Something's been tickling the back of my mind for quite some time now, and I thought I'd start a thread to discuss this. On these boards (and other places) it seems an oft-repeated comment that the gospels are not eye-witness accounts but written by people that never knew Jesus, generations after Jesus ever supposedly existed. In thinking about this, I was just wondering what to make of the following verse: I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (Matthew 24:34 - parallel accounts in Mark 13 and Luke 21). This is the culmination of a speech by Jesus about his Return. SO.......

If this was written generations after the fact, then why did the writer/s put in that Jesus would return in the lifetime of people who were already dead for generations????

I have a few thoughts on the matter, but I wanted to hear other people's opinions first. Any discussion welcomed

~ PA

Perhaps the prediction was interpreted by its first readers as referring to a saeculum, that interval of time sufficiently long so that no human being is alive both at its beginning and at its ending. The "default" length of time for a Roman saeculum was 100 or 110 years.

If a default saeculum was how the passage was interpreted, then the prediction would have been open until somewhere around 140 CE, by which time all three synoptics would likely have been written.

An indication, perhaps, that this Gospel was not written to be read as historical fact, but as a story/part of some Homeric-type epic?

The Bible was clearly written to be more than a Homeric-type epic. A quick read by even a child can see that it is a guide with directives for the reader. The Iliad and Odyssey do not have such directives. That seems to be your mantra Leonardo, oft-repeated, and perhaps you really believe it but it is not convincing in the least.

Clovis let me begin by saying that Religion and bible studys ought not to provide a negative to your faith persepctive....when you are coming at this from a academic posit it can enhance your understanding of the bible not threaten and destroy your faith.....

clovis why not have a look esepcailly at the literary construction of the bible, Leo is actaully correct in his posit......not to mention its fascienating to see how the bible was put together and created ....



If one wants to believe the bible is divinely inspired I think IMO it would serve the person to know as much as possible about whom where and when the bible was written.....If it was inspired it makes a huge diffenrce that is twas insired to the ancient isrealites ... the bible is not recording history the vast majority of this early material has no archelogical support or what we do have is highty controversial..

so back to PA's question who is telling these stories and to what effect....
I think paul said this stuff and tied it in with the jesus lore .......

Having a bad day, Clovis?

I posited my speculation on the basis that the scholars are correct about the dates of the writing of the Gospels. Given that many of the (if the dates are correct) past events did not come to fruition it would appear the Gospels are either exaggerated or at least semi-fictitious. I suggested an epic in the style of Homer as that would seem to suit the sweeping nature of the prose and the vision of the storyteller (if story it is).

Before I wrote my suggestion I pondered what the narrator could have been describing...

Matthew 24:

29: Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

...perhaps memories of solar eclipses and the like? However, although I have access to information about how many solar (and lunar) eclipses occurred in a given year (from here) I haven't explored yet as to where these eclipses were visible from, so I did not include that piece of speculation in my response to PA. Feel free to investigate this if you wish.

Why do I suggest alternatives to commmonly held beliefs? Because I believe in exploring possibilities. A closed mind is anaethema to me, hence my lack of belief in matters religious. If it makes you feel any better, I hold the same opinion towards the bible as I do towards the other revealed works of Judaism and Islam, it is simply that Chistianity seems to be the most discussed religion here.

If you wish to make more ad hom attacks, please feel free to do so.

No, my day is as normal as usual. Why would you think I was having a bad day by simply posting my genuine thoughts. There is no ad hominem attack either for it is your mantra or view that I commented on. It just does not hold weight. Sure anyone can take a few passages from the Bible and say this or that about it. But it is clear that overall it does not compare to anything written by Homer. There are too many directives within that make it a radically different genre. There is also no shame in exploring other facets of something, even exploring less commonly held beliefs, but that does not necessarily mean automatically that the common wisdom is wrong and everything has a hidden truth that only a few accept.

Your other mantra is 'revealed religions' and how they are all deficit. While your opinion is a valid opinion you should not instantly believe someone is having a bad day or making an ad hominem attack because they offer an equally valid but opposing view.

A (small) point, Clovis. We are talking here of the Gospels - part of the NT, and NOT the entire bible. From memory I seem to recall there was approx 500 years between the Old and New Testaments?

I see this as being a fairly relevant aspect when talking of the contiguity of the bible and the principles and directives expressed therein.

The four gospels have the most directives applicable to any Christian. All what has become known as the red letters.

Considering they were written for Christians, and the OT was not, makes this a less than extraordinary revelation and not particularly relevant to the debate. I don't wish to drag this thread OT, Clovis, and so won't veer off into debating the NT vs the OT.

Perhaps you have a theory to expound about the OP?

Bart Ehrman sums the situation up in his widely-used intro work The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings: “…They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by authors who did not know him, authors living in different countries who were writing at different times to different communities with different problems and concerns.”

Luke himself clearly states that he was no follower of Jesus. Nor could Matthew have been a follower of Jesus, for he depends almost entirely on Mark for the skeleton of his story. And Mark could not have been a follower of Jesus because the narrative portions of his story are made up almost entirely out of the Old Testament, while the sayings appear to be common to the Hellenistic milieu.

http://de-conversion.com/2007/05/16/were-t...-life-of-jesus/


fullywired

The Christian view perfect reconciles the OT with the NT. There is no versus as far as the Christian view is concerned. One is the law revealed the other is the law fulfilled.

My view on the OP is two sided. One is that the generation referred to was not the generation he was speaking to but the generation that would be alive when the Olivet Prophecy was taking place. I have posted regarding this extensively before and the most I could do is repost how many of the scriptures concerning the Olivet Discourse have many requirements that did not and could not have been fulfilled in the first century of the Common Era. As an example when he says 'this generation will not pass away until all these things take place' I truly see all the scriptures in that chapter, including every stone thrown down, which came close to happening at the destruction of the Second Temple, but not every stone was thrown down for the Western Wall and I believe other portions are still standing, and ' great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now' has not yet taken place. If someone is really interested they can read the rest here: linkage


Secondly if I did prescribe to Preterism, which I do not, and believed all had taken place in that generation, then it is quite possible that the words were preserved in the oral tradition, and once it finally came to be written down, that the prophecy had already transpired. So it does not necessarily matter if it was written in that generation or a few generations later.

Two things. One mark was not an eye witness he was the next generation. Two I believe he is refering to the end of times.

This generation will not pass away implies what, exactly? That no-one of that generation will die, or that someone within that generation will still be alive at his return?

Obviously - not the first.

Given that there's so much controversy over the dates that the Gospels were written, I'll take the ones from the Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Matthew AD 40-45 - 8 to 15 years after 32 AD (Christ's Death)
Mark AD 50-67 - 18 to 35 years after 32 AD (Christ's Death)
Luke Unspecified, but post Mark and pre John.
John AD 96 - 64 years after 32 AD (Christ's Death)

It's conspicuously missing from John. Failed prophecy, in my opinion.

The most popular evangelistic and fundamentalist interpretation of 'this generation will not pass away until all these things take place' is that certain things described in that chapter must take place before the generation being spoken of can 'see all these things' and 'know that he is near.'

The best way I can describe for someone else that I would be advising would be to simply read the whole chapter without any pretenses and if they have any historical knowledge of the world from then until now to contemplate whether all the things described therein have already taken place, have been possible to take place within the last two millennia, and if there is any possibility it can be related to some future events.

Of course there is always the view that none of it was possible then or in the future which is a fair view.

From what I have read of this thread so far compels me to add in a quote:

.. as a philosopher, I have a right to ask for a rational explanation of religious faith. (Cicero)

I really dont know what his generation speech is about. I dont take most of the bible literal enough to worry about prophecies etc. Charity (scholastic definition) is what counts in the end. As I have said before, Christ to me is only one of potentially infinite messiahs incarnated to help man out of spiritual darkness. I dont believe in a second coming but only of true mystic spiritual rebirth. A literal historic Christ wont be coming back in my view because that which Christ symbolizes has never left us and never will because it is our true nature.

Possibly. I haven't heard of this term before, but it very well could be. But if you make the leap that when the writer said "generation" they really meant saeculum, then you must also accept the possibility that it refers to "generation" in the sense of mankind - both are equally ambiguous and rely on adding interpretation to the passage to explain it.

That doesn't sum up the situation. That just (as I see it) enhances the question - if they were writing for different people in different areas long after Jesus existed, why oh why would they write that Jesus would return at a time that by the date of writing he should already have returned.

That is a very conservative dating, though not one commonly held by most theologians today. It is generall accepted that Mark was the first gospel, written around AD 70. Matthew and Luke were next, though I don't know the exact dates for either. John was written likely between 100-125 AD. The book of John has a totally different theme than the other three gospels. There is a lot of information in John that you won't find in the other three gospels, and vice versa.

Arguing what "this" means is almost as weird as President Bill Clinton asking what "is" means. "This" meant "this" now and then. Jesus really thought his predictions were going to happen soon. That being said, the following is my own theory: We know, contrary to what all Christians are taught in school, that the n.t. was, indeed, compiled and edited in the fourth century by the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. The bishops that shaped the book had one single agendum-to save the Roman Empire from collapse by destroying paganism, in any way, shape or manner. They were under direct orders of, and convened by, the reigning Emperor, Constantine and later Theodosius. They had hundreds of texts to choose from, to impress their pagan audience. They burned whatever texts they did not like. They edited and redacted the ones they decided to use. They did not care about the jews, a people that the Bishops neither understood, nor liked. I have a feeling that they had available what scholars now call the "Q" document, a collection of sayings of jesus, that the Gospels reflect, even John. Any original quotes from Jesus would not be changed or tampered with, no matter how irrational, or (remember the withered fig tree) outright outrageous. Any words they believed to emerge from his lips were to be preserved, no matter what the price, even obviously failed prophecies, like the Olivet. As much as could would be explained away by internal apology. "Tear this temple down", he said, while standing in the Temple itself, "and I will rebuild it in three days." The apology: he meant the Temple of his body, not the Jerusalem Temple itself. What does "this" mean?

That is a post full of rhetoric GM. Not sure what you are attempting to convey by mentioning the name of Clinton. Either way you claim 'we know' that all the NT was edited during the fourth century. It would seem that is not what current consensus agrees to.

In regards to the utter destruction of paganism, it might have been the goal of a few but to accomplice Constantine, whom scholars have yet to agree if his conversion to Christianity was complete when he proclaimed it or if it was a more gradual process throughout his life, is still a matter of speculation, to claim one thing or another in that matter is highly precarious.

What is known is that Constantine retained the title of Pontifex Maximus, of the old college of paganism, throughout his life. Regarding his treatment of pagans it would seem the information you have provided is highly one of personal interest to fit into a certain viewpoint and contains little historical fact, which as I mentioned varies between his opposition towards paganism, but none claim Constantine outright persecuted pagans.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_and_Christianity

Now based on these historical facts the whole narration of your post, which again I must mention is steeped in rhetoric, must be rejected, at least the historical part of it. I should also mention the Council of Nicaea had many functions but the primary reason it was convened was to respond to the question of Arianism and not to destroy paganism. In fact we can see how many functions of paganism were incorporated into the church. Towards paganism the historical view is that they attempted to reshape Christianity in a package more suitable for pagan tastes so as they could easily accept it. Not by force or in an attempt to destroy them but rather through persuasion. You did mention this briefly but then highly veered from that. In this vain the historical aspects of your theory must be rejected by anyone with even a casual study of history.

In regards to your understanding of prophecy, while I will state some do hold your theory in high regards, it remains a point of contention and there is no clear consensus. One should not mistake one view or another as fact until both views can be reconciled and a clear consensus can be formed. By believing Jesus was referring to his body and not a literal temple is a highly mystical view but one not commonly accepted by either preterists or futurists.

All of that makes me wonder about some of your other statements especially the seeming manner in which you seem to know exactly what the bishops wanted especially when you state 'they burned whatever they did not like' and for this statement I must ask show us credible historical sources accepted by most scholars that corroborate this one individual fact.

all things to an immortal is soon. also it states in revelation that no one but God, not the angels nor the son knows when the son would return.