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

I cited C.S. Lewis in the OP who admits the scripture is embarrassing. I am not aware that he had any resolution to the issue. He just points out Jesus affirming that only the Father knows the exact hour and day.
I'm beginning to suspect that's not a real quote. How did you find it? What work is it from?
 
In terms of objective logic it can be seen to be catastrophic. Many Christians don't want to look at the trees - and just focus on the wood.

I'm just holding feet to the fire.
Darat isn't seeing any feet. I'm not seeing any fire. The various "awkward interpretations" you complain about resolve the issue nicely for the Christians that adopt them.
 
Most Christian religions are (internally) axiomatic.
Sure. I was brought up as a Catholic, and my religious education was done by a young nun, who emphasised that a lot of the stuff in the Bible was superseded by modern science, but I had to understand that the Bible was written for people who did not know what we know today, and God had to present it in a way that people could connect to at the time, i.e. parables and paraphrases. No problem here.

I remember there was a lot of “servants” in the New Testament, and I have only later found out that they were slaves. I wonder what she would have said if I had asked about it.
 
I'm not aware of any, no. Plenty of former Christians, but I don't know of a single regular poster who would describe themselves as Christian.
I think there was at least one many years ago who frequented the science subforum here. This user (with many posts here) sometimes had to defend his or her (“their” in woke parlance) faith on questions of evolution, but apparently there was no real problem to explain. I can’t remember the user’s name.
 
I cited C.S. Lewis in the OP who admits the scripture is embarrassing. I am not aware that he had any resolution to the issue.
He just points out Jesus affirming that only the Father knows the exact hour and day.
Jesus is warning his followers about the end times so that they know in advance...yet it appears that he has confused them.

Much hinges on the exact meaning of 'abomination that causes desolation' that Daniel referred to (since this is the sign his followers are to look for). Antiochus Epiphanes apparently set up a image of Zeus in the Temple in 167BC which appears to fit the 'abomination' description. I am not aware anything like that occurred in 70AD.
We seem to be doing a reset.

Please can you provide an example of a Christian religion that has a problem with its doctrine and the passages you think they can't deal with?



ETA:Added a "you".
 
Last edited:
Darat isn't seeing any feet. I'm not seeing any fire. The various "awkward interpretations" you complain about resolve the issue nicely for the Christians that adopt them.
I'm with the Christian C.S. Lewis...'embarrassing'.
 
We seem to be doing a reset.

Please can you provide an example of a Christian religion that has a problem with its doctrine and the passages you think they can't deal with?



ETA:Added a "you".
I mentioned my Christian friend who could not answer this issue. The whole passage is the 'Olivet Discourse' - Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13.
 
Answering the OP: It is a significant issue for apologetics. It is not a serious obstacle to faith.

There is no contradiction in this. Faith can be a motivation for apologetics but faith does not depend on apologetics and apologetics does not require faith.
 
I mentioned my Christian friend who could not answer this issue. The whole passage is the 'Olivet Discourse' - Matthew 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13.
But you don't know what Christian religion he claims to be.

As I said before: Well then it's hard to say why he may be confused or unsettled by those verses. If he was a RC I would suggest he speaks to his priest who will be able to confirm the RCC view of those passages, if he is a Mormon I think it would be his bishop, for an Anglican their vicar or rector. For the many and I mean many protestant styled Christian religious it would whoever they have as religious advisors. As I said they all have explanations for why your interpretation of those verses is incorrect.

Did your friend ask as I said above?
 
I'm beginning to suspect that's not a real quote. How did you find it? What work is it from?
The World's Last Night and Other Essays

Not that hard to find...

 
As a FYI: the text CS's essay can be found here: https://archive.org/stream/worldslastnighta012859mbp/worldslastnighta012859mbp_djvu.txt

His view on what he said was embarrassing is complicated but he says this about his own words:

...The difficulties which I have so far discussed are, to a certain extent, debating points. They tend rather to strengthen a disbelief already based on other grounds than to create disbelief by their own force...

So he didn't think they were a problem for believers.


ETA: Ninja'd
 
Last edited:
Not obvious to me at all.
You say it's "catastrophic" to Christianity. But it's obvious that Christianity has suffered no catastrophy on this point. In fact, it's quite the opposite: Christianity is alive and well, all over the world.
I'm with the Christian C.S. Lewis...'embarrassing'.
Most Christians seem perfectly able to get over their embarrassment about this and other scriptural anomalies. If they ever felt such embarrassment at all.

You're writing as if you've discovered some "gotcha" in the Bible, that should unravel the belief system of any Christian who is made to confront it. I'm telling you this gotcha and others have been around for centuries, and most Christians are adept at keeping their belief system well-raveled anyway.
 
It's real - and described in the OP.

The World's Last Night and Other Essays

Not that hard to find...


As a FYI: the text CS's essay can be found here: https://archive.org/stream/worldslastnighta012859mbp/worldslastnighta012859mbp_djvu.txt

His view on what he said was embarrassing is complicated but he says this about his own words:

...The difficulties which I have so far discussed are, to a certain extent, debating points. They tend rather to strengthen a disbelief already based on other grounds than to create disbelief by their own force...

So he didn't think they were a problem for believers.


ETA: Ninja'd
So it is. Thank you all for the correction.
 
You say it's "catastrophic" to Christianity. But it's obvious that Christianity has suffered no catastrophy on this point. In fact, it's quite the opposite: Christianity is alive and well, all over the world.

Most Christians seem perfectly able to get over their embarrassment about this and other scriptural anomalies. If they ever felt such embarrassment at all.

You're writing as if you've discovered some "gotcha" in the Bible, that should unravel the belief system of any Christian who is made to confront it. I'm telling you this gotcha and others have been around for centuries, and most Christians are adept at keeping their belief system well-raveled anyway.
Shockingly, you and I agree 100 percent on this. The very vast majority of Christians aren't embarrassed or care in the slightest about anything in the Bible that might be nonsensical, contradictory to other verses or to scientific scrutiny. They just breeze past all of that.
 

Back
Top Bottom