Attn: Mountain Man. Where the rubber hits the road: Wicca vs. Christianity

[Storico]

Rando, thanks for that. I'm going to read through it a couple times so I'll have a chance to mull it over (8 hours of sleep in about 2 days....) and I'll get back to you on thoughts I have. Thanks again!

[technomage]

Unless Matthew and Luke (and to a lesser degree, Mark) believed the pericope means something different than the way you're taking it, which I think is a very real possibility. I think that the timeframe in which the gospels were composed, coupled with the high degree of unlikelihood that the Evangelists would leave a known "unfulfilled" prophecy in their gospel texts throws a big-time monkey wrench into that theory.

Why? Tradition states that John lived at least until 95 (though I have my doubts both about the tradition, and about John the Apostle's authorship of either the Gospels, the Letters, or Revelation).

But I certainly can try to come up with a possible explanation, though I fear it will satisfy no one (not even me).

Say Mark wrote either shortly after the death of Peter, or after news of the revolt (or even of the destruction) reaches him in Rome. His major interest is to preserve the Petrine narratives of Christ, so he writes his Gospel, including the Little Apocalypse.

Luke and the unknown author of GoMatthew recieve Mark, and write their own accounts while the destruction of Jerusalem is still fresh in the memories of many, and the hope that the parousia is immanent is still active. It's not until such books as 2 Thessalonians (authorship questioned) and 2 Peter (pseudonymous) that Christians are cautioned that things may not proceed as quickly as is hoped.

Rando, it is entirely possible that Luke and the author of GoMatt merely maintained the passage because they didn't understand how it applied, but could think of no reason to exclude it. It is one of the most vivid passages in Mark, dramatic and evocative in its imagery (in a Gospel that was already vivid and active).

But you can see my problem--the three paragraphs in the box above are entirely speculative, just as is your paragraph quoted above. We are guessing. And without further evidence, guessing is all we can do.

That's the whole point of redaction crit- trying to figure out why certain events were included in the canonical text and others were omitted. It's an admittedly very imprecise art/science, but has yielded some good results in the past and in the process, has transformed the way we perceive the Biblical authors' motives. I think this is such a case in point, and it's one of the reasons why I don't accept your exegesis as stated.

Rando, I'm not performing exegesis--I'm performing translation, which is a different discipline.

[technomage]

Jack, I have plenty of zebras, onagers, and donkeys I can go to the zoo and see--please don't show me how much of an ass you can be. The zoo is not accepting applications for more residents.

No, preterists do not claim that Jesus' kingdom is "present but invisible." I did not claim they do, and you know it.

ETA: To clarify, Preterists claim that Jesus came in the clouds in judgement at that date. I used the parallel to Jehovah's Witnesses because both claims are untestable in Scripture.

[technomage]

I have a couple thoughts. You said that the third thing, Jesus' return, was unfulfilled. When he said he'd return, he did lay out those conditions we talked about earlier. On the other hand, according to all four gospels, he did return, and apparently bodily, in that generation while the disciples were alive.

Eh ... I see where you're headed, but even there, we're talking broken prophecies. The events in the Olivet Discourse are pretty straightforward not only to what would happen, but the sequence of events. The post-Resurrection appearances are not preceded by aything remotely resembling the other events that were supposed to come before.

[Glenn P]

Jack, I have plenty of zebras, onagers, and donkeys I can go to the zoo and see--please don't show me how much of an ass you can be. The zoo is not accepting applications for more residents.

No, preterists do not claim that Jesus' kingdom is "present but invisible." I did not claim they do, and you know it.

The bolded words are slanderous.

There's no reason I should "know" that this isn't what you meant. Some people actually do claim that preterists/postmils/non-futurists consider the kingdom to be invisible. Saying that they are in the same camp as a group that claims Jesus returned - invisibly, is hardly clear if you don't mean that they believe in an invisible Kingdom.

ETA: To clarify, Preterists claim that Jesus came in the clouds in judgement at that date. I used the parallel to Jehovah's Witnesses because both claims are untestable in Scripture.

LOL... yeah, and preterists are going to prefer your exegesis to theirs. I've heard the convoluted claims that try to re-define "this generation" and the similar sayings. They do not wash.

[technomage]

The bolded words are slanderous.

There's no reason I should "know" that this isn't what you meant.

OK, so ... memo to me: Jack considers it slanderous to asume that he's not a moron.

Don't worry, Jack--I'll make sure it never happens again.

Some people actually do claim that preterists/postmils/non-futurists consider the kingdom to be invisible.

Name one person who claims that preterists/postmils/non-futurists consider the kingdom to be invisible. Just one will do, thanks.

LOL... yeah, and preterists are going to prefer your exegesis to theirs. I've heard the convoluted claims that try to re-define "this generation" and the similar sayings. They do not wash.

Next time, try to make a substantive rebuttal. Just saying "It doesn't wash" is argument by assertion ... which doesn't wash.

[technomage]

Name one partial preterist who claims that God's kingdom is invisible.

Well well, well. To my surprise, there are some who do use that precise terminology.

* James Patrick Holding: "...it is a Kingdom truly 'invisible' on earth inside the hearts and heads of believers...."
* Mike Blume: "As opposed to a visible temple and physical Kingdom, His Kingdom is invisible and is in you. And it came at Pentecost, but was confirmed as God's only concern in 70 AD."
* D. H. Hume: "One nation was in its Last Days and about to see its demise, as the messengers had already been sent forth to gather the guests of the wedding supper to form the nucleus of the new nation. One nation was a visible Kingdom in its death throes. While the other nation were to form part of the invisible Kingdom of Heaven. This duality of the two kingdoms in contrast with one another forms the backbone of these sayings of Christ."


Any other silly questions?

[gharfish]

Ghar, it may or may not be an actual statement of Jesus (I have my profound doubts that it is), but it is a fundamental Christian teaching. I cannot have a full and accurate understanding of Christianity without the eschatology.

I wonder why you, personally, doubt that the Olivet discourse as recorded by his disciple Matthew and again reported by Luke (and that too (via Peter) in Mark's related scripture in the 13th chapter) is not genuine ?

I see no good reason to doubt it's accuracy, neither do I (Vance) see any good reason to sort of attempt to get Jesus "off the hook" there. He is talking about the destruction of the temple and plainly talking about his second coming--bodily/ yes, the real deal !--back to earth from Heaven. --And--Jesus is not talking about the rapture event that Paul describes in 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes. 4; neither are Jesus' words in this same 24th chapter, in vs. 40 and 41, about the rapture event.

I would love to read their reasoning behind it, but I'm certainly not going to second-guess their motivations. If you have the email of any of the people who worked on the translation of the passage, I would cheerfully discuss the issue with them, or invite them to discuss the issue here if they chose.

The 100+ translators of The New International Version of the Bible do not translate the Greek "genea" as generation without noting at the bottom that the word can also mean "race." However, I have since found out that the majority of translations of the Bible simply leave it at that: No footnote that the second meaning can be "race".....or national race/people.

~These translations haven't such a footnote:

NRSV
NKJV
The Amplified Bible
James Moffatt Translation
English Standard Version
Holman Christian Standard

So, the scholars behind these are not venturing to support the dual meaning.

~On the other hand, translations (in addition to the NIV) that do, include the:

Complete Jewish Bible
Weust's NT Expanded Translation
(Tyndale's) NLT
Lamsa's "Holy Bible: From The Ancient Eastern Text" --From the Aramaic of the Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta.

Additionally, the original Revised Standard Version did this. I don't have it in my library, but I do have copies of all the above.

The Aramaic term that has this dual meaning, that I mentioned earlier (Sharb(e) ta) is used in the Syriac Pe[color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color][color=red]EDITME[/color]ta.

The point of the argument is that all of the other times Matthew uses the phrase [greek]tauta genhtai[/greek], he is speaking of the generation alive at the time of Jesus--the phrase literally means "this generation (here and now)," as there is a different Greek word for "That generation (that sees these signs sometime in the future)."

The majority opinion is that the word "genea," even in this out of the ordinary kind of context, still means (the usual) whole multitude of people living at the same time, in a definite given period. I have changed my mind since originally posting here on this thread; the word Jesus uses should probably not be taken to mean "race"--the Jewish race. He really seems to be speaking about a certain generation of people--that one must be a specific one.

I am definitely not qualified to interpret the word; I must depend on learned scholars to do that. I imagine that you do too. .....But is it fair to let Jesus' credibilty as as a prophet hinge on a word, as a door might swing on a single hinge ?

I think it wise, say, as a Bible translator, to let the word have it's full meaning for the reader, and footnote ("this) generation" just as did the post-1995 N.A.S.B. team: "If the reference is to the second coming of Christ, "generation" might indicate the Jewish people as a nation, who were promised existence to the very end. Or it might refer to the future generation alive at the beginning of these things. It does not mean that Jesus had a mistaken notion He was going to return immediately."

The translators of the New English Translation footnote, in part: ".....generation may refer to "the generation that sees the signs of the end" (v. 30) who will also see the end itself. In other words, once the movement to the return of Christ starts, all the events connected with it will happen very quickly, in rapid succession."

How about: After all these things take place, this generation shall pass away ?

My friend, I disagree--because we're not speaking of doctrine, we are speaking of linguistics. Doctrines are guided by faith, but translation is driven by knowledge. It is possible to know, with certainty, how to translate this passage. And the thing is, Matthew (unlike Mark or Revelation, where the Greek grammar is atrocious) is actually very easy to translate. It's not as eloquent as Luke/Acts, but it's clearly written, meticulously presented, and logically arranged.

Ghar, I tell you this with all the sincerity in my heart--if Matthew was not a Canonical book, Christians would be using Matt 24:34 to reject its teachings.

I still have not gotten to the point where I can multi-quote, like I should be.

I now agree with you: "generation" here is not best understood to be "race." It could fit OK, but it is the secondary meaning. No, Jesus is almost certainly using the word in it's primary sense.

Matthew has canonical status because it is accepted as being the work of Jesus' disciple, Matthew...one of the original twelve. You can't so easily dismiss a firsthand eyewitness' account of Jesus' teachings and deeds. We, as Christians, need to let Jesus speak no matter how difficult the saying; we haven't the luxury of picking and choosing what is genuine and what is (Matthew's) conjecture.

Yes, he did. The word "parousia" is a very specific word that indicates presence. Indeed, of the twenty-four times it is used in the New Testament, it is twice translated "presence," but all other times is translated "coming."

Is this paragraph, above, of your's about me denying that Jesus was predicting in the Olivet discourse his bodily second coming ? Not me. No, he is ! ...and not in the other sense as the partial preterists claim either.

Generation is governed--grammatically controlled--by the term "all these things," as listed in verses 4 through 31. Jesus does predict the destruction of the temple; no doubt ! But, he goes far beyond that catastrophe to speaking of events that--well, shift into an extended period of time, future. While his disciples were thinking that the destruction of the temple and the end of the age were wrapped together, Jesus nevertheless answers their questions in all honestly.

It could only be destroyed at the end of time--the end of the age, they thought. In Mark 13: 7, Jesus tells them that "no" the end will not yet be in sight when the temple is destroyed. They anticipated that Jesus was going to assume total dominion over the entire earth--restore the KIngdom to God's people, the Jews--at that same time. I don't even see in them the realization [yet] that Jesus, just as he plainly said numerous times was going to happen, really would--that he was going to be turned over to be killed by the gentiles and rise from the dead. They weren't accepting that prophecy. Nope. So his disciples weren't even, as I see it, thinking of his bodily return from Heaven at this point .....but Jesus was !

My wife is going to bed and I must finish this post (am disturbing her).

If I remember correctly, at about the verse 14 marker Jesus shifts gears, hard. He says that the gospel will be preached to the entire world, and then the end can come. He then hits on the KEY 'abomination of desolation,' in verse 15, as I recall. The things he speaks of from now on, that will comprise all the things, are truly end of the world catastrophes. These occurances are what make up the latter part of the tribulation period !

Mark, in the 13th chapter, is another retelling (actually the first, according to most scholars these days) of Matthew's same and then later according to Luke, of Jesus' Olivet discourse. See: starting at verse nineteen. From this point. onward, Jesus is clearly referring to what things the ("This") generation will be witnesses to.....that will also see his second coming. These people will see the beginnings of it; they will live long enough to see the end of it.

Jesus is not speaking ultimately of his disciples and their contemporaries; he means to down through the centuries address the generation that see all the things--signs of Matthew 24--taking place, and consider them all happening as the sure evidence of his near (in terms of time ) return to earth. When taken all together the signs do come, they will not drag on and on for generations, plural. Instead, the consummation will come within a generation's time. We may be seeing now the beginning of the end; who knows ? The Jews have been preserved as a distinct people and are even a nation again all this time later.

[Glenn P]

OK, so ... memo to me: Jack considers it slanderous to asume that he's not a moron.

Don't worry, Jack--I'll make sure it never happens again.

Speaking of being an ass... what is your problem?

Name one person who claims that preterists/postmils/non-futurists consider the kingdom to be invisible. Just one will do, thanks.

I don't need to. I'm not making any accusations that people will find inflammatory or disagreeable.

Next time, try to make a substantive rebuttal. Just saying "It doesn't wash" is argument by assertion ... which doesn't wash.

Your assertion that the partial preterist view is indefensible was an assertion. What's wrong with answering assertions with assertions?

[Glenn P]

Well well, well. To my surprise, there are some who do use that precise terminology.

* James Patrick Holding: "...it is a Kingdom truly 'invisible' on earth inside the hearts and heads of believers...."
* Mike Blume: "As opposed to a visible temple and physical Kingdom, His Kingdom is invisible and is in you. And it came at Pentecost, but was confirmed as God's only concern in 70 AD."
* D. H. Hume: "One nation was in its Last Days and about to see its demise, as the messengers had already been sent forth to gather the guests of the wedding supper to form the nucleus of the new nation. One nation was a visible Kingdom in its death throes. While the other nation were to form part of the invisible Kingdom of Heaven. This duality of the two kingdoms in contrast with one another forms the backbone of these sayings of Christ."


Any other silly questions?

Now why couldn't you simply have attempted that the first time? Was it hard, or an unreasonable request?

And far from being a silly question (why are you being such a jerk?), it was the proper question.

I have to confess, I can make absolutely no sense of those claims by those three writers. In a preterist view, the kingdom is growing on earth now, as more people come into it. To call that invisible is like calling a bicycle a refridgerator.

But thank you for at least answering my question, in spite of the fact that you had to just take time out to be abusive before doing so.

Wiccans....

[technomage]

Speaking of being an ass... what is your problem?

When my patience is exausted, or when I am persuaded that my opponent is not discussing the issue in good faith, I tend to respond as I am addressed. If I'm addressed with rudeness by someone whom I am persuaded is not discussing in good faith, I may choose to respond with rudeness.

I don't need to. I'm not making any accusations that people will find inflammatory or disagreeable.

Excuse me--you are making an assertion (that some people claim that preterists/postmils/non-futurists consider the kingdom to be invisible). Assertions made without supporting evidence are unproven and poorly argued. Now, I usually try to assume the person has some from of evidence and ask for it politely ... but as I said above, I tend to respond as I am addressed.

Your assertion that the partial preterist view is indefensible was an assertion. What's wrong with answering assertions with assertions?

Better to ask for evidence. Lo and behold, there is evidence for my epitome of preterist teachings.

But thank you for at least answering my question, in spite of the fact that you had to just take time out to be abusive before doing so.

As I said, I tend to respond as I am addressed.

[technomage]

I wonder why you, personally, doubt that the Olivet discourse as recorded by his disciple Matthew and again reported by Luke (and that too (via Peter) in Mark's related scripture in the 13th chapter) is not genuine ?

Well, first and foremost, I take the mainstream view that Mark was the earliest Gospel, and that GoMatthew was not written by Matthew. Neither Mark, nor Luke, nor the unknown author GoMatt were eyewitneses.

That leaves Peter, but the closest record we have of Peter is his recollections as recorded by Mark. (I also count the two Petrine epistles as pseudepigraphic.) Mark recorded Peters teachings after he died, and maybe after Jerusalem had already been destroyed. But Mark's memory was not perfect (there are other errors in Mark's account), and he was not an eyewitness of the events. Additionally, the Gospel of Mark was not restricted solely to Peter's recollections: the NAB notes on GoMark say "Petrine influence should not, however, be exaggerated. The evangelist has put together various oral and possibly written sources--miracle stories, parables, sayings, stories of controversies, and the passion--so as to speak of the crucified Messiah for Mark's own day."

So Peter's account is only one possible source for this pericope. But let us assume, for a moment, that this passage was from Peter: did Jesus say it, or did Peter hear it from another source and add it in? We do not know, and we cannot know-but we can know that apocalyptic literature is far more common as a written genre than as a spoken genre.

I view GoMark's "Little Apocalypse" not as a genuine statement of jesus, but as a response from the early Christian community to the situation of Jerusalem--when Mark wrote this passage, Jerusalem was either already under siege, or (more likely) already destroyed.

I see no good reason to doubt it's accuracy, neither do I (Vance) see any good reason to sort of attempt to get Jesus "off the hook" there. He is talking about the destruction of the temple and plainly talking about his second coming--bodily/ yes, the real deal !--back to earth from Heaven. --And--Jesus is not talking about the rapture event that Paul describes in 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes. 4; neither are Jesus' words in this same 24th chapter, in vs. 40 and 41, about the rapture event.

I'm not sure of that--Mark 13:27 is one of the "proof texts" for the concept of the Rapture.

Additionally, the original Revised Standard Version did this. I don't have it in my library, but I do have copies of all the above.

The RSV can be accessed online.

I am definitely not qualified to interpret the word; I must depend on learned scholars to do that. I imagine that you do too. .....

When it comes to translation, I do have some knowledge--but you are correct in that I am no expert, and I do rely on other scholars more learned than I.

But is it fair to let Jesus' credibilty as as a prophet hinge on a word, as a door might swing on a single hinge ?

Would you feel the same if a skeptic asked "Is it fair to have Jesus' crediblity as Christ hinge on a single word" if the word in question was anastasis (resurrection)?

How about: After all these things take place, this generation shall pass away ?

But that's not what the passage says, my friend.

Words have a certain amount of flexibility, but that flexibility only goes so far. Unless words are limited in just how flexible they are, they become useless as symbols of meaning.

Matthew has canonical status because it is accepted as being the work of Jesus' disciple, Matthew...one of the original twelve. You can't so easily dismiss a firsthand eyewitness' account of Jesus' teachings and deeds.

Ghar, the Gospel of Matthew that we have was originally written in Greek. The account Papias speaks of was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, not Greek (additionally, it was a "sayings" gospel, not a narrative account). I'm not sure what book Papias was speaking of that was written by Matthew, but it was not the book we have.

This is one reason (among many) that GoMatt is attributed to an anonymous Christian living in Antioch. GoMatt used GoMark as a source--and we know Mark was not an eyewitness. Why would an eyewitness use the account of a non-eyewitness?

We, as Christians, need to let Jesus speak no matter how difficult the saying; we haven't the luxury of picking and choosing what is genuine and what is (Matthew's) conjecture.

Unfortunately, that is precisely what you are left with. If ths was a genuine saying of Jesus, then the prophecy was broken. If it was an addition by Mark, later taken up by Matthew and Luke, then it becomes not a prophecy, but a commentary on the destruction of Jerusalem, and an indication that the Early Christians expected Jesus to return very soon even though Jesus made no such promise.

Generation is governed--grammatically controlled--by the term "all these things," as listed in verses 4 through 31.

Waitasec, Ghar--that is not the only governance, nor even the primary one. Let's look at the Greek.

Αμην λεγω υμιν ου μη παρελ(th)η η γενεα αυτη εωσ αν παντα ταυτα γενηται

Amen, I say to you shall not pass this generation until all these things be fulfilled. (I had to cheat--I couldn't find which symbol makes the theta.)

The primary restriction on generation is "this"--from the Greek root [greek] outos[/greek]--it parses to [greek]auth[/greek] in this phrase. It means "this one right here," or "this one now," and is a different word from "that one over there" or "that one then." And grammatically speaking, both the destruction of the temple and the return of Jesus were included in "until all these things be fulfilled."

When I was at Bob Jones University, it was outos, more then genea, that put the nail in the coffin of my acceptance of this passage as a genuine saying of Jesus. That means that everything referred to before that time must be fulfilled before the generation of the apostles passed away.

If I remember correctly, at about the verse 14 marker Jesus shifts gears, hard. He says that the gospel will be preached to the entire world, and then the end can come. He then hits on the KEY 'abomination of desolation,' in verse 15, as I recall. The things he speaks of from now on, that will comprise all the things, are truly end of the world catastrophes. These occurances are what make up the latter part of the tribulation period !

Ghar, there have been four "abominations of desolation" before 70 CE:
* Antiochus Epiphanes set up a statue of Zeus in the Temple in 168 BCE. (He also did some other really nasty things, such as sacrificing a pig on the Altar, torturing some of the Jewish leaders, and burning their bodies on the altar.)
* Caligula attempted to erect a statue of himself in the Temple in 40 CE. (Not sure if this was ever carried out, or if the order was reversed before it was accomplished.)
* John of Giscala captured the Temple from Eleazar ben Simon, pillaged the temple treasury, and slaughtered what of Eleazar's followers he could catch, in either 68 or 69 CE.
* Then there was Titus Flavius, in 70 CE.

Ghar, to the Jews and early Christians (who were centered in Jerusalem until 70 CE, you remember), these were "end of the world catastrophes."

Jesus is not speaking ultimately of his disciples and their contemporaries; he means to down through the centuries address the generation that see all the things--signs of Matthew 24--taking place, and consider them all happening as the sure evidence of his near (in terms of time ) return to earth.

And that, perhaps, is the point, my friend. Everything on the list was fulfilled in 70 CE--with the exception of the return of Jesus Christ.

[Lili]

One argument that I have heard is that there is a change in topic at Matthew 24:36. Everything before that, including verse 34, is about the destruction of the temple. Verse 36 and the verses after it are about the parousia and the end of the world.

[technomage]

One argument that I have heard is that there is a change in topic at Matthew 24:36. Everything before that, including verse 34, is about the destruction of the temple. Verse 36 and the verses after it are about the parousia and the end of the world.

The problem with that is the parousia itself is discussed in vv 30-31.

[technomage]

Hey, Mountain Man.

Let us assume--only for the sake of this single question--that Christianity is false.

Do your beliefs, even if false, make you a better person?