they did not expect it to happen any time soon.

    So, some of those passages I would say that they are referring to the second advent, not the second coming.

    So, if we can just define our terms together I can fully agree with you here. The only question would be, are all of the other passages referring to Jesus' coming in the Matt. 24 sense, or in the Acts 1:11 sense? I think that's a valid distinction to make.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your latest post is indicative of the direction you like to take at this stage in our debates. You ignore what I say. I’m already repeating myself, but you ignore repeatedly. So I’ll probably end up just abandoning and later on you’ll talk about how I “never responded” to you.

    We start with the switching of topics. I made the point that you like to switch topics. You responded by saying that I discussed topics that weren’t part of your original post. But I showed you that the topics I raised were simply a response to points you had raised in the comments section in your discussion with John.

    So you drop those criticisms and raise what seems like an irrelevant problem. You say:

    “In your first post in this thread, you refer to "the subject of our other thread", but in your comments quoted above, you mention more than one subject, and you discussed other subjects in that other thread as well. Your suggestion that Matthew 16:28 was "the subject of our other thread" is false.”

    It became the subject of our discussion when you brought it up. It was just one of the many topics you’ve brought up that was unrelated to the immediate discussion. I did begin discussing it with you because you brought it up, but then you start bringing up many other large subjects, particularly Jesus as myth. This is distracting. As I said, I’m not unwilling to debate it with you, but I’d prefer to try and bring some focus to this discussion.

    I have no objection to you starting a new thread. Start a thread about anything you want, including me. But when in our discussion you bring up 10 off the subject issues, and when you initiate a new thread about an off the subject issue I might just point it out, because I think it indicates that you are having problems.

    “Just after you mention the phrase in question in Matthew 16 around the 35-minute mark in the program, James White argues that the original Jewish audience WOULD have had an understanding of that phrase different from yours.”

    There’s not much else to say here except that what you are writing is false. I’ve emphasized the word you used last time which I corrected with emphasis and now you’ve ignored that and just repeated what you said before. He never said the text WOULD have an understanding different from mine. He said there are a “whole bunch” of texts that sound one way to us but mean something else to them. I repeated how I thought they would understand it and he said it would mean that “unless” they had a different understanding of it based upon how they understand the phrase. I then asked if there is any evidence that they understood it differently than the way I expressed it and he changed the subject. He never said that my description WAS wrong. He was basically saying it COULD be wrong if they understood things differently, and he provided no evidence that they understood things differently.

    I can’t make you respond to what I say. I can’t prevent you from repeating what is already refuted. I can just repeat the refutation. What I’m saying above is exactly what I said last time.

    “You aren't explaining why Mark placed the Mount of Transfiguration just after Jesus' comment.”

    And you aren’t explaining why on my view it needs to be explained. It has to go somewhere.

    “You haven't interacted with all of the details I cited from Joel Green. The fact that Green holds a view similar to mine doesn't prove that your responses to me address all of Green's points.”

    Let me repost what Green has.

    "When will 'some' see this? In the immediately adjacent scene, three disciples 'see' Jesus n his glory, the glory of the Son of Man (vv 26, 32). That is, those who witness the transfiguration of Jesus (vv 28-36) witness thereby, albeit in a proleptic way, the kingdom of God....The question of Jesus' identity - raised explicitly in the Lukan report concerning Herod's perplexity (vv 7-9) and again by Jesus (vv 18, 20) - has not been fully resolved....In short, in the transfiguration scene Jesus and his words, even when they are unconventional or seem bizarre, receive divine sanction." (The Gospel Of Luke [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997], pp. 376-377)

    It’s just assertion. It asserts that Christ was really talking about seeing the transfiguration, which is in fact the kingdom referred to in v27, but in a proleptic (i.e. anachronistic) way. It really does refer to the transfiguration, though that makes Jesus words “bizarre” and “unconventional.” What is there here to respond to by way of argument? My response is that I disagree, and if he wants to offer some good reasons for accepting this bizarre, unconventional, anachronistic interpretation I’m going to need more than assertion.

    You also point out that Green says two passages in the parallel account in Luke begin with prayer. Also previously Jesus had asked who others said he was. Some said Elijah, and soon after Elijah was present at the Transfiguration. This means what? This means that when Matthew talks about coming with judgment, glory, and angels, he’s also talking about the Transfiguration, but in a bizarre and unconventional way? There’s just not much substance there to reply to. If there are no reasons coming from Green, then it is impossible to reply to him.

    The quotes I offered were different. They didn’t just assert what I said. They provided some of the same arguments I made. For instance:

    "To suppose that it refers merely to the glorious manifestation of Jesus on the mount of transfiguration, though an hypothesis which has great names to support it, is so palpably inadequate as an interpretation that it scarcely requires refutation… The very form of the expression shows that the event spoken of could not lie within the space of a few months, or even a few years: it is a mode of speech which suggests that not all present will live to see the event spoken of; that not many will do so; but that some will. It is exactly such a way of speaking as would suit an interval of thirty or forty years, when the majority of the persons then present would have passed away, but some would survive and witness the events referred to… The Parousia, or glorious coming of Christ, was declared by Himself to fall within the limits of the then existing generation."(The Parousia, J. Stuart Russell, T. Fisher Unwin Pub., London, 1887)

    Now, if James White is right and this expression could mean something different to Jewish ears, why does Russel say the exact opposite, then base is argument on that very understanding? It’s the plain reading. It’s the manner that the Bible translators translated it. If it meant something different, why doesn’t someone render it in a manner consistent with James White’s theory?

    C.E.B. Cranfield asserts that the emphasis is on the state of the people of the time, not the timing of the events. But clearly that is not the straightforward reading. So he has a burden of proof to provide reasons for his interpretation, not just to assert his understanding of what it means. Where are his reasons for thinking this is what it means? You assert that Cranfield “almost entirely” answers my citations. This is apparently because you think an assertion of a logical possible interpretation to a text qualifies as an “answer.” It’s not an answer because assertions are not answers. Reasons and arguments are answers.

    Your commentaries don’t provide reasons because the reasons are not textual. There’s only one reason you think this is not a mistake. It’s because you want to believe the Bible is inerrant.

    I have an apologist friend that used to do what you do. He’d try to defend the Bible’s inerrancy in texts like this one. But ultimately he said to me “Look Jon, Jesus is raised from the dead and he treated the Bible as inerrant. He can’t be mistaken because he is God. So it doesn’t matter how many anachronistic things you find in the Bible. They can’t be genuine mistakes because Jesus can’t be wrong.”

    That’s a perfectly rational approach. I can respect the logic to that. This is really your reason, but you pretend to have other ones. What Green says and what you say are cover for what is really going on. You have a prior theological commitment to the Bible’s inerrancy and you will not see the text in any other way. That’s why Green gives these half hearted reasons (such as this point that both texts start with prayer. That doesn’t demonstrate anything, which makes me think this is just half-hearted argumentation).

    “Quoting people who hold positions different from mine doesn't refute my view, nor does it change the fact that many scholars disagree with the people you're citing.”

    I would say the same thing to you.

    “I'm not appealing to what "can't" happen. I'm arguing for a probability. A phrase like "times or epochs" more naturally refers to timing in general, not just timing within the limits of a generation. I'll have more to say about this below.”

    Since not knowing the “times and seasons” is entirely compatible with knowing that it will occur within a generation, I don’t see what sense it makes to say that your interpretation is more probable.

    “D.A. Carson argues for a chiasm in Matthew 16:24-28. He explains the details involved in forming the chiasm. If you think he's wrong, then interact with his arguments. Have you read his comments on the subject?”

    You’ve asserted that Carson does “suggest” it. You provided no reasons to support your position or his. Is that what you call an argument? Here is what you said:

    “D.A. Carson suggests that Matthew 16:24-28 is a chiasm in which verses 24 and 28 refer to events of the immediate future prior to the second coming (The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew, Chapters 13 Through 28 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995], p. 382).”

    This is exactly what I’m talking about. He may be right and he may be wrong, but I can’t evaluate that without seeing the reasons for his conclusion. If you are going to expect me to respond you have to present the arguments. There is nothing here for me to reply to. I can offer you many things that skeptics “suggest” in books you don’t own, but I can’t expect you to reply to them.

    “I usually use the Updated New American Standard. It renders the question of 2 Peter 3:4 as "Where is the promise of His coming?", which doesn't identify who made the promise.”

    OK. Let’s grant that reading as a possibility. Apparently the NIV translators, who are more intent on conveying the meaning, regard it as a promise that came from Christ. But even if we assume your interpretation, this doesn’t change much. The author doesn’t deny that a prediction was made. He doesn’t deny that the coming of Jesus was prophesied. As I said last time I don’t think 2 Pet is aware of Mt, so I’m not saying this is where he’s getting it. I’m saying that these sentiments are floating around in oral tradition, probably partly a result of what Paul has had to say, and these sentiments are codified in Mt as well, though 2 Peter is not aware of it. So here’s the bottom line. We do have early Christian literature (2nd century for this text in my view, earlier in your view) that indicates that Christians are defending against the charge that Christ was expected to return in the past.

    “For your argument to stand, Peter must be responding to a promise by Christ that His second coming will happen within His generation.”

    What I said in the paragraph above about 2 Peter being unaware of Mt is the same thing I said last time. If you hadn’t ignored it you would see that these comments miss the mark. I will reiterate these things again.

    Your argument is that the early Christian record of argument is inconsistent with the belief that early Christians thought the end would come before the disciples died. You are trying to misconstrue my response and act like I have a burden to show that 2 Pet is aware of the very terminology used by Mt and that I have to prove that the words came from Jesus very mouth and so forth. I do not have to do that. I just have to show that the record is not inconsistent with my view. We see early Christians defending against the timing of the prophecy, and how it seems to be slower than expected. That’s consistent with my view. We do not have direct citations of the words Matthew attributes to Jesus. So what? 2 Peter doesn’t have access to Matthew as far as we can see. Why would we expect the scoffers to have it? We don’t even get a clear citation from any gospel until well into the 2nd century, so we shouldn’t expect scoffers to cite Jesus’ erroneous prophecy verbatim. What we might expect to see is exactly what we in fact see at 2 Peter 3. General refutations of the failed timing of the prophecy of “His coming”.

    “As I explained earlier, Jesus' second coming is part of what's involved, but the themes Peter is addressing predate the New Testament era. What Peter is discussing was promised before Jesus came. Jesus is relevant to what Peter discusses, but the promise in question can't be limited to what Jesus said.”

    Is it true or is it false that the promise of “His coming” is the promise of Jesus coming? Yes or no. Your point about this also being part of OT expectations does not change the fact that it is about the expectation of Christ’s coming, right? And if it is about Christ’s coming, and if it is about the timing of that event, and if that timing appears to be later than expected, doesn’t this show that early Christians are responding to the early charge of a failed expectation promise? And isn’t this exactly what would be expected if in fact early Christian propaganda is using the standard religious scare tactic (also expressed in the gospels) of telling people that they better convert quickly because the end is near, and it will happen within certain people’s lifetime, etc, etc.

    “You're now arguing that Peter had Paul's comments in mind, but that isn't what you originally argued. Matthew 16:28 was spoken by Jesus, not Paul.”

    I don’t believe I’ve said or argued that Peter has in mind the words at Mt 16. My belief is that Mt 16 appears to teach that Christ will come again before the disciples die, and 2 Pet also responds to critics who seem to think that Christians have taught that Christ will come again soon. Where do they get this notion? Probably from the same source that Mt gets his notion. When the gospels appear to teach it and early critics think this is what is taught, and when 2 Peter doesn’t deny that it was taught, but instead invents absurd excuses for it, I have to think that my understanding of Mt is correct. This is the way they understood these words back then. It’s not a matter of looking at one isolated text and trying to see if 2 Peter has that in mind. It’s a matter of trying to get a grasp of the general consensus attitude of early Christians. Paul and the gospels consistently express things about the urgency of converting because of the soon to be realized end of the world and the coming of Christ with judgment. 2 Peter’s early response to the critics also assumes that paradigm. This shows that my description of the paradigm is accurate. Early Christians expected an early return of Christ. One that would occur before some of the disciples had died.

    “Your appeal to Paul runs into one of the same problems as your earlier appeal to Jesus. 2 Peter 3:9 refers to the promise as being fulfilled in the future. But if the promise under consideration was about Jesus' generation, and that generation had already passed, then Peter couldn't appeal to a future fulfillment to explain it.”

    Here again you are precisely repeating what you said last time and ignoring my direct rebuttal of it. I can’t make you interact with what I say. I can repeat what I said. That’s about it.

    As I said last time it wouldn’t be unexpected of him to just say that while it may have sounded like we meant it would happen soon, in fact we didn’t mean that. We said it would be in a day. But a day is like a thousand years. So when we say it will happen in 40 years, maybe we meant many thousands of years.

    “You're misunderstanding my argument. I don't claim that Jesus' second coming is "separate" or that Peter's comments are "radically divorced from Paul". Rather, I'm arguing that Peter is addressing a theme that began in Old Testament times, and most of his comments use Old Testament terminology.”

    Yes, it’s been going on since OT times, but clearly 2 Peter has the same “day of the Lord coming like a thief in the night” as Paul does. Paul’s “day of the Lord coming like a thief in the night” is the coming of Christ.

    The reality is scaring people into thinking that the end is near is a standard religious conversion technique. It really motivates people. Yes, they’ve been doing it in the OT and in the first century Christians were doing it as well. The fact that this failed previously doesn’t show that it isn’t failing now as well.

    “People can ask why God hasn't done something yet even if He didn't set a generational time limit on it.”

    Yes, and people can ask why God hasn’t done something yet when he DOES place a time limit on it. It strains credulity to think that though Paul implies an early return, when Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn say things that certainly appear to suggest an early return, and though 2 Pet replies to critics that point out the failure of an early return, in fact nobody really expected an early return.

    “Some people were asking why it hadn't happened yet. It doesn't therefore logically follow that the day of the Lord must have had a time limit set on it, much less that the time set was Jesus' generation, as in Matthew 16:28.”

    Many things don’t follow with logical necessity. Just because gravity has worked every time it has been tried, this doesn’t prove that the next time you release the basketball it will accelerate towards the earth. But it probably will. When the entire tenor of the gospels and Paul’s letters suggest an early return it is highly improbable to suggest that the scoffers of 2 Pet 3 don’t see things the same way.

    “If Jesus had said that His second coming would occur in His generation, then why would the scoffers Peter refers to not cite that promise of Jesus, but instead object to the slowness of a promise that could still be fulfilled in the future (2 Peter 3:9)?”

    First of all, how do you know they didn’t cite it? We don’t have the words of the scoffers. We have 2 Peter’s (supposed) prediction of what people would say in the “last days”, which really is the pseudonymous authors interpretation of what he’s hearing from (to him) present day scoffers. Second, as I’ve again explained this time and explained in depth last time, I’m not saying that the scoffers are aware of the precise wording of Matthew. That is not at all necessary on my view, nor would it even be expected on my view.

    “You still haven't given any examples of the earliest Christians responding to a false prophecy made by Jesus, with the sort of shift in belief and counterarguments we would expect to accompany such a false prophecy.”

    First of all, as you know, I think it’s entirely possible that Jesus is entirely mythical. So I don’t think Jesus made a false prophecy. I think early Christians may have attributed false prophecies to this person Jesus. So what I might expect to see is general refutations of the failed timing of these “coming” prophecies. This is what we have in 2 Peter. Since the earliest Christian citations of the gospels are mid second century or so I don’t expect critics to often have access to the gospels, much less to have written refutations of them, and much less still to have those writings survive. Could happen, but you never know and you can’t count on that.

    And how would a critic even know when Jesus lived? If they don’t have the gospels they are completely hopeless. Paul doesn’t tie Christ in with any events on earth, so you can’t pinpoint dates based upon the earliest Christian documents. This makes it difficult to know if in fact the dates for the prophecies have expired.

    I would argue that it is apparent that Christians themselves don’t agree on when Jesus did the things he did, so again it’s even more difficult for a critic to determine these things. I don’t want to get into the nitty gritty of debate on these claims, so I’ll just point out some dating question marks to show that it would be difficult for an ancient critic to determine things with regards to date. Reasonable people believe that Mt and Lk disagree on the date of Jesus birth. Josephus seems to place the death of John the Baptist at 36 AD. He also has James’ death in the year 62, while other early Christian sources, such as Epiphanius have that James was 96 years old when he died. This would either mean that Jesus would have died before 5BC (assuming he is older than James) or that (gasp) James was not a brother in the sense of a blood relative. Epiphanius has James pontificate lasting 24 years after Jesus departure, which places Jesus death at the year 38. Then there’s the Acts of Pilate which has Jesus execution at 21 CE. An ancient Talmudic reference has a reference to someone that could be Jesus as dying under Alexander Jannaeus. That’s at 100 BC. Iranaeus has Jesus dying at the age of 50 under Claudius. Of course modern conservative Christians have the date around 30. Possibly the creeds affirm that Christ died under Pilate because others are denying it. Maybe Josephus is wrong or Epiphanius is wrong. That’s entirely possible. But if even Josephus isn’t certain on dates, would we expect early critics to be aware of them?

    “I have quoted some non-inerrantist sources. I've also given you page numbers for other references you could look up. The comments of Robert Karris I was referring to are:”

    I’m interested in your statements about the New Jerome Bible Commentary on Mt 16, not comments on Luke. I looked for it at the library, but it wasn’t there.

    “Matthew 16:27 also speaks about the glory of Jesus, which is reflected in the Mount of Transfiguration. So are His identity and His authority, which are relevant to His power to judge and His relationship to the angels.”

    This could be said about anything. For instance, if he fed the 5000 after saying “some standing here would not taste death” you’d say “the miracle is relevant to his identity, his authority, and this is relevant to his power to judge and his relationship to angels.” The fact of the matter is the transfiguration is not a foretaste of judgment. The transfiguration is not Jesus coming in the clouds with angels. And again, there is nothing about foretaste in the text. My reading is perfectly natural. He says “I am coming soon with judgment. Soon enough that it is important to not delay.” Your reading is disjointed, and according to your own commentators anachronistic and bizarre.

    “Apparently, Paul thought it was possible that he and his contemporary Christians would be alive or dead at the time of Jesus' second coming, so he assumes one possibility in some places and the other in other places.”

    But he was wrong to assume it as a possibility that he could be alive, or that any of those alive at the time of the writing would still be alive. Perhaps I can’t say with necessity that the “we” must be understood in it’s strictest sense, but I think the reason Paul uses this terminology is because he truly regards some of those he’s speaking with as being those that will see the coming of Christ. Maybe he doesn’t know exactly who, but knowing that it will occur within 40 years or so means some will probably be alive, and hence the word “we” is appropriate. For this reason Paul says that if you are married you should live as if you were not married. If you purchase something you should act like it’s not yours to keep. Why concern yourself with such things? The end is near. Do you listen to Paul? If you buy a house do you act like you will keep it? If you were married would you act like you weren’t? Of course not. You do not believe what Paul believed. You do not believe the end is that close.

    The gospels have the same non-sensical mindset. To be saved you are supposed to sell everything and give it to the poor. You are supposed to give to every man that asks of you (Mt 5:42). Well, I’m a man. I’ll ask of you. I want your books. Will you send them to me? I’ll give you my address. If you would include a check with all of your savings, that would be great. Will you give it to me? I want your money and your books. Can I have them?

    You will not give me these things because you know as well as I do that this is all complete nonsense. The end is not near, so you need to keep your things and you need to prepare for your own retirement. But the gospels and Paul have a different mindset. They are not crazy to think that worldly possessions are useless because they believe the end judgment is right around the corner. You are not crazy to ignore the biblical mandate to give to all that ask of you because you do not believe that the end is that immanent. You do not agree with Paul or the gospel authors.

    Unless you want to try and prove me wrong. If you’ll let me know I’ll send you my address. I am asking you for you books and your money. Do you believe the Bible? Will you send them to me?

    “He wants all believers to live in expectation, to keep watching for His return. That's why He goes on to use the illustrations of the ten virgins, the slaves and their master, etc. Some people will die before the second coming occurs, but He wants everybody to live with the second coming in mind.”

    Well, it’s stupid to live that way if there is no chance that you will be alive when the second coming arrives. Again, will you live that way today and give me your things? Either Paul and Jesus were idiots or they were mistaken. You make them idiots. I don’t think they were idiots. But if you don’t think it is idiotic to give away everything you own or act like things you own are not yours to keep, prove it and send me your money and books.

    “We're discussing Matthew 24:34. I'm appealing to the same phrase in verse 33. You're appealing to a different phrase in verse 3. My reference to verse 33 is more relevant.”

    They’re both relevant. Look at the question that is asked of Jesus. This is the question that initiated the entire conversation throughout the chapter. In my view Jesus answers their question. Where is the answer on your view? Here is the question:

    "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming AND of the end of the age?"

    “I wasn't referring to the destruction of Jerusalem as the fulfillment of all of the details. I was referring to it as a fulfillment of some of the details. The "all these things" of Matthew 24:34 are general signs, types of events, like the ripening of a fig tree.”

    The signs that precede the end also include fleeing to the mountains and other dreadful events that must be cut short or else no one could survive. This itself is not the end, but is a sign which indicates that the end is near. So even if you want to argue that he’s strictly talking about the signs leading to the end, even that is a failed prophecy.

    Verse 29 says that IMMEDIATELY after these signs the sun will be darkened, the moon will not “give” its light, and the starts would “fall.” AND THEN the Son of Man would appear in glory in the clouds of the sky.

    The ripening of a fig tree is a sign that the fig tree will make fruit soon, like within weeks. Birth pangs communicate the same thing. You go for 9 months, then the water breaks and you rush to the hospital, because you will have a new baby soon.

    “What Jesus is conveying in verses 33-34 is the fact that those general signs, like the ripening of a fig tree, will be present as early as that current generation. That generation has to be watchful. They can't assume that the Master will delay His coming.”

    But it was foolish to be watchful for the coming, because the coming is not for another 2000 years plus. This is another advantage of rejecting biblical inerrancy. I can just take the text for what is says without mental gymnastics. I don’t have to assume Jesus is foolish and idiotic and issues commands that neither I nor any other Christian living today can take seriously. Nor should Christians living back then have taken him seriously.

    “Hours and days wouldn't be the only units of time that would be unknown within a generation. Minutes, weeks, years, decades, etc. would also be unknown. It's likely that Jesus had more than just units of hours and days in mind.”

    I agree on minutes, weeks, years, and probably decades. But centuries? No. You’re just repeating what you said last time. You want to say that because Acts says we don’t know “times and seasons” then Lk can’t possibly have meant that we can know that it is within a generation. But that just doesn’t follow. And besides, Matthew is not Luke. Even if I were to grant that Lk is saying you can’t know the century (which I don’t) this doesn’t show that Matthew agrees.

    “The rabbis of ancient Israel generally condemned the setting of dates in general, not just hours and days”

    They also condemned working on the Sabbath (which according to Moses is a lasting ordinance, never to be set aside) and failure of circumcision. This didn’t stop Jesus and Paul.

    “Some of the illustrations Jesus goes on to use allow for a return within a short amount of time, but others suggest the possibility of "a long time" (Matthew 25:19) or involve events that would never have something like a generational time limit set on them (Matthew 24:43).”

    The “long time” of Mt 25:19 is still within a generation, because he gives the men the talents, then returns before they are dead to see what they’ve done with them. This is incompatible with your view, not mine. Matthew 24:43 suggests a time limit even shorter than a single generation. How is that incompatible with an outer limit of 40 years? It’s not. It’s incompatible with an outer limit of 2000+ years.

    “Clement of Rome, who was at least a contemporary of the apostles and probably was one of their disciples, refers to how the apostles themselves had made preparation for future generations of church leadership (First Clement, 44 - see the translation and notes in Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2005], pp. 77, 79).”

    Clement of Rome is living at a time when hope for the Parousia was waning and thus would be predisposed at that time to start discussion succession.

    I am going to ignore your arguments about Jesus as myth in my continued efforts to force you to focus on one issue at a time. Though I would like to say something about this comment:

    “To paraphrase you, Jon: "Boy, I'm glad I don't have to defend this stuff".”

    Again, Jason, it seems you are projecting. I don’t have to defend the belief that Jesus was myth. I don’t care if he was myth. Even if Jesus had lived, and even if he hadn’t made a false prediction about his return, I still wouldn’t believe, just as I would believe that the woman in this test has ESP . Even if she never said she would come again after death I wouldn’t accept that she had ESP. Without even considering inerrancy or Jesus as myth it is still irrational to accept Christianity.

    But frankly if the evidence indicated Jesus was raised from the dead, I would be happy to believe that to. I am free to follow the evidence where it leads. You have to make Mt 24 and Mt 16 say what you need them to say because your theology depends on it.

    “If somebody more knowledgeable of the textual record than you are tells you that you're wrong about the New Testament, why would you have to be "the fastest thinking mind reader ever" to think of changing your argument to a category smaller than the New Testament?”

    Because there was no substance to his critique. He didn’t have time to provide substance. I would have no idea where my error lies.

    “Even if you meant to refer to Matthew 17 all along, that wasn't what you said, and you would be wrong either way.”

    I was misunderstood. Regardless of whether it was my fault or not I’m telling you that I was misunderstood. I think your unwillingness to admit this unimportant point is indicative of your overall unwillingness to believe what you don’t want to believe. Even if you establish that I was unaware of 2nd century fragments, this point would only justify some name calling you engaged in. But in the overall scheme of things name calling is not all that important. It doesn’t make you wrong or right in the thrust of your argument. But you will not admit error, just as you will not admit what Mt 24 says, or what other texts say. You’ve dug in and will hold your position no matter what the evidence says. I, on the other hand, have learned things from talking with you and have even modified some of my opinions as a result of our conversations. I am free to think and change my mind. This is a freedom you will never know unless you abandon dogmatism and Christianity and see the Bible for what it really says.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jon Curry wrote:

    "You ignore what I say. I’m already repeating myself, but you ignore repeatedly. So I’ll probably end up just abandoning and later on you’ll talk about how I 'never responded' to you."

    You complain that I'm ignoring what you say, then you go on to refer to how you've left some of our discussions in the past and may leave this one. You also go on to say that you want to "focus" our discussion by only addressing some of the issues I addressed. You repeatedly ignore what I write, but then complain that I'm ignoring you.

    You write:

    "You responded by saying that I discussed topics that weren’t part of your original post. But I showed you that the topics I raised were simply a response to points you had raised in the comments section in your discussion with John."

    As I explained to you before, the comments I made that you're claiming were off of the topic were "a response to points you had raised". For example, you've complained that I raised the issue of Jesus' existence, but I explained how it's relevant to comments you made about Biblical passages discussing Jesus' brothers. If you can discuss something that's off of the topic of my original post in a thread, as long as your comments are related in some way to something else that came up later in the thread, then why are you complaining when I do the same thing?

    You write:

    "I have no objection to you starting a new thread. Start a thread about anything you want, including me. But when in our discussion you bring up 10 off the subject issues, and when you initiate a new thread about an off the subject issue I might just point it out, because I think it indicates that you are having problems."

    You tell us that you have "no objection" to my starting a new thread, then you complain that my new thread is "off the subject". If it's a new thread, then how would it be off the subject? What subject? It's a new thread. If you're suggesting that I wasn't addressing a topic in another thread sufficiently, then prove your claim, and complain about that thread, not the new thread.

    You write:

    "He never said that my description WAS wrong. He was basically saying it COULD be wrong if they understood things differently, and he provided no evidence that they understood things differently."

    So, are you claiming that James White argued for the Mount of Transfiguration as the fulfillment of Matthew 16:28, yet he wasn't saying that you were wrong to argue that Jesus said that the fulfillment wouldn't occur until later? Since his interpretation requires a fulfillment that's earlier than what you allow, he would have to disagree with your interpretation of how early that fulfillment can occur. And your objection that he "provided no evidence" is a different issue. He can think your interpretation is wrong without citing evidence to that effect.

    You write:

    "And you aren’t explaining why on my view it needs to be explained. It has to go somewhere."

    Again, my view of why the Mount of Transfiguration follows Jesus' comments in all three gospels has more explanatory significance than your comment that "it has to go somewhere". If the "somewhere" is just after Jesus' comment, and two other authors give it the same placement (while sometimes differing from Mark in other placements of their shared material), then my explanation makes more sense than your suggestion that the "somewhere" just happened to be where I would most expect it all three times.

    You write:

    "It’s just assertion."

    Joel Green cites terminology and themes that are found both in Luke 9:18-27 and in the Mount of Transfiguration account that follows. He cites the references to prayer at the beginning of both accounts, the references to Jesus' glory in both accounts, the interconnected issues involving Jesus' identity, etc. And you call that "just assertion". No, it's more than assertion. The fact that you would dismiss his evidence as "just assertion" undermines your credibility rather than his.

    You write:

    "It really does refer to the transfiguration, though that makes Jesus words 'bizarre' and 'unconventional.'"

    You're distorting what Joel Green said. He didn't say that Jesus' comments in Luke 9:27 are "bizarre" and "unconventional". Rather, he said that some of Jesus' teachings in general seemed "bizarre" and "unconventional" in Jesus' day, yet Jesus received Divine sanction at the Mount of Transfiguration. Again, when you distort Joel Green's comments, it reflects poorly on you rather than him.

    You write:

    "Some said Elijah, and soon after Elijah was present at the Transfiguration. This means what? This means that when Matthew talks about coming with judgment, glory, and angels, he’s also talking about the Transfiguration, but in a bizarre and unconventional way?"

    Again, you've misunderstood Green's comments about "bizarre" and "unconventional" teachings. And I don't see the relevance of your comment about Matthew. I haven't argued that Matthew 16:27 is referring to the Mount of Transfiguration. Rather, I've made that argument for verse 28. Verse 28 doesn't mention "judgment, glory, and angels". It has some relevance to those themes, but it isn't equivalent to verse 27.

    You write:

    "Now, if James White is right and this expression could mean something different to Jewish ears, why does Russel say the exact opposite, then base is argument on that very understanding? It’s the plain reading."

    How does the fact that J. Stuart Russell held a view of the passage prove that it's "the plain reading"? Did J. Stuart Russell hold your view of the passages in Paul about Jesus' brothers? If not, then should we conclude that your interpretation is contrary to "the plain reading"?

    You write:

    "It’s the manner that the Bible translators translated it."

    I haven't disputed the wording. I've disputed your interpretation of the wording. Stating that Bible translators chose to translate the passage as they did doesn't lead us to the conclusion that your interpretation is correct. The wording isn't in dispute. The meaning is in dispute.

    You write:

    "C.E.B. Cranfield asserts that the emphasis is on the state of the people of the time, not the timing of the events. But clearly that is not the straightforward reading."

    All that you're doing is asserting your position as "the straightforward reading".

    You write:

    "You assert that Cranfield 'almost entirely' answers my citations."

    No, I referred to "my citation of C.E.B. Cranfield and other material I've posted already". I didn't just refer to my Cranfield citation. In addition to the possibility that the phrase in Matthew 16:28 has the meaning Cranfield suggests, I've cited verbal and thematic connections between Jesus' comments, the surrounding context, and the Mount of Transfiguration account that follows. I haven't just cited Cranfield.

    You write:

    "This is really your reason, but you pretend to have other ones. What Green says and what you say are cover for what is really going on. You have a prior theological commitment to the Bible’s inerrancy and you will not see the text in any other way."

    I've cited textual evidence for my position, much of which you've ignored or misunderstood. And inerrantists aren't the only ones who view the Mount of Transfiguration as a fulfillment of Jesus' comments. I've given you examples of non-inerrantist sources agreeing with me. I've also told you where you can find discussions of recent scholarly views on these subjects. Your continually referring to belief in inerrancy, even when it's demonstrated that inerrantists aren't the only ones who hold such views, doesn't make sense.

    You write:

    "Since not knowing the 'times and seasons' is entirely compatible with knowing that it will occur within a generation, I don’t see what sense it makes to say that your interpretation is more probable."

    The issue is whether it's more natural to limit "times and epochs" to a timeframe within a generation or to not set such a limit on the phrase. Nothing in the phrase or the immediate context suggests the limit you're placing on the text, so you're going to Jesus' comments in the gospels to justify a generational limit.

    You write:

    "He may be right and he may be wrong, but I can’t evaluate that without seeing the reasons for his conclusion. If you are going to expect me to respond you have to present the arguments. There is nothing here for me to reply to. I can offer you many things that skeptics 'suggest' in books you don’t own, but I can’t expect you to reply to them."

    Here's what you said earlier about D.A. Carson's argument:

    "Inerrantist wishful thinking does not count as an argument. I'm sure that's what he'd like it to mean." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/christianity-and-fideism.html)

    You were dismissing Carson's argument as "wishful thinking", but now you tell us that you don't know what evidence he cited and that you aren't going to be able to comment on the quality of his argument until you have more details.

    You claim that I "provided no reasons" for accepting Carson's position, but I did give reasons. I gave reasons in our discussion last year and in our discussions this year. As I explained to you before, the chiasm would involve events of the near future in verses 24 and 28. Verses 25 and 27 are about events of the distant future. Carson identifies verse 25 as the "central weighing of values" in the chiasm.

    You write:

    "We do have early Christian literature (2nd century for this text in my view, earlier in your view) that indicates that Christians are defending against the charge that Christ was expected to return in the past."

    Again, people criticized the slowness of Old Testament fulfillments without any generational time limits. The fact that people were criticizing slowness of fulfillment in Peter's day doesn't prove that they must have had a generational time limit in mind.

    You write:

    "You are trying to misconstrue my response and act like I have a burden to show that 2 Pet is aware of the very terminology used by Mt and that I have to prove that the words came from Jesus very mouth and so forth."

    When did I refer to "the very terminology" and "proving that the words came from Jesus very mouth"? I didn't. What I've said is that you cited 2 Peter 3 in our discussion of Jesus' comments in the gospels. It was only later that you cited Paul. And Paul doesn't mention any generational limit.

    Here's what I said earlier:

    "And why do the later New Testament documents and early patristic documents interact with a wide variety of arguments against Christianity, but never respond to an accusation that Jesus made a false prophecy? That accusation didn't come until later in church history."

    And you responded:

    "Wrong. They did interact with this argument. Here is 2 Peter 3. We get an expression of the argument being made and the first instance of Christian excuse making." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/christianity-and-fideism.html)

    Notice that I mentioned the concept that "Jesus made a false prophecy". And we had just been discussing Jesus' comments in the gospels. Yet, nothing in 2 Peter 3 refers to a false prophecy made by Jesus or any generational time limit.

    You write:

    "I just have to show that the record is not inconsistent with my view."

    No, that's not all you have to do. I asked you where we see anybody arguing that Jesus made a false prophecy. Saying that the evidence "is not inconsistent" with such charges of false prophecy doesn't give us any reason to believe that there were such charges.

    You write:

    "2 Peter doesn’t have access to Matthew as far as we can see. Why would we expect the scoffers to have it?"

    Every early source to comment on the subject attributes the gospel to Matthew, who lived in the first century. Sources of the early second century seem to be familiar with the document. As Martin Hengel comments, "the First Gospel [Matthew] already established itself quickly and tenaciously in the church at the beginning of the second century" (The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ [Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 2000], pp. 71-72). Justin Martyr, who lived from the late first or early second century to the middle of the second century, refers to the gospel of Matthew as an established part of scripture reading in Christian churches in general, not just his church. Eusebius refers to Quadratus distributing copies of the gospels as he traveled in the early second century. You argue that 2 Peter wasn't written until the second century, so why should we think that people writing a document like 2 Peter at that time would be unfamiliar with the gospel of Matthew? Furthermore, you argued earlier:

    "In addition we have the argument in the mouth of the 'scoffers' expressed in 2 Peter 3. Where are they getting this notion that the 'coming' would occur before the saints died? From Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn, I Cor, I Thess and probably oral Christian teaching as well." (http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/08/christianity-and-fideism.html)

    If the scoffers of 2 Peter 3 were familiar with Matthew's gospel, why are we supposed to think that the author of 2 Peter wasn't? And why do you say now, in your latest post, that the scoffers of 2 Peter 3 may not have been familiar with Matthew's gospel either? You're contradicting yourself.

    You write:

    "We don’t even get a clear citation from any gospel until well into the 2nd century, so we shouldn’t expect scoffers to cite Jesus’ erroneous prophecy verbatim. What we might expect to see is exactly what we in fact see at 2 Peter 3. General refutations of the failed timing of the prophecy of 'His coming'."

    We know that the gospels were circulating in the early second century. We have sources referring to written documents with the same content as our gospels, and there would be no plausible way for some entity to gather all copies of those early documents and replace them with the gospels we possess today. For example, in past posts I've cited documents of the early to mid second century that refer to non-Christians having access to and reading the gospels. How would somebody seeking to replace earlier gospels with different versions go about getting non-Christians to go along with the process? Men whose lives overlapped the first two halves of the second century (Irenaeus, Theophilus of Antioch, etc.) refer to their gospels as the same gospels possessed by earlier generations, and they would have been in contact with people who lived earlier.

    I never suggested that something like an exact quotation of Matthew 16 must appear in 2 Peter 3. But you do need something more specific than people criticizing the slowness of the fulfillment of God's promises. Such criticisms appeared in the Old Testament as well and in ancient Judaism, as I've documented. 2 Peter 3:9 refers to the slowness of a fulfillment that can still happen in the future. It doesn't refer to the failure of a fulfillment that can't occur in the future. Nothing in 2 Peter 3 suggests a generational time limit, and 2 Peter 3:9 suggests that there wasn't such a limit in view.

    You write:

    "Your point about this also being part of OT expectations does not change the fact that it is about the expectation of Christ’s coming, right?"

    Yes, it's about expectation of Christ's coming and the day of the Lord, the new earth, and other concepts. The early Christians considered Jesus God, as 2 Peter 1:1 illustrates. The day of the Lord was, for Christians, the day of Christ (as well as the day of the Father and the Spirit). 2 Peter 3 occurs in a Christian context, but the themes and terminology are focused more on Old Testament concepts than New Testament concepts. Even if the passage was entirely focused on New Testament themes, the fact would remain that no generational time limit is present. People can criticize the slowness of the fulfillment of a promise without thinking that it had a generational time limit placed on it.

    You write:

    "As I said last time it wouldn’t be unexpected of him to just say that while it may have sounded like we meant it would happen soon, in fact we didn’t mean that. We said it would be in a day. But a day is like a thousand years. So when we say it will happen in 40 years, maybe we meant many thousands of years."

    As I documented in my last post, the appeal to Psalm 90:4 in the context of discussing the day of the Lord was an appeal made by ancient Jews as well, not just by 2 Peter. Ancient Jews didn't cite Psalm 90 in order to argue that "many thousands of years" were in view. The issue is the patience of God, as 2 Peter 3:9 tells us, not the amount of time that passes. The issue is what a period of time is like to God. You ignore the Jewish context of 2 Peter, you reject an interpretation that doesn't require any redefining of a generation, and you assume that a generation is being redefined as "many thousands of years", then you accuse the author of making an absurd argument. The only way we arrive at that absurd argument is if we read it into the text. You're not finding an absurd argument in 2 Peter 3. You're reading one into the passage.

    Not only is your interpretation of 2 Peter 3:8 unnecessary and different from how ancient Jews used Psalm 90:4, but it also fails to explain why Peter refers to slowness in verse 9. Peter is responding to what "some" argue, and the objection of the "some" is to slowness of fulfillment, not failure of fulfillment. Again, nothing in the text of 2 Peter 3 leads us to your conclusion, and the evidence we do have suggests that Peter is addressing an objection to slowness of fulfillment, not failure of fulfillment. There's no logical way to get from 2 Peter 3 to the conclusion that Christians originally thought that Jesus was certain to return within His generation. The fact that you have to read concepts into 2 Peter 3 in order to find any early discussion of a false date for Jesus' second coming reflects how weak your position is. If a false date had been set, you would have far more evidence to work with. Instead, all you have is a highly speculative and unnatural reading of 2 Peter 3.

    You write:

    "The reality is scaring people into thinking that the end is near is a standard religious conversion technique. It really motivates people. Yes, they’ve been doing it in the OT and in the first century Christians were doing it as well. The fact that this failed previously doesn’t show that it isn’t failing now as well."

    If it's understood that something could happen soon, but may not, then what sort of "failure" is involved? It's not a failure in the sense of failing to meet a time limit.

    Whether the concept of imminency is an inappropriate "scare tactic" depends on whether it's true. There's nothing inherently wrong with the concept. If there is a God who wants us to continually be prepared for a time of judgment, then no improper "scare tactic" is involved. Jews had been referring to such concepts and had been using such language for centuries, so people knew what was involved.

    You write:

    "It strains credulity to think that though Paul implies an early return, when Mt, Mk, Lk, and Jn say things that certainly appear to suggest an early return, and though 2 Pet replies to critics that point out the failure of an early return, in fact nobody really expected an early return."

    Again, what do you mean by "expected"? People can think that Jesus' second coming in their lifetime is possible or probable without thinking that it's certain. As I documented in my last post, similar language is used by post-apostolic Christians, and the same Paul who refers to the possibility of his being alive when Jesus returns also refers to the possibility of his being dead at the time.

    You write:

    "And how would a critic even know when Jesus lived? If they don’t have the gospels they are completely hopeless."

    Two passages in Josephus - both of which most scholars accept in part or in whole (http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm) - place Jesus in the first century. Tacitus, writing in the early second century, also places Jesus in the first century, at the time of Pontius Pilate. Justin Martyr, who lived from the late first or early second century until the middle of the second century, repeatedly refers to the timing of Jesus' life, and he refers to how his Jewish opponent Trypho had read the same gospels he cites. Earlier sources, who also were in contact with non-Christians, also refer to the timing of Jesus' life. Ignatius of Antioch refers to Jesus' crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, for example. Paul refers to brothers of Jesus still being alive. Etc. People who lived in Israel or who spoke with the apostles, for example, would have knowledge about Jesus without reading the gospels. And the evidence we have suggests that all of the gospels were written in the first century. The concept that Christianity existed for decades without many people asking when Jesus lived, or that Christians originally claimed that He lived at some other time, but the enemies of Christianity didn't mention that change of belief, is absurd. If the New Testament documents, the earliest patristic documents, the earliest non-Christian sources to comment on Jesus, etc. all refer to Jesus as a figure crucified under Pontius Pilate, with brothers still alive in the first century, etc., why are we to think that there was widespread ignorance of when He lived?

    You write:

    "Paul doesn’t tie Christ in with any events on earth, so you can’t pinpoint dates based upon the earliest Christian documents."

    We know what ancient Jewish Messianic expectations involved. Though there were some disagreements among ancient Jews, there were some agreements as well. One area of widespread agreement was that the Messiah would be a descendant of David. And David was a figure who lived on earth. His descendants would be earthly figures. So, when Paul refers to Jesus as a descendant of David (Romans 1:3), how would we most naturally read such a reference in such a Jewish context? What do you think "according to the flesh" means in Romans 1:3? Read how Paul uses the phrase in Romans 9:3-5. He refers to Jews on earth as his brothers "according to the flesh" (Romans 9:3), then he refers to Jesus as coming from those same earthly Jews "according to the flesh" (Romans 9:5). He's referring to an earthly Jesus who came from earthly people. Similarly, when 1 Corinthians 2:8 refers to Jesus being crucified by "the rulers of this age", what do we most naturally think of? A crucifixion by demons in a non-earthly realm? No. Crucifixion was a common method of execution in the earthly environment of Paul's day. And the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 2:8 is about how the earthly Corinthian Christians compare to other earthly people. Paul repeatedly, in 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:16, refers to worldly wisdom, people who are powerful in this world, the contrast between regenerate men and unregenerate men, etc. So, when Paul refers to Jesus' crucifixion by "the rulers of this age" in 1 Corinthians 2:8, it doesn't make sense to conclude that he's referring to crucifixion in some non-earthly realm. Paul refers to Jesus appearing to men on earth, and those men were contemporaries of Paul (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). The fact that Jesus appeared to men on earth suggests that the previous events, like His death and burial mentioned at the beginning of the passage, also occurred on earth. To suggest that Paul had some non-earthly realm in mind, one that happened to have the same features as earth, is absurd. The most natural interpretation of Galatians 1:19 is that Paul is referring to a biological sibling of Jesus who was still alive. 1 Timothy, a document universally attributed to Paul by the early post-apostolic sources and used by Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, refers to Jesus' confession before Pontius Pilate (1 Timothy 6:13). Paul's positive references to Luke indirectly support his belief in Jesus' historicity, since the evidence suggests that Luke held that view. Etc.

    Paul repeatedly refers to Jesus as an earthly figure. In order to conclude that he doesn't do so, you have to reject some of the writings attributed to Paul and suggest that some passages in his other writings be rejected as interpolations or be interpreted in a highly awkward manner. You also have to either deny that documents like Mark and Luke were written by disciples of Paul, despite the widespread testimony in support of such authorship, or argue that such disciples of Paul radically differed from Paul's view of Jesus. You also have to argue that the churches Paul was in contact with (Rome, Corinth, etc.) radically departed from what Paul taught them, and that they did so just after Paul's death. Men like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp wrote from or to such churches, and they believed in the historical Jesus of the gospels. The earliest non-Christian sources to comment on Christianity (Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, etc.) refer to Jesus as a historical figure. If Paul had been traveling the world teaching about a non-earthly Jesus for a few decades, and the other apostles Paul said he agreed with so much (1 Corinthians 15:11, Galatians 2:9-10) were teaching the same sort of view, then wouldn't the early enemies of Christianity have noticed the radical change in belief among the early Christians? How did such a radical change of belief occur so quickly with such widespread acceptance, without leaving any trace in the historical record?

    You write:

    "But if even Josephus isn’t certain on dates, would we expect early critics to be aware of them?"

    You didn't give us any references, and most of what you mentioned was insignificant. Disagreements over issues such as which year Jesus was born or which year He died don't change the fact that He was perceived as crucified under Pilate, was perceived as a contemporary of men like Peter and John the Baptist, etc. Just as there's some uncertainty about some of the dates involved in Jesus' life, there's also uncertainty about dates in the lives of other ancient figures (http://www.tektonics.org/af/birthnarr.html#date). The only date you cited that's of much significance was the following:

    "An ancient Talmudic reference has a reference to someone that could be Jesus as dying under Alexander Jannaeus. That’s at 100 BC."

    You'll need to be more specific. Tell us what passage you have in mind, when it's dated, and why you think Jesus is being described. Citing late sources like Epiphanius or a late passage in the Talmud isn't of much significance when the earliest sources we have, men who were eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus and the apostles, explicitly and repeatedly place Jesus in history as somebody crucified under Pilate, a contemporary of men like Peter and John the Baptist, somebody whose brothers were still alive in the first century, etc.

    If the document you're referring to is the Toledoth Yeshu, then that's a problem. You've been misled again. See J.P. Holding's comments at http://www.tektonics.org/lp/oliver01.html.

    You write:

    "The fact of the matter is the transfiguration is not a foretaste of judgment. The transfiguration is not Jesus coming in the clouds with angels."

    I didn't argue that it was either of those. Rather, I argued that the Mount of Transfiguration involves the glory of Jesus and manifests His identity as the Son of God who has the role of judge and who has authority over angels and the rest of the kingdom of God. Matthew 16:27 doesn't have to be fulfilled in order for something to occur that's a foretaste of it. A foretaste isn't a duplication.

    You write:

    "But he was wrong to assume it as a possibility that he could be alive, or that any of those alive at the time of the writing would still be alive."

    He wasn't wrong if he was stating it as a possibility. He would be wrong if he was stating it as a certainty. He didn't say it was a certainty.

    You write:

    "Do you listen to Paul? If you buy a house do you act like you will keep it? If you were married would you act like you weren’t? Of course not."

    Paul also refers to the acceptability of marriage, owning property, etc. He's referring to holding a loose grip on the things of this life. I do live in that manner, and so do other Christians.

    You write:

    "The gospels have the same non-sensical mindset. To be saved you are supposed to sell everything and give it to the poor."

    Jon, did you believe that the gospels taught you to sell all of your possessions to the poor when you were a professing Christian? If not, then why should we believe you now when you claim to read the gospels that way?

    I don't know what passage you have in mind, but if you're referring to the account of the rich young ruler, surely you know that Jesus' comment was directed to him, not to everybody. The same Jesus who speaks of how the rich young ruler should give all of his possessions away (Luke 18:22) shortly thereafter commends a man who only gave some of his possessions away (Luke 19:8-10) and suggests that investing money, not just giving it away, is acceptable (Luke 19:12-23). Jesus and His disciples owned property, and so did other early Christians (Matthew 8:14, Philemon 2, etc.). This is another example of either how poorly you understand the Biblical documents or how dishonest you are in arguing that the Bible is wrong in what it teaches.

    You write:

    "You are supposed to give to every man that asks of you (Mt 5:42). Well, I’m a man. I’ll ask of you. I want your books. Will you send them to me?"

    Jesus, like other ancient Jewish (and non-Jewish) teachers, often spoke in general terms and used hyperbole to put emphasis on a theme (a plank in an eye, a camel going through the eye of a needle, etc.). Not only do we know that hyperbole was common among ancient Jewish teachers (as it is in many modern contexts), but we also know that the nearby Biblical context refers to Jesus as having a home (Matthew 4:13) and refers to His followers as having possessions (Matthew 8:14), and we know that Christians just after Jesus' time had possessions (Acts 12:12, Philemon 2, etc.).

    Jesus' commands, like principles in any belief system, are interpreted in light of a larger context. One principle is weighed against another, and something that's appropriate in one circumstance may not be in another. A command to give to others would be interpreted within a belief system that also involved the responsibility of providing for one's family, for example. As D.A. Carson puts it, "Verse 40 [of Matthew 5] is clearly hyperbolic: no first-century Jew would go home wearing only a loin cloth." (The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Matthew, Chapters 1 Through 12 [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1995], p. 157) Thus, a passage like Proverbs 26:4-5 will deliberately set two contrary-sounding principles together, trusting that the reader will realize that each principle is valid in different circumstances. Some of Jesus' expressions in Matthew 5 are popular in our world today: "go the extra mile", "turn the other cheek", etc. Just as we today interpret and apply such principles in a context that involves examining circumstances and weighing one priority against another, so did people in ancient times. To object to a general principle on the basis that it would have unreasonable results if applied absolutely is to miss the point.

    If you don't understand the limits and context of proverbial statements, hyperbole, etc., then you aren't well prepared to be having discussions like this one, and I have to wonder how you were ever able to understand a book like Proverbs. Your method of interpretation would lead to absurd results for all sorts of literature and figures of speech, both ancient and modern.

    You write:

    "In my view Jesus answers their question. Where is the answer on your view?"

    Matthew 24:3 is about "these things" (the destruction of the temple) and signs of Jesus' second coming and the end of the age. My interpretation of Matthew 24 addresses all of those subjects. The destruction of the temple would happen within the generation, as one of the signs like a fig tree ripening, and Jesus mentions other signs that would occur, and He explains their relevance to His second coming and the end of the age. Why is Matthew 24:3 supposed to be problematic for my view? It isn't.

    You write:

    "The signs that precede the end also include fleeing to the mountains and other dreadful events that must be cut short or else no one could survive. This itself is not the end, but is a sign which indicates that the end is near. So even if you want to argue that he’s strictly talking about the signs leading to the end, even that is a failed prophecy."

    All that would be necessary under my interpretation is a time of tribulation, and that has been occurring. The time is cut short in order to avoid the destruction of all life, but we aren't told how far it's cut short. Jesus goes on to suggest that many people will still be alive when He returns (Matthew 25:31-32), so He can't be referring to something that occurs just as the last few people are nearing death. Rather, the point is that the end result would be complete destruction if God didn't shorten the time. The sort of birth pangs and tribulation Jesus refers to (wars, earthquakes, etc.) did exist in the first century, and the particular destruction of the temple that Jesus' disciples asked about did occur.

    You write:

    "The ripening of a fig tree is a sign that the fig tree will make fruit soon, like within weeks. Birth pangs communicate the same thing. You go for 9 months, then the water breaks and you rush to the hospital, because you will have a new baby soon."

    Again, we have hundreds of years of Jewish eschatological teaching to draw from. We know that imminency didn't require a near time limit. Thus, Jesus warns about the possibility of "a long time" (Matthew 25:19) and the danger of people no longer keeping watch. Paul refers to the possibility of his generation passing away before the second coming, and he refers to the possibility of children living to an old age. Etc.

    You write:

    "But it was foolish to be watchful for the coming, because the coming is not for another 2000 years plus."

    If you don't know that it's a long way off, it's not "foolish" to live as though it could happen in your lifetime. And if God knows that there are benefits to not telling us when it will occur, He can decide to keep that information from us, much as parents keep some information from their children.

    You write:

    "You want to say that because Acts says we don’t know 'times and seasons' then Lk can’t possibly have meant that we can know that it is within a generation. But that just doesn’t follow. And besides, Matthew is not Luke. Even if I were to grant that Lk is saying you can’t know the century (which I don’t) this doesn’t show that Matthew agrees."

    I didn't just cite Acts. I also cited Mark, Luke, other passages in Matthew, and the Jewish context of the day. You say that "Matthew is not Luke", but you've argued in the past that Matthew used Mark. At the least, under your view, Matthew would have been writing under the influence of Mark and the Jewish society of his day. Mark uses the general term "time", not just "day" and "hour", and the Jewish society of that day was opposed to setting generational limits, not just setting days and hours.

    You write:

    "They also condemned working on the Sabbath (which according to Moses is a lasting ordinance, never to be set aside) and failure of circumcision. This didn’t stop Jesus and Paul."

    You're ignoring what I said in my last post, which addresses your objection. Jesus probably was agreeing with general Jewish condemnations of setting dates. It would make less sense for Jesus to agree with Jewish opposition to setting hours and days while disagreeing about setting a generational date. Why would Jesus raise the familiar Jewish concept that even angels don't know the timing of the eschatological events if He was in the process of claiming that He knows the generation? You've acknowledged that more timeframes than hours and days would be involved (minutes, years, etc.), and I've given examples of other phrases being used ("time", "watch", etc.). Your claim that other timeframes could be in view, but only ones that are less than a generation, assumes your interpretation of Matthew 24:34, but a rejection of your view of that verse is reasonable and makes more sense of the text and context. The "all these things" can't include the second coming and the events that follow it, since the text distinguishes between the two. And the most immediate context involves the general signs of a fig tree, a concept that doesn't require that every element of growth has to have occurred. Rather, it only requires that sufficient growth has occurred so as to indicate nearness.

    My interpretation is consistent with the general Jewish eschatological background of the day and the rest of the New Testament. Your reading, on the other hand, requires us to see Jesus setting a generational date for the second coming, even though He distinguishes "all these things" from the second coming, then He goes on to condemn other date-setting in familiar Jewish terms, even though He had just set a generational date. To make matters worse, you then have these gospels being written long after what you claim is the "plain" meaning of these passages would have been known to have been false. And when Paul refers to the possibility that his generation will be dead when the second coming occurs, and he refers to children being able to live to an old age, you offer no explanation. Your approach toward this issue is ridiculous. Even if we isolated Matthew 24:34 from the larger context, it would be plausible to read the passage as referring to general signs, not the second coming itself or the events after it. But when we add the larger context of Jewish condemnations of date-setting, Paul's acknowledgement that his generation might die, the late dating you suggest for the gospels, etc., your position becomes even less convincing.

    You write:

    "The 'long time' of Mt 25:19 is still within a generation, because he gives the men the talents, then returns before they are dead to see what they’ve done with them."

    Yes, a generational time limit could be in mind, but it could also be a matter of human illustrations generally involving a single lifespan. Ezekiel 16, for example, will refer to Israel's existence over centuries of time as a single lifespan. A close parallel to Matthew 24:14-30 is Matthew 21:33-45, where multiple generations are portrayed with an illustration involving one generation. Matthew 21 is drawing on the theme of Isaiah 5, regarding Israel as a vineyard. Israel continually opposed the messengers God sent, culminating in their opposition to the Messiah. More than one generation is involved (as we see again in Matthew 23:29-37).

    As I said before, I think Jesus wanted people to be continually watchful, so He doesn't use any language that would rule out His return in the years that immediately follow His earthly ministry. But what does a phrase like "a long time" suggest, especially when it's accompanied by warnings about people ceasing to watch, falling asleep, etc.? A generational time limit isn't ruled out by the phrase, but my interpretation does make more sense of the possibility of "a long time".

    You write:

    "Clement of Rome is living at a time when hope for the Parousia was waning and thus would be predisposed at that time to start discussion succession."

    If "hope for the Parousia was waning", then why do sources writing after Clement (Ignatius, Second Clement, etc.) keep using the language of an imminent parousia, as I documented in my last post? And Clement doesn't just "discuss succession". He tells us that the apostles planned for succession in future generations, and he refers to procedures they set in place for it. Since Clement was at least a contemporary of the apostles, and probably was one of their disciples, he would have been in a position to know whether Christianity had been falsified by an erroneous date for the second coming. Not only does he show no knowledge of such a false date, and not only does he not give any indication of the sort of widespread disappointment and counterarguments that we would expect to accompany such a falsification of Christianity, but he even uses the same sort of language of imminence that we find in the New Testament (First Clement, 23). Here we have a disciple of the apostles in the late first century using the New Testament language of imminency, yet, at the same time, he sees no need to explain why Jesus didn't return around the year 70 A.D. (your 40-year generational timeframe), and he refers to how the apostles themselves planned for the possibility of future generations. Clement contradicts your theory, and your response is to ignore some of what he said and make a vague reference to how "hope for the Parousia was waning". If your 40-year timeframe and the rest of your argument is correct, then Clement was writing at a time when Christianity was falsified more than 20 years earlier, and the apostles hadn't anticipated the possibility of future generations of Christians. Yet, Clement of Rome shows no knowledge of any falsification of a generational time limit, he continues to use New Testament language of imminency, and he refers to how the apostles did anticipate future generations and planned for them.

    Even earlier than Clement, we have the apostle Paul referring to the possibility that his generation would die (1 Corinthians 6:14, 2 Corinthians 4:14, 1 Thessalonians 5:10) and referring to the possibility of children living to an old age (Ephesians 6:1-3). Under your view, Paul's generation couldn't possibly die, and the possibility of living to an old age would have been irrelevant to children, since they were certain to either be condemned to Hell or attain bodies that will never die when Jesus returned in about ten years or sooner. In other words, not only does Clement of Rome contradict your theory in the late first century, but so does Paul in the middle of the century.

    You write:

    "I don’t have to defend the belief that Jesus was myth."

    What you're saying is that you don't have to defend your beliefs, since you could change them. Anybody could say the same thing. But the fact remains that you currently do hold the position that Jesus didn't exist. If you're willing to accept such unreasonable interpretations of Romans 1:3, 1 Corinthians 2:8, Galatians 1:19, etc., then that's relevant to your comments about following the "plain" meaning of texts and your appeal to the alleged popularity of your view of Matthew 24, for example. What I'm doing is taking your own reasoning about passages like Matthew 16 and Matthew 24 and applying it to your beliefs about Jesus' non-existence. Telling us that you could change your view of Jesus' non-existence in the future doesn't change the fact that you currently hold the position that He didn't exist.

    And I've given other examples of your rejection of popular interpretations and the apparent "plain" meaning of a text. As I mentioned earlier, you argued, on Greg Krehbiel's board last year, that Paul believed in a non-physical resurrection. As I demonstrated in my response to you then (a response you never interacted with), Paul explicitly and repeatedly refers to the physical nature of the resurrection. And we know that the large majority of readers of Paul over the centuries have so interpreted him, despite the popularity of a non-physical view in some modern circles. Similarly, your beliefs about the resurrection witnesses being mistaken, a large amount of early documents not having been authored by the people who were thought to have authored them, etc. require readings of the evidence that are far from "plain". When second century sources from a wide variety of locations and backgrounds agree that the apostle John wrote the gospel of John, and disciples of John were alive to influence the church well into the second century, for example, it isn't the "plain" reading of the evidence to conclude that somebody other than John wrote the document. Even if you were to eventually abandon the view that Jesus didn't exist, you would still hold many other views that aren't consistent with your professed standards about popular interpretations and what's "plain".

    You write:

    "I am free to think and change my mind. This is a freedom you will never know unless you abandon dogmatism and Christianity and see the Bible for what it really says."

    You keep assuming that I hold my position because I'm not "free to think". What if, instead, I hold my position because it's correct, and I don't have to change positions as often as you do because I've done more research than you've done? I'm not the one who keeps going back to sources like Wikipedia and preteristarchive.com. I'm not the one who keeps making false claims about the textual record, the church fathers, etc. When you appeal to a third century manuscript that doesn't exist or falsely state that Irenaeus didn't refer to Polycarp as a disciple of the apostle John, for example, it doesn't take much virtue to acknowledge that you were wrong, since you didn't have much of a choice but to acknowledge it. There would be no way for me to know just how much "freedom to think" you have, but I do know that you ought to use whatever freedom you have to leave the intellectual neighborhood of Earl Doherty. The fact that you were so quickly taken in by such absurd theories doesn't reflect well on how knowledgeable you were of the issues when you left Christianity.

    ReplyDelete