Who are the NT epistles aimed at?

[Hope]

Going back to the OP, there is a strong them and us in the NT and the epistles, the elect etc., ...

Not sure that there is any 'them and us'; rather its an us 'before' and 'after'.  Otherwise, the fact that all the NT documents but the Gospels were written specifically to churches, and church members (and attendees) is very important.

and so it seems correct to me that much of the epistles were aimed at educating them and keeping them true to the faith.

' ... educating them and keeping them true to the faith'.  That sounds an interesting combination, JK.  Surely education involves people making up their own minds: so 'keeping them true to the faith' is a bit obsolete.  Finally, I'm not sure that the 'much of' (the epistles) is necessary, either.  After all, exhortation and warning are as much a part of education as anything else.

[Hope]

Further evidence comes from Paul, who actually says, it's better not to get married, because the end is quite soon.

But that advice is also within a section which Paul prefaces with the comment "that this is my own opinion" and not Jesus' teaching.  Paul also gives teh advice for reasons other than apocalyptic ones.

But also Jesus existed in apocalyptic times, by which I mean, that Jewish thought was shot through with apocalypticism.   For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls are full of this stuff, including a Messiah, in fact, two.

This doesn't prove that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, but I think quite a lot of scholars are convinced about this, and that Schweitzer's thesis is basically correct.   

Of course, there are scholars who disagree, and as far as I can see, many evangelicals also disagree.

But the whole apocalyptic context in which Jesus and his crew grew up was one of politico-militaristic apocalypse; the idea that the Jews would rebel and overthrow the invaders - a belief that had been in place for 4 or 500 years prior to Jesus' appearance - an eventuality that Jesus seems to be very antagonstic to.

[jeremyp]

Do you have any evidence -  linguistic, historical, theological - to support this suggestion, DU? Jesus' words could equally be taken to imply several thousands of years ahead.

That wouldn't really be much of a prophecy would it.

"Hey guys, the World is going to end soon"

"Really, how long have we got?"

"Well you know the whole of Israelite history? About the same again, give or take a thousand."

A prophecy of doom in a few thousand years isn't really anything to get worked up about.

[Sassy]

The NT was written and aimed at the Churches and persons they were sent to.

Easy innit...

[Dicky Underpants]

Do you have any evidence -  linguistic, historical, theological - to support this suggestion, DU? Jesus' words could equally be taken to imply several thousands of years ahead.
Do you have any evidence of any sort to support this suggestion?  Could it not be that those who argue as you and others do are twisting the language to suit their purposes? 

No - I am not twisting the language. Given just one instance, then you might say "That's just a trope" or "It's metaphorical". Given the huge, cumulative instances when this idea of imminent apocalypse is mentioned, the miracle is that it could have been interpreted any other way.
We know of course that it was - each individual instance was given its own specific interpretation. Typical of this would be Augustine's statement that the only 'Kingdom' being referred to was the establishment of the Church.

Or when St. Paul says "we", he means the whole corpus of Christians throughout history, up to the time of the supposed Apocalypse. And so on, making a complete dog's breakfast of a fairly straightforward idea. Managed to get an established church to survive, though, didn't it?

[Hope]

No - I am not twisting the language. Given just one instance, then you might say "That's just a trope" or "It's metaphorical". Given the huge, cumulative instances when this idea of imminent apocalypse is mentioned, the miracle is that it could have been interpreted any other way.

Yet Jesus doesn't indicate that it was necessarily to be imminent.  I'd echo your comment, but with a very different meaning - there is nothing in the New Testament documents that states even remotely definitively an imminent return of Jesus.  It is clear - from a variety of passages - that some people at the time 'believed' that the return was to be imminent, or why else are there passages in the epistles (especially Pauline ones) explaining that the idea was erroneous?

We know of course that it was - each individual instance was given its own specific interpretation. Typical of this would be Augustine's statement that the only 'Kingdom' being referred to was the establishment of the Church.

Well, this is a fairly commonly held view based on Jesus' own teaching.

Or when St. Paul says "we", he means the whole corpus of Christians throughout history, up to the time of the supposed Apocalypse. And so on, making a complete dog's breakfast of a fairly straightforward idea. Managed to get an established church to survive, though, didn't it?

Not sure that the survival of an established church had any basis on your argument.  I do, however, wonder who created the dog's dinner.  The simple certainly does appear to have been complicated in order to reach your conclusion.

[Hope]

eh? If he hadn't put a time or date on it, then why would they have thought that? Surely they would have thought he might be back in their lifetime or then again maybe not?

[Precisely, which is why some believed that he would return in short order, and others believed that he wouldn't.  You've summed the issue up very neatly.

If however, he did mean he would be back in their lifetime then that would have explained why they thought that.

Do you mean, 'some thought that'?

[Hope]

That wouldn't really be much of a prophecy would it.

"Hey guys, the World is going to end soon"

"Really, how long have we got?"

"Well you know the whole of Israelite history? About the same again, give or take a thousand."

A prophecy of doom in a few thousand years isn't really anything to get worked up about.

Not sure that there was any clear suggestion from Jesus, or most of his disciples, that 'the world is going to end soon', Stephen.  Nor am I convinced that there is anything to do with prophecy involved.

[jeremyp]

Not sure that there was any clear suggestion from Jesus, or most of his disciples, that 'the world is going to end soon', Stephen.  Nor am I convinced that there is anything to do with prophecy involved.

No, technically he said the Temple will be destroyed:

That wouldn't really be much of a prophecy would it.

"Hey guys, the Temple is going to be demolished soon"

"Really, how long have we got?"

"Until this generation has died out."

"When will that be?"

"Well if we define 'generation' as "when all the Jews are dead", it means some time in the next few hundred thousand years."

Your Jesus gets less impressive with every argument you attempt.

[Spud]

No, technically he said the Temple will be destroyed:

That wouldn't really be much of a prophecy would it.

"Hey guys, the Temple is going to be demolished soon"

"Really, how long have we got?"

"Until this generation has died out."

"When will that be?"

"Well if we define 'generation' as "when all the Jews are dead", it means some time in the next few hundred thousand years."

Your Jesus gets less impressive with every argument you attempt.

Completely the opposite, Jerry. It is obvious he meant generation in the literal sense, so it is quite a remarkable prophecy, considering the temple was nearing its completion at the time.

[Hope]

No, technically he said the Temple will be destroyed:

That wouldn't really be much of a prophecy would it.

"Hey guys, the Temple is going to be demolished soon"

"Really, how long have we got?"

"Until this generation has died out."

"When will that be?"

"Well if we define 'generation' as "when all the Jews are dead", it means some time in the next few hundred thousand years."

Your Jesus gets less impressive with every argument you attempt.

Yes, he said that the Temple would be destroyed and so it was - 72 AD.  Pretty well the time that the generation that had followed and listened to him came to an end.  However, he also said that it would broken down and rebuilt within 3 days.  Now, there seems to be a 'discrepancy'  as to what he was referring to in these two passages.  I'd suggest that, rather than his becoming 'less impressive with every argument ... ', it's your arguments that are becoming increasingly less impressive.

Furthermore, whilst the destruction of the Temple in 72 AD may have signalled the effective end of the Jewish world, it didn't signify - let alone signal - the end of the world.

[2Corrie]

70 AD? You so need to read this:

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/prophecy/70ad/sermon.php

[jeremyp]

Completely the opposite, Jerry. It is obvious he meant generation in the literal sense, so it is quite a remarkable prophecy, considering the temple was nearing its completion at the time.

The gospels were written after it was torn down, so no, not remarkable at all.

[floo]

70 AD? You so need to read this:

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/sermons/prophecy/70ad/sermon.php

People are so gullible if they think that twaddle is meaningful. You can interpret the Bible any which way to suit your POV.

[Spud]

The gospels were written after it was torn down, so no, not remarkable at all.

Again, completely the opposite is true. There isn't a single hint in any of them that Jerusalem had already fallen. Even Luke's second book describes the temple as though it was still standing. (Acts 3:2,11)

[ippy]

Completely the opposite, Jerry. It is obvious he meant generation in the literal sense, so it is quite a remarkable prophecy, considering the temple was nearing its completion at the time.

Have you tried "Topnotchsigns.co.uk" yet Spud?

I don't think you would find them too expensive, just remember if you add the overhead board it can be a bit dodgy on a windy day and of course you'd have to watch out for the overhead shop signs when you're campaigning down at your local high street.

Don't let them palm you off with any of that old hat rubbish like that pre printed "The End of the World Is Nigh"slogan, you'd need to be a bit more inventive than that these days. 

But then again I'm sure you're far to intelligent to start using old hat slogans.

ippy
 

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

[Precisely, which is why some believed that he would return in short order, and others believed that he wouldn't.  You've summed the issue up very neatly.
Do you mean, 'some thought that'?

I was replying to your previous comment.

Obviously, there were those who believed that Jesus was going to return within their lifetime, if only because he hadn't put a time or date on the event. 

I'll try again.

If he had put no time or date (or indication that it would be in their lifetime). Then why would someone think it would be within their lifetime? They might say "It may be in my lifetime, or it may not". That is not the same as believing it would be in their lifetime. The obvious answer is that they took Jesus to mean that his return was imminent.

Assuming such words were actually spoken then it seems odd that Jesus could not clearly communicate his message to his contemporaries.

[2Corrie]

Completely the opposite, Jerry. It is obvious he meant generation in the literal sense, so it is quite a remarkable prophecy, considering the temple was nearing its completion at the time.

And the corresponding prophecy in Daniel chapter nine was written way before. Whichever date you ascribe to.

[2Corrie]

I was replying to your previous comment.

I'll try again.

If he had put no time or date (or indication that it would be in there lifetime). Then why would someone think it would be within their lifetime? They might say "It may be in my lifetime, or it may not". That is not the same as believing it would be in their lifetime. The obvious answer is that they took Jesus to mean that his return was imminent.

Assuming such words were actually spoken then it seems odd that Jesus could not clearly communicate his message to his contemporaries.

Which coming are you referring to? The Lord's warning  to flee when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies most certainly applied to that generation. The sign of the Son of Man is mentioned in Daniel. Coming in the clouds means judgment,  this imagery is used throughout scripture. The tribulation and destruction of the temple took place as prophesied  and the Lord came into the Throneroom of God to receive the everlasting  kingdom. Again compare to Daniel 7:13-14

[floo]

Which coming are you referring to? The Lord's warning  to flee when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies most certainly applied to that generation. The sign of the Son of Man is mentioned in Daniel. Coming in the clouds means judgment,  this imagery is used throughout scripture. The tribulation and destruction of the temple took place as prophesied  and the Lord came into the Throneroom of God to receive the everlasting  kingdom. Again compare to Daniel.

What total nonsense!

[2Corrie]

What total nonsense!

What a lucid and intelligent rebuttal!

[2Corrie]

The siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple are matters of historical fact Floo. It may be uncomfortable to consider that these events were prophesied in a timebound manner  by both Daniel and the Lord, but these things deserve more than a shrug of the shoulders don't you think?

[floo]

The siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple are matters of historical fact Floo. It may be uncomfortable to consider that these events were prophesied in a timebound manner  by both Daniel and the Lord, but these things deserve more than a shrug of the shoulders don't you think?

Hmmmmmmmmmmm!

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Which coming are you referring to? The Lord's warning  to flee when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies most certainly applied to that generation. The sign of the Son of Man is mentioned in Daniel. Coming in the clouds means judgment,  this imagery is used throughout scripture. The tribulation and destruction of the temple took place as prophesied  and the Lord came into the Throneroom of God to receive the everlasting  kingdom. Again compare to Daniel 7:13-14

I was actually referring to Hope's statement.

Obviously, there were those who believed that Jesus was going to return within their lifetime, if only because he hadn't put a time or date on the event. 

I was pointing out that the second half does not seem to follow from the first half.

[wigginhall]

I was replying to your previous comment.

I'll try again.

If he had put no time or date (or indication that it would be in there lifetime). Then why would someone think it would be within their lifetime? They might say "It may be in my lifetime, or it may not". That is not the same as believing it would be in their lifetime. The obvious answer is that they took Jesus to mean that his return was imminent.

Assuming such words were actually spoken then it seems odd that Jesus could not clearly communicate his message to his contemporaries.

Well put.  I think many evangelicals have to erase notions of imminence, as this would show Jesus as not just an apocalyptic prophet, but a failed apocalyptic prophet.   This is theological Kryptonite, so must be shown to mean something else, hence all the gyrations over 'this generation' and so on.   The Schweitzer idea (Jesus being apocalyptic), was (I think) unpopular at first, but became more popular after the war, but I can't remember all the details. 

(Schweitzer's book was published in 1906, 'The Quest of the Historical Jesus').