The Problem with Christian Apocalypticism

[BluePhantom]

This is a very complex issue but I am going to try to keep it as short as possible. First let me give some definitions that are critical to the issue.

By "apocalypticism" I mean in the ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, not as we view it today. What was that tradition? Again it's very complicated, but I will try to give a brief summary of the main points. Apocalypticism was a message of hope and encouragement. It basically said that the "present age" (or sometimes "the evil age") would be replaced by the "future age". The present age was where the world was controlled by Satan or evil forces and Jews and Christians were experiencing oppression from these evil forces. The future age was when those forces would be defeated by the forces of God and God's good kingdom would be established on Earth, wherein the people could live in harmony with God, have direct contact with God, worship in direct communion with God, etc.

Opinions varied on how this transition would happen, but apocalypticists were united...and this is absolutely critical....that it would happen in their lifetime or very shortly thereafter. Remember, the basic message was 'I know you are suffering now and are dealing with a lot of oppression from evil, but just hang in there because God is going to win and these fuckers that are oppressing us are going to get what is coming to them'. It was a message of encouragement, comfort, and hope. There would be no value to a message that said 'just hang n there because in several thousand years things will get good again'. No. The message was intended to apply directly to the people living at the time when apocalyptic literature was written.

Now, it's hard to argue that the authors of the New Testament were not mostly apocalypticists. In fact the entire basis for Christianity is apocalyptic. The second coming of Jesus is what Christians wait for to usher in the aforementioned future age. The gospels and epistles on the NT are full of apocalyptic statements and messages and, of course, the final book, The Revelation, is an apocalypse. In Greek it is titled "apokálypsis" or "Apocalypse".

So who cares?

Well it creates a problem because according to those definitions we are forced to conclude that a) the kingdom of God has already come, but presumably it came in a form which we have not recognized, or b) the early Christian authors were wrong. If they were wrong that creates a huge problem.

But what about Jesus? Was He an apocalypticist? There are certainly lots of apocalyptic statements that are attributed to Him in the gospels. If Jesus was, in fact, an apocalypticist then we have an even bigger problem because then it means that Jesus was wrong and if Jesus was wrong then He was not what we, as Christians, believe Him to be. If He was not an apocalypticist, on the other hand, we still have a problem because then the apocalyptic scriptures attributed to Him in the gospels cannot be accurate and suddenly the Bible becomes unreliable.

I will be honest...this is a problem that has haunted me for a LONG time. IF we argue that the Bible is accurate then, by definition, Jesus was an apocalypticist and by further definition He could not have been what we think He was. If we argue that Jesus was what we believe He was, then He could not have been an apocalypticist, and therefore we must conclude that the Bible is inaccurate.

Personally, I have concluded the latter; that the Bible does not give a completely accurate depiction of Jesus and His teaching. But I really don't see any other way around this. You can't have Jesus as the Messiah and still have an accurate Bible according to the definitions of antiquity when scripture was written.

Anyone else see a way around this problem?

And that was the brief version.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's only a problem if you believe the bible is a literal description of events. It's not hard to have full faith and belief in the truth of the teachings attributed to Jesus while still knowing he might have never existed.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

 

[BluePhantom]

It's only a problem if you believe the bible is a literal description of events. It's not hard to have full faith and belief in the truth of the teachings attributed to Jesus while still knowing he might have never existed.

Well I would agree in one way and disagree in another. I am not a literal interpreter of the Bible. I do not view it as an accurate historical record so that makes it a little easier for me than for a Christian fundamentalist, for example, who believes the Bible is the inspired word of God with every word good and true. My position that Jesus is incorrectly depicted as an apocalypticist has led to some accusing me of making that argument for the sake of convenience. Certainly, it is a hell of a lot more comfortable for me, there is no denying that. But, the reality is that I know for certain that the Bible has been changed, mistranslated, all sorts of fucked up over the centuries and so there is some basis for that argument.

But that creates the question of 'well if He is incorrectly depicted as an apocalypticist, in what other ways was He incorrectly depicted? What was He REALLY?' and that gets a lot trickier because now we are distinguishing between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of theology.

I would agree that one can embrace the message of Jesus without believing in Jesus, but I would contend that then it stops being a religious belief and becomes a lifestyle choice. We might argue that an atheist can follow the general teachings of Jesus in regard to how to treat your fellow man ("treat your neighbor as yourself"), but they do not accept Jesus in a spiritual sense. At that point though I would argue that it no longer is faith in his message, but acceptance of good advice that might lead to a better world....if that makes sense.

 

[kjw47]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

Jesus is the son of the true living God=YHWH(Jehovah) Jehovah is the Father--only he knows the day and hour. The son does not know.

 

[BluePhantom]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

But you have to recall the critical point about the timeline. By definition, an apocalypticist believed that God's good kingdom would be established on Earth in their lifetime or very shortly afterwards. Not thousands of years later. Yet Jesus is quoted in the gospels discussing the establishment of God's good kingdom and saying 'some of you will not taste death until these things come to pass'.as well as other similar statements. Those are very apocalyptic statements and are an absolute bullseye for what ancient apocalypticism was all about. So either Jesus was wrong (yikes), it happened in a way no one can recognize, or Jesus never said that and thus the Bible is wrong.

I just don't see how one can have their cake and eat it too on this one.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's only a problem if you believe the bible is a literal description of events. It's not hard to have full faith and belief in the truth of the teachings attributed to Jesus while still knowing he might have never existed.

Well I would agree in one way and disagree in another. I am not a literal interpreter of the Bible. I do not view it as an accurate historical record so that makes it a little easier for me than for a Christian fundamentalist, for example, who believes the Bible is the inspired word of God with every word good and true. My position that Jesus is incorrectly depicted as an apocalypticist has led to some accusing me of making that argument for the sake of convenience. Certainly, it is a hell of a lot more comfortable for me, there is no denying that. But, the reality is that I know for certain that the Bible has been changed, mistranslated, all sorts of fucked up over the centuries and so there is some basis for that argument.

But that creates the question of 'well if He is incorrectly depicted as an apocalypticist, in what other ways was He incorrectly depicted? What was He REALLY?' and that gets a lot trickier because now we are distinguishing between the Jesus of history and the Jesus of theology.

I would agree that one can embrace the message of Jesus without believing in Jesus, but I would contend that then it stops being a religious belief and becomes a lifestyle choice. We might argue that an atheist can follow the general teachings of Jesus in regard to how to treat your fellow man ("treat your neighbor as yourself"), but they do not accept Jesus in a spiritual sense. At that point though I would argue that it no longer is faith in his message, but acceptance of good advice that might lead to a better world....if that makes sense.

While it is not the first or main definition, Webster defines religion as a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. I see that as more than just accepting good advice, even though I don't completely disagree with you.

 

[HaShev]

Many issues with their doom and gloom.
1) they help create the fulfillment of their own expectations rather then solve or avoid them.
2) It's been used by their authority to displace blame for hardships and keep people from turning on their failed
masters.
3) their poor reading skills and lack of honesty makes people oblivious to past or present tense not future
tense. Also passages describing specific historical events taking place in their time, thus allowing connecting the dots of other book and chapters referring to that same event time period.
Words like near and soon mean nothing if they need it to be about 1000, then 2000 years later. If their spouse said they were going out for ice cream, be back soon and they need not come back 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, 20 years then they would not be waiting for them to return soon. So why then do they do this through a fable? Because he is not gonna HaShev (return).
If your spouse said the time is near that you got a job and you took 2 months, 2 years, 20 years to look for that job, do you suppose they'd still be married to you?
Then why is the church still mariied to the wrong groom for the same exact thing?

These false prophets who do not speak for G-d. -Ezekiel CH 13, Deut 18:20-22, Isa. 30:10, Jer. 5:30-31, 14:14, 23:16, 26, 31-32.

To Bulldog,
the love thy neighbor, taking care of people, being hospitable and kind to strangers are all Torah's ethos and learned through Abraham stories rehashed in the NT and falsly attributed as Jesus' teaching.
It's the mixing with false ideology thus mixing knowledge that is good with that which is evil that is the problem.

 

[BULLDOG]

Many issues with their doom and gloom.
1) they help create the fulfillment of their own expectations rather then solve or avoid them.
2) It's been used by their authority to displace blame for hardships and keep people from turning on their failed
masters.
3) their poor reading skills and lack of honesty makes people oblivious to past or present tense not future
tense. Also passages describing specific historical events taking place in their time, thus allowing connecting the dots of other book and chapters referring to that same event time period.
Words like near and soon mean nothing if they need it to be about 1000, then 2000 years later. If their spouse said they were going out for ice cream, be back soon and they need not come back 2 days, 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years, 20 years then they would not be waiting for them to return soon. So why then do they do this through a fable? Because he is not gonna HaShev (return).
If your spouse said the time is near that you got a job and you took 2 months, 2 years, 20 years to look for that job, do you suppose they'd still be married to you?
Then why is the church still mariied to the wrong groom for the same exact thing?

These false prophets who do not speak for G-d. -Ezekiel CH 13, Deut 18:20-22, Isa. 30:10, Jer. 5:30-31, 14:14, 23:16, 26, 31-32.

To Bulldog,
the love thy neighbor, taking care of people, being hospitable and kind to strangers are all Torah's ethos and learned through Abraham stories rehashed in the NT and falsly attributed as Jesus' teaching.
It's the mixing with false ideology thus mixing knowledge that is good with that which is evil that is the problem.

Exactly how do you know which things he actually believed, and which were falsely attributed?

 

[HaShev]

Through the prexisting cult he stole from, when he had John murdered, so he could steal his flock.

 

[BluePhantom]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

Jesus is the son of the true living God=YHWH(Jehovah) Jehovah is the Father--only he knows the day and hour. The son does not know.

Ah, but according to Matthew 16, Mark 9, and Luke 9 Jesus was quite clear....this was coming in their lifetime. In the undisputed Pauline epistles, Paul is VERY clear that he expects this to happen any day. His letters are filled with that timeline. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul tells people not to change their status because of the impending resurrection and ascension. 'What is the point of getting married, starting a family, seeking freedom from slavery since we are all going to be ascending shortly anyhow? Why bother?' he writes (paraphrasing).

Look, I am a Christian. I have no answer to this that will allows both conclusions to be true. Either Jesus is incorrectly depicted by the authors of the NT, or He wasn't who we believe Him to be. If you can find a way around that, I all am ears because any explanation I have come up with amounts to nothing more than trying to "weasel my way" out of an uncomfortable set of conclusions.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

But you have to recall the critical point about the timeline. By definition, an apocalypticist believed that God's good kingdom would be established on Earth in their lifetime or very shortly afterwards. Not thousands of years later. Yet Jesus is quoted in the gospels discussing the establishment of God's good kingdom and saying 'some of you will not taste death until these things come to pass'.as well as other similar statements. Those are very apocalyptic statements and are an absolute bullseye for what ancient apocalypticism was all about. So either Jesus was wrong (yikes), it happened in a way no one can recognize, or Jesus never said that and thus the Bible is wrong.

I just don't see how one can have their cake and eat it too on this one.

Disciples themselves didnt understand much of what they were taught, why is odd you, and I dont either.....doesnt make Bible wrong

 

[the_human_being]

No, the Bible is not as crystal clear as we might like it to be. The Scriptures concerning where Jesus stated that there would be some standing there who would not taste death before they saw Him coming in His kingdom is most often explained as being those who accompanied Him to the Mount of Transfiguration where in a vision, they saw Him change and taken up into Heaven. Modern Christianity most often expects the return of Christ when Israel becomes threatened by the Islamic and Russian armies at some unknown future date. This is, as you stated, spoken of in Revelation and elsewhere in the Scriptures. It is the time Christians believe when Christ returns and establishes His millennial reign upon the earth. The conditions expected to exist during Christ's millennial reign are depicted in Isaiah Chapter 35 and in other Scriptures.

I hope this helps a mite.

 

[the_human_being]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

Jesus is the son of the true living God=YHWH(Jehovah) Jehovah is the Father--only he knows the day and hour. The son does not know.

Ah, but according to Matthew 16, Mark 9, and Luke 9 Jesus was quite clear....this was coming in their lifetime. In the undisputed Pauline epistles, Paul is VERY clear that he expects this to happen any day. His letters are filled with that timeline. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul tells people not to change their status because of the impending resurrection and ascension. 'What is the point of getting married, starting a family, seeking freedom from slavery since we are all going to be ascending shortly anyhow? Why bother?' he writes (paraphrasing).

Look, I am a Christian. I have no answer to this that will allows both conclusions to be true. Either Jesus is incorrectly depicted by the authors of the NT, or He wasn't who we believe Him to be. If you can find a way around that, I all am ears because any explanation I have come up with amounts to nothing more than trying to "weasel my way" out of an uncomfortable set of conclusions.

Alas, even the Apostles themselves were confused and told the believers to go and sell all they had. It must have been a real mess. The Apostles were human and were mixed up about a lot of things. They had a big debate with Paul over circumcision and allowing Gentile believers in. Christians are still confused. Paul's teaching still has a lot of the Church confused. A lot of Churches claim Paul's 1 Thes. said the Church was to be raptured away seven years before the end of the age. Paul wrote 2Thes. to straighten them out but they didn't get it right even then.

 

[the_human_being]

We've got to realize here that Christ was a Spirit being. His thoughts were much higher than ours. God also kept secret some things from man. God didn't go into great detail in Genesis concerning the Creation. He only provided as much information as He felt we needed to know.

 

[BluePhantom]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

But you have to recall the critical point about the timeline. By definition, an apocalypticist believed that God's good kingdom would be established on Earth in their lifetime or very shortly afterwards. Not thousands of years later. Yet Jesus is quoted in the gospels discussing the establishment of God's good kingdom and saying 'some of you will not taste death until these things come to pass'.as well as other similar statements. Those are very apocalyptic statements and are an absolute bullseye for what ancient apocalypticism was all about. So either Jesus was wrong (yikes), it happened in a way no one can recognize, or Jesus never said that and thus the Bible is wrong.

I just don't see how one can have their cake and eat it too on this one.

Disciples themselves didnt understand much of what they were taught, why is odd you, and I dont either.....doesnt make Bible wrong

I never claimed to understand everything. If I did I wouldn't be asking this question. This is a very uncomfortable question for Christians because there doesn't seem to be much wiggle room here. We, as Christians, are stuck in a situation where there are no good options.

Consider the death of Judas. According to Matthew he hanged himself, but according to Luke/Acts he fell (presumably off a cliff or a high embankment of some kind) and split open. Well which was it? I have heard some Christians argue that he hanged himself from a tree that was overhanging a cliff. After hanging himself the rope broke and he fell off the cliff splitting open and thus there is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke/Acts. In my mind, I cannot imagine a more ridiculous explanation for the contradiction. I mean I simply cannot fathom someone embracing that explanation.

My efforts to come up with a solution to this problem of apocalypticism wherein the Bible is accurate and Jesus remains the Messiah is pretty much on line with the "Judas hanged himself over a cliff" theory. I got nothing here to explain this.

I am not lecturing....I am asking if anyone has a way to reconcile this problem...cause I dont

 

[BluePhantom]

No, the Bible is not as crystal clear as we might like it to be. The Scriptures concerning where Jesus stated that there would be some standing there who would not taste death before they saw Him coming in His kingdom is most often explained as being those who accompanied Him to the Mount of Transfiguration where in a vision, they saw Him change and taken up into Heaven. Modern Christianity most often expects the return of Christ when Israel becomes threatened by the Islamic and Russian armies at some unknown future date. This is, as you stated, spoken of in Revelation and elsewhere in the Scriptures. It is the time Christians believe when Christ returns and establishes His millennial reign upon the earth. The conditions expected to exist during Christ's millennial reign are depicted in Isaiah Chapter 35 and in other Scriptures.

I hope this helps a mite.

I am familiar with the Transfiguration explanation, but I do not find it satisfactory. To me...and just to me...speaking only for myself....it's "weaseling out of the problem". I am not saying that if someone else accepts that argument that they are wrong, I am just saying that for me....that one aint gonna cut it.

 

[the_human_being]

No, the Bible is not as crystal clear as we might like it to be. The Scriptures concerning where Jesus stated that there would be some standing there who would not taste death before they saw Him coming in His kingdom is most often explained as being those who accompanied Him to the Mount of Transfiguration where in a vision, they saw Him change and taken up into Heaven. Modern Christianity most often expects the return of Christ when Israel becomes threatened by the Islamic and Russian armies at some unknown future date. This is, as you stated, spoken of in Revelation and elsewhere in the Scriptures. It is the time Christians believe when Christ returns and establishes His millennial reign upon the earth. The conditions expected to exist during Christ's millennial reign are depicted in Isaiah Chapter 35 and in other Scriptures.

I hope this helps a mite.

I am familiar with the Transfiguration explanation, but I do not find it satisfactory. To me...and just to me...speaking only for myself....it's "weaseling out of the problem". I am not saying that if someone else accepts that argument that they are wrong, I am just saying that for me....that one aint gonna cut it.

Well, that's up to you of course but then you have no explanation at all yourself, do you?

 

[the_human_being]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

But you have to recall the critical point about the timeline. By definition, an apocalypticist believed that God's good kingdom would be established on Earth in their lifetime or very shortly afterwards. Not thousands of years later. Yet Jesus is quoted in the gospels discussing the establishment of God's good kingdom and saying 'some of you will not taste death until these things come to pass'.as well as other similar statements. Those are very apocalyptic statements and are an absolute bullseye for what ancient apocalypticism was all about. So either Jesus was wrong (yikes), it happened in a way no one can recognize, or Jesus never said that and thus the Bible is wrong.

I just don't see how one can have their cake and eat it too on this one.

Disciples themselves didnt understand much of what they were taught, why is odd you, and I dont either.....doesnt make Bible wrong

I never claimed to understand everything. If I did I wouldn't be asking this question. This is a very uncomfortable question for Christians because there doesn't seem to be much wiggle room here. We, as Christians, are stuck in a situation where there are no good options.

Consider the death of Judas. According to Matthew he hanged himself, but according to Luke/Acts he fell (presumably off a cliff or a high embankment of some kind) and split open. Well which was it? I have heard some Christians argue that he hanged himself from a tree that was overhanging a cliff. After hanging himself the rope broke and he fell off the cliff splitting open and thus there is no contradiction between Matthew and Luke/Acts. In my mind, I cannot imagine a more ridiculous explanation for the contradiction. I mean I simply cannot fathom someone embracing that explanation.

My efforts to come up with a solution to this problem of apocalypticism wherein the Bible is accurate and Jesus remains the Messiah is pretty much on line with the "Judas hanged himself over a cliff" theory. I got nothing here to explain this.

I am not lecturing....I am asking if anyone has a way to reconcile this problem...cause I dont

Actually, what's the point since you have already dismissed my Mount of Transfiguration explanation. I really think you're an atheist just hunting something to argue about.

 

[BluePhantom]

I think you depiction of Christ as an apocalyptic is flawed...... since he knows date and time he knew it would not happen in their lifetime and since his has no beginning or end......

Jesus is the son of the true living God=YHWH(Jehovah) Jehovah is the Father--only he knows the day and hour. The son does not know.

Ah, but according to Matthew 16, Mark 9, and Luke 9 Jesus was quite clear....this was coming in their lifetime. In the undisputed Pauline epistles, Paul is VERY clear that he expects this to happen any day. His letters are filled with that timeline. In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul tells people not to change their status because of the impending resurrection and ascension. 'What is the point of getting married, starting a family, seeking freedom from slavery since we are all going to be ascending shortly anyhow? Why bother?' he writes (paraphrasing).

Look, I am a Christian. I have no answer to this that will allows both conclusions to be true. Either Jesus is incorrectly depicted by the authors of the NT, or He wasn't who we believe Him to be. If you can find a way around that, I all am ears because any explanation I have come up with amounts to nothing more than trying to "weasel my way" out of an uncomfortable set of conclusions.

Alas, even the Apostles themselves were confused and told the believers to go and sell all they had. It must have been a real mess. The Apostles were human and were mixed up about a lot of things. They had a big debate with Paul over circumcision and allowing Gentile believers in. Christians are still confused. Paul's teaching still has a lot of the Church confused. A lot of Churches claim Paul's 1 Thes. said the Church was to be raptured away seven years before the end of the age. Paul wrote 2Thes. to straighten them out but they didn't get it right even then.

Well I think this speaks directly to my point. The authors of the NT didn't agree on many things, did not understand a lot of what Jesus taught...even the apostles screwed it up and most of them knew Jesus directly. I agree that it was a total mess. Just reading the undisputed Pauline epistles, so many times I imagine Paul slapping his forehead and throwing his hands up in the air screaming 'Stimpy you eedeot!' and Peter saying the same thing about Paul.

A good study of critical scholarship can help...applying form criticism, source criticism, etc. Using good criteria; the criterion of multiple attestation, the criterion of dissimilarity, etc...those things are helpful but all they can do is really narrow it down and increase our odds of finding what Jesus actually taught. Many Christians abhor the scholarly approach, but I think that's a mistake. I believe that if you want to follow the teachings of Jesus it might be a good idea to figure out what He actually taught in the context of His culture and society.

I think this thread is a perfect example. I would argue that very few Christians understand what 1st century Judeo-Christian apocalypticism was all about and the problem is that it is absolutely central to the perspectives of the early Christian authors upon which our modern form of Christianity is based.