Who are the NT epistles aimed at?

[Dicky Underpants]

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. 

One site I used to visit had one apologist going on for some thirty pages, referring to a text in ancient Syriac, pointing out that the word could mean 'race' (this has been the preferred Catholic evasion, of course, as well as popular with evangelicals). Unfortunately, such a translation leaves you with a rather meaningless, and certainly pointless, statement from Jesus: "The Jews won't disappear until all the 'signs' are fulfilled" - well I never! Other evasive tactics involve the question of whether the demonstrative adjective should be translated as "this" or "that" - if the latter is possible, then a generation way in the future might be referred to (JWs go for this approach).
As for "some standing here will not taste death until" earlier in Matthew, that becomes a reference to the Transfiguration referred to in the next chapter, and so on, until you wonder that they're not squirming with embarrassment.
Occam's Razor - please!!!!

[Dicky Underpants]

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?

As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, not just the destruction of the temple was prophesied to occur within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries, but the end of the whole world - that's what most of Matthew 24 is about, as well as the text in 1Thessalonians referred to earlier.

Have you not noticed that this did not occur?

[Dicky Underpants]

  and the Lord came into the Throneroom of God to receive the everlasting  kingdom. Again compare to Daniel 7:13-14

Aha! So something happened which no one saw at that time? Can you give any reason why we should accept this strange theological interpretation?
Actually, the JWs go in for something similar: having decided that "this generation" should be "that generation", they identify the period in question as having started in 1914, at which point "Jesus cleansed the heavens and entered his spiritual temple".
Ahem! One could spin out this kind of fantastical burbling indefinitely - and no doubt the various evangelical and fundamentalist sects will continue to do so.

Anyone else witness Jesus "entering the throneroom of God" or "entering his spiritual temple"?

Anyone else with a variant interpretation? Roll up, roll up....

[wigginhall]

Who was it who used to talk about the Great White Throne, cue many jokes?   Hence, the Great White Throne Judgment.  Beware, Dicky, the clock is ticking.

[Gordon]

Every time I come across the cryptic guff of so-called 'prophecy' and its convoluted interpretations I think of Mencken's well know quote regarding theology: 'For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the-not-worth-knowing.'

[wigginhall]

Another old quote: Christians found a solution, but have spent thousands of years trying to work out what the problem is.

[Spud]

Entering the Throne room to receive the kingdom (cf Dan 7:14) could be the Ascension. The disciples, from the earth, saw him taken into heaven in the clouds; Daniel, in his vision, saw him coming up to Heaven with the clouds.

AD 70, while not the literal coming of the Lord to judge the earth at the end of the world, seems to be a guarantee of that event: since his prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem came true, we can be sure He will come as judge of the whole world. Hence, when these things (destruction of the temple) take place, you know that he is near (the coming of the Son of Man), i.e. that He will come (see the Olivet discourse).

[Jack Knave]

' ... 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.

You seem to be seeing education in its evil, manipulative sense. And your take of people making up their own minds is a very modern take - my post was referencing the people at the time of the NT, i.e. with regards to the title of the OP I was looking more at 'were' than 'are'.

[Jack Knave]

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.

Yes it is that's where we are. 

[2Corrie]

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').

When the Lord said 'this generation' He really did mean the generation that He was talking to. That's why the Christians knew to escape Jerusalem before its destruction. No failure of prophecy there.

[2Corrie]

As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, not just the destruction of the temple was prophesied to occur within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries, but the end of the whole world - that's what most of Matthew 24 is about, as well as the text in 1Thessalonians referred to earlier.

Have you not noticed that this did not occur?

For the most part Matthew 24 Mark 13 and Luke 21 deal with the events of 70 ad.  There is also a looking forwards to 'but of that time' . But the Lord's warnings to flee were to that generation. No failure of prophecy there.

[Hope]

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

But the epistles hadn't been, and nor had Mark's Gospel.  It is also likely that Matthew's and Luke's Gospels had also been written before it was torn down - so you're right - one Gospel was definitely written after it was torn down.

[2Corrie]

Aha! So something happened which which no one saw at that time? Can you give any reason why we should accept this strange theological interpretation?
Actually, the JWs go in for something similar: having decided that "this generation" should be "that generation", they identify the period in question as having started in 1914, at which point "Jesus cleansed the heavens and entered his spiritual temple".
Ahem! One could spin out this kind of fantastical burbling indefinitely - and no doubt the various evangelical and fundamentalist sects will continue to do so.

Anyone else witness Jesus "entering the throneroom of God" or "entering his spiritual temple"?

Anyone else with a variant interpretation? Roll up, roll up....

You think no one saw the judgement of Jerusalem! Bloody hell you should read Josephus. Ask the 1100000 Jews that lost th or lives.

[Hope]

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 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.

Well done, Stephen; it is because some people 'took Jesus to mean that his return was imminent' that the various writers of the early epistles had to write to them to explain that Jesus hadn't put a time to the event, and that they were therefore wrong in any certainty as to the timing. 

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

If - wherever you live - there is a flood alert, there is seldom a definitive timing of the event.  Rather, those responsible for the alert want people to be prepared and even when the alert is cancelled they encourage people to continue to be on their guard into the future.  This is by no means an unusual use of language.  To suggest that it requires only an understanding of imminence is clearly erroneous.

[Hope]

As has been pointed out to you numerous times before, not just the destruction of the temple was prophesied to occur within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries, but the end of the whole world - that's what most of Matthew 24 is about, as well as the text in 1Thessalonians referred to earlier.

Have you not noticed that this did not occur?

I've had the idea pointed out to me on more than 'numerous times', but never been given any evidence to the validity of the idea.  Perhaps you could provide some, something that many others have signally failed to do.

Whilst you're busy seeking out that evidence, its worth pointing out the Matthew 24: 3-14 is largely about warning readers not to have premature expectations.  Look, for instance, at verses 6 & 7.  The events outlined in these verses would clearly occur over a far longer period than 30 or 40 years.  Furthermore, in verse 14, Jesus states that the 'gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations ...' and only then would the end come.  That's just starters.  Yes, there are 2 or 3 hints that the end might come sooner than later, but none are definitive, and there is a great deal more material that talks about the 'unknown' and the 'unexpected' than anything to do with imminence.

[Ricky Spanish]

I'm glad that you've finally caught up, Thrud.  We're only 4 pages into the thread!!   

<SNIP>

Yeah, I know...  but what the others are interested in ain't what intrigues me!

I personally want to focus on each of the genuine Sauls letters, from the earliest to the last. To establish what he understood about the "Jesus" he referred to compared to the "Christ" he promoted and how we both understand them.

So excuse me if I ignore your wibble for just now.. until I find time to address your understanding compared to mine at my own convenience.

There will be no deviations from each epistle in my review. I will be solely studying each one on its own merit.. just to warn you.

[jeremyp]

Again, completely the opposite is true.

Nope. You are wrong.

There isn't a single hint in any of them that Jerusalem had already fallen.

\
Apart from them inserting fake prophecies after the fact.

Even Luke's second book describes the temple as though it was still standing. (Acts 3:2,11)

So what? If you were claiming a prophecy about something that had already happened, the last thing you would do is put any material in that gives the game away.

[Spud]

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

I don't agree that the gospels were written after AD 70, however even if they were, Jesus could still have spoken the prophecy in AD30 and the evangelists been reporting what he said. If that was so then it was prophecy, as you pointed out to Hope. And  it was not unremarkable, since 'this generation' did not refer to the Jewish race. That was my point.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Well done, Stephen; it is because some people 'took Jesus to mean that his return was imminent' that the various writers of the early epistles had to write to them to explain that Jesus hadn't put a time to the event, and that they were therefore wrong in any certainty as to the timing. 

But how do we know who was right and who was wrong?

If - wherever you live - there is a flood alert, there is seldom a definitive timing of the event.  Rather, those responsible for the alert want people to be prepared and even when the alert is cancelled they encourage people to continue to be on their guard into the future.  This is by no means an unusual use of language. 

Actually there is usually a timing given (within a day or two anyway).

I would suggest that if the Met office issued a flood alert and it said it might be tomorrow or anytime in the next few thousand years, heads would roll at said office.

Anyway it's a poor analogy, the people at the Met office are not omniscient.

To suggest that it requires only an understanding of imminence is clearly erroneous.

I'm not suggesting it required only an understanding of imminence, just that some people thought it did and others didn't. It doesn't matter to me who was right, but of course you have to read it in a certain way otherwise it means that Jesus could be wrong.

[Gordon]

I don't agree that the gospels were written after AD 70, however even if they were, Jesus could still have spoken the prophecy in AD30 and the evangelists been reporting what he said.

Your lack of agreement makes no difference to the facts though, since opinion seems to be that only Mark is that early: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

That 'Jesus could still have spoken the prophecy' isn't a known fact though since you have no way of showing that any statements attributed to Jesus aren't mistakes, exaggeration or lies for the purposes of propaganda: since these are known risks involving human artifice you'd need to exclude these, and if you can't then you could be dealing with retrospective prophecy - and even I can do that: my prophecy for today is that the winner of the first race at Lingfield yesterday will be called 'Rapacity Alexander' - easy peasy! 

[floo]

My prophesy for today is my husband will take himself off to his favourite café for lunch.

[Sebastian Toe]

my prophecy for today is that the winner of the first race at Lingfield yesterday will be called 'Rapacity Alexander' - easy peasy!

Can I have £5 each way on that please? 

[Gordon]

Can I have £5 each way on that please? 

Certainly not - it's going to win y'see, so never mind the place bet and put the whole £10 on the nose - I also predict the SP will be 9/4.

[2Corrie]

Daniel was definitely written before 70AD. So it's a moot point.

[2Corrie]

So some would have us believe that the Christians escaped the destruction of Jerusalem by reading a warning that was written after the events occured . Now that's logical.