Is Jesus's "this generation will certainly not pass" valid grounds for scepticism?

[Thermal]

Christ makes some pretty specific claims in his Olivet discourse where this verse is found. If Jesus was obviously speaking metaphorically then vast numbers of Christians have got him very wrong.

Since Jesus was warning his followers about the end times, then for him to get it wrong would be catastrophic ii terms of trust.

It is also noted that he did predict the destruction of the Temple and it was destroyed in 70AD....so clearly most believers would not take that as symbolic.

Right, but he also said if they trashed the temple, he would rebuild it in three days. Sometimes he was literal, sometimes not.

Scholars, I'm reading, also take issue about who "this generation" was supposed to mean. Possibly only the four guys he was speaking to, meaning the generation of the Chuch an earth, that they went on to found?

In any event, I don't think any one verse would shake the faith of someone who is committed to the message.

 

[Poem]

My point is, people don't believe in Christianity because it makes sense. They simply believe. And once you do that, you can just imagine inconsistencies and paradoxes away, and it makes as much sense as their initial belief.

So, when the apocalypse doesn't happen, you can just imagine an explanation that solves it: Jesus was misunderstood, some mortal made a mistake, this specific part of the Bible was forged, it was allegorical, Jesus was talking in some divine terms that we cannot understand, the apocalypse did happen, but God instantly remade the world because reasons, etc.

Why couldn't a believer just do that?

There are some high profile, seemingly very intelligent people, who have faith in Christ and I am not sure they would be okay with glossing over and explaining away this issue.

I do accept your point that many Christians will do as you suggest.

 

[Poem]

Right, but he also said if they trashed the temple, he would rebuild it in three days. Sometimes he was literal, sometimes not.

Scholars, I'm reading, also take issue about who "this generation" was supposed to mean. Possibly only the four guys he was speaking to, meaning the generation of the Chuch an earth, that they went on to found?

In any event, I don't think any one verse would shake the faith of someone who is committed to the message.

Are you a Christian?

 

[Thermal]

Are you a Christian?

I don't believe I am the topic here.

But for disclosure, I was raised in the Protestant tradition and my grandfather was a popular and progressive pastor. My wife is Catholic, as are my kids (+/-), but I'm an agnostic in theory and atheist in practice, that is highly sympathetic to people approaching their religion as they see fit.

 

[theprestige]

It's also possible that many such followers don't know about this issue.

Can't be much of an obstacle, then. Anyway, I still bet Lewis has an answer for you.

 

[Olmstead]

There are some high profile, seemingly very intelligent people, who have faith in Christ and I am not sure they would be okay with glossing over and explaining away this issue.

I do accept your point that many Christians will do as you suggest.

That doesn't make sense. They have faith in Christ. They have already glossed over a much bigger issue.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Not sure how many here are familiar with the Parable of the Ring, from the Lessing Play: Nathan the Wise.

The gist is that all of the 3 Old Testament Religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are making the claim that they are the only True^TM Religion, and that only through following their own doctrine as best as possible will we be able, in time, to tell which one is right.

https://www.gkoehn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/NathanTransExcerpt.pdf

The basic explanation on why Christianity (and pretty much every other religion) must be the right one, in the eyes of their followers, is because they are still around and thriving (for a given value of thriving).

 

[theprestige]

The basic explanation on why Christianity (and pretty much every other religion) must be the right one, in the eyes of their followers, is because they are still around and thriving (for a given value of thriving).

I'm not sure that's a good explanation. On the one hand, it's tautological. On the other hand, it doesn't address all the other religions that meet the same criteria.

 

[Olmstead]

It also isn't why someone starts believing, nor is it ever truly used as an argument for conversion.

At best, it is a rationalization for believers with doubts or "ammunition" for arguments with heretics. I guess religious "scholars" get a kick out of it as well.

 

[Poem]

That doesn't make sense. They have faith in Christ. They have already glossed over a much bigger issue.

Which is?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I'm not sure that's a good explanation. On the one hand, it's tautological. On the other hand, it doesn't address all the other religions that meet the same criteria.

All religious justifications boil down to tautologies

 

[Olmstead]

Which is?

That there is no sensible reason to have faith in Christ or to see Christanity as anything more than mythology and the Bible as anything more than a book of fiction with some historical references.

Ask them why they believe, and all their answers will be nonsense, and if pushed far enough, they will eventually all paraphrase the same meaningless thought: I feel that it is true.

And once you only "feel" that something is true, you can also feel that paradoxes and inconsistencies don't matter, or that any silly explanation will do.

 

[Darat]

Lay Anglican theologian and author C.S. Lewis wrote the following (from 'The world's last night and other essays' - 1960):

"Say what you like" we shall be told, "the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else."

Lewis described this verse (Mathew 24:34, Luke 21:32 & Mark 13:30) as the 'most embarrassing verse in the Bible'.

Surely, this remains a serious obstacle to faith?

Roman Catholicism usually explains it as he was talking about the destruction of the temple not when the end times would begin, and for a Roman Catholic the church is the authority on what the bible means. and since the temple was destroyed there is no obstacle to faith in those verses.

Most protestants sects/denominations believe in a more personal approach to the interpretation of the bible. (Albeit the Anglican church considers itself a catholic church and is more in line with Roman Catholicism in holding the view that it interprets what the bible means - hardly surprising since it was founded with the monarch being the supreme defender of the faith i.e. it meant what he said it meant.)

 

[Lithrael]

'this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.'

Then there's the other wrinkle of, have we got any idea how much telephone happened between whatever the guy said and whenever anything was written down? I'm no biblical scholar but the last time I tried to figure that out for the sermon on the mount it sounded like we think maybe we have reason to believe that for some of it there was one guy whose reports were written down by another guy? Sorry about the terrible half-memory, I'll try to find it again.

 

[arthwollipot]

Here's an interesting thing. Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which happened in 70AD. But the Gospel of Matthew is believed to have been written between 80 and 90AD. So the author of the gospel is putting a prophecy in Christ's mouth of an event that had already happened.

 

[acbytesla]

I think the title should say religion can not pass. At least that goes for all the religions I'm familiar with. While a true skeptic probably wouldn't ever say that there isn't a god. At least not definitively. They would say that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism and oth cannot pass over the chasm of reasonable skepticism.

There lacks a credible reason to believe the Christian story. There very well may have been a person/teacher by the name of Jesus that was crucified. Lots of legends have roots in reality. But that is as far as a true skeptic can go. There aren't any eyewitnesses. Only stories of eyewitnesses from unknown sources.

I personally believe that Paul either took a legendary story and embellished it or like Joseph Smith made it up out of whole cloth. The fact that most of Paul's epistles predates any of the Gospels says a lot to me. He was a good storyteller and people bought into it. And that led to people donating to him. It gave him a good life.

Later writings by others is merely fan fiction.

 

[Foster Zygote]

As for Lewis calling it the most embarrassing verse, I am not aware of a generally accepted scale of embarrassingness, nor of an objective method of putting bible verses on that scale. So this is Lewis's unsupported opinion, and he's not around anymore to clarify how he came to his assessment.

I'd say it's at a 'farting in front of your future in-laws' level of embarrassment compared to the stuff about it being acceptable to beat your slaves because they're your property, killing your daughter if you discover she's had sex with her boyfriend, killing anyone, even your own family members, if they even suggest you join another religion, or slaughtering every man, woman and child except the virgin girls who you can keep as sex slaves.

 

[Poem]

I think the title should say religion can not pass. At least that goes for all the religions I'm familiar with. While a true skeptic probably wouldn't ever say that there isn't a god. At least not definitively. They would say that Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Mormonism and oth cannot pass over the chasm of reasonable skepticism.

Err...I think you have misunderstood the tile....unless I have misunderstood the above. The title quotes from Matthew 24:34.

There lacks a credible reason to believe the Christian story. There very well may have been a person/teacher by the name of Jesus that was crucified. Lots of legends have roots in reality. But that is as far as a true skeptic can go. There aren't any eyewitnesses. Only stories of eyewitnesses from unknown sources.

Hmmm....the thread would be derailed if I responded.

I personally believe that Paul either took a legendary story and embellished it or like Joseph Smith made it up out of whole cloth. The fact that most of Paul's epistles predates any of the Gospels says a lot to me. He was a good storyteller and people bought into it. And that led to people donating to him. It gave him a good life.

Later writings by others is merely fan fiction.

Interesting pov.

 

[Poem]

Here's an interesting thing. Jesus is talking about the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, which happened in 70AD. But the Gospel of Matthew is believed to have been written between 80 and 90AD. So the author of the gospel is putting a prophecy in Christ's mouth of an event that had already happened.

Are you suggesting that an oral tradition was not normal in those days? The Gospel of Mark is reckoned to have been written 50/60AD and includes the Olivet discourse (ie Ch. 13).

Compared to other historical documents of the time the NT actually fares pretty well. In terms of number of copies then there is no comparison.

I'm not writing as an apologist - just stating facts (AFAIK anyway).

 

[Poem]

Roman Catholicism usually explains it as he was talking about the destruction of the temple not when the end times would begin, and for a Roman Catholic the church is the authority on what the bible means. and since the temple was destroyed there is no obstacle to faith in those verses.

Most protestants sects/denominations believe in a more personal approach to the interpretation of the bible. (Albeit the Anglican church considers itself a catholic church and is more in line with Roman Catholicism in holding the view that it interprets what the bible means - hardly surprising since it was founded with the monarch being the supreme defender of the faith i.e. it meant what he said it meant.)

Jesus discusses the parousia in the verses before he tells them that the generation will not pass until all these things happen.

Which ever way one reads it - the Christian church is split over the passage which does not sit well when one considers that Jesus was actually warning his followers about a catastrophic future event...something that he would necessarily want to be unambiguous about.

Also - as detailed in Deuteronomy 18 - false prophets were to be put to death.