jwarrend
June 12th 2006, 10:19 AM
I have heard skeptics argue that Jesus' prophecy during the Olivet discourse, Matt 24:34 "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place (RSV)", was a failed prophecy. Some of the same skeptics have argued that the gospels are 2nd century documents. This leads to the curious position that whoever wrote the gospels foolishly presented Jesus as having spoken a false prophecy, since surely by the 2nd century "this generation" would have passed away. I'm curious as to how a skeptic would reconcile this. Is the explanation as simple as to appeal to stupidity on the part of the Gospel writers?
Please note that I'm not primarily looking for refutations of the skeptical position, eg demonstrating that the Gospels are early, or arguing that the prophecy was or will be fulfilled. I'm looking more for an explanation of how this apparent discrepancy is accounted for.
To save time down the road, my conjecture is that it is a case of "any stick is good enough to beat Christianity with", to paraphrase GK Chesterton; that both of these (false prophecy, late gospels) form attractive refutations of Christianity, and are therefore picked up without particular concern for the internal consistency of one's position. I think that this causes problems for being able to formulate a robust alternative explanation for the genesis of Christianity. I don't assume that all skeptics affirm both of these, but for those who do, I'm interested in hearing how they are harmonized. (Believers who wish to hazard a guess are also welcome!)
-Jeff
Please note that I'm not primarily looking for refutations of the skeptical position, eg demonstrating that the Gospels are early, or arguing that the prophecy was or will be fulfilled. I'm looking more for an explanation of how this apparent discrepancy is accounted for.
To save time down the road, my conjecture is that it is a case of "any stick is good enough to beat Christianity with", to paraphrase GK Chesterton; that both of these (false prophecy, late gospels) form attractive refutations of Christianity, and are therefore picked up without particular concern for the internal consistency of one's position. I think that this causes problems for being able to formulate a robust alternative explanation for the genesis of Christianity. I don't assume that all skeptics affirm both of these, but for those who do, I'm interested in hearing how they are harmonized. (Believers who wish to hazard a guess are also welcome!)
-Jeff