so called "Oivet" discourse

[met]

Well there you go. If Jesus was fallible then you needn't reach for excuses like redaction when his fallibility is in evidence.

He's only meant to be infallible in a 'sinless' kind of way and - regardless that it may be contrary to widespread opinion held at the heart of the American Empire - not having power isn't sinful

[Magritte]

Sure, whatever.

So what do you say, Meta? If there's no problem with Jesus having been wrong about imminent apocalypse and most of the relevant scripture points in that direction, will you accept that Jesus was wrong and concede that a hypothetical redaction defense is superfluous?

[met]

otoh, just because Jesus COULD HAVE been wrong -without not being the Christ- doesn't rule out redaction either.

"So when you see the destructive desecration standing where it should not be (let the reader take note), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.

(esp as the passage seems to contain other post-Christ historical references.... )

[Magritte]

The problem is that we're not just talking about one snippet of scripture, or even the same one across the synoptics. The evidence that Jesus and his followers, and even John the baptist, believed in an imminent apocalypse, is pervasive.

Here's a pretty good essay on the subject:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/2000years.html

And a book on it:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic ... 86&sr=1-11

And a very to the point post from FRDB that sums things up:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p ... ostcount=1

[met]

Thx fm. Interesting. (

I read the two articles and can also see how the argument could be extended by folding in Christ's teachings like "don't worry about tomorrow" and "sell all your stuff and follow me" and so on. I'd answer that the 'apocalyptic' doesn't have to be literal to be effective. Could be understood (sort of) metaphorically, as an indication of the radical intensity of Jesus and the Baptist's spiritual teachings. In a 'Gospel of Thomas' sort of way, as one of your articles suggests. A few scholars date Thomas very early too, btw.

That'd be my (basic) reading. And maybe that's another way to answer it. (Note, however, that this shouldn't be understood as a 'merely symbolic' slant on the apocalypse, as one of your writers put it, but rather in a spiritual sense. Which is fine for many spiritually-minded people, because for them, the spiritual is all that really counts & takes great precedence over the 'merely' literal and physical. These are, after all, spiritual texts we're talking about. )

As far as "The historical Jesus was a doomsday cult leader", doesn't that seem kind of reductionist? The historical Jesus, whoever he was, is credited with some of the most eloquent and widely-respected teachings and storytelling and action-taking of all time. It seems unlikely he was really basically just a weirded-out David Koresh type, or anything like that, whatever his opinions about the end-times might have been. That'd be like characterizing the Buddha as just a zoned-out, freaked-out, laze-about stoner.

[Metacrock]

Sure, whatever.

So what do you say, Meta? If there's no problem with Jesus having been wrong about imminent apocalypse and most of the relevant scripture points in that direction, will you accept that Jesus was wrong and concede that a hypothetical redaction defense is superfluous?

I knew this would come. this is a good example of how little illiterate whatsits wont allow real faith or honesty by people of faith. the fools actual rink theta re being honest when all they are really is bullying the real tinkling polarizing their postilions.

here's how it works. you hear an honest admission. Jesus could be wrong about something. like maybe he could lose at checkers. the brain washing you that turned off your brain when you became an atheist says 'there's the weakness we've been seeking. time to exploit, exterminate! exterminate, Religion must be destroyed, exterminate!"

so in your litlte Daleck voice you start going if-he-can-make-a-mis-take-he-could-be-wrong-about-being-son-of-God-beep-beep

that's just slippy slope thinking.

[Metacrock]

The problem is that we're not just talking about one snippet of scripture, or even the same one across the synoptics. The evidence that Jesus and his followers, and even John the baptist, believed in an imminent apocalypse, is pervasive.

Here's a pretty good essay on the subject:

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/2000years.html

And a book on it:

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic ... 86&sr=1-11

And a very to the point post from FRDB that sums things up:

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p ... ostcount=1

the brain wash circuit has been activated. this his only source of information. certainly he would never read St. Augustine to understand such things. One must read only atheist websties taht's how the brain washing works. Its' the only source of info they get.

[fleetmouse]

It's great to see you tackling the subject with this degree of dispassionate academic equanimity.

[met]

wb!

[fleetmouse]

Interesting, the browser on my ipad still has the credentials from my old account. I wonder if I can extract the password somehow- it only displays as stars.