End Times

[cateye]

Do you mean given a passage like the Olivet discourse how do you separete the immediate from the ultimate? You're not really supposed to - that's not what its trying to do.

How do you know then, that he was talking partly about his generation and partly about the very distant future? Only Paul, too, seemed to believe that he would live to see the end time. Apparently, he took Jesus's word quite literally.

So again: how can you be sure that Jesus himself did not expect the end to come in the generation that he lived in?

 

[razeontherock]

Hey? Did someone just ignore vs. 34? From the NIV:



Iow, Jesus was wrong.

No, not at all. You might learn what Jesus referred to as "generation" though. The same (de) generation in the Sanhedrin is very much alive and well in your comments now. That has not passed away, but awaits re-generation.

 

[cateye]

Oh, really? Enlighten me.

 

[razeontherock]

Ok, so various beliefs:

someone on the first page (very first response?) said it quite well, that we are instructed to live as if the end were near but also plan on living to ripe old age. (Ok, so I out my own spin on it.)

All prophecies that need to be fulfilled before "the end" HAVE occurred, IMHO. The date of 1948 and Israel is VERY significant, and in some ways predicted TO THE YEAR. So I think we have solid confirmation of this event's validity.

It's very possible that we in the US could miss the great tribulation or at least part of it. If you lived in certain places considered as "the whole world" when the Bible was written, you'd be pretty sure the great tribulation had already begun.

In short, this is no time to be forgetting the parable of the 10 virgins and their lamps.

 

[ebia]

How do you know then, that he was talking partly about his generation and partly about the very distant future?

1. As I said, its not an uncommon thing to do when talking in apocalyptic language about escatalogical events.
2. The resurrection.
3. Hindsight.

Only Paul, too, seemed to believe that he would live to see the end time. Apparently, he took Jesus's word quite literally.

Again, I don't think that's as clear as all that. I'm sure Paul is still getting his head around it, but the resurrection itself is a splitting of the end-time event into something that will eventually happen and something that has happened to Jesus in anticipation.

So again: how can you be sure that Jesus himself did not expect the end to come in the generation that he lived in?

In a sense he did - everything from the Resurrection to the final Resurrection is "the last days". It just doesn't look like anything one would have anticipated. And a good number of Jesus comments amount to "yes, but not the way you think".

 

[razeontherock]

How true!

 

[cateye]

1. As I said, its not an uncommon thing to do when talking in apocalyptic language about escatalogical events.
2. The resurrection.
3. Hindsight.

1. Do you have any solid evidence for that? Do you have any evidence that it's the case as far as the Olivet discourse is concerned?
2. Evidence that the resurrection actually happened? Or even - that such a thing is actually possible?
3. Hindsight isn't much use if it's a prophecy, is it? What's the use of a prophecy if you can only understand it after it's been fulfilled?

I'm sure Paul is still getting his head around it, but the resurrection itself is a splitting of the end-time event into something that will eventually happen and something that has happened to Jesus in anticipation.

15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.

I wonder how that can be any clearer.

In a sense he did - everything from the Resurrection to the final Resurrection is "the last days". It just doesn't look like anything one would have anticipated. And a good number of Jesus comments amount to "yes, but not the way you think".

Which would bring us to two questions:

- What use are prophecies if you can only understand their meaning after they have been fulfilled? How do you know that your not engaging in a 'Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy' then?
- How do you destinguish the literal from the symbolical? What method do you use?

 

[ebia]

1. Do you have any solid evidence for that? Do you have any evidence that it's the case as far as the Olivet discourse is concerned?

Any evidence that telescoping events in escatalogical discourse is not an uncommon thing to do in apocalyptic writing? I could find some scholarly references but it would take some time.
As for evidence that its the case for the Olivet discourse - how would you evidence such a thing? But if one accepts, based on the previous assertion, that its possible then it falls into place - some of the phrases are neatly consistant with the events around AD70, other phrases fit a final end-time better. "Son of Man arriving in the clouds", speaks first of the immediate (often overlooked) because its a reference to Daniel 7, where the Son of Man is arriving in the throne room of God (ie Heaven from Earth - Ascension) so we are talking about an event that will take place in 2 months time, and yet the next sentence in Mark ties it to gathering the elect. It clearly refers to both immediate and ultimate events together, since it isn't trying to fix a date to the later showing that it is has telescoped two distinct times together instead of expecting them to be together isn't something you can show from the text itself, but its something that's perfectly normal within the genre - in fact its a primary aspect of what the genre is about.

2. Evidence that the resurrection actually happened? Or even - that such a thing is actually possible?

Resurrection isn't possible in the normal course of events - that's the whole point. It's supposed to be something that only happens at the end of the age, and yet happens to Jesus within the age, telescoping those two times together in unexpected ways.

As for showing that the resurrection did happen, that's beyond the scope of this thread, but its foundational to understanding the New Testament texts which have the constant underlying tune "the resurrection, therefore....". You can't understand the texts without taking on board that the communities that produced them wrote them because they believed the resurrection had happened and in response to it.

3. Hindsight isn't much use if it's a prophecy, is it? What's the use of a prophecy if you can only understand it after it's been fulfilled?

Prophesy isn't generally about impressing people by telling them what will happen in the future. The Olivet discourse isn't about trying to tell people when Jesus will finally return - he repeatedly said nobody would know that. It's about tying what's about to happen to what will ultimately happen, about getting them to realise the cosmological significance of the events of the next few weeks and years. Apocalyptic language, and most biblical prophetic language, isn't about giving people an encoded inside track on God's timeline, but about telling people the significance of what they are about to experience.

I wonder how that can be any clearer.

He's not trying to say "I will be alvie when it happens", but again to put things into their proper perspective. Again, taking the metaphor out of Daniel 7 and mixing it up with a metaphor about Roman emperors to address a particular question that has arisen in Thessalonica, where a couple of strange ideas seem to have arisen. (Though no more strange than the ideas some people who've forgotten how to read that kind of language then build on that text, but hey).

If you read a text bring the wrong questions to a passage like that you'll get the wrong answers out of it.

Which would bring us to two questions:

- What use are prophecies if you can only understand their meaning after they have been fulfilled?

Prophesy is almost never about giving you that kind of information about the future. It's usually either warning about what you are doing here and now and/or the significance of what is about to happen so that when it happens you'll understand its significance.

- How do you destinguish the literal from the symbolical? What method do you use?

Exactly the same kinds of discernment one has to apply to any other texts, but remembering these were written in the conventions and symbolic worlds of the 1st century. There are no shortcuts and guarantees for that with any text.

 

[DesertJoe]

----

"The Rapture
Popular Opinion
Rapture (1) means "to raise up." Many U.S. Protestants believe, teach and spread to other countries the heretical idea that God will rapture or raise up Christians and thus remove them from the final tribulation described in Revelation. Some also teach that the Rapture will give people a second chance to repent before Jesus returns a second time.

True Teaching
Revelation does not teach a Rapture of Christians. God will not remove Christians from the earth so that they might avoid suffering. Instead, Revelation teaches that God will preserve His people in the face of persecution and suffering (Rev. 3:10; 14:12). Since Christ will resurrect all believers and unbelievers on Judgment Day, there will be no second chance for repentance (Rev. 11:18; 20:11-15. See pages 24-25)."

The Differences it makes for You
God's Word does not teach the Rapture. Nowhere does our heavenly Father say He will remove anyone from the tribulation spoken of in Revelation; however, as the End Times occur, your gracious heavenly Father promises to give you all the strength needed to face even the most difficult suffering. "If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?" (Rom. 8:31-32)."

Very fallacious argument & very augustinian in view.The word "harpazo" is in 1st Thessalonians chapter 4,& is translated "Caught up".Guess what rapture means.


"The Seven-Year Tribulation
Popular Opinion
Tribulation means "suffering." Revelation 7:14 warns that God's people will face "great tribulation" before Christ returns. Some interpreters argue that this great tribulation has not yet started. They teach that the tribulation is a future event that will last only seven years.

True Teaching
The book of Revelation teaches the great tribulation neither as a future event nor as a seven-year period. Instead, the great tribulation refers to the persecution and suffering God's people have, and always will, face in this corrupt world (Acts 14:22; Rev. 1:9)."


Again very fallacious & misleading.The book of revelation is presented chronologically,& the church (Those things which are) is not there after chapter 3

 

[razeontherock]

Which would bring us to two questions:

- What use are prophecies if you can only understand their meaning after they have been fulfilled? How do you know that your not engaging in a 'Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy' then?

I'm going to present something different then ebia did. God tells us specifically that He will tell us things that are going to come to pass before they happen, so that we know He is God. As no concordance-searchable phrase pops readily to mind, maybe somebody can help me with Book chapter and verse? (I'm pretty sure there's more than one to this effect)

Seems to be the sort of "evidence" you're looking for, eh? Along these lines, two things that impress me the most are in the very first verse of Genesis, and the first chapter of Job. You might be more impressed by other various statements of scientific knowledge that couldn't possibly have been known at the time of their revelation, nor even this aspect of their meaning understood until our science had caught up with what God said 1,000's of years prior. There's lots of that! I mention these points because they might provide you what you seek as much or more than what would normally be considered prophecy.

 

[cateye]

You might be more impressed by other various statements of scientific knowledge that couldn't possibly have been known at the time of their revelation, nor even this aspect of their meaning understood until our science had caught up with what God said 1,000's of years prior. There's lots of that!

Err... no, I'm afraid there isn't. They're all either too ambiguous, or they weren't 'ahead of their times' in any way. AND there's a bunch of scientific - and historical - errors in the bible as well.

Ebia, thank you for your reply. I'll take a closer look later. At a first glance, though, I'm not convinced. You seem to be reverting to the sort of apologetic wordgames that try to fit the text to facts, rather than taking a critical look at them. I may be wrong, though.