So was early Christianity apocalyptic? The evidence from the New Testament seems pretty strong...

So was early Christianity apocalyptic? The evidence from the New Testament seems pretty strong, especially Mark 13:24-27, which says

"the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven."

And Mark 13:30 goes on to say "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."

Which really strongly suggests God's final judgement during Jesus' generation.

There are several other passages that support it as well, I can't find it now but I remember one section of Paul that seemed to be consoling Christians who had relatives pass away and were worried what that meant for the imminent judgement.

What are some scholarly opinions on it?

Other urls found in this thread:

jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1642-apocalypse
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Jews started with the apocalyptic shit when they became a roman province, many of the apostles surely were into it

>What are some scholarly opinions on it?
I like chocolate milk.

Its a pretty popular interpretation

Then and now.

>So was early Christianity apocalyptic?
Not "early" Christianity. The whole thing.

Read this:
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1642-apocalypse

Then read "Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium", particularly chapters 9 and 10 for more on Jesus himself.

Jesus, Paul, and most obviously the John of the book of Revelation are apocalyptic preachers, presenting the idea of a final battle between G(o)od and Evil coming soon to a world near you.

>The idea of a final triumph of God and His heavenly hosts over evil spirits also followed naturally, and kept pace with the development of the Jewish angelology. The "guardian angels" of Dan. ix.-xii., and the punishment of the "fallen stars," which occupies so much space in the Enoch literature, are only elaborations of beliefs which had already received distinct expression; compare Isa. xxiv. 21 et seq. (a most important passage), xxvii. 1; Ps. lxxxii.; Deut. xxxii. 8 (Greek); Job, xxxviii. 7, etc. The appearance of the evil spirit "Azazel" in Lev. xvi. 8 et seq. is proof that the names of angels and demons were in common use before the days of Daniel and Enoch.

Daniel 7-12 is a huge influence on Revelation and the whole New Testament.

*sigh*

"Generation" in Greek then meant what it meant in Hebrew and what is used to mean in early English. A generation was a family line, everyone whose generation traces back to one source. For instance, Saint John of the Ladder says (parentheticals are translator glosses), "And let your beloved children be the sighs of your heart. Make your body your slave; and your friends, the Holy Powers (Angels) who can help you at the hour of your death, if they become your friends. This is the generation (family) of those who seek the Lord."

The generation is Christ's assembly (translated often as Church), his family. This sense of generation is exclusively how the term is used in the Bible, the modernist use as "the present iteration of humanity" is extremely anachronistic to impose on the Bible. Even as close to our time as Johnson's dictionary, "current year" is only the fourth definition of "generation", the first three are,

The act of begetting or producing
A family; a race
Progeny; offspring

Only on the fourth definition do we find, "A single succession; one gradation on the scale of genealogical descent."

You'll notice that the Church Fathers wrote very long tracts of apologetics addressing all sorts of things, from inconsistency in Scripture, to reconciling YHWH which Christ; but this is not the subject of any of that until the 19th Century, when "generation" starts to take on a different primary definition, and so Christ's words start to be seen as having a different meaning.

early *modern English

Daily Reminder that Constantine's place is in the kitchen making sammiches, not pontificating on religious matters of which she knows nothing.

Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

What did he mean by this?

You can tell if you keep reading. Suddenly John gets this reputation for never dying. I infer that Jesus looked at John when He said this; it is a fact that John saw Jesus coming in glory before he died.

He wrote about it in the Revelation.

(Remember: some does not preclude one, or all)

The Transfiguration, it follows right on the heels of that.

>Which really strongly suggests God's final judgement during Jesus' generation.

You're inferring that "this generation" refers to the hearers of that speech.

Put it back into context.

Jesus is telling them the signs of the end; literally when Israel is reconstituted as a nation back in 1948. THAT generation, the generation that sees the rebirth of Israel, that sees the beginning of sorrows, will also see the rapture, tribulation, and Armageddon. Not the listeners back then; the people who witness the end time events.

In other words, from the beginning of God's prophetic clock starting back up to the Tribulation is one generation of people.

Generation is a slippery term. Most likely is 70 years, 80 with strength.

1948 + 70 = 2018
1948 + 80 = 2028

Expect things to change very rapidly.

It's like you intentionally attempt to be wrong about everything. Literally everything.

John doesn't have such a reputation. He is uniquely long lived (dying at about a hundred by Church tradition), but that is because he is both very holy (Saint Jerome says that Christ would have made John the leader of the Apostles, but gave Peter the position instead to avoid causing envy among the other Apostles as John was just a teenager) and was the only Apostle who wasn't martyred

Protestants, plz.

Yup. Literally wrong about everything, intentionally.

John 21
Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”

Literally wrong about everything.

>she

Oh, I thought you were talking about in Church tradition.

She's very touchy about it. Wants to be treated like one of the boys. Which is why I do not hesitate to expose how wrong she is about everything she posts.

Literally everything.

Literally wrong about everything, and cannot admit it.

Hey, some chicks have dicks. It's not their fault.

Your church traditions are as vile as the Roman Catholic church traditions, and practically indistinguishable.

You sound like Peter Griffin's doctor.

Constantine, what's the Orthodox position on using honey cakes made with wine and comingled sexual fluids for a recension of mass which uses sexual congress as a celebration of the Holy Spirit?

If your interpretation of these passages was so obvious why do so many scholars disagree with them?

No that's not what he was referring to you nigger. A moment before that he talks about returning 'with his angels to reward each man according to what he has done'. Then he drops the 'some standing here will not taste death' line. It's obvious he was talking about the second coming unless you want to do some serious mental gymnastics.

They have an agenda to make Christianity look bad.

Back in the 80s yall said that a generation was 40 years and the end times would come in the 1980s.

Just stop being wrong please.

>Protestants

You're retarded.

In general the four canonical gospels are considered apocalyptic in their message. Some of are supernaturally apocalyptic, others are overtly political with their apocalytpic message.

Some of the non-canonical gospels are non-apocalyptic, most famously the Gospel of Thomas, which is merely a collection of Jesus's supposed sayings. These sayings aren't as urgent or apocalyptic as is depicted in in the canonical gospels, which might be why they were done away with. Gospel of Thomas just wasn't hardline enough.

40 is a time of trial, like rain for 40 days and nights, 40 days in the wilderness, 40 years wandering. 40 is not a generation.

I don't understand your logic.

Because other people were wrong before, nobody can now be right?

They're not Jesus' sayings, either.

All of those dates are wrong, just so you know.

Why does Constance turn off her trip and get hostile when she's losing a debate?

It's not really a prediction, then. You're just systematically working through every possible date and eventually hoping you will be right. Sure, eventually some calamity will happen, but you aren't predicting anything specific. Not much of a prophecy.

In general the standard get-out-of-jail-free card people use in their interpretation is to make the "death" refer to spiritual death rather than physical death. That way, it's true that some of the listeners did not taste spiritual death before the second coming (because they were Christian), only physical death which doesn't really count. It's the same justification Catholic and Orthodox use to get around the prohibition against contacting the dead when they want to pray to saints, by redefining which "death" was being referred to.

Bitchy.

I'm not making a prediction, no.

I'm saying that Israel sprang into existence in one day, May 14, 1948, and that her children were instantly citizens.

This is the fulfillment of the Dry Bones prophecy, where the Lord raised the dry bones from the valley in the desert and brought them back to life. A prophecy made more than 2000 years prior.

This event started God's prophetic clock that stopped at the Crucifixion.

So Jesus said that the same generation who sees these end times event will see the end. So what is a generation?

It's not an easily answered question. It cannot be more than 120 years, as that is the maximum lifespan of a human being.

I'm not predicting anything. 70 years from 1948 is 2018. 80 years from 1948 is 2028.

I'm still not predicting anything. I will note, however, that things change quickly.

They were all born spiritually dead, and nobody was not spiritually dead until Pentecost 32 AD, so no. Doesn't work that way.

>muh stopped clock

There is literally no reason to believe Daniel's seventh week was indefinitely postponed.

Just keep telling yourself that you're always wrong, until it sinks in that you're always wrong.

And then instead of apologizing for always being wrong, you can ask questions and receive information, instead of peddling false information from your cult, 9 times out of 10 you still can't get straight.

This commentary is shit, by the way.

>This is the fulfillment of the Dry Bones prophecy, where the Lord raised the dry bones from the valley in the desert and brought them back to life
That's not really what happened though, not even metaphorically.

I dunno, here's Saint John Chrysostom's commentary

>Verily, verily, I say unto you, There are some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.

>Thus, inasmuch as He had discoursed much of dangers and death, and of His own passion, and of the slaughter of the disciples, and had laid on them those severe injunctions; and these were in the present life and at hand, but the good things in hope and expectation:— for example, They save their life who lose it; He is coming in the glory of His Father; He renders His rewards:— He willing to assure their very sight, and to show what kind of glory that is wherewith He is to come, so far as it was possible for them to learn it; even in their present life He shows and reveals this; that they should not grieve any more, either over their own death, or over that of their Lord, and especially Peter in His sorrow.

>And see what He does. Having discoursed of hell, and of the kingdom (for as well by saying, He that finds his life shall lose it, and whosoever will lose it for my sake, shall find it; Matthew 16:25 as by saying, He shall reward every man according to his works, He had manifested both of these): having, I say, spoken of both, the kingdom indeed He shows in the vision, but hell not yet.

>Why so? Because had they been another kind of people, of a grosser sort, this too would have been necessary; but since they are approved and considerate, He leads them on the gentler way. But not therefore only does He make this disclosure, but because to Himself also it was far more suitable.

>Not however that He passes over this subject either, but in some places He almost brings even before our eyes the very realities of hell; as when He introduces the picture of Lazarus, and mentions him that exacted the hundred pence, and him that was clad in the filthy garments, and others not a few.

Except that it was, as none of the things mentioned in the 70 week prophecy have been finished since the messiah was cut off.

What's wrong with it?

Says who? You?

kek

>Nations destroyed 1900 years prior spring back into existence in one day all the time!

t. idiot

Despite your erasing your prior wrong post, you continue to post this shit commentary, but without the previous admission that you were wrong.

So again, literally wrong again on all counts.

>things didn't play out when they were supposed to therefore instead of concluding the prophecy was WRONG I'll say it was postponed

Stop.

Because they are intellectual dishonest. Ask any Greek scholar what "generation" was primarily used to mean in ancient Greek.

>Says who?
The bible? It doesn't refer with any specificity to the actual details of the establishment of the state.

Every nation is recreated in 'one day', when its declaration of sovereignty is signed or whatever. Israel, like every other state, was the result of a long and tumultuous political process.

Reviewing the commentary again, I'm not sure I was wrong.

It literally meant that John would see the Second Coming before he died.

Where in that mess of a commentary does it even mention that?

No prophecy of God is wrong. Ever. Not once.

No, it's an honest mistake by 19th Century German scholars. It's just unfortunately also something that became taken for granted rather than more critically examined.

You don't see how this is poor reasoning?

>biblical prophecies are never wrong
>what about this one that was wrong?
>no that one wasn't wrong because biblical prophecies are never wrong

Ezekiel 37
Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 Then you shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O My people, and brought you up from your graves. 14 I will put My Spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land. Then you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken it and performed it,” says the Lord.’”

Isaiah 66:8 Who has heard such a thing? Who has seen such things? Shall the earth be made to give birth in one day? Or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion was in labor, She gave birth to her children.

What absolute rubbish. Name a nation established in 1 day that contains the 12 tribes of Israel back in their own land.

Use this rule of thumb: you're always wrong. so even when you think you're not wrong, you're still wrong.

Why should a saint's exegesis have to agree with the inference of someone who can't even read Greek? Are your inferences some sort of authority?

I think those prophecies are probably about the return from Babylon and not the creation of Israel in 1948.

Your poor reasoning, yes.

>biblical prophecies are never wrong
>this biblical prophecy has not yet taken place
>therefore this biblical prophecy must be wrong

See how you assume no prophecy will ever take place in the future?

Actually I believe its still a point of contention between Christian scholars and more secular ones, so its debated, not taken for granted

Why should some asshole who had something to do with your cult be assumed a saint?

If you read Ezra and Nehemiah, there was not a 1 day return/re-establishment, at all.

Most prophecies don't have a specific timescale like Daniel's seventy weeks. If you count them everything should have been concluded millennia ago because the seventieth week ends just a few years after Christ's crucifixion.

That doesn't happen so you postpone the seventieth week indefinitely with no justification instead of maybe considering the prophecy was wrong.

Exactly. If there were specific details like a year or something, that would be one thing, but all it says is that they will eventually reconvene.

The "one day" thing is also suspect, since by that logic all new nations do not exist one day and do not exist the next, and the Isreal that exists today continues to expand into Palestinian land, rather than existing all at once in one day.

It's not a point of contention between linguistic scholars.

Because he was a very spiritual man who gave away all his wealth and lived in strict poverty, fasting and praying for forgiveness, and because he was harshly persecuted by the emperor for his sermons but refused to budge, because he lived and breathed Scripture and read it constantly a thousand times and exhorted his congregation to do likewise, even if they could only buy one part of Scripture, even if they needed to ask others to read it to them.

Neither was there in 1948.

It didn't end.

The clock stopped ticking on the Jews, and the time of the gentiles began. When the time of the gentiles is over, the clock will start ticking on the Jews, and they will suffer the Troubles of Jacob.

Read the prophecy. Note everything that is to be done by the end of that 70 weeks.

It's not done yet.

It's all prophesied to be done in the Tribulation. The constant references to the Tribulation being 7 years long should ring a bell for anyone who is interested in Daniel/Revelation.

Still wrong. None of that makes a man a saint.

I shouldn't blame you; I should blame your idiotic "teachers" and "priests", but they're not here. And you're parroting their ideas because you have none of your own.

Which is why you are always wrong about everything.

The theory that the rebirth of Israel happened in the end of the captivity, @526 BC, is bogus. Debunked. lrn2read

>is bogus. Debunked.

Explain.

It took years to rebuild the temple, years to build that wall, and a slow trickle of exiles to accomplish it.

May 13, 1948. Israel does not exist. At all.
May 14, 1948. Israel exists.

>Generation" in Greek then meant what it meant in Hebrew and what is used to mean in early English. A generation was a family line, everyone whose generation traces back to one source

Completely wrong, like pretty much every other time you attempt to discuss Hebrew

Go read Deuteronomy 1:35, and try to reconcile the passage with your inane view of what "generation" means.

>New Testament
>Hebrew

>Generation" in Greek then meant what it meant in Hebrew

Those are Constantine's exact words.

If Generation in Greek is equivalent to Hebrew, than it means pretty much what it does in modern English.

There was a steady trickle of Jewish immigrants into Israel before 1948. After 1948, too.

Israel wasn't magically formed in a day, just because it was declared independent in one. EVERY sovereign state has to be declared independent on some particular day.

By that definition the US was formed 'in a day'. So was the USSR, Poland, Mexico, Norway, Cuba, etc.

It's nothing special, and ignores the lengthy political processes which brought modern Israel (like every other state) to be.

I made that image myself in a thread from about a week ago. I did my research. The dates aren't necessarily correct but I doubt you know enough to say they're wrong.

Those are proposed ranges from all sorts of scholars, which is why there are multiple ranges, multiple dates, etc.

We don't know the actual date of composition for any of the gospels. The oldest fragments are dated based on historical estimates. So are oldest complete copies.

Please, I'm sure your pastor told you they were all written exactly after Jesus died by exactly the apostles they were named after, but the historical evidence suggests otherwise.

Parts of Mark were added to the end long after it was initially written, for instance. Those parts written later were canonized.

Please tell me what the 'real' dates are and cite your sources.

We don't know that and neither did the council of Nicea when they arbitrarily decided what was canon based on popular preference.

Most gnostic traditions do come from the second century and are newer than some of the older writings, but at the same time, we don't know when the Gospel of Thomas was first compiled. The current idea is that it started with a base of actual quotations which got modified or added to over time. Authorship of the gospel of John is thought to be over a long time and by multiple people too.

"Evil generation" is used all the time when God is angry with the Jews. Christ uses it as well You can see God's original intent here is to cut off all the Jews except for the ones he makes an exception to in the next verse, because he mentions them along with their decedents.

*descendants

Doublethink should actually solve the problem at hand

>this evil generation shall not see the land!

Then what happens? The Jews wander in the wilderness for about 38 years, and that generation dies off in the meantime, their children are the ones who enter the land.

Yes, there are exceptions like Caleb and Joshua, but that doesn't change the idea that your interpretation of the word "generation" is completely nonsensical in actual usage.

Contantshill BTFO as usual.

>God's original intent here is

Good thing we have Constantine to tell us what that is.

>Then what happens?
God relents, as he does all the time in the OT. You can already see him doing it in 1:39

Your reading is also plausible though, since generations were subsets. The generation are those who follow from a founder. The generation of Adam, for instance, is all humanity, but the generation of Abraham is only a subset of that.

Regardless, however, generation is never used to mean the current iteration of humanity (except the generation of Adam, which would mean all of humanity). It's always used in a tribal context.

Guys, guys! According to this very peculiar translation, black is white, night is day and the truth is a lie, so according to this, the meaning of the text is not what is clearly stated but, lol and behold, the real meaning actually matches exactly what my dogmatic religious tradition of choice happens to preach.

t. Constrannyfaggot

Yes, Christianity was and is a death cult. Also

>taking seriously words attributed to a man ~100 years after he died

You're retarded if you think Jesus spoke any of the words attributed to him.

The gospels were written a lot closer to Jesus lifetime than that, to be fair. That said, it's still nigh impossible to know what words attributed to him he did or did not say.

1:39 talks about how their children, AKA the NEXT generation, will not be prey like the first coward generation said, but would move in and take over.

No relenting involved


>Regardless, however, generation is never used to mean the current iteration of humanity (except the generation of Adam, which would mean all of humanity). It's always used in a tribal context.

You are incredibly stupid.

דור

And

תלדת

Are completely different words. Go look up Deuteronomy 1:35 and say Genesis 5:1 IN HEBREW before you say something else to reveal your profound ignorance.

This is a place of rational discussion. There should be a containment board for people who want to LARP as Christians, specially as Greek Orthodox Christians.

The absolute earliest I've seen is 60 AD, and that was for a single page. You're right though, we have no clue if anything in the Bible Jesus actually said. Just look at how the Republicans have mythologised Reagan, even though he's pretty much the opposite of what they are now, and that was 28 years ago.

Mark was written in 50 with Peter's input, though Mark took other eye-witness testimony too. Matthew was based on a Hebrew/Aramaic gospel written by the actual apostle in the late 40's, which has since been lost. Luke, as a companion of Paul and a member of the original messianic community in Jerusalem, wrote his gospel in the mid to late 60's along with Acts. John was written later by the apostle and a few of his close companions after much prayer and fasting. We know a pre-70 date is likely for the whole NT as the writers all scramble to show any prophecy which Jesus fulfilled. Therefore, when they tell us that Jesus prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem it is extremely likely they would link this to the Roman siege if it had happened. Furthermore, John talks about Jerusalem with startling detail, and always in the present tense. There also existed a 'gospel of the Hebrews' which was also a product of the original Jeruslam community, and has also been lost.

Name another country that was reborn in a day, dozens of centuries after its complete destruction.

Egypt.

I'll tell you why I know them to be wrong.

There is no way to know if they are right. There is only a way to know if they are not provably wrong.

In other words, to say that the Gospel of Matthew was written before 100 AD is right; to say it was written in 33 AD is unknowable and therefore a false statement.

Most of the dating of the gospels is based on the most insane logic possible; things like "Well, if Q wasn't written until 62 AD, then Mark, then Matthew, then Luke, then John were all written after that."

But there's no Q.

The only semi-non-insane "logic" is to state that the books of the NT were almost universally finished prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, as they do not mention the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

Poland.

And would you knock it off with the 'born in a day' thing? It's meaningless.

>Mark was written in 50 with Peter's input, though Mark took other eye-witness testimony too.
No. Mark was written later by an anonymous Jew in a high class Greek dialect. There exists no Hebrew translations. The author of Mark likely new none of the apostles. This is the scholarly historical consensus, which is more well researched and less biased than the church consensus.