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

Darat said:
And of course the different Christian religions have different takes on what kenosis means in regard to their theology.
Click to expand...
Should we be surprised that that is the case? They are, after all, theorizing about something that is beyond human ken - something which most of us would dismiss as impossible.
 
sphenisc said:
It what way does what you've said contradict what I've said?
Click to expand...
I was asking you to clarify what your quote specifically referred to - the approximate time of his second coming or the date and hour?
 
Poem said:
I was asking you to clarify what your quote specifically referred to - the approximate time of his second coming or the date and hour?
Click to expand...
And I was asking you in what way did what you said contradict what I said. It would be polite of you to address my question first before progressing onto new ones.
 
sphenisc said:
And I was asking you in what way did what you said contradict what I said. It would be polite of you to address my question first before progressing onto new ones.
Click to expand...
Okay - I re-read your post and I did misunderstand. You are referring, it seems, to the approximate time of his parousia rather than the 'day and hour'. Is that correct? If it is then I think we are on the same page.
 
Poem said:
Okay - I re-read your post and I did misunderstand. You are referring, it seems, to the approximate time of his parousia rather than the 'day and hour'. Is that correct? If it is then I think we are on the same page.
Click to expand...

I'm referring to Matthew 24:34. v34 is the subject of the OP. Not v36
 
sphenisc said:
I'm referring to Matthew 24:34. v34 is the subject of the OP. Not v36
Click to expand...
Correct...and yet C.S. Lewis appeals to v.36 as if it somehow mitigates Jesus's error. I don't think it does.

For me the only vindication for Jesus would be if he was referring to the generation that actually saw the signs (that actually saw 'the abomination that causes desolation') rather than the generation to whom he was actually speaking. However the language does not appear to fit such a reading. Also, we have:

Matthew 10:23
When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 16:28
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
 
Poem said:
Correct...and yet C.S. Lewis appeals to v.36 as if it somehow mitigates Jesus's error. I don't think it does.

For me the only vindication for Jesus would be if he was referring to the generation that actually saw the signs (that actually saw 'the abomination that causes desolation') rather than the generation to whom he was actually speaking. However the language does not appear to fit such a reading. Also, we have:

Matthew 10:23
When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

Matthew 16:28
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Click to expand...
Not to belabor this too much, but 'death' was also talked about like the permanent kind, while Jesus kinda talked about offering eternal.life as the alternative. So not tasting death might be taken as being invited to the kicking after-party, not just physically dying.
 
Poem said:
Your response to my 'Are you a Christian'?

is looking pretty insincere right now.
Click to expand...
You might have missed this:
arthwollipot said:
I don't see why it's relevant to the conversation, but no. I am as atheist as you are. I had experience with church, and it taught me a lot about what that church believes, but I left that many years ago.

I've been talking about religion on this forum for many years now. I'm surprised that you still don't know my background, which I have spent a not-inconsiderable number of my almost 94,000 posts talking about.
Click to expand...
 
Poem said:
Those biologists you would endorse use the phrase:
But we do not think that these processes deserve such special attention as to merit a new name such as ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’. Below we outline three reasons why we believe that these topics already receive their due in current evolutionary theory.
(Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues).

There is more than one meaning of 'theory'.
Click to expand...
Creationist Claim CA201: Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact.
 
Pixel42 said:
Pretty sure evolutionists is another word that only creationists use. When I searched for it the first link wacreas

en.wikipedia.org

Evolutionism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Poem said:
Evolutionist:
1. a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.

(Definitions from Oxford Languages)
Click to expand...
Dictionaries don't provide definitions, they give word usage.

An evolutionary biologist is a thing. It is a branch of biological study. But the only people I have ever heard refer to someone who studies evolution as an evolutionist is a nut jub creationist, a pastor or some other apologist attempting to deride evolution. Are you Poem one of them? Why is it you insist on using the vocabulary of those people?
 
arthwollipot said:
You might have missed this:.

I don't see why it's relevant to the conversation, but no. I am as atheist as you are. I had experience with church, and it taught me a lot about what that church believes, but I left that many years ago.

I've been talking about religion on this forum for many years now. I'm surprised that you still don't know my background, which I have spent a not-inconsiderable number of my almost 94,000 posts talking about.
Click to expand...
Okay, I wasn't totally clear . I meant that your response of 'does it matter' when I asked you if you were a Christian would be sincere if you also thought it didn't matter what I was either. Is that the case - it doesn't matter what I am?
 
arthwollipot said:
Creationist Claim CA201: Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact.
Click to expand...
Right - those creationists are using the meaning of 'theory' that emphasises 'mere hypothesis; speculation' whereas the biologists I quoted are using the sense of 'hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment'

Richard makes such a point in his book 'The Greatest Show On Earth'.

That you are continuing to argue against a phrase that biologists have zero hesitation in using is surprising. I'll quote them again.

But we do not think that these processes deserve such special attention as to merit a new name such as ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’. Below we outline three reasons why we believe that these topics already receive their due in current evolutionary theory. (Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues).
 
Poem said:
Correct...and yet C.S. Lewis appeals to v.36 as if it somehow mitigates Jesus's error. I don't think it does.
Click to expand...

I think it is taken (by Lewis) as an implication that Jesus is mistaken because he doesn't really know, as opposed to a deliberate lie by an omniscient godman.That might be regarded as some kind of mitigation; we're normally more forgiving of mistakes rather than acts of deception.
 
acbytesla said:
Dictionaries don't provide definitions, they give word usage.
Click to expand...
Your point is?
acbytesla said:
An evolutionary biologist is a thing. It is a branch of biological study. But the only people I have ever heard refer to someone who studies evolution as an evolutionist is a nut jub creationist, a pastor or some other apologist attempting to deride evolution.
Click to expand...
The BBC has a page on the 'Theory of evolution'. Here's a quote from it:
Richard Dawkins is a famous biologist and is also an atheist. He is a great supporter of the theory of evolution.
acbytesla said:
Are you Poem one of them?
Click to expand...
You haven't established that anyone is a 'nut job'.

I'd quote Art's response to 'are you a Christian'?
arthwollipot said:
Does it matter? ...........................................
Click to expand...

acbytesla said:
Why is it you insist on using the vocabulary of those people?
Click to expand...
I'm happy to use the language that evolutionary biologists use - so 'evolutionary theory' is just fine.
 
sphenisc said:
I think it is taken (by Lewis) as an implication that Jesus is mistaken because he doesn't really know, as opposed to a deliberate lie by an omniscient godman.That might be regarded as some kind of mitigation; we're normally more forgiving of mistakes rather than acts of deception.
Click to expand...
But it isn't - when you read the whole essay he clearly comes down on the side of "man can't know the mind of god".
 
Darat said:
But it isn't - when you read the whole essay he clearly comes down on the side of "man can't know the mind of god".
Click to expand...

"...And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else....”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom