The Olivet Discourse--Broken Prophecy?

[technomage]

And to you as well.

[sylvius]

So much has been argued about the simple phrase "This generation." Again realizing that these are the words of the author of GoMatt, not of Jesus, the Greek is simply inescapable: "This generation" means nothing more, and nothing less, than "This generation of people alive, right now."

You mean: "This generation" means nothing more, and nothing less, than "the generation of people alive, there and then in first century Palestine around the year 33".

That is highly questionable. It is even not probable that was meant that way.

Verb used is "parerchomai" -- οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη
Same verb is used twice in the next verse, Mark 13:31 ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ παρελεύσονται, οἱ δὲ λόγοι μου οὐ μὴ παρελεύσονται.

The English translation"pass away" may be misleading, since "pass away" can (also) mean to die, the English translations having put the preterists at the wrong leg :
http://bible.cc/mark/13-30.htm

ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη, "this generation" , is also to be found in Mark 8:12,

Τί ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη ζητεῖ σημεῖον; ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, εἰ δοθήσεται τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ σημεῖον.
Why does this generation seek for a sign; Amen I say to you, not will be given to this generation a sign "

And Mark 8:38 specifies it more:

ὃς γὰρ ἐὰν ἐπαισχυνθῇ με καὶ τοὺς ἐμοὺς λόγους ἐν τῇ γενεᾷ ταύτῃ τῇ μοιχαλίδι καὶ ἁμαρτωλῷ, καὶ ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐπαισχυνθήσεται αὐτὸν ὅταν ἔλθῃ ἐν τῇ δόξῃ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων τῶν ἁγίων.
For anyone who is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, also the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his father with the holy angels."

Which makes think of "the generation of the flood", "dor hamabul":
http://www.mesora.org/noah.html

In order to appreciate the milieu of the generation of the flood and the events that led to the destruction of civilization, we must analyze the verses in the Torah. Genesis 6:11 states “And the Earth was corrupted before G-d and the Earth was filled with violence.” Rashi defines corruption as sexual immorality and idolatry. He defines violence as robbery. This verse is the prelude to G-d’s determination that civilization must be destroyed because of the perpetuation of “chamas” (violence) throughout mankind. Thus chamas, robbery, sealed man’s fate.

Something not unknown to Matthew:
Matthew 24:37-39

As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

IOW "this generation" I think is meant to be "the today (Heute) living generation"

Matthew 24:3, the disciples ask:

Εἰπὲ ἡμῖν πότε ταῦτα ἔσται, καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.
"Tell us when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the completion of the world?”

συντελεία τοῦ αἰῶνος repeats in Matthew 28:20, even as the last words of Matthew:

καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμι πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.
"and see I am with you all the days until the completion of the world"

Which explains the name Immanuel, according to Matthew 1:22 the name that shall be given to him (after Isaiah 7:14)
(which is the final answer on the question in Exodus 17:7, Is the Lord in our midst or not? - Miriam (= Mary) being the eternal source of water)


Something overlooked by the preterists:
http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

the phrase "this generation" is not part of the "parable of the fig tree"--the parable only extends to the phrase "know that it is near, [even] at the doors." The next phrase is separate from the parable.

I don't see that and I don't think it is true.

"All these things happening"
They are happening now and all the time.
The clue are even the words

ὁ ἀναγινώσκων νοείτω, the reader must understand

"The abomination of desolation" being an idol, the idol of idols, "the image of the beast" of Revelation 13, standing where it should not be --in the midst of Bible-interpretation - the idol the preterists bow for.

[sylvius]

For Dee Dee:
Note that LXX Genesis 2:1 reads

καὶ συνετελέσθησαν ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ καὶ πᾶς ὁ κόσμος αὐτῶν

[technomage]

You mean: "This generation" means nothing more, and nothing less, than "the generation of people alive, there and then in first century Palestine around the year 33".

Not quite, because (as you remember) I am asserting that the authors of GoMark and GoMatthew are speaking of their generation--the generation alive between 70 and 80 CE.

That is highly questionable. It is even not probable that was meant that way.

The authors of GoMatt and GoLuke were not mystics, Sylvius, as you are (and as I am, to a certain extent). They wrote to the exoteric meanings. Some have later come and attempted to inject esoteric meanings into their text, and of those, a few have gained insight ... but we are discussing the texts as the authors understood them, and as the authors intended the readers to understand them.

Your later insight--whether true or false--does not change what the authors meant. Nor does it mean that Jesus actually spoke these words.

[sylvius]

Not quite, because (as you remember) I am asserting that the authors of GoMark and GoMatthew are speaking of their generation--the generation alive between 70 and 80 CE.

But they lay in the mouth of Jesus, who did pass away already for more than 30 or 40 years.
So that doesn't fit.

The authors of GoMatt and GoLuke were not mystics, Sylvius, as you are (and as I am, to a certain extent).

Mark surely was, Matthew and Luke I am not sure about, since they copied things from Mark.
The resurrection on the third day is mystical concept, not historical fact.
It is derived from mystical reading of the stories of creation in Genesis.
Mark 4:11,
The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those outside everything comes in parables

Your later insight--whether true or false--does not change what the authors meant.

What they meant is a question of fishing ...

Nor does it mean that Jesus actually spoke these words.

That 's very true.
Although there might be a hard core of authenticity in what they wrote.
Words have wings.

[technomage]

But they lay in the mouth of Jesus, who did pass away already for more than 30 or 40 years.
So that doesn't fit.

Sylvius, remember, GoMark wasn't written to address the generation alive when Jesus was alive. He was already about 40 years too late, and many of those who were alive when Jesus was had already passed away.

We have a pretty good clue from Papias, and an explicit statement from Irenaeus, of when GoMark was written--after the death of Peter. For my part (though many skeptics doubt the idea), I am willing to give assent to the concept that GoMark was actually written by Mark, Peter's student (and in some ways, successor).

Mark surely was, Matthew and Luke I am not sure about, since they copied things from Mark.
The resurrection on the third day is mystical concept, not historical fact.

Hmmm ... I have to argue this point. I can accept that Peter was a mystic, and that Mark wrote down what he could of Peter's teachings. But as far as actual mysticism ... Mark didn't "get it."

Sylvius, you know as well as I do that one of the worst failings a student can have is to attempt to understand mystical teachings as belonging to the physical plane. If Peter had attempted to teach Mark a higher, more spiritual understanding of Jesus' teachings, the Gospel of Mark establishes for us either that Mark didn't "get it," or wrote his Gospel for people who "didn't get it."

After Peter and Paul were killed, and after Jerusalem destroyed, the Christian community where Mark lived experienced despair ... well, that's only understandable. Mark wrote this book in part to attempt to preserve the teachings of Jesus, and in part to stem the tide of despair.

But he did so exoterically. He did so not to reveal secrets (secrets which, if he did receive, he did not understand, as I will establish shortly). Mark is a man of practical action, earthly (and earthy) attention, swift thought, and little contemplation. You know enough Greek to know that he wrote horribly, with little attention (or little knowledge) of "educated" Greek writing. He cannot be described as "barely literate," but he was not a professional author, to be sure.

Sylvius, you know as well as I do that organizations that deal with mystic teachings tend to have what could be called an "outer court" of believers, and an "inner court" of true Initiates. Now, I do not posit that Mark's particular branch of the Christian Community was organized in this manner, but let us accept that it was for a moment, for the sake of arguments. The Gospel of Mark was written to reassure people, to capture exoteric teachings in a plan manner for "regular folks." Whether or not Mark himself was a member of the "Inner Court," he wrote this Gospel for those in the "Outer Court."

That 's very true.
Although there might be a hard core of authenticity in what they wrote.
Words have wings.

I doubt it, for one reason: [b]Jesus never described himself as sitting at the right hand of God[/i]. Those who place such words in Jesus' mouth did so based on later changes in the doctrine.

Jesus saw himself as a preacher and a healer, perhaps as a prophet (he may have patterned himself after Daniel in calling himself the "son of man," which despite the claims of some was not a Messianic title) ... but he does not seem to have seen himself as the Messiah. (He may have started to towards the end of his ministry, when he chased the dove-sellers and the money-changeers out of the temple.) He obeyed the Law, even though he might not have always obeyed the secular law. When he cleansed a leper, he directed them to go to the priests (which was part of the Law) so they could be officially recognized as "clean," and could enter the Temple again.

In a lot of ways, Jesus was a good Jewish kid--and a good Jewish kid would never have set himself as being high up in the hierarchy of the "Olam Ha-Ba," the World to Come. It's God's decision of who sits at his right hand, and Jesus would not have usurped God's authority in such a manner.

No, the conclusion is obvious: GoMark was written exoterically, and Jesus did not make this speech. If, as you suspect, there were mystical teachings in the early Church, Mark's book does not reveal the Mystery.

[Dee Dee Warren]

I have ever intention of returning, but with my busy life, I apologize if I do not.... but I have to be honest on two counts. One, won't surprise you. You are going in some directions that I just have no interest in debating, i.e. they are the types of arguments that can only be made by either liberal Christians or nonbelievers, and that just isn't my calling right now, thank you so much for not taking offense at that. But the second thing is this which really floored me:

I'd have to see the documentation on that. There were several cities in Galilee that the Romans took without resistance--they left those cities alone. But if a city resisted, they destroyed that city. That was their standard practice ... and they had quite a lot of practice.

No, that was not necessarily their standard practice in their own provinces. They are the ones who would have to pay to rebuild, not smart. But let me just grant only for the sake of argument that it was... it is not disputed in any credible numbers that the Romans had no intention of leveling Jerusalem, and more to the point of this discussion, they wanted to retain the Temple as a prize. Do you really dispute that? My jaw dropped. And asking for documentation, you must understand, to me, is like proving I am not a brain in a vat. It is just something that is such common knowledge, that I even know where to begin. I am sure there are citations I could give you... but I really am not sure I have the time to go through a pile of books to prove something, that to me, is impossible to dispute. I hope that made sense without sounding overly aggressive.

I know I am paranoid about my tone in this thread, but it has been a long time since I have had a friendly debate online on a forum or blog. Sad, I know.

[sylvius]

Sylvius, remember, GoMark wasn't written to address the generation alive when Jesus was alive. He was already about 40 years too late, and many of those who were alive when Jesus was had already passed away.

It was to adress the reader
ὁ ἀναγινώσκων (Mark 13:14), derived from ἀναγινώσκω = to distinguish between, to recognise, to know accurately, to acknowledge.
It is not a simple text, like a newspaper-article to read once to know.
No it's a very complicated , a very weird text.
Mark ends very strange with "for they feared" , ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ (Mark 16:8) - what follows was added later.
My suggestion is that it has to be read in conjunction with the first words "Beginning of the Gospel" , Ἀρχὴ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου , so: "They told nobody nothing for they feared the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God", which in fact is a play on the word ἀρχή, which can have two meanings, best expressed with Latin "initium" and 'principium", after Hebrew "t'chillah" and "reishit".

Mark didn't "get it."

Get what?

Sylvius, you know as well as I do that one of the worst failings a student can have is to attempt to understand mystical teachings as belonging to the physical plane. If Peter had attempted to teach Mark a higher, more spiritual understanding of Jesus' teachings, the Gospel of Mark establishes for us either that Mark didn't "get it," or wrote his Gospel for people who "didn't get it."

As said, the resurrection on the third day is a mystical concept and not historical reality, based on the mystical (kabbalistic) reading of the stories of creation.
You might say Jesus teached it, it being the hard core of his teaching (Mark 8:31) something Peter "didn't get" until after the crucifixion.

I doubt it, for one reason: [b]Jesus never described himself as sitting at the right hand of God[/i]. Those who place such words in Jesus' mouth did so based on later changes in the doctrine.

"Sitting at the right hand of God" has not to be taken literal. Psalms 110 being largely misunderstood (It is about Genesis 14, "the mother of all wars", where Abraham gained victory with help of his 318 trained servants).

Jesus saw himself as a preacher and a healer, perhaps as a prophet

How do you know that?

(he may have patterned himself after Daniel in calling himself the "son of man," which despite the claims of some was not a Messianic title)

The notion of "son of man" ("son of Adam") is also derived from mystical reading of Genesis. In Genesis 5 ("the book of generations of Adam" ("sefer toldot Adam" - LXX: βίβλος γενέσεως ἀνθρώπων, cf. Matthew 1:1, Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ )
only in the case of Lamech there is mentioning of "and he fathered a son" (Genesis 5:28) ("vayoled ben").
Rashi: Heb. בֵּן, from whom the world was built (נִבְנָה). - [from Tanchuma Bereishith 11]


(As we saw "this generation", Matthew 24:34, was compared to "the generation of the flood", Matthew 24:37)

[sylvius]

Some notes:

Nor Mark nor Matthew was written for "a generation" nor did Jesus speak to "a generation".
In the Olivet Discourse Mark and Matthew have him answering questions of his disciples.

Daniel was not written during Babylonian exile, but seems to have been written during the reign of Antiochus IV. The "prophecied" destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem already having taken place.

Mark 9:1 ( = Matthew 16:28) does not speak about "some of this generation", but "some of the standing here". It follows Jesus' teaching his disciples, foretelling his death and resurrection.

[sylvius]

Another note:

( I do react on Dee Dee Warren's podcast-babbles:
http://www.preteristpodcast.com/inde...-of-the-world/)

Matthew 23:35 speaks of "all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."

Which refers first to Genesis 4:10,
He said, "What have you done? The voice of your brother's bloods is crying to Me from the ground

Rashi:

Your brother’s bloods: Heb. דְמֵי, the plural form. His blood and the blood of his descendants.

Which draws the whole in quite another perspective.

Jesus being Abel's last descendant...

Note that the same "that has been shed", ἐκχυννόμενον, returns in Matthew 26:28,
for this is My blood of the covenant that has been shed for many for forgiveness of sins.

It is the same blood(s)!

Cain and his descendants forming "the generation of the flood".

I even think that Daniel's 70 yearweeks might be rooted in Genesis 4:24,
If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then for Lemech it shall be seventy seven fold."

And also Luke''s generationslist (Jesus being the 77th generation of Adam) might allude to this.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Justin, I know Wikipedia isn't the greatest source, but this is there (and I trust it in this instance because, as I said, this is something generally accepted, so I am so surprised at your initial objection):

Destroying the Temple was not among Titus' goals, possibly due in large part to the massive expansions done by Herod the Great mere decades earlier. Titus had wanted to seize it and transform it into a temple dedicated to the Roman Emperor and the Roman pantheon. The fire spread quickly and was soon out of control. The Temple was destroyed on Tisha B'Av, in the beginning of August, and the flames spread into the residential sections of the city. ... The account of Josephus described Titus as moderate in his approach and, after conferring with others, ordering that the thousand-year-old (at that time) Temple be spared. (Solomon's Temple dated to the 10th century BC, though the physical structure was Herod's Temple, about 90 years old at the time.) According to Josephus, the Roman soldiers grew furious with Jewish attacks and tactics and, against Titus' orders, set fire to an apartment adjacent to the Temple, which soon spread all throughout. However, Josephus may have written this in order to appease his coreligionists.

There is always some reason that someone somewhere can think of to doubt Josephus, but it just plain makes sense that the Romans wanted to keep it as a trophy. And other than simply casting aspersions on Josephus (and there is more than just one statement, there are others that support more obliquely my statement), there is no proof otherwise.

I have more potentially to add to my initial post and your response, but I wanted to see how you reacted to this.

[sylvius]

http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html

Matthew 24:16–20:. . . then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath.

Notice some very telling things here. . . .

"Winter"

B. van Iersel ( in "Marcus uitgelegd aan andere lezers") saw in this strongest indication that this was written after the event, since the destruction took place in summer, on the 9th (or 10th) of the Jewish month Av.


Anyway "winter" is counterpart of "summer" in v.33.

Matthew 24:32–33: Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near—at the doors!

"when you see all these things"

What things?

And who are meant by "you"?

It must be the disciples.

It reads: "learn" --μάθετε -- even an imperative.

Imperative for all his disciples, including Dee Dee (or isn't she?)

[sylvius]

Th strongest indication that Mark was written after the destruction of the Temple is to be found in Mark 14:57-58,

καί τινες ἀναστάντες ἐψευδομαρτύρουν κατ' αὐτοῦ λέγοντες ὅτι Ἡμεῖς ἠκούσαμεν αὐτοῦ λέγοντος ὅτι Ἐγὼ καταλύσω τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον τὸν χειροποίητον καὶ διὰ τριῶν ἡμερῶν ἄλλον ἀχειροποίητον οἰκοδομήσω:

And some standing up up testified false against him, saying “We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands and in three days will build another, not made with hands.’ "

These false witnesses must have been first century preterists ...

You even might think that with the false messiah's and false prophets mentioned in Mark 13:22 the same kind of people as these false witnesses are meant.

ἐγερθήσονται γὰρ ψευδόχριστοι καὶ ψευδοπροφῆται καὶ δώσουσιν σημεῖα καὶ τέρατα πρὸς τὸ ἀποπλανᾶν, εἰ δυνατόν, τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς

For there will rise false messiahs and false prophets and perform signs and wonders to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.

Ha, we get it sharp, Dee Dee.

See also:
Biblical-Proof-that-Revelation-was-fulfilled-in-the-first-century
From #130 and further.

[technomage]

I have ever intention of returning, but with my busy life, I apologize if I do not....

Wait a second, Dee Dee. A couple of things before we get started.

1. You don't owe me anything. Please don't misunderstand me--I was (and am) thrilled to see you here in this thread, and will welcome any further input from you that your schedule and interests allow, but your input is neither demanded nor taken for granted.
2. This thread is not an attempt to persuade you, or anyone else. (I think Ive mentioned that already, but was not sure.) This thread is solely for the purpose of explaining my particular take on this issue in response to a private message requesting it.

You are going in some directions that I just have no interest in debating, i.e. they are the types of arguments that can only be made by either liberal Christians or nonbelievers

No problems there. And I do need to explain my counter-arguments to Sylvius, both for you and for him. I do not actually propose that Peter was a mystic, nor that the pre-Gospels Church was a Mystery cult. My counter-arguments to Sylvius are that if one accepts the tenet that Peter was putting forth a mystical teaching, GoMark does not fulfil the criteria of a mystical text.

No, that was not necessarily their standard practice in their own provinces.

I am not looking at the totality of Roman military doctrine: I am looking solely at the Judaea campaign, where "besiege and conquer the cities that do not submit" was most certainly the order of the day.

However, Dee Dee, I think we have a difference of definition on "destroy." Yes, the Romans certainly did destroy the cities ... but in this campaign, "destroy" meant "penetrate the walls, kill the resisters, and re-establish Roman rule." It did not mean "Raze the city to the foundations," which seems to be what you are arguing they did to Jerusalem.

Razing the city is, indeed, not the optimum outcome according to the Roman plan ... but they will inflict as much damage as they need to in order to recapture a rebellious city. If they ever ran across a situation where they would have needed to completely raze the city to conquer it, they would not have hesitated ... as they clearly demonstrated in the Bar Kochba revolt.

They are the ones who would have to pay to rebuild, not smart.

Hardly--do the rebuild out of the province taxes. That's what they did both in 70 CE and after Bar Kochba.

it is not disputed in any credible numbers that the Romans had no intention of leveling Jerusalem, and more to the point of this discussion, they wanted to retain the Temple as a prize.

I dispute that such is documented. Did they want the Temple as a prize? Most likely--indeed, if you look at the Titus Arch, you see the treasures of the Temple being paraded in Rome. Did they want to level Jerusalem? Doubtful--always keeping in mind the proviso that if they felt that level of violence was necessary, they were more than willing to do so.

But was there historical documentation that they were unwilling to destroy the Temple? THIS I most certainly do dispute. The Romans were willing to do whatever was necessary to recapture the province.

Now, if our disagreement is due to differences in the word "destroy," then your objection is perfectly understandable--I do not mean they deliberately set out to raze the cities, only that they were going to unleash the level of destruction necessary to accomplish their goals. But if our disagreement is something more than that, then I confess confusion.

And asking for documentation, you must understand, to me, is like proving I am not a brain in a vat. It is just something that is such common knowledge, that I even know where to begin.

It is "common knowledge" that Constantine revised the texts of the Bibles that he commissioned at Nicea (and five bonus points for you if you can cite both errors in that sentence). It is "common knowledge" that the government was involved in 9/11. It is "common knowledge" that folks like Peter Popoff, Jim and Tammy Fay Baker, and Oral Roberts are the pinnacle of Christian morals (rather than the aberrations that they actually are).

Pardon my pseudo-Latin, but Non documentum, non est. Especially when it comes to historical claims, if it's not documented, it doesn't exist. That's precisely the same standard of evidence I apply to the claims of the Jesus mythers, the LDS apologists who make ridiculous claims about archaeological finds in the New World, and the like. Documentation of the Roman campaign in Judaea is how we discern what the motives and methodology of the legions were.

"Common knowledge" is an idiot's game, Dee Dee, and despite the fact that your horse is carpet (sorry, couldn't resist ), you do not even come close to making the qualifications for "idiot." Trust me, by the rule of "It takes one to know one," I know a lot of 'em.

I know I am paranoid about my tone in this thread, but it has been a long time since I have had a friendly debate online on a forum or blog.

Don't make me start talking about your carpet horse again, my friend.

[technomage]

But they lay in the mouth of Jesus, who did pass away already for more than 30 or 40 years.

Irrelevant.

You are attempting to interject mystical meanings into a text that does not support them--not to mention you are also doing so in a thread that has nothing to do with the topic. If you would like to address my arguments, I welcome you. If you wish to divert to discussing other topics, I welcome the discussion, but please do so in a different thread.