Why did Christians bother writing the gospels if they thought the world was going to end soon? Why did they think it was a worthwhile endeavor?
Why did Christians bother writing the gospels if they thought the world was going to end soon?
Why did Christians bother writing the gospels if they thought the world was going to end soon? Why did they think it was a worthwhile endeavor?
Matthew 24:34
>Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
It's clear from the context of the rest of Matthew Jesus believed that the world was going to end within the generation of his followers (as the word for "generation" used elsewhere in Matthew is always in reference to a singular generation - the one being addressed in Jesus's sermon).
>Why bother writing it down if they though the world was going to end soon?
Because Jesus believed,
Matthew 24:35
>Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Basically, he thought his words would endure beyond the apocalypse he thought was imminent.
>Basically, he thought his words would endure beyond the apocalypse he thought was imminent.
Don't you think Jesus meant "my words" as in his teachings, not physical Gospels that would be written after his death?
The gospels are his teachings
They're the written form of his teachings, which will presumably be destroyed when the world ends.
His followers would've still had ample reason to write them down regardless. It's also important to remember that the earliest gospels we've found were written decades after Jesus's crucifixion. That means they were likely written by second-third hand sources who would've only heard the stories orally beforehand.
The word is "genea" you lying morons.
But hey, when don't atheists or islamists lie to proselytize their faiths?
Look at how the word is used elsewhere in Matthew. It would make zero sense for Jesus to suddenly change the meaning of the word towards the end of his sermon while addressing the same crowd.
That's just how it's been translated into English bruv.
Genea can mean a whole number of different things depending on context. From one generation of a family, to an entire race of people and more.
Thankfully, we know the context in which Jesus was speaking. Genea refers to the church he founded, it refers to all believers through time because they descend generationally from the apostles through succession. Because the apostles are saints, they literally never died. They are alive in Christ, and Christ is alive in them, and through Christ they are alive in the Church militant.
Re-read my posts. The entire argument I'm making is that, in the context of Jesus's sermon in Matthew, that word can only be used in the same way it was used elsewhere in the SAME SERMON.
>same sermon
Ok, so in Matthew Jesus has this habit of preaching a public sermon and then later privately explaining to the apostles what he meant. That's like a mystery teaching, and it's why you see him telling his apostles not to inform people that he was the Christ. He wanted people to come to their own conclusions, because that's how mysteries are revealed.
That's what happened here, it's not a sermon. He had just left the Temple and his apostles were confused as to why he did that crazy shit. So Jesus explains that the Temple is going to fall soon.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
You will note that even if genea does refer to a single generation, both my interpretations still stand.
Besides that, you can make the argument again from the context in which this statement was made that he's saying the Temple will be destroyed in their own lifetimes on earth. Which it was.
Could easily mean both things simultaneously.
>Thankfully, we know the context in which Jesus was speaking. Genea refers to the church he founded, it refers to all believers through time
What about the context indicates that is what Jesus meant by Genea? I think it's obvious from the context that Jesus is referring to his generation since the entire sermon started from his disciples saying "tell us" what will be the signs of the end. Jesus even prefaces the sermon by saying "See to it that no one deceives YOU", and continues to make references to the disciples themselves
>YOU will hear of wars and rumors of wars
>Then they will deliver YOU over to be persecuted and killed
>So when YOU see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination of desolation,’
>At that time, if anyone says to YOU, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There He is!’ do not believe it
>it's obvious from the context that Jesus is referring to his generation since the entire sermon started from his disciples saying "tell us"
IIRC in the bible, a people descended from an individual are described as being present in that individual before God. For example, the 12 tribes being contained in the person of Jacob before he ever had children.
Theologians describe for example Peter as being a figure for the whole church, because he is chief of the apostles.
Jesus was referring both to those apostles who were immediately present before him, and the believers who would succeed them present spiritually. The saints don't truly die.
Again, regardless of whether Jesus was referring to a single generation or all of them there is a cogent explanation. It makes more sense to me that he was referring to both at the same time.
>IIRC in the bible, a people descended from an individual are described as being present in that individual before God. For example, the 12 tribes being contained in the person of Jacob before he ever had children.
Even if I grant that, the context shows that's not what Jesus means. It wouldn't make any sense for the disciples to say "tell us", and then without clarification at all keep saying "you" while not actually referring to the people who just asked and Jesus is speaking to.
>not actually referring to the people who just asked and Jesus is speaking to
But anon, the apostles and all believers through time are united through the mystical body of Christ.
There's a running theme in the gospels of the apostles not understanding exactly what Jesus meant when he taught certain things until much later.
So when he speaks to the people immediately before them, he uses terminology they are capable of understanding. Even though he's making a much larger point that will only be recognized later.
His words apply equally to the apostles and their ecclesiastical descendants. So he is referring to them, but not just them. Many others he has, but not of this fold.
>But anon, the apostles and all believers through time are united through the mystical body of Christ.
As you said, that's a mystical notion. Anything can be reinterpreted through mystical notions, while the plain reading of Matthew 24 is that Jesus is referring to his disciples.
>His words apply equally to the apostles and their ecclesiastical descendants
Another reason that indicates Jesus is referring to his disciples and not all believers is that he makes references to the Temple
>Truly I tell you, not one stone here (the Temple) will be left on another; every one will be thrown down
>So when you see standing in the holy place (the Temple) ‘the abomination of desolation,’
How can he be referring to all believers if the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD?
>Anything can be reinterpreted through mystical notions, while the plain reading of Matthew 24 is that Jesus is referring to his disciples.
He is referring to his disciples. Not just them though.
And for the record, no you can't interpret anything you like using mysticism. This concept of the body of Christ is explained elsewhere in scripture, it's like a key that decodes other passages. The sympathetic indwelling of Christ in his believers and they in him is another indication that this teaching is intended to be uncovered.
>the plain reading
That's how mystery teachings work. There is the naive reading, and then there is the revelation of the hidden meaning.
That's what Jesus does, he preaches a public message and privately explains it's higher meaning to his disciples. That doesn't mean the plain reading is meaningless, the two parts inform and contextualize one another.
>he makes references to the Temple
Because this is after Jesus cleansed the Temple. He's explaining to his disciples who were confused as to what the frick just happened, that they will see the Temple destroyed. He uses this opportunity to expound on the apocalypse.
>How can he be referring to all believers if the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD?
You know how sometimes a sentence can mean two different things simultaneously, in a deliberately complimentary way? That's what's happening here.
>And for the record, no you can't interpret anything you like using mysticism
The way you are, you can. It's very tenuous to say that because there's this idea about all believers being in mystical union with Christ, that Jesus is referring to all believers in this specific sermon.
>There is the naive reading, and then there is the revelation of the hidden meaning.
Where in Matthew is the hidden meaning revealed?
>he preaches a public message and privately explains it's higher meaning to his disciples
He's already in private with his disciples. "While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. "
>that they will see the Temple destroyed
That's my point, he's referring specifically to the disciples when he says "you". Under your interpretation, Jesus without clarifying at all switches between using "you" to mean specifically the disciples, or all believers.
>The way you are, you can. It's very tenuous
It really isn't. It follows quite naturally if you are familiar with the scriptural concepts involving generations and thematic recursion.
>He's already in private with his disciples. "While Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately. "
Yeah dude, I already explained this to you ITT. Goddamn.
He's explaining to them what he meant when he earlier said quite publicly that their Temple would be left desolate unto them "till ye shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord."
>switches
No. You have a very binary mindset, it's either one thing or the another. Never both. That's a very poor method of interpretation, or it's rhetoric and you're just being obstinate.
>It really isn't. It follows quite naturally
It doesn't follow at all that believers being in mystical union with Christ means that Jesus is referring to this union is Matthew 24, especially when there's no context to indicate this.
>He's explaining to them what he meant when he earlier said quite publicly that their Temple would be left desolate unto them
So what was your point about mystery teachings if Matthew 24 is the hidden meaning? My point remains about the plain reading of Matthew 24 being that Jesus is referring to his disciples.
>it's either one thing or the another. Never both
How can believers 2000+ years since the destruction of the Temple see the abomination of desolation in it? Obviously Jesus has to be specifically referring to his disciples when he says that.
>the plain reading of Matthew 24 being that Jesus is referring to his disciples.
That's true, they did not taste death because they're alive in Christ. It's not the only meaning, it applies to all his believers because they're alive in Christ too.
>How can believers 2000+ years since the destruction of the Temple see the abomination of desolation in it?
The destruction of the Temple prefigures the end times. But like you said, Jesus is talking to his disciples about the destruction of the Temple specifically because that's the context of what just happened.
As the Temple is rebuilt in his own body, the world after the tribulation will be remade perfectly in the fashion that it was before the fall of Adam.
>But like you said, Jesus is talking to his disciples about the destruction of the Temple specifically because that's the context of what just happened.
Right, so like I said, according to your interpretation, in verse 9 the "you" refers to all believers, then in verse 15 it refers to just the disciples, then in verse 20 it goes back to being all believers, and it does this without any context at all. Doesn't it make more sense that he's referring to his disciples in all the instances of "you", given that he's directly speaking to them and the things he's speaking about pertain to them, instead of that speculative convoluted explanation?
Look at it this way.
The things Jesus taught people during his ministry: are they applicable only to those specific people who were in front of him at the time, or are they applicable to the entire mass of the faithful in a timeless way?
I think everyone understands implicitly that although Jesus was addressing specific people, the meaning of his words applies to everyone.
You see things very linearly, from within time. But God has a more objective perspective, he sees all these things as happening simultaneously.
That's why it appears to you as if Jesus is "switching". But appearances can be deceiving, that's why a plain reading isn't sufficient. It's too superficial, concerned only with immediate appearances rather than the underlying matter.
>The things Jesus taught people during his ministry: are they applicable only to those specific people who were in front of him at the time, or are they applicable to the entire mass of the faithful in a timeless way?
Now you're thinking about it as a binary. Certain things he taught can be timeless, but I think it's clear that his end times prediction was for his generation.
>That's why it appears to you as if Jesus is "switching".
What does verse 15 mean for a believer 2000 years after the Temple was destroyed? The entire sermon is about the signs of the end times, so how does verse 15 apply to people after the Temple's destruction? It's clear Jesus is only referring to his disciples.
>Now you're thinking about it as a binary.
Now you're starting to get it. Jesus is speaking both in time and timelessly simultaneously, to the disciples immediately before him and to their future heirs for both their sakes.
The whole Bible is about God and man, and how the different perspectives they have lead to conflict and separation.
You see this in Genesis 1 and 2, where in 1 God creates all the animals before man and in 2 he creates Adam before the animals. Two different perspectives, Adam perceives creation as if he were at its chronological center just like everyone thinks the whole world revolves around them. Whereas God has a more objective and higher point of view.
It's about Jesus, who is both God and man and is able to reconcile these different perspectives in one person.
>Now you're starting to get it.
No I'm not. You're whole argument is that there's some mystical esoteric meaning, and I don't see any good justification to think that, nor what the hidden meaning actually is. Saying that "Jesus is speaking both in time and timelessly simultaneously" doesn't make sense in this context since the sermon is about when a specific event in time will happen (the end times).
And as I said, mysticism can be used to interpret anything anyway.
>this context since the sermon is about when a specific event in time will happen (the end times)
Jesus is explaining to his disciples why he said the Temple would be destroyed, and using the opportunity to expound upon the future apocalypse for the benefit of all.
>mysticism can be used to interpret anything anyway
You truly do not understand how esoteric teaching works if you think mystical expressions can be used to mean anything at all.
They always refer to something specific, something implied by the superficial reading and couched within it but so subtle that it does not present itself until revealed. Like a veil being lifted, ignorance too is taken away.
For example, when Jesus first told his disciples that they would have to eat his flesh and drink his blood many left him because they did not understand what he was really saying.
They thought he was speaking about ordinary cannibalism, not partaking with him in divinity through his mystical body.
The reason they thought this is because they have the same basic literalist perspective you do, and did not understand the true import of his teaching. After all, how could they? They didn't have the proper context, so they took it all out of context.
Jesus knew this, he said it to test them. Their naivete was important, that's why he let them go and continued on with those who held strong in faith.
>Jesus knew this, he said it to test them
How do you know?
His choice of words, it's so transgressive to their contemporary norms that it has to be deliberate.
Drinking blood is forbidden to all the sons of Noah in Genesis 9. This is reiterated elsewhere.
Jesus was well aware that his disciples knew of this, it was a big cultural thing. That's why so many of them walked away.
Wow, that's such a weird thing for Jesus to say
>Thing will happen -> when condition is met
>but, condition cannot be met
Why would he say stuff like that? Kinda meaningless
The purpose of the gospels wasn't to preserve information for future generations, it was to spread it among the current generation. Also, they weren't written until like 40+ years after Jesus.
>Where in Matthew is the hidden meaning revealed?
Where in the book of John is the hidden meaning of the 153 fish revealed? Truth be told, I'm pretty sure it isn't spelled out anywhere. That's the point, the person teaching you scripture is supposed to lead you to the answer step by step.
You're supposed to come to your own conclusions based on context clues. Just like how Jesus told his disciples not to tell people he was the Christ, so they could learn themselves. It's spiritually imperative that they come to believe in Jesus as Christ on their own rather than being told it is so.
Hmm, maybe that phrase "fishers of men" has something to do with it...
How can we be sure that the hidden meaning is the hidden meaning you say it is? Other hidden meanings are possible
By the time the synoptics were being written, they still had hope for the Second Coming, but they were starting to realize the distinct possibility it wasn't coming soon. So they codified the oral traditions and belief systems they could find so they wouldn't be lost in case it took a far larger timescale than they had anticipated. References to direct apocalyptic thought come from putting these oral traditions to word rather than being a full opinion of the individuals transcribing them.
The gospels were written after the prophecy of the end of the world failed. At least with the exception of the first one. Also you're expecting too much logical thinking from christcucks.
they wrote the gospels much later when it became clear that the world is not about to end soon.
For the record, as a reply to all the brainlet fedoras parroting their wafer thin wikipedia article take of what the holy book of a religion they don't belong to *really* means I will conclusively BTFO them for all time.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
>when shall these things be?
>and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
NOTE
his disciples ask Jesus TWO different questions, when would the Temple be destroyed and what would be the sign of Jesus' second coming at the end of the world
NOTE
that these are two questions rather than one means that the destruction of the Temple is NOT a sign of Jesus' second coming, because if it were the sign then they wouldn't have needed to ask what the sign was
this is real basic shit, even comically simple for how often it's been misrepresented, but that's still above the pay grade of these clueless bozos
FURTHER
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
The end will be known to be imminent when the gospel is preached to the WHOLE WORLD, to ALL the nations
when the Temple was destroyed, this clearly has not happened yet and every early Christian knew this as they had only just begun to spread
you have to be literally moronic or lying through your teeth to miss this one
Jesus is poetically relating two different events that are thematically related to one another, in answer to two different questions posed by his disciples. That's it.
Do you think there's a deadline on Christianity being moronic?
Like, if 2000 more years pass without a 2nd coming, are you going admit to being a moron?
Rabbi yeshu did not come back so they had to make up ridiculous copes as to why apocalypse didn't happen.
No, they'll make up new ridiculous cope about how this universe is not their own because their God migrated to a different universe since there's no evidence of him here so he will reward them there