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

[acbytesla]

Ok, but remember what you said about knowing more about the Bible than a lot of members packing the pews? They never hear those verses. They are not a part of their religious life. Those people can go their whole religious lives never once being told to hate or behead anyone, literally just taking in the good, and having a barren field of ◊◊◊◊◊ about thr dicey stuff. That's been my experience with virtually every Christian I've met. No one is telling them.or teaching them the things you are reading.

I wouldn't go that far. That's not from the Old Testament. That's from the Gospel of Matthew. Granted nobody's carrying swords and killing people today. But I don't think that is because of religion. It's because religion has lost so much of the power it once had.

Still, the act of shunning is very much a part of some Christian denominations. That particular verse is used by many in the church as a battle cry against non-believers and the secular. I lost a lot of close friends when I told them I was an atheist. My father stopped paying my tuition and would have nothing to do with me for two years because of that.

 

[Thermal]

It doesn't say that. Go ahead and read Matthew 10 from the beginning. It doesn't say sword of truth anywhere In the Bible that I'm aware of. Seems to be a bit of a stretch interpreting it that way.

Pretty sure Ephesians goes into it. It makes more sense as an interpretation because Jesus isn't generally talking about cutting mother ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ up throughout the gospels. He's a little on the chill side.

 

[Thermal]

I wouldn't go that far. That's not from the Old Testament. That's from the Gospel of Matthew. Granted nobody's carrying swords and killing people today. But I don't think that is because of religion. It's because religion has lost so much of the power it once had.

Still, the act of shunning is very much a part of some Christian denominations. That particular verse is used by many in the church as a battle cry against non-believers and the secular. I lost a lot of close friends when I told them I was an atheist. My father stopped paying my tuition and would have nothing to do with me for two years because of that.

Seriously, I'm sorry to hear that. I'd probably be resentful too had I been mistreated that way.

 

[acbytesla]

Seriously, I'm sorry to hear that. I'd probably be resentful too had I been mistreated that way.

I'm not sure I was ever that resentful. I just hated that an imaginary being was more important than their friend and son. It makes you question if they ever liked you at all. And maybe the only reason they associated with you before was because they were supposed to.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? You posted your church's explanation for it, along with the other risible guff like other denominations being Satanic. That was not, then, your explanation or interpretation. If it's from your church, then, from what you posted, that's excuses, and not necessarily a valid theological point.

I'd like to see your definitions here. What makes something a "valid theological point" and what makes it "excuses"? How do you determine which label to apply? I reported what I was taught by the church, by those who have studied theology, so I think that makes it a valid theological point.

If, OTOH, that is your own personal standpoint, then you should have made that clear in the first place, and also be prepared to defend it.

The fact that I didn't make that clear in the first point should tell you something.

Are we saying there are zero followers of Christ on International Skeptics?

Most of us have applied skepticism to Christianity and found it lacking in evidence.

 

[theprestige]

Aren’t these verses normally taken to be paraphrases over what happens when some convert, and others do not? And the sword is the Sword of Truth (or something)

(Sword of the Holy Spirit)

I wasn't taught either, in that context. Rather, it was just a very straightforward metaphor for strife. The sword is an almost-literal symbol of cleaving apart (relationships, in this case).

The Sword of Truth I know from other contexts. It's part of the "Armor of God". But I think that is a Protestant catechism, not a scriptural doctrine.

 

[acbytesla]

I wasn't taught either, in that context. Rather, it was just a very straightforward metaphor for strife. The sword is an almost-literal symbol of cleaving apart,
(relationships, in this case).

Aye, there's the rub. How does one determine if a verse is meant to be literal or metaphor? And doesn’t that leave a wide spectrum for individual interpretation?

 

[theprestige]

Aye, there's the rub. How does one determine if a verse is meant to be literal or metaphor? And doesn’t that leave a wide spectrum for individual interpretation?

Some passages are less scrutable than others. This one seems to me to be about the most basic bitch literary metaphor possible.

Jesus says a lot of cryptic (and even, to the faithful, embarrassing) things. I strenuously object to the idea that this is one them.

People can detect dog whistles in the faintest penumbra of a nuance, but somehow become mentally retarded when it comes to figuring out that sword = strife in this passage? Please. Stick to the OP, if you want to play the know-nothing game.

 

[acbytesla]

Some passages are less scrutable than others. This one seems to me to be about the most basic bitch literary metaphor possible.

Jesus says a lot of cryptic (and even, to the faithful, embarrassing) things. I strenuously object to the idea that this is one them.

People can detect dog whistles in the faintest penumbra of a nuance, but somehow become mentally retarded when it comes to figuring out that sword = strife in this passage? Please. Stick to the OP, if you want to play the know-nothing game.

Just as it doesn't matter about everything else in the Bible, it doesn't matter what your interpretation is or the Catholics or the Lutherans etc to other denominations or even to other members of the same church.

Jesus was clearly known to use parables. But I think we can honestly say, this is why there are 40,000 different denominations.

 

[acbytesla]

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?

First of all I don't give a crap about CS Lewis and what he thinks is embarrassing. And yes this verse and its apocalyptic statement is problematic to the theology. But nothing is an obstacle to faith. Faith doesn't give a damn about facts or truth or anything else. Faith is people sticking a flag in the ground and saying this is what we believe in.

 

[steenkh]

It doesn't say that. Go ahead and read Matthew 10 from the beginning. It doesn't say sword of truth anywhere In the Bible that I'm aware of. Seems to be a bit of a stretch interpreting it that way.

I don’t think my teacher said exactly that, but there was something similar. And in any case, putting things in context is not what religious teaching is all about. Quite the contrary, because you might get more to explain than if you only use small religious sound bites.

By the way, in my religion lessons, I didn’t read a Bible during the first years, but instead a special children’s Bible with all the nasty bits removed. It was only the last year that I had a real Bible at hand.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I'd like to see your definitions here. What makes something a "valid theological point" and what makes it "excuses"? How do you determine which label to apply? I reported what I was taught by the church, by those who have studied theology, so I think that makes it a valid theological point.

Nah, not going to get sidetracked into the quagmire of semantics. How about a straight answer to my questions first?

The fact that I didn't make that clear in the first point should tell you something.

And what, pray, is that something it should be telling me?

Most of us have applied skepticism to Christianity and found it lacking in evidence.

Thanks for that truism. Very enlightening.
Arth, it's quite simple. Do you believe what your church taught you because you are a Christian, or not? You laid your interpretation of that Bibical verse as "my explanation". It is still very unclear to me what that meant.

 

[acbytesla]

I don’t think my teacher said exactly that, but there was something similar. And in any case, putting things in context is not what religious teaching is all about. Quite the contrary, because you might get more to explain than if you only use small religious sound bites.

I don't really understand that. But OK.

By the way, in my religion lessons, I didn’t read a Bible during the first years, but instead a special children’s Bible with all the nasty bits removed. It was only the last year that I had a real Bible at hand.

That makes sense. You wouldn't want them to read about an inn keeper giving his concubine to bunch of rapists and then cutting her up into pieces because she was defiled. Or how Lot's daughters raped their father.

 

[Thermal]

I wasn't taught either, in that context. Rather, it was just a very straightforward metaphor for strife. The sword is an almost-literal symbol of cleaving apart (relationships, in this case).

The Sword of Truth I know from other contexts. It's part of the "Armor of God". But I think that is a Protestant catechism, not a scriptural doctrine.

There are a few passages around the arrest / Last Supper that bring in the Sword kind of out from left field. Jesus tells his disciples to hock their coats to buy one (seriously odd thing for a homeless fisherman to have in Roman occupied Judea). Peter casually cuts the ear off a servant and Jesus heals it on the spot (you'd think this would cause a bit of commotion among the witnesses). But as I was taught, the Sword of the Spirit was a metaphor for Christ's teachings, which wouldn't go over big with some (cutting the ear off), but Jesus would take care of that directly (healing it).

Yes, it could be a simple metaphor, but with the sledgehammering about the Sword of the Spirit in Ephesians, it sounds like it might have been a popular metaphor even at the time of the writing.

 

[Poem]

I mean, notorious Christian C. S. Lewis called it the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Guess what? He chose Christianity anyway.

If Poem's magic verse can't sway even the most famous of the "rationalistic" Christians, what magic does Poem really expect it to have?

The OP simply states that the passage in question is valid grounds for scepticism. That's it. I think you are reading into it more than is actually there.

Lewis will have his own reasons for faith in spite of his admission that he considered Jesus erred.

 

[Poem]

Would have been more catastrophic if Jesus had been right. The modern world as we know it wouldn't exist, and we'd all be living in some giant holy Borg cube by now.

(Think I'm making that up? "The [New Jerusalem] city was laid out like a square, as long as it was wide. He measured the city with the rod and found it to be 12,000 stadia [1,400 miles] in length, and as wide and high as it is long." - Revelation 21:16)

Borg cube?

 

[Poem]

We are going round in circles. But let’s try again: for Roman Catholics the verses do not mean that the 2nd coming will be in the lifetime of the people listening to Jesus. There is no problem with those verses for the by far the largest of the Christian religions. That you find them somehow to be problematic is your issue, over a billion people follow a religion that does not have a problem with those verses.

Their problem, as far as I can see it, is that whilst Mark and Luke do not record Jesus being specifically asked about his 'coming' and the 'end of the age', Matthew does:

Verse 3
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”

Catholic Answers has a page that attempts to deal with the issue (on their 'About' page it says: Catholic Answers works each day to ensure our content is faithful to the Magisterium).

Whilst they acknowledge the difference between Matthew as compared with Luke and Mark, there is no attempt to go into specifics. So when Jesus says in Mat. 24:34

Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

it does look like he is talking about his 'coming' because of what he says next (vv. 36,37):

“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.

 

[Darat]

The OP simply states that the passage in question is valid grounds for scepticism. That's it. I think you are reading into it more than is actually there.

Lewis will have his own reasons for faith in spite of his admission that he considered Jesus erred.

But he didn't conclude that "he considered Jesus erred.".

 

[Poem]

But he didn't conclude that "he considered Jesus erred.".

I thought he did?

 

[Poem]

Quote from The World's Last Night:

It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible. Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side. That they stood thus in the mouth of Jesus himself, and were not merely placed thus by the reporter, we surely need not doubt.