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

[Poem]

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or to see Christanity as anything more than mythology and the Bible as anything more than a book of fiction with some historical references.

Yes, there are other issues.

 

[Poem]

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

I'm not away he has one other than what you alluded to before - that Jesus acknowledges than nobody but the Father knows the exact day or hour.

Matthew 24:36
But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Jesus gives them an approximation of when the end will come and specifically refers to when they see 'the abomination of desolation' standing in the holy place.

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

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.

Jesus didn't predict the destruction of the second temple. Every single gospel was written after said destruction.

 

[Poem]

Jesus didn't predict the destruction of the second temple. Every single gospel was written after said destruction.

I doubt that is the view of most scholars. In any case - the thread is about Jesus predicting the end of days and his return within the generation to whom he was speaking. That did not happen - or if it did it was a non-event.

 

[Darat]

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.

First of all there is not "the" Christian church, there are many Christian churches, and what a specific Christian church or as we tend to put it today, what a specific Christian religion may hold as doctrine can be very different to another religion, the classic example of this is Mormonism v any other Christian religion. I used the Roman Catholic church doctrine as it is still by far the Christian religion that claims the most members.

As you point out Lewis was an Anglican, but he was what we would describe as a "high Anglican" which meant he followed a subset of Anglicanism which is as near to Roman Catholism as is possible without joining the Roman Catholic religion.(Unlike quite a few of his contempories and near contemporaries his background is more than likely why he never converted to Roman Catholism.)

If you are a Roman Catholic there is no obstacle to faith in the verses you quote in the opening post as the RCC has long ago explained what those passages actually mean and they don't mean the end times would com about in the lifetime of the apostles. Indeed I would go as far to say that for any still existing variant of Christianity there can be no obstacle to faith in those passages since those religions will have already dealt with anything you may think of as an obstacle to faith.

Since Christian religions have existed for 2000 years there is nothing in their versions of "the" Bible or doctrines (remember they have different Bibles and different doctrines) that are an obstacle to faith or they wouldn't have survived.

Many folk here can point to what are clear logical contradictions in the various bibles and doctrines, point out the horrific things the god of a particular religion not just turns a blind eye to but actually demands of his followers but that is about why people may not believe in a particular god. But you used the word faith and not belief and in terms of a religion they have very different meanings. Faith is not meant to be proven, it is not meant to be evidenced, it is a belief without proof, indeed many Christian churches have been very explicit in making such a distinction and often consider it wrong to question the religion because it is meant to be about having faith.

 

[Darat]

I doubt that is the view of most scholars. In any case - the thread is about Jesus predicting the end of days and his return within the generation to whom he was speaking. That did not happen - or if it did it was a non-event.

Therefore the passages can't mean what you think they mean, in the religion's dogma.

 

[Poem]

First of all there is not "the" Christian church, there are many Christian churches, and what a specific Christian church or as we tend to put it today, what a specific Christian religion may hold as doctrine can be very different to another religion, the classic example of this is Mormonism v any other Christian religion. I used the Roman Catholic church doctrine as it is still by far the Christian religion that claims the most members.

My point is that, which ever version of Christianity one subscribes to, the verse looks awkward.

As you point out Lewis was an Anglican, but he was what we would describe as a "high Anglican" which meant he followed a subset of Anglicanism which is as near to Roman Catholism as is possible without joining the Roman Catholic religion.(Unlike quite a few of his contempories and near contemporaries his background is more than likely why he never converted to Roman Catholism.)

Okay.

If you are a Roman Catholic there is no obstacle to faith in the verses you quote in the opening post as
the RCC has long ago explained what those passages actually mean and they don't mean the end times would com about in the lifetime of the apostles.

Do you have a source?

Indeed I would go as far to say that for any still existing variant of Christianity there can be no obstacle to faith in those passages since those religions will have already dealt with anything you may think of as an obstacle to faith.

I'm not aware of any explanation that doesn't look awkward.

Since Christian religions have existed for 2000 years there is nothing in their versions of "the" Bible or doctrines (remember they have different Bibles and different doctrines) that are an obstacle to faith or they wouldn't have survived.

Okay - but the verse still needs explaining.

Many folk here can point to what are clear logical contradictions in the various bibles and doctrines, point out the horrific things the god of a particular religion not just turns a blind eye to but actually demands of his followers but that is about why people may not believe in a particular god. But you used the word faith and not belief and in terms of a religion they have very different meanings. Faith is not meant to be proven, it is not meant to be evidenced, it is a belief without proof, indeed many Christian churches have been very explicit in making such a distinction and often consider it wrong to question the religion because it is meant to be about having faith.

Hmmm....Jesus said himself:

John 11:14,15
So then he told them plainly, “Lazarus is dead, and for your sake I am glad I was not there, so that you may believe. But let us go to him.”

 

[Poem]

Therefore the passages can't mean what you think they mean, in the religion's dogma.

Jesus's words in verse 24 are pretty straight forward. A close friend of mine, who is a Christian, admits he cannot give an adequate response when I have brought this up.

 

[Darat]

Looks awkward to you. But you are not the one making that call. The most modern source I know for the "wasn't talking about the end times" is Benedict's "Jesus of Nazareth".

 

[Darat]

Jesus's words in verse 24 are pretty straight forward. A close friend of mine, who is a Christian, admits he cannot give an adequate response when I have brought this up.

What type of Christian is he?

 

[Poem]

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

In John 2 it is immediately clarified that Jesus was speaking symbolically.

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.

Jesus's prediction is part of that which believers are to have faith in - making a prophecy that is testable is evidence for divinity (or at least for Jesus knowing the future).

 

[Poem]

What type of Christian is he?

I'm not sure.

 

[Poem]

Looks awkward to you. But you are not the one making that call. The most modern source I know for the "wasn't talking about the end times" is Benedict's "Jesus of Nazareth".

I, and others who might point to verse 24, are potential believers are we not?

 

[theprestige]

I'm not away he has one other than what you alluded to before - that Jesus acknowledges than nobody but the Father knows the exact day or hour.

I never alluded to any such thing. And you not being aware of Lewis's answer is kind of embarrassing.

The passage you quoted in the OP is clearly part of a longer piece. It also very obviously sets up a rebuttal, which I bet you'll find in the very next paragraph.

 

[Thermal]

In John 2 it is immediately clarified that Jesus was speaking symbolically.

?

Jesus's prediction is part of that which believers are to have faith in - making a prophecy that is testable is evidence for divinity (or at least for Jesus knowing the future).

I'm not clear on why you are holding this one up as unusually problematic. We could start with the census/taxation/whatever that prompted Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem (that history indicates didn't happen) or guiding stars appearing over towns (that astronomically didn't happen either) to getting knocked up by ghosts and all the rest as difficult problems. This is just another, which I think the faithful attribute to "one of those things" that a God might say that people misinterpret. He called himself the Son of Man, while it is said kinda point blank he wasn't, kinda literally.

 

[Poem]

I'm not clear on why you are holding this one up as unusually problematic. We could start with the census/taxation/whatever that prompted Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem (that history indicates didn't happen) or guiding stars appearing over towns (that astronomically didn't happen either) to getting knocked up by ghosts and all the rest as difficult problems. This is just another, which I think the faithful attribute to "one of those things" that a God might say that people misinterpret. He called himself the Son of Man, while it is said kinda point blank he wasn't, kinda literally.

Whether it's unusually problematic or not, it is a challenge for Christians to explain.

ETA: Since it is Jesus's own words and prophecy at that - it is particularly embarrassing as Lewis pointed out.

 

[Thermal]

Whether it's unusually problematic or not, it is a challenge for Christians to explain.

My experience with Christians is that litealists/legalists are only an anal retentive niche subset of them. Like a doctor that understands some things clearly, but not every detail of physiology, most are ok with not putting their God to the test, and all that.

Eta: your eta: if you were testifying in court, sure. I don't think a lot of salad bar Catholics and "remember to shave on Christmas and Easter" protestants are deep into theological treatise dissection.

I recall reading somewhere that the Greek word originally used for "generation" is actually almost a cognate for our use as "generator", as in one who generates, be that personal children or religious followers. I'll see if I can find it. While it might be bull ◊◊◊◊, the author gave a persuasive argument.

 

[Poem]

My experience with Christians is that litealists/legalists are only an anal retentive niche subset of them. Like a doctor that understands some things clearly, but not every detail of physiology, most are ok with not putting their God to the test, and all that.

Also in consideration are all those who aren't followers of Christ, some of whom will point to Mat. 24:34 as evidence that Jesus was not who he claimed to be.

 

[Thermal]

Also in consideration are all those who aren't followers of Christ, some of whom will point to Mat. 24:34 as evidence that Jesus was not who he claimed to be.

Yeah, but cutting to the meta-chase: faith and evidence are somewhat at odds with each other. It's why a skeptic finds it hard to be a believer, and why the believer finds skeptics to be soulless. They ain't gonna find much common ground unless they both get a little less anal. Carl Sagan was a great example, IMO. Clearly an Atheist, but called himself an agnostic out of respect.

 

[acbytesla]

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

Maybe. I thought the title reference was from The Lord of the Rings. The title was somewhat incomprehensible.

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

Interesting pov.

As for the apocalyptic predictions in the bible. The so called second coming was clearly predicted to have happened in the following 60 years. And just because Christians have attempted to argue that a plain text reading is wrong doesn't mean that it actually is. CS Lewis was admitting that, then proceeded to ignore it.

This is very typical of someone with a strong identity belief. Someone who will deny the text says what it says will not only deliberately misinterpret that verse, but countless others. They will also deny evolution, radiometric dating, geology and anything that challenges their personal identity.