independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Wed 13th Dec 2017 6:18pm
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Jesus coming next week?
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 8 of 8 <12345678
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #210 posted 10/07/17 6:32pm

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

It really is childish to constantly accuse people of smearing when they point put the deficencies in your arguments

.

You haven't exposed any view-demolishing deficiencies. You just assert you have.

.

.

But they're not logically flawed, nor "fundamentalist interpretations". You haven't shown this either. I've already shown you, and you've already conceded, that even some Christians believe as I do. These Christians are not "fundamentalists". They, like myself, simply read the text and see that Mark portrays a Jesus who teaches that the apocalypse should have been imminent - not a 'you should believe it's imminent even if it's not' attitude, but an actual imminence.

.

This view is supported by other verses within Mark, as well as the only earlier evidence for Christian belief available to us (the genuine Pauline epistles), as well as the socio-historical context (similar imminent cataclysmic expectations were common within Jewish sects at the time).

.

There is nothing new in your argument here

.

Despite that I brought two new points. You haven't addressed why the "they" of verse 26 ("then they will see...") who were are told will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with angels to gather the elect are not the same "they" as those witnesssing the suffering and the heavenly signs of the preceding verse 25, events which you believe have already happened.

.

Nothing new, bye

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #211 posted 10/07/17 6:34pm

toejam

avatar

^But you haven't addressed why the "they" of verse 26 ("then they will see...") who we are are told will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with angels to gather the elect are not the same "they" as those witnesssing the suffering and the heavenly signs of the preceding verse 25, events which you believe have already happened??

.

Ah well. Later, Ian.

.

[Edited 10/7/17 18:35pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #212 posted 10/07/17 6:40pm

IanRG

toejam said:

^But you haven't addressed why the "they" of verse 26 ("then they will see...") who we are are told will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with angels to gather the elect are not the same "they" as those witnesssing the suffering and the heavenly signs of the preceding verse 25, events which you believe have already happened??

.

Ah well. Later, Ian.

.

[Edited 10/7/17 18:35pm]

.

Nothing new and fully and completely addressed, bye

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #213 posted 10/07/17 6:41pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


I do not think most Christians live with that expectation daily. I have no access to any
statistical evidence to support this claim, but, I am friends with many Christians and I
rarely hear them utter: "Today could be the day!" If after two thousand years Jesus has
not returned, what happens to that expectation? It's earnestness and expression must
see some diminution, right?

I maintain that the Parousia makes more sense contextually for an inchoate Christianity,
constituted by a minority, and beset on all sides by oppression for that was the very con-
text in which Christian eschatology is given and preached. Think about it: if Rome had
embraced Christianity during the decades right after Jesus' ministry, would there even be
a need for the Second Advent? Jesus and his disciples, including Paul, could not have
foreseen the Edict of Milan in 313 CE following Jesus' death in 34-36 CE.

.

We are taught to always expect it - But does this mean that we spend every day twiddling our thumbs thinking is it now?, is it now? For a relevant and available statistic, the proportion of Christians who believe we are entering the final stages of End of Days (and not just where end of days is the age from Jesus' Resurrection) is very high, especially among Fundamentalists.

.

As to what does the passage of time mean for that expectation. Obviously it is still a regular conversation 2000 years later as demonstrated by this thread and many others like it (and not just in P&R!!). A thing that keeps it to mind for Christians is that, even if not today, we all must be watchful and prepared because at the very least we all face our end of days at the end of our personal generation.

.

What Jesus can foresee is dependent on who Jesus is. For Him not to be able to foresee the Edict of Milan assumes he is not God, the Son - This is a completely different topic from people in 2017 ignoring Jesus' teaching about predicting when Jesus will return.


And it is my argument that the teaching to always expect the second coming begins to lose its
intended persuasiveness and relevancy because the context has changed in which the original
teaching was given and practiced. There is a sense of cautioning in the original Parousia teach-
ings that doesn't cohere in the year 2017 for after two millenia, Jesus still hasn't returned,
even in the midst of the Jewish Diaspora; the Crusades; the African Diaspora; two world wars;
and the constant marginalization and oppression of minorities. It appears that God has not
deemed it necessary to send Jesus back, so there is no reason for Christians to live with that
expectation now, or, to at least continue to be fearful of it occurring within their generation.

And, in a broader context, the Parousia contains more than discussing if people in 2017 ignore
Jesus' teaching about predicting his return for it is quite useful to also discuss if the Parousia even
coheres in 2017. In my opinion, it does not.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #214 posted 10/07/17 6:45pm

Dasein

toejam said:

^But you haven't addressed why the "they" of verse 26 ("then they will see...") who we are are told will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with angels to gather the elect are not the same "they" as those witnesssing the suffering and the heavenly signs of the preceding verse 25, events which you believe have already happened??

.

Ah well. Later, Ian.

.

[Edited 10/7/17 18:35pm]


But you haven't addressed the context in which Parousiac teachings are given! Once that action
has been performed on your part, then you'll see that your campaign to discredit Christianity in
toto on account of what is perceived as being prophecies rendered erroneously is then groundless.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #215 posted 10/07/17 6:49pm

IanRG

Dasein said:

IanRG said:

.

We are taught to always expect it - But does this mean that we spend every day twiddling our thumbs thinking is it now?, is it now? For a relevant and available statistic, the proportion of Christians who believe we are entering the final stages of End of Days (and not just where end of days is the age from Jesus' Resurrection) is very high, especially among Fundamentalists.

.

As to what does the passage of time mean for that expectation. Obviously it is still a regular conversation 2000 years later as demonstrated by this thread and many others like it (and not just in P&R!!). A thing that keeps it to mind for Christians is that, even if not today, we all must be watchful and prepared because at the very least we all face our end of days at the end of our personal generation.

.

What Jesus can foresee is dependent on who Jesus is. For Him not to be able to foresee the Edict of Milan assumes he is not God, the Son - This is a completely different topic from people in 2017 ignoring Jesus' teaching about predicting when Jesus will return.


And it is my argument that the teaching to always expect the second coming begins to lose its
intended persuasiveness and relevancy because the context has changed in which the original
teaching was given and practiced. There is a sense of cautioning in the original Parousia teach-
ings that doesn't cohere in the year 2017 for after two millenia, Jesus still hasn't returned,
even in the midst of the Jewish Diaspora; the Crusades; the African Diaspora; two world wars;
and the constant marginalization and oppression of minorities. It appears that God has not
deemed it necessary to send Jesus back, so there is no reason for Christians to live with that
expectation now, or, to at least continue to be fearful of it occurring within their generation.

And, in a broader context, the Parousia contains more than discussing if people in 2017 ignore
Jesus' teaching about predicting his return for it is quite useful to also discuss if the Parousia even
coheres in 2017. In my opinion, it does not.

.

I understand you point - How I see it is that the primary focus during the tribulation foretold (and subsequent tribulations) will be on the Second Coming. However, the better we establish the kingdom of God on Earth in how we live and treat God's creation and all others the more the Second Coming will be just a Parousia - The king ceremonially entering the City showing the defeat of his enemies - the evil that exists in people. Ironically the more we succeed in focusing on the other things Jesus taught, the more we are ready and watchful for the Second Coming

[Edited 10/7/17 18:51pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #216 posted 10/07/17 7:11pm

Dasein

IanRG said:

Dasein said:


And it is my argument that the teaching to always expect the second coming begins to lose its
intended persuasiveness and relevancy because the context has changed in which the original
teaching was given and practiced. There is a sense of cautioning in the original Parousia teach-
ings that doesn't cohere in the year 2017 for after two millenia, Jesus still hasn't returned,
even in the midst of the Jewish Diaspora; the Crusades; the African Diaspora; two world wars;
and the constant marginalization and oppression of minorities. It appears that God has not
deemed it necessary to send Jesus back, so there is no reason for Christians to live with that
expectation now, or, to at least continue to be fearful of it occurring within their generation.

And, in a broader context, the Parousia contains more than discussing if people in 2017 ignore
Jesus' teaching about predicting his return for it is quite useful to also discuss if the Parousia even
coheres in 2017. In my opinion, it does not.

.

I understand you point - How I see it is that the primary focus during the tribulation foretold (and subsequent tribulations) will be on the Second Coming. However, the better we establish the kingdom of God on Earth in how we live and treat God's creation and all others the more the Second Coming will be just a Parousia - The king ceremonially entering the City showing the defeat of his enemies - the evil that exists in people. Ironically the more we succeed in focusing on the other things Jesus taught, the more we are ready and watchful for the Second Coming

[Edited 10/7/17 18:51pm]



Agreed; and, I utter this as one who is no longer a Christian.

Your post gives another reason why Toejam's enterprise here (to discredit Christianity as a whole
because of his fundamentalist and literal approach to interpreting those second coming passages in
the New Testament) is ultimately incomplete: he does not take into serious consideration what you
mentioned here about the other components of the kergyma and their cogency and relevancy and sta-
ying power with the western context, nor does Toejam ever take into serious consideration the utility
of prolepsis in the New Testament. Now, an argument can be made by some Christian opponents that
the very idea of prolepsis saves Christian prophetic claims from being criticized for not taking place
when claimed they will or taking place at all, but I'm not going to make that argument for him.

However you view Christianity, those Old Testament prophetic claims that the nations of the world will
surely be impacted by Judaism, a religious and cultural expression from a backwater collection of Mid-
dle Eastern tribes, certainly came true. You cannot begin to understand the western context without
making some effort to understand the nature and existence and ministry of Jesus Christ.




[Edited 10/7/17 19:11pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #217 posted 10/07/17 7:14pm

toejam

avatar

Dasein said:

But you haven't addressed the context in which Parousiac teachings are given! Once that action has been performed on your part, then you'll see that your campaign to discredit Christianity in toto on account of what is perceived as being prophecies rendered erroneously is then groundless.

.

This isn't about a campaign to "discredit Christianity in toto". I have addressed the context of those Parousiac pronouncements. Indeed, the historical context in which they were spoken/written only adds to what I've been saying. There were many Jewish sects at the time who believed that Yahweh was soon to intervene cataclysmically to wipe the slate clean and re-establish some sort Davidic Israel made up of an 'elected' remnant. Or variations of this theme. Josephus tells us that such expectations of an imminent cataclysm were being read falsely out of "scripture" like Daniel and that this was a significant factor in stirring up apocalyptic fervor, enticing many to join in rebellion against Rome. Jesus and his followers may or not have been participants in this more violent form of the revolutionary movement, but they were still a group who read out of "scripture" the coming of a Son of Man on clouds, etc., and expected an imminent apocalypse, the 'day of wrath', etc.
.
My point in this thread has been focused on arguing that the Historical Jesus and Paul, like those who thought the apocalypse would happen on 25th September, were wrong. Time itself was all that was needed to discredit the eschatology of those latter apocalypticists. And time itself was all that was needed to discredit the eschatology of the Historical Jesus and Paul and their earliest followers. Whether or not this discredits "Christianity in toto" will come down to how one understands what "Christianity in toto" means. I've already acknowledged that there are ways in which people can take the view I do on Judeo-Christian Origins and still remain "Christian" in some more metaphorical sense (Episcopalians, etc.).

.

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #218 posted 10/07/17 7:32pm

Dasein

toejam said:

Dasein said:

But you haven't addressed the context in which Parousiac teachings are given! Once that action has been performed on your part, then you'll see that your campaign to discredit Christianity in toto on account of what is perceived as being prophecies rendered erroneously is then groundless.

.

This isn't about a campaign to "discredit Christianity in toto". I have addressed the context of those Parousiac pronouncements. Indeed, the historical context in which they were spoken/written only adds to what I've been saying. There were many Jewish sects at the time who believed that Yahweh was soon to intervene cataclysmically to wipe the slate clean and re-establish some sort Davidic Israel made up of an 'elected' remnant. Or variations of this theme. Josephus tells us that such expectations of an imminent cataclysm were being read falsely out of "scripture" like Daniel and that this was a significant factor in stirring up apocalyptic fervor, enticing many to join in rebellion against Rome. Jesus and his followers may or not have been participants in this more violent form of the revolutionary movement, but they were still a group who read out of "scripture" the coming of a Son of Man on clouds, etc., and expected an imminent apocalypse, the 'day of wrath', etc.
.
My point in this thread has been focused on arguing that the Historical Jesus and Paul, like those who thought the apocalypse would happen on 25th September, were wrong. Time itself was all that was needed to discredit the eschatology of those latter apocalypticists. And time itself was all that was needed to discredit the eschatology of the Historical Jesus and Paul and their earliest followers. Whether or not this discredits "Christianity in toto" will come down to how one understands what "Christianity in toto" means. I've already acknowledged that there are ways in which people can take the view I do on Judeo-Christian Origins and still remain "Christian" in some more metaphorical sense (Episcopalians, etc.).

.


Of course your involvement in this thread has been largely to discredit Christianity, otherwise, I
have difficulty squaring your posts with the derogatory comments you made about a loony and piti-
able sect of Jews who were embarrassed by their leader being flatulently wrong. If you understood
why Jewish apocalyptism existed in the first place (as a literary device extended from a dispossesed
people by Rome), then what's your problem with its existence in the first place? Why frame the

hopefulness of a delivering God so derogatorily? Only if you read the sayings of the historical Jesus
and Paul literally, without some understanding of prolepsis, and without some acknowledgment of
the historical context in which apocalyptism is formed while paying no attention to anything else
Jesus and Paul uttered can you you be so disparaging in New Testament scholarship. Even if
your reading of Christian eschatology is accurate, it is still no reason to expostulate as you have
in this thread.

All that beind said:

I no longer read the passages in question similar to how you do: Jesus being recorded by the author
of the Markan gospel as expecting God to do God's apocalyptic "thing" within Jesus' own generation
doesn't make sense if Mark is writing these things thirty to forty years after the fact with complete
knowledge and realization that the second coming hadn't occurred as an apocalyptic event. There-
fore, we can safely conjecture that Mark did not intend the gospel to indicate said event with any spe-
cificity to a strict measurement of time.




[Edited 10/7/17 19:33pm]

[Edited 10/7/17 19:40pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #219 posted 10/07/17 7:38pm

Dasein

^

Is my reason clear? In other words, we could only criticize the author of the Gospel of Mark for
being wrong with Markan eschatology, as it pertains to the Parousia, if the author actually wrote
the gospel during Jesus' lifetime and earthly ministry. Instead, Mark's gospel comes thirty to
forty years after the fact which means Mark's eschatology isn't intended to offer a strict timeframe
in which the Parousia will be enacted.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #220 posted 10/07/17 8:19pm

toejam

avatar

Dasein said:

Of course your involvement in this thread has been largely to discredit Christianity

.

There are forms of Christianity which are totally fine with accepting the points I've been stressing. It just irks me when I see modern Christians today quoting Matthew 24:36 with some "told you so!" attitude not being aware that the Historical Jesus and Paul were probably not that different in their thinking from the failed apocalypticists we see today. Jesus and Paul also thought and taught that the apocalypse was imminent, even if they didn't put a specific day on it. But they were just as wrong. Does this discredit "Christianity in toto"? Like I said, that would depend on how one understands what "Christianity in toto" is.

.

If you understood why Jewish apocalyptism existed in the first place (as a literary device extended from a dispossesed people by Rome)

.

I don't believe it is always simply a "literary device". As I've acknowledged time and time and time again, it's difficult to know the degree of literalness these passages were originally spoken/written and interpreted. But this is true of imminent-apocalypticists today as well. But this acknowledgment is never acknowledged by yourself or Ian. Nah, it's easier to read toejam as only reading these things absolutely literally, like a YEC, and chalk it up to his anti-religion bias.

.

Yes, communities tend to gravitate toward imminent supernatural-intervening apocalyptic-like expectations when they're under the pump and a 'natural' saving mechanism seems unachievable. I'm sure there were wider anthropological forces at play. Am I harsh in calling the earliest Christians "loony"? Perhaps. Seems everyone is fine in calling Marshall Applewhite and his crew "loony", yet I don't see that early Christians didn't have a very similar mentality. I'm also sure there were anthropological forces as to why certain people gravitated toward Applewhite also. Pitiable? I don't see why this is harsh. I pity them.

.

... without some acknowledgment of the historical context

.

How have I not made acknowledgement of the historical context? The historical context supports my points.

.

I no longer read the passages in question similar to how you do: Jesus being recorded by the author of the Markan gospel as expecting God to do God's apocalyptic "thing" within Jesus' own generation doesn't make sense if Mark is writing these things thirty to forty years after the fact with complete knowledge and realization that the second coming hadn't occurred as an apocalyptic event. Therefore, we can safely conjecture that Mark did not intend the gospel to indicate said event with any specificity to a strict measurement of time.

.

The Gospel of Mark probably reached its final form (at least the earliest attainable form scholars can reconstruct of it) c.65-80CE. Much of its content probably goes back earlier. Maurice Casey and James Crossley, for example, argue that the "desolating sacrilege" of Mark 13 might well be the expectation of Caligula setting up a statue of himself in the temple in the late 30sCE. If this is true, this passage is very early. I'm not sure I buy that completely, but the point is that much of Mark's material might well be earlier and not simply invented from scratch 35yrs later. Certainly we'd be in agreement that Mark at least contains some, inflated as it may be, recollection of the kind of thing Jesus was preaching.

.

But let's take the standard c.65-70 dating. This is still within the generation of Jesus's earliest followers. Indeed, if reference to knowledge of the temple's destruction implies a date of c.65-70CE, as is fair, then Mark's point would be to stress to Christians that the time is very, very near now given that there probably weren't many of Jesus's initial followers left.

.

Like I said, we seem to have a different understanding of the way the "this generation" language works. I take it to mean before the last person who was around when Jesus was around has died. E.g. If some people were ~20 when they joined the Jesus movement in 30CE, then it is conceivable that some would still be alive to see the Jewish War, c.65-70CE. It is conceivable that there was at least one person who lived into the 90sCE. When Jesus is quoted as saying "this generation", I can conceivably take that up until end of the first century. This makes better sense of phrases like "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power", as well as the "rumor" about Jesus's teaching that a redactor of John 21 felt compelled to deny - that Jesus had predicted that the Beloved Disciple wouldn't die before his return.

.

[Edited 10/7/17 20:40pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #221 posted 10/08/17 4:12am

Dasein

toejam said:

Dasein said:

Of course your involvement in this thread has been largely to discredit Christianity {otherwise, I have difficulty squaring your posts with the derogatory comments you made about a loony and pitiable sect of Jews who were embarrassed by their leader being flatulently wrong.}

.

There are forms of Christianity which are totally fine with accepting the points I've been stressing. It just irks me when I see modern Christians today quoting Matthew 24:36 with some "told you so!" attitude not being aware that the Historical Jesus and Paul were probably not that different in their thinking from the failed apocalypticists we see today. Jesus and Paul also thought and taught that the apocalypse was imminent, even if they didn't put a specific day on it. But they were just as wrong. Does this discredit "Christianity in toto"? Like I said, that would depend on how one understands what "Christianity in toto" is.

.

.

How have I not made acknowledgement of the historical context? The historical context supports my points.

.

I no longer read the passages in question similar to how you do: Jesus being recorded by the author of the Markan gospel as expecting God to do God's apocalyptic "thing" within Jesus' own generation doesn't make sense if Mark is writing these things thirty to forty years after the fact with complete knowledge and realization that the second coming hadn't occurred as an apocalyptic event. Therefore, we can safely conjecture that Mark did not intend the gospel to indicate said event with any specificity to a strict measurement of time.

.

The Gospel of Mark probably reached its final form (at least the earliest attainable form scholars can reconstruct of it) c.65-80CE. Much of its content probably goes back earlier. Maurice Casey and James Crossley, for example, argue that the "desolating sacrilege" of Mark 13 might well be the expectation of Caligula setting up a statue of himself in the temple in the late 30sCE. If this is true, this passage is very early. I'm not sure I buy that completely, but the point is that much of Mark's material might well be earlier and not simply invented from scratch 35yrs later. Certainly we'd be in agreement that Mark at least contains some, inflated as it may be, recollection of the kind of thing Jesus was preaching.

.

But let's take the standard c.65-70 dating. This is still within the generation of Jesus's earliest followers. Indeed, if reference to knowledge of the temple's destruction implies a date of c.65-70CE, as is fair, then Mark's point would be to stress to Christians that the time is very, very near now given that there probably weren't many of Jesus's initial followers left.

.

Like I said, we seem to have a different understanding of the way the "this generation" language works. I take it to mean before the last person who was around when Jesus was around has died. E.g. If some people were ~20 when they joined the Jesus movement in 30CE, then it is conceivable that some would still be alive to see the Jewish War, c.65-70CE. It is conceivable that there was at least one person who lived into the 90sCE. When Jesus is quoted as saying "this generation", I can conceivably take that up until end of the first century. This makes better sense of phrases like "there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power", as well as the "rumor" about Jesus's teaching that a redactor of John 21 felt compelled to deny - that Jesus had predicted that the Beloved Disciple wouldn't die before his return.

.

[Edited 10/7/17 20:40pm]


There is no similarity between first century Judeo-Christian apocalyptism and the apocalyptism
taught and preached today. If you do not see the contextual difference between the two, then
that would most certainly go a very long way in explaining why you are unable to move beyond
your own bias against Christianity or why you don't even recognize your bias in the first place,
as I see you are still struggling to accept the concept and fact that Christianity is a project or can
be conceived as a religious system as a whole. And, you definitely glossed over me calling you
out on what your real desires in this thread are judging from how you purposefully snipped the
clause following your first quote of mine above. You are crafty, but you ain't pulling a fast one
over me, bro! As for your interactions with "modern Christians", I have nothing to say.

And, of course we have a different understanding of the time frames used in New Testament apo-
calyptism! This is because your criticism of the Christian project as being boneheaded and "fart . . .
wrong," requires specificity when it comes to those prophetic sayings regarding Jesus' return. The
problem with your textual criticism (in the true sense of the phrase), however, is that you are
approaching the Gospel of Mark as a history book written with 21st century conventions in mind.
The New Testament is more than a history book. And, obviously, Mark knew Jesus hadn't returned
within Jesus' own lifetime so that any saying Mark attributed to Jesus about his return was not to
convey anything other than the hope that God would "soon" deliver an embattled new Jewish sect
and right all the wrongs in the world. In the meanwhile, I've seen nothing yet which would make
me think Father Harrington's textual criticism as it pertains to Mark 9 and 13 isn't credible or is less
credible than what you've presented in toto.

wink



[Edited 10/8/17 5:40am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #222 posted 10/08/17 6:02am

Dasein

toejam said:

I don't believe it is always simply a "literary device". As I've acknowledged time and time and time again, it's difficult to know the degree of literalness these passages were originally spoken/written and interpreted. But this is true of imminent-apocalypticists today as well. But this acknowledgment is never acknowledged by yourself or Ian. Nah, it's easier to read toejam as only reading these things absolutely literally, like a YEC, and chalk it up to his anti-religion bias.

.

Yes, communities tend to gravitate toward imminent supernatural-intervening apocalyptic-like expectations when they're under the pump and a 'natural' saving mechanism seems unachievable. I'm sure there were wider anthropological forces at play. Am I harsh in calling the earliest Christians "loony"? Perhaps. Seems everyone is fine in calling Marshall Applewhite and his crew "loony", yet I don't see that early Christians didn't have a very similar mentality. I'm also sure there were anthropological forces as to why certain people gravitated toward Applewhite also. Pitiable? I don't see why this is harsh. I pity them.


For some reason, when I quoted your reply, the section above was omitted. Yet, I find it worthy
of a response:

Apocalyptism is not merely a "literary device." In the context of this kind of apocalyptic, you must
make an effort to note why this kind of literary device was composed in the first place and all the
cultural and historical circumstances involved for then you would not approach this kind of eschatology
so disparagingly and by incommensurably drawing parallels between first century Jewish sects and
Marshall Applewhite who was hardly embattled and persecuted. In fact, I find the comparisons of
first century Judeo-Christian apocalypism with Marshall Applewhite's version a facile, biased, and an
utter abandonment of applying critical thinking when it comes to doing historical or New Testament
scholarship.

And, I maintain that you are doing dishonest work with your New Testament textual criticism and
are now purposefully mischaracterizing your own posts in this thread by suggesting that you used
the adjective "pitiable" originally to suggest that you were pitying (or, expressing both sorrow and
compassion) for the first church as opposed to evoking a mingled pity and contempt especially be-
cause of inadequacy.

You are fooling no one, Toejam!

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #223 posted 10/08/17 1:21pm

toejam

avatar

Dasein said:

There is no similarity between first century Judeo-Christian apocalyptism and the apocalyptism taught and preached today.

.

No similarity whatsoever? Of course there will be differences. But your inability to accept any speck of similarity I chalk up to your bias that cannot figure that Christianity may well have started out just as loopy.

.

And, of course we have a different understanding of the time frames used in New Testament apocalyptism! This is because your criticism of the Christian project as being boneheaded and "fart . . . wrong," requires specificity when it comes to those prophetic sayings regarding Jesus' return.

.

I have focused on explaining and criticizing what can be fairly reconstructed historically of the earliest forms of Christianity - not Daesin's understanding of a singular "the Christian project". These forms include the expectation of a cataclysmic arrival of angelic figures coming on clouds to gather the elect before wiping the Earthly slate clean of "evildoers" and what-not. The infamous 'day of wrath' in other words. My reading of the texts do not require the level of literalist specificity you think it does. But on the other hand, your inability to see that many of these Jewish, Jewish-Christian and Christian sects really did believe them more literally than you currently suppose is not being fair to the historical context in which many did take this stuff literally. You come across as someone who thinks the earliest Christians could only have been writing neat allegorical metaphors that everyone knew that there really wasn't going to be a Son of Man coming on the clouds, etc.

.

The problem with your textual criticism (in the true sense of the phrase), however, is that you are approaching the Gospel of Mark as a history book written with 21st century conventions in mind.

.

Nope. I read the Gospel of Mark as a product of its time. Religious Propaganda. A mix between Greco-Roman 'Bios' and the pseudo-historical and apocalyptic genres of the Hebrew scriptures. Of course the author/compilers of Mark weren't writing with 21stC conventions in mind!! But we have to apply 21stC historical scrutiny in order for us to reconstruct history as best we can. And in doing so, we cannot deny ourselves from ever pointing out error on the thinking of the people.

.

obviously, Mark knew Jesus hadn't returned within Jesus' own lifetime so that any saying Mark attributed to Jesus about his return was not to convey anything other than the hope that God would "soon" deliver an embattled new Jewish sect and right all the wrongs in the world.

.

Nothing other? Part and pacel of the original Christian message is that the Son of Man would come on clouds to gather the elect in cataclysmic fashion. This was supposed to happen within the generation of Jesus's followers. If Mark was written/compiled c.65-70CE then that is within the generation of Jesus's followers.

.

This makes excellent sense of verses like:

.

Jesus: "Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come with power.”

.

That there are only "some" left standing fits perfectly within the c.65-70CE dating, as there would only have been "some" left by then.

.

Mark's writer/compiler portrayed a Jesus who taught that the coming apocalypse was just around the corner, the recent destruction of the temple being one of the final warning signs. But he was wrong.

.

Apocalyptism is not merely a "literary device"

.

Exactly. But that was my point!

.

In the context of this kind of apocalyptic, you must make an effort to note why this kind of literary device was composed in the first place...

.

Already done. But it's not merely a "literary device"! There are multiple reasons why Mark put imminent apocalyptic language on the lips of his Jesus. Surely you must accept that part of this is because it reflects a memory of the kind of thing Jesus taught. It reflects the kind of thing the earliest Christians were teaching (as we also see in Paul). Like I said, people gravitate toward supernatural-apocalyptic expectations when they perceive themselves as stuck and oppressed in a dead-end situation. Josephus tells us how many of his fellow Jews got swept up in these apocalytpic cults who, for example, really believed the prophecies of Daniel were coming true in their own time (thus encouraging them to join the resistence movement), or were led out into the wilderness blindly following Messiah x who thought he could part the Jordan, etc. This was the crucible from which Christianity initially emerged. To pretend that all of the apocalyptic furvor was just comforting allegory for communities to hang in there! that everyone knew not to take literally is naive of you.

.

Applewhite

.

Applewhite and his followers may not have been embattled and persecuted as much as Galilean Jews of the 1st century who failed to assimilate, but they certainly perceived that they were. The people who were attracted to the movement felt similar. Applewhite struggled with his own sexuality to the point of emasculating himself. And, if I recall correctly, many of his followers followed suit. Applewhite attracted people who perceived themselves as outcast, who struggled with "the world", which was perceived as so corrupt it was about to undergo a cataclysmic "recycling". For them, the only escape from this soon-to-be-recycled hell hole and their current ostracization from society was Applewhite's glorious vision of an imminently coming time in which a dimensional portal would open to allow them to escape to the Level Above Human. In the meantime, the sect were to live out a type of ethic that denied what they perceived as their fleshly desires, etc., to help allow the slow transfer of their body from Human to Above Human.
.
To me, I see this as an excellent modern day parallel of how I perceive the earliest Christian movements beginning. Not perfect. But close. And if this is case and we can fairly call Applewhite's cult "loopy" and ultimately wrong (the world wasn't imminently recycled as he predicted), then we shouldn't be afraid to say the same about the earliest forms of Christianity. Their expectations were also wrong.

.



[Edited 10/8/17 14:35pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #224 posted 10/08/17 5:28pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

So what happened? I've been hoping to catch selfies with Jesus all over Instagram. I mean besides the ones from Times Square...

I guess I gotta be patient.


time-square-jesus.jpg

0002ca10_medium.jpeg

[Edited 10/8/17 17:30pm]

Facebook is for losers.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #225 posted 10/08/17 5:43pm

IanRG

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

So what happened? I've been hoping to catch selfies with Jesus all over Instagram. I mean besides the ones from Times Square...

I guess I gotta be patient.


time-square-jesus.jpg

0002ca10_medium.jpeg

[Edited 10/8/17 17:30pm]

.

You missed it, I could have looking out for you but how?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #226 posted 10/08/17 5:46pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

I missed it?
Darn it.

neutral

Facebook is for losers.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #227 posted 10/09/17 9:19pm

PurpleTrollste
r

avatar

Sorry guys didn't notice lol
4chans' ambassador to prince.org
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #228 posted 10/10/17 7:42am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

As my friend says he is always here.

DJ is da man
"2freaky is very down." 2Elijah.
"2freaky convinced me to join Antifa: OnlyNDA
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #229 posted 10/10/17 9:55am

Astasheiks

avatar

IanRG said:

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

So what happened? I've been hoping to catch selfies with Jesus all over Instagram. I mean besides the ones from Times Square...

I guess I gotta be patient.


time-square-jesus.jpg

0002ca10_medium.jpeg

[Edited 10/8/17 17:30pm]

.

You missed it, I could have looking out for you but how?

Wow

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #230 posted 10/10/17 11:41am

morningsong

avatar

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

So what happened? I've been hoping to catch selfies with Jesus all over Instagram. I mean besides the ones from Times Square...

I guess I gotta be patient.


time-square-jesus.jpg

0002ca10_medium.jpeg

[Edited 10/8/17 17:30pm]

lol You gotta have a sense of humor about it.

“Do I dare Disturb the universe?”
― T.S. Eliot

“Only by acceptance of the past, can you alter it”
― T.S. Eliot
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 8 of 8 <12345678
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Jesus coming next week?