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

Poem said:
Would you like to share how you dealt with the OP (ie Mat. 24:34) when you were a Christian...if indeed you did come across it?
Click to expand...
Of course.

The key is in the interpretation of the phrase "until all is fulfilled". Remember that Jesus came to fulfil the law? Well, his death and subsequent resurrection and assumption was the fulfillment of the law.

Now, a problem with this interpretation was that prior to this statement Jesus was clearly talking about signs of the apocalypse. "All these things" referred to the signs he was just outlining - the sun being darkened, the stars falling, the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. But these are metaphors for his trial and crucifixion. Mat 27:

50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

54 Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.
Click to expand...
All this happened before any of the listeners at the Sermon on the Mount had died. Therefore there is no contradiction. QED.
 
arthwollipot said:
Of course.

The key is in the interpretation of the phrase "until all is fulfilled". Remember that Jesus came to fulfil the law? Well, his death and subsequent resurrection and assumption was the fulfillment of the law.

Now, a problem with this interpretation was that prior to this statement Jesus was clearly talking about signs of the apocalypse. "All these things" referred to the signs he was just outlining - the sun being darkened, the stars falling, the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. But these are metaphors for his trial and crucifixion. Mat 27:


All this happened before any of the listeners at the Sermon on the Mount had died. Therefore there is no contradiction. QED.
Click to expand...
Before I respond, could you clarify the highlighted - that is, you mean this is what you were told? You don't believe that now, surely?
 
steenkh said:
They wouldn’t have thought of it as “lying”. They were just repeating what they had heard. Or thought they have heard. Or must have heard, because surely it couldn’t have been anything else.
Click to expand...
I was going to edit the word 'lying' as it doesn't seem accurate or appropriate (as you point out). Even so, by all accounts the apostles (apart from John) died for their beliefs - so if
acbytesla said:
Exactly! Particularly Matthew. They knew very well, that they were trying to make it fit in with Old Testament writings.
Click to expand...
is correct then we have what appears to be an anomaly...you don't willingly die for what you know doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny.
 
Poem said:
you don't willingly die for what you know doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Faith doesn’t work like that. In fact, most believers are aware that their faith doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. That is why religions always ask people to have blind faith. Most religious people are vaguely aware that no proof of the existence of their gods has ever stood up to scrutiny.

Cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of being religious.
 
"I dont care about the so-called inconsistencies and mistakes and absurdities in the New Testament. I have FAITH that Jesus was the Son of God who rose from the dead, the Jewish Messiah. And he will come back again and reign over the Earth supreme!!!!"

translation: "I iz a moron"
 
steenkh said:
Faith doesn’t work like that. In fact, most believers are aware that their faith doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Sure.
steenkh said:
That is why religions always ask people to have blind faith.
Click to expand...
I'm not aware that is true in general - for some maybe.
steenkh said:
Most religious people are vaguely aware that no proof of the existence of their gods has ever stood up to scrutiny.

Cognitive dissonance is part and parcel of being religious.
Click to expand...
Ok - and the OP stands as but one example of the challenge of such scrutiny.
 
Poem said:
I'm not aware that is true in general - for some maybe.
Click to expand...
It is the case for all Christian faiths. I must admit that I am not aware if there is some to me unknown religion that encourages believers to question their faith, but I doubt it.
 
steenkh said:
It is the case for all Christian faiths. I must admit that I am not aware if there is some to me unknown religion that encourages believers to question their faith, but I doubt it.
Click to expand...
How are you defining 'blind faith'?
 
Hercules56 said:
"I dont care about the so-called inconsistencies and mistakes and absurdities in the New Testament. I have FAITH that Jesus was the Son of God who rose from the dead, the Jewish Messiah. And he will come back again and reign over the Earth supreme!!!!"

translation: "I iz a moron"
Click to expand...
Translation: I like using inflammatory language.
 
Skeptical Greg said:
Depends.

Is faith in someone based on past experience the same as faith in an intangible entity? I would say the former is blind faith.
Click to expand...
Enh. I think it's useful to have a word that denotes blind belief. Certainly "faith" in the context we're discussing connotes that.

If it were up to me, I'd use "trust" to refer to the kind of reasonable earned expectation you describe. I'd reserve "faith" for the blind belief where trust has not been earned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom