According to C. S. Lewis in The World's Last Night. Apparently he read one of Loftus' chapters in the Christian Delusion, and prepared this response decades in advance.
I'm not necessarily endorsing this move. But it is worthy of consideration.
Thom Stark's forthcoming book, The Human Faces of God, discusses the following verse in detail: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”
Such a verse implies nearness in time, as Stark demonstrates. One might add that "days and hours" also fall within a "generation" span of time.
If nothing else next year, please read Thom Stark's book. He remains a Christian, but less brain dead than Lewis when it came to theology.
Of course if we admit Jesus to have been in error on a very important factual and doctrinal claim like the near end of the world, then we must at least potentially think twice about his other teachings. Matthew Tindal (1657?-1733) was a famous deist who published at the age of seventy-three the first volume of a critique of Christianity that took note of many of the same passages we have examined above. We may estimate the impact of Volume One from the 150 replies that sought to counter it, including those from Bishops Butler and Berkeley. Tindal's conclusion concerning this particular matter merits repeating:
If Jesus and his apostles, for whatever motives, were mistaken in a matter of this consequence, how could I be certain that any one of them may not be mistaken in any other matter? If they were not inspired in what they said in their writings concerning the then coming of Christ; how could they be inspired in those arguments they built on a foundation far from being so?
Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899), a preacher's son who grew to become America's greatest freethinker, put it this way:
That generation [of Jesus' day] was not to pass away until the heavens should be rolled up as a scroll, and until the earth should melt with fervent heat...Filled with the thought of coming change, he [Jesus] insisted that there was but one important thing, and that was for each man to save his soul. He should care nothing for wife or child or property, in the shadow of the coming disaster...He endeavored, as it is said, to induce men to desert all they had, to let the dead bury the dead, and follow him. We know now - if we know anything that Jesus was mistaken about the coming of the end, and we know now that he was greatly controlled in his ideas of life, by that mistake. Believing that the end was near, he said, "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink or wherewithal ye shall be clothed." It was in view of the destruction of the world that he called the attention of his disciples to the lily that toiled not and yet excelled Solomon in the glory of his rainment. [The parable even has an appropriately apocalyptic ending: "The grass of the field that is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace!" Mat 6:30] Having made this mistake, having acted upon it, certainly we cannot now say that he was perfect in knowledge.
New Testament theologian, Robert M. Price, agrees with Ingersoll [directly above] that Jesus' plea for "moral perfectionism" directly resulted from his mistaken belief that God's judgment day was imminent:
Jesus' eschatology accounts for the radical perfectionism of the application of his values, e.g., "Love your enemies...bless those who curse you...if struck on one cheek, turn the other...lay not up for yourself treasure on earth [do not save money!]... Whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either [leaving you naked, since those two items summed up the clothing worn by ancient Near Easterners]...give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back [!], etc." I can't buy Luther's way out, i.e., that Jesus was showing us how we can't obey these values, in order to prepare us for the gospel of justification by faith! Sorry, Luther! The text repeatedly says, "Do this to reach the kingdom, do this or be punished." I am thinking foremost of the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus is depicted as saying:
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets ... Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits ... Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire [apocalyptic speech]. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS." Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house [apocalyptic speech]; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell and great was its fall. [Matt. 7: 12-27]
Most perfectionists are neurotics: was Jesus? Not if he predicated perfectionism as the only way to live due to the nearness of God's judgment day! Then it would seem feasible!
The lowdown on God's showdown is that it never took place as predicted. And how likely is it to occur at all since the most "inspired" believers, living and writing in Jesus' era, including Jesus himself, were certain that it was going to occur in theirs?
Believers in an inspired holy book should wonder why the Bible's error's concerning this matter are so plainly visible. But then, as Arthur Koestler once pointed out, "Faith is a wondrous thing; it is not only capable of moving mountains, but also of making you believe that a herring is a race horse."
Indeed, how can Christianity compete for world-wide approval against the host of faiths and non-faiths that now litter the earth, when its own holy book informs whomever reads it that the race to demonstrate the superior truth of Christianity ended 2000 years ago by Jesus' own admission?
Lewis's point is that Jesus' false prediction isn't so bad because he himself said, in the same breath, that he really didn't know when he was coming back. He didn't confess ignorance about anything else.
That's just the point that Stark examines in his forthcoming book. Jesus did NOT profess ignorance in the aforementioned verse. That is a common misreading of Jesus' overall prediction that everything would indeed occur within a generation. The idea was to keep watch not because the prediction was far off, 2,000 years and counting, but because it was so near, within a generation's span of time. Stark demonstrates this in The Human Faces of God.
I think you'll like the book overall as it's not anti-Christian, but anti-fundamentalist. But also presents challenging arguments contra Steve Hays et al, even contra Lewis' interpretations in a number of crucial areas.
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33Be on guard! Be alert[f]! You do not know when that time will come. 34It's like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch."
Given that qualification, it doesn't seem as if the prediction is bounded at "near" or even "far off". "No one knows the day or the hour" rather strikes me as "I do not know". And that seems as if it can come in 2 days from now, 2 years from now, or 2 thousand years from now or... and so on. Considering the magnitude of the event in question, being told to keep on guard and always be ready is sage advice regardless of the uncertainty, even if the uncertainty extended into millenia or larger spans of time.
I've always had trouble with the idea that those events had to come to pass in short order, in part because the character of Christ's teachings seem very tailored for living life on earth-as-we-know-it. Advice on dealing with sinners, with unbelievers, etc, etc.
BenYachov said...God is an A-temporal Eternal Being it seems to me all future times are "Soon" from His perspective."
Good day to you, Ben.
Where would you say that leaves the idea of the father the son and the holy spirit ?.Jesus was suggested to be connected very closely with God.Therefore he must have had some idea.Why then wouldnt he say look you have 2000 years or 3000 years to get as many saved as possible , or some such thing.
Im my opinion, it seems more likely when he talked about "soon" that was indeed what he thought.
If Jesus was so closely intouch with God.Why wouldnt he know almost exactly when the time would likely be ?.
"Im my opinion, it seems more likely when he talked about "soon" that was indeed what he thought."
Except He said that He didn't know, nor did anyone but the Father. It's pretty odd to say "Jesus must have known" when He says "I don't know, nor does anyone but the Father."
I feel all this discussion is based on a clearly wrong understanding of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 24.
If you go through that chapter and make note of verses that fall into one of three categories (1) clearly applying to the immediate future, (2) clearly applying to the distant future, and (3) could be either, I think it is clear that most of the chapter can be applied to the immediate future, much of it to both, and very little of it to the far only.
How should we understand this?
To the Jews, there were two ages: the present age, full of difficulties, and the age to come, the messianic age, which would be good. Jesus made clear claims to bring in the new age, the kingdom of God.
But when does the kingdom start, and when does it reach its fruition?
Clearly it began in Jesus' ministry, but equally clearly it won't reach its fruition until the end of the world.
So Jesus' statement about when these things will happen is quite clearly cryptic and ambiguous, because most of "these things" would happen in the near future, and keep on happening until the end, when they would be fully fulfilled.
I think the problem is not with Jesus, but with poor Biblical understanding and exegesis - by christian and unbeliever alike.
UnkleE, poor understanding eh? Then you might want to take a stab at explaining why so many Christians down through the centuries got it wrong. Were/are they just stupid? And you might try to take a stab at why an omniscient God didn't know how to better communicate with his people so that they would get the point. Is your God stupid?
I'm guessing you have not read chapter 7 in my book. Will you?
Crude "Except He said that He didn't know, nor did anyone but the Father. It's pretty odd to say "Jesus must have known" when He says "I don't know, nor does anyone but the Father."
Hi Crude.
Jesus said lots of things evidently.
Some say Jesus and God is really one and the same thing.Jesus Christ is God Incarnate.The holy trinity , you know all that sort of stuff.
Thats a pretty close connection to claim.
Seems kind of slightly strange to me, someone with that kind of (close connection).Would say he dont know?.
If he dont know that.Then what can we be so sure he did know ?.
Whats pretty odd to me is you seem to get upset just over a comment.Its The Holy Spirit working?
I think the latest In Catholic scholarship claims that Jesus had only finite human wisdom and knowledge until he resurrected and got his version 2.0 body and mind--then he supposedly got his full God powers.
Another verse supporting that notion is Luke 2:52 which shows young Jesus as increasing in wisdom. An omniscient God-man would not need to increase in wisdom. Of course, this fits nicely with my own belief that Jesus was just a man.
Isn't it part of e logic of the incarnation that Jesus is fallible. its part of taking on the human perspective.
We don't (or I don't) expect Jesus to always add and substract correctly or have infallible knowledge of the location of the disciples. If you asked him he woudl probably say the earth is the center of the universe.
But this creates a puzzle since if anything is authoritative, the moral teachings of Jesus are. Jesus can be wrong about where Peter is, assuming some sort of Christianity, he can't be wrong about loving your enemies.
So what about prophesy then? Is it more like the moral case or more like the knowing how much wine Peter drank last night.
Maybe you can say this: Jesus can be ignorant, but if so he knows it, and this would fit with the text in question since it looks like Jesus may be hedging his bets.
Human beings make predictions all the time and we are not lying or being false. Even when we turn out to be wrong.
What principled reason is there for denying that some or all of the predictions made by Jesus are of this type?
If we knew that God had foreknowledge or what God's plans were AND we knew when such knowledge was revealed in Jesus' human consciousness, then we would not have a problem. But of course we have no such knowledge.
But there is nothing inconsistent in holding that Jesus is divine, and yet often mistaken about factual claims.
The reason this does not carry over to the moral realm is that while God, I take it, shed omnipotence and omnipotence in becoming human, God did not give up moral perfection.
Who's upset? I'm pointing out a flaw in your claim and nothing more. Your response was predicated on what Jesus said, and I pointed out what Jesus also said. Christ's divinity, His being fully human and fully God, are deep and powerful questions, but if we're only going as far as the olivet discourse itself my point stands.
Appeal to limitations on knowledge due to the incarnation would seem to prove too much, no? If Jesus gets off the hook for falsely prophesying on the grounds of human limitations and fallibility, then why can't ordinary non-divine (supposed) prophets of Yahweh make the same appeal in the face of a false prophecy?
It's not just Jesus who got it wrong about the end, by the way. We have Paul and the rest of the NT writers say the same thing. I guess they're all false prophets, too. The whole religion just has no credibility, it seems to me.
Who's upset? I'm pointing out a flaw in your claim and nothing more. Your response was predicated on what Jesus said, and I pointed out what Jesus also said. Christ's divinity, His being fully human and fully God, are deep and powerful questions, but if we're only going as far as the olivet discourse itself my point stands."
Hi Crude.
Well it seemed you were upset, because you called it odd i would question what Jesus is said to have said.If its odd that i question what Jesus is said to have said.Then there are plenty of odd people around,going by your judgement.And so in my opinion that doesnt make me so very odd at all.
You running some type of dictorship here ?.We have need to be believing everything that Jesus was said to have said , or else you will be calling us out as odd ?.
I dont see how you pointed out any flaw in my claim .I suggest there is a flaw in your thinking that if jesus was said to have said something.Then that settles it,it has to be true.
By those type rules any faith book is simply proved to be true.And then that would be very odd set of rules for humans to live by.
You pointed out nothing i didnt already know that Jesus had said.And in my opinion nothing you said explains why somebody said to be divine and in such a extremely close relationship with the father.Still doesnt know these things,or even be able to give some kind of a round-about idea, about the time thats even close.
If it was said you were supposed to have such a extremely close relationship with your father.Who was telling you he will return to pick people up and sort matters out.Would it be thought odd if i thought it seemed a little strange , if you said you knew almost everything else,but then you said you didnt know at all what time the father would arrive?.You couldnt even give us a round-about idea that was close.
Explain why should i still have such good reason to believe you honestly had this close relationship with your father that you had been claiming you honestly had.
All of a sudden simply saying nobody knows but the father.To me is rather like producing a get out of jail free card.It seems like little more than an excuse.Specially when the person has already made so many other claims about how much he knows about the father!.
This should in the least leave us to wonder a little, how much it can be claimed Jesus did honestly know.
Well it seemed you were upset, because you called it odd i would question what Jesus is said to have said.
That's an interesting metric for "upset".
And no, I said it was odd to say that Jesus must have known when Jesus said "I don't know". If you want to say "Well I think he did know - and he was wrong!", go for it. While we're doing that, I think you know you're wrong in this case, but are ashamed to admit it.
Naturally, your denying this is something I'd expect you to say if I were right about you. Huh, this is a fun way to argue.
Crude said.."And no, I said it was odd to say that Jesus must have known when Jesus said "I don't know". If you want to say "Well I think he did know - and he was wrong!", go for it. While we're doing that, I think you know you're wrong in this case, but are ashamed to admit it.
Naturally, your denying this is something I'd expect you to say if I were right about you. Huh, this is a fun way to argue."
"If you want to say "Well I think he did know "
Crude who else did you think was writing the comment ?.Why do i have to specially explain to you everytime like im talking to a child .."Hey Crude by the way, this is only what i think !"
L.o.L ... That would be getting a little odd.You know ,i was hoping you might be a little capable of working some little things out for yourself.
But in future i shall remember just for you! Crude i will need to try to be explaining every single detail all the time.
I just wanted to explain.Personally i dont at all think of Jesus as simply being some terrible blatant liar.Infact i still very much like much that i have heard about the man.Thats the truth.
I understand people do make honest mistakes and can even feel they are receiving divine messages and guidence etc.
This is why i also feel no hate toward my own family who still belong to an abusive Christian cult, that is publically well known to have even caused very many people much sorrow, pain and hurt.And even caused a number of suicides.
I realize they honestly mean well.I realize they honestly feel they are doing the right thing.
I think the best argument against Christianity is the behavior of Christians.
Just today I read of Christian support of insane anti-gay legislation in Uganda. Insane as in genocidal. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129422524&sc=fb&cc=fp
really.
I don't know what you mean by "abuse" but my suspician is that it is grounded in the de-personfication of the "other" be that a muslim, an atheist, a pagan, a gay person, or whatever.
Ironically this de-humanization of the other is precisely what Jesus preached against. We don't see it, but its there. Just TALKING to the woman at the well is a bridge and sign of respect. If Jesus was alive today preaching in Franklin Graham's church he would no doubt replace "Samaritan" with "gay" or "muslim" or "atheist"
(there were no Richard Dawkins characters wandering about ancient Judea--when Jesus spoke of faith it was TRUST not propositional belief like "God exist")
Its moral insanity. But the insanity is not in the gospel, but in us that use is.
Actually according to the FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA by Ludwig Von Ott when Jesus says he doesn't know the "day or the hour" but only the Father knows that can either mean that the knowledge is not present in his human intellect(but it is present in his divine nature) or that it's not knowledge he is free to disclose.
This is old hat. The Arian Heretics of the 4th century have been using this verse to try to deny the Divinity of Christ long before Atheists found it. Can't you guys come up with something a little more original?
The incarnation mean Jesus has a fully human & a fully divine nature united in a single divine person. I fail to see how logically the finite human nature of Jesus(specifically his human intellect & memory) couldn't in fact be ignorant of some things even thought his divine nature knows all. Thus logically Jesus can say he knows x & doesn't know x & both are true.
This is Chalcedonian Theology 101, it's not hard. Well at least for us Catholics.
The incarnation mean Jesus has a fully human & a fully divine nature united in a single divine person. I fail to see how logically the finite human nature of Jesus(specifically his human intellect & memory) couldn't in fact be ignorant of some things even thought his divine nature knows all. Thus logically Jesus can say he knows x & doesn't know x & both are true.
This is Chalcedonian Theology 101, it's not hard. Well at least for us Catholics.
His human brain did not know something that his God mind did? Could he access his God mind any time he wanted to, or was he denied access until after the resurrection?
It my be easy to assert beliefs like this, but it makes no rational sense. The concept of the Trinity defies rationality; one either accepts it as a mystery that must be believed to be "orthodox," or one can reject it completely, as I do.
>His human brain did not know something that his God mind did? Could he access his God mind any time he wanted to, or was he denied access until after the resurrection?
I reply: Rather Christ had three types of knowledge. Divine knowledge, Acquired knowledge, and Infused knowledge. Divine knowledge is self-explanatory. Acquired knowledge is the natural knowledge his human intellect learns over time(how to eat, how to speak, etc). Infused knowledge is knowledge his human intellect receives from his Divine Intellect that he is meant to reveal (i.e. his teachings, doctrines about God etc). Christ did not come to reveal to us the time of the End of Days hence that knowledge was not imparted to his human intellect. As God if he had originally willed to tell us then he would have infused that knowledge into his human intellect. Like I said it’s not hard.
>It my be easy to assert beliefs like this, but it makes no rational sense. The concept of the Trinity defies rationality; one either accepts it as a mystery that must be believed to be "orthodox," or one can reject it completely, as I do.
I reply: I hold to the classic definition of the Trinity as Three Hypostasis that possess the same single Divine Nature. You no doubt believe something silly like 3 gods in one God or three persons in one person. For those of us who have read Frank Sheed’s THEOLOGY & SANITY the Trinity is not a hard concept either.
Rather Christ had three types of knowledge. Divine knowledge, Acquired knowledge, and Infused knowledge. Divine knowledge is self-explanatory. Acquired knowledge is the natural knowledge his human intellect learns over time(how to eat, how to speak, etc). Infused knowledge is knowledge his human intellect receives from his Divine Intellect that he is meant to reveal (i.e. his teachings, doctrines about God etc). Christ did not come to reveal to us the time of the End of Days hence that knowledge was not imparted to his human intellect. As God if he had originally willed to tell us then he would have infused that knowledge into his human intellect. Like I said it’s not hard.
It is amazing how much confident knowledge you have about things you cannot possibly know. If Jesus were the incarnation of God, then you could not begin to understand how his mind worked. I guess that knowledge was infallibly revealed to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church at some point, eh?
It is easy to recite Trinitarian creeds, but not so easy to make sense of them.
All you have done is parrot Catholic dogma, which I find very unpersuasive. The Trinity is just an ad hoc rationalization that Christians devised so they could feel that they were not violating the first of the ten commandments.
Maybe God simply changed his mind.And so he wasnt the same yesterday today and tommorow after all.For he needed acquired knowledge that was only learned over time.And Christ did not come to reveal to us the time of the end times.Which is why he mentioned it.It all makes sense.
Maybe God simply changed his mind.And so he wasnt the same yesterday today and tommorow after all.For he needed acquired knowledge that was only learned over time.And Christ did not come to reveal to us the time of the end times.Which is why he mentioned it.It all makes sense.
The reason most believers will reject this viewpoint is that if God changes his mind about things, then he may even change his mind concerning the salvation of the elect. Most Christians don't want to go there.
"It is amazing how much confident knowledge you have about things you cannot possibly know. If Jesus were the incarnation of God, then you could not begin to understand how his mind worked."
I agree with this, Walter. I think it's a very wise point indeed.
..."The reason most believers will reject this viewpoint is that if God changes his mind about things, then he may even change his mind concerning the salvation of the elect. "
I agree with this also...which leads me to my next point...
All you have done is simply nay say what I have written nothing more. You have responded with nothing substantial. That is hardly persuasive either.
The argument of exactly who and what Jesus was has been the cause of bitter disputes among believers that raged for centuries after Jesus' death. Just because you think these matters have been resolved by Catholic Church Councils does not mean that the matter is truly settled.
All you have stated is some gobbledy-gook Neoplatonic crap about hypostatic unions which says a mouthful but explains nothing. You then referred me to some obscure book written by a Catholic theologian instead of giving your own viewpoint and attempting to explain how Jesus can be completely human with limited, fallible knowledge, while at the same time Jesus has some kind of divine knowledge that he apparently could only access on special occasions, I guess?
It is a waste of time to replay centuries of historical disputes about Jesus' exact nature, so I will let you have the last word on the subject.
"The reason most believers will reject this viewpoint is that if God changes his mind about things, then he may even change his mind concerning the salvation of the elect. Most Christians don't want to go there."
Yes Walter. There was just a little satire intended even if it wasnt conveyed succinctly.
>It is a waste of time to replay centuries of historical disputes about Jesus' exact nature, so I will let you have the last word on the subject.
I reply: Rather it a waste of time for lazy modern Atheists to dig in the trash heaps of history for old arguments that have in fact been long ago defeated. Jesus did not predict an early coming for himself & his "lack of knowledge" of the precise time of the End of Days is unremarkable & has been explained centuries ago. Neither the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox or the Reformers argued over the matter of Chacedonian Christology. Even in modern times the Coptics, Syrians & Assyrian Oriental Churches have come to substantal agreement in these matters.
Rather it a waste of time for lazy modern Atheists to dig in the trash heaps of history for old arguments that have in fact been long ago defeated
For the record, my worldview is closer to that of English Deism than pure atheism, although I often get painted as a "New Atheist." I said that I would give you the last word defending your pagan influenced Trinity, and I am a man of my word ;-)
>I said that I would give you the last word defending your pagan influenced Trinity, and I am a man of my word ;-)
I reply: No wonder you where confused. I was arguing Christology not Trinitarianism. The number of Hypostases who possess the One Divine Nature has little to do with the Incarnation. I supose one could in theory be a Modalist & still hold a Chacedonian Christology. But as I have shown a Chacedonian Christology solves the difficulty of Jesus being both the Omnicient God & being ignorant of the Date of the End of Days.
52 comments:
Vic,
Thom Stark's forthcoming book, The Human Faces of God, discusses the following verse in detail: “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.”
Such a verse implies nearness in time, as Stark demonstrates. One might add that "days and hours" also fall within a "generation" span of time.
If nothing else next year, please read Thom Stark's book. He remains a Christian, but less brain dead than Lewis when it came to theology.
Of course if we admit Jesus to have been in error on a very important factual and doctrinal claim like the near end of the world, then we must at least potentially think twice about his other teachings. Matthew Tindal (1657?-1733) was a famous deist who published at the age of seventy-three the first volume of a critique of Christianity that took note of many of the same passages we have examined above. We may estimate the impact of Volume One from the 150 replies that sought to counter it, including those from Bishops Butler and Berkeley. Tindal's conclusion concerning this particular matter merits repeating:
If Jesus and his apostles, for whatever motives, were mistaken in a matter of this consequence, how could I be certain that any one of them may not be mistaken in any other matter? If they were not inspired in what they said in their writings concerning the then coming of Christ; how could they be inspired in those arguments they built on a foundation far from being so?
Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899), a preacher's son who grew to become America's greatest freethinker, put it this way:
That generation [of Jesus' day] was not to pass away until the heavens should be rolled up as a scroll, and until the earth should melt with fervent heat...Filled with the thought of coming change, he [Jesus] insisted that there was but one important thing, and that was for each man to save his soul. He should care nothing for wife or child or property, in the shadow of the coming disaster...He endeavored, as it is said, to induce men to desert all they had, to let the dead bury the dead, and follow him. We know now - if we know anything that Jesus was mistaken about the coming of the end, and we know now that he was greatly controlled in his ideas of life, by that mistake. Believing that the end was near, he said, "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink or wherewithal ye shall be clothed." It was in view of the destruction of the world that he called the attention of his disciples to the lily that toiled not and yet excelled Solomon in the glory of his rainment. [The parable even has an appropriately apocalyptic ending: "The grass of the field that is alive today and tomorrow is thrown into the furnace!" Mat 6:30] Having made this mistake, having acted upon it, certainly we cannot now say that he was perfect in knowledge.
New Testament theologian, Robert M. Price, agrees with Ingersoll [directly above] that Jesus' plea for "moral perfectionism" directly resulted from his mistaken belief that God's judgment day was imminent:
Jesus' eschatology accounts for the radical perfectionism of the application of his values, e.g., "Love your enemies...bless those who curse you...if struck on one cheek, turn the other...lay not up for yourself treasure on earth [do not save money!]... Whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either [leaving you naked, since those two items summed up the clothing worn by ancient Near Easterners]...give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back [!], etc." I can't buy Luther's way out, i.e., that Jesus was showing us how we can't obey these values, in order to prepare us for the gospel of justification by faith! Sorry, Luther! The text repeatedly says, "Do this to reach the kingdom, do this or be punished." I am thinking foremost of the Sermon on the Mount in which Jesus is depicted as saying:
In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets ... Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits ... Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire [apocalyptic speech]. So then, you will know them by their fruits. Not everyone who says to Me, "Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, "Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?" And then I will declare to them, "I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS." Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house [apocalyptic speech]; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell and great was its fall. [Matt. 7: 12-27]
Most perfectionists are neurotics: was Jesus? Not if he predicated perfectionism as the only way to live due to the nearness of God's judgment day! Then it would seem feasible!
The lowdown on God's showdown is that it never took place as predicted. And how likely is it to occur at all since the most "inspired" believers, living and writing in Jesus' era, including Jesus himself, were certain that it was going to occur in theirs?
Believers in an inspired holy book should wonder why the Bible's error's concerning this matter are so plainly visible. But then, as Arthur Koestler once pointed out, "Faith is a wondrous thing; it is not only capable of moving mountains, but also of making you believe that a herring is a race horse."
Indeed, how can Christianity compete for world-wide approval against the host of faiths and non-faiths that now litter the earth, when its own holy book informs whomever reads it that the race to demonstrate the superior truth of Christianity ended 2000 years ago by Jesus' own admission?
Lewis's point is that Jesus' false prediction isn't so bad because he himself said, in the same breath, that he really didn't know when he was coming back. He didn't confess ignorance about anything else.
is the linked document complete? The last line (mid way down page 5 seems to end mid-thought and without a period).
Not that the document doesn't make your point.
B
Vic,
That's just the point that Stark examines in his forthcoming book. Jesus did NOT profess ignorance in the aforementioned verse. That is a common misreading of Jesus' overall prediction that everything would indeed occur within a generation. The idea was to keep watch not because the prediction was far off, 2,000 years and counting, but because it was so near, within a generation's span of time. Stark demonstrates this in The Human Faces of God.
I think you'll like the book overall as it's not anti-Christian, but anti-fundamentalist. But also presents challenging arguments contra Steve Hays et al, even contra Lewis' interpretations in a number of crucial areas.
Quite. It does stop.
"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33Be on guard! Be alert[f]! You do not know when that time will come. 34It's like a man going away: He leaves his house and puts his servants in charge, each with his assigned task, and tells the one at the door to keep watch."
Given that qualification, it doesn't seem as if the prediction is bounded at "near" or even "far off". "No one knows the day or the hour" rather strikes me as "I do not know". And that seems as if it can come in 2 days from now, 2 years from now, or 2 thousand years from now or... and so on. Considering the magnitude of the event in question, being told to keep on guard and always be ready is sage advice regardless of the uncertainty, even if the uncertainty extended into millenia or larger spans of time.
I've always had trouble with the idea that those events had to come to pass in short order, in part because the character of Christ's teachings seem very tailored for living life on earth-as-we-know-it. Advice on dealing with sinners, with unbelievers, etc, etc.
I'm with you Crude. This whole nonsense seems to flow from overinterpreting "I'm coming soon" & down playing "Nobody knows the day & the hour".
God is an A-temporal Eternal Being it seems to me all future times are "Soon" from His perspective.
"Jesus was a false prophet--So what!"
Whats then left that can still be trusted -- Thats what!
BenYachov said...God is an A-temporal Eternal Being it seems to me all future times are "Soon" from His perspective."
Good day to you, Ben.
Where would you say that leaves the idea of the father the son and the holy spirit ?.Jesus was suggested to be connected very closely with God.Therefore he must have had some idea.Why then wouldnt he say look you have 2000 years or 3000 years to get as many saved as possible , or some such thing.
Im my opinion, it seems more likely when he talked about "soon" that was indeed what he thought.
If Jesus was so closely intouch with God.Why wouldnt he know almost exactly when the time would likely be ?.
"Im my opinion, it seems more likely when he talked about "soon" that was indeed what he thought."
Except He said that He didn't know, nor did anyone but the Father. It's pretty odd to say "Jesus must have known" when He says "I don't know, nor does anyone but the Father."
I feel all this discussion is based on a clearly wrong understanding of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 24.
If you go through that chapter and make note of verses that fall into one of three categories (1) clearly applying to the immediate future, (2) clearly applying to the distant future, and (3) could be either, I think it is clear that most of the chapter can be applied to the immediate future, much of it to both, and very little of it to the far only.
How should we understand this?
To the Jews, there were two ages: the present age, full of difficulties, and the age to come, the messianic age, which would be good. Jesus made clear claims to bring in the new age, the kingdom of God.
But when does the kingdom start, and when does it reach its fruition?
Clearly it began in Jesus' ministry, but equally clearly it won't reach its fruition until the end of the world.
So Jesus' statement about when these things will happen is quite clearly cryptic and ambiguous, because most of "these things" would happen in the near future, and keep on happening until the end, when they would be fully fulfilled.
I think the problem is not with Jesus, but with poor Biblical understanding and exegesis - by christian and unbeliever alike.
UnkleE, poor understanding eh? Then you might want to take a stab at explaining why so many Christians down through the centuries got it wrong. Were/are they just stupid? And you might try to take a stab at why an omniscient God didn't know how to better communicate with his people so that they would get the point. Is your God stupid?
I'm guessing you have not read chapter 7 in my book. Will you?
Crude "Except He said that He didn't know, nor did anyone but the Father. It's pretty odd to say "Jesus must have known" when He says "I don't know, nor does anyone but the Father."
Hi Crude.
Jesus said lots of things evidently.
Some say Jesus and God is really one and the same thing.Jesus Christ is God Incarnate.The holy trinity , you know all that sort of stuff.
Thats a pretty close connection to claim.
Seems kind of slightly strange to me, someone with that kind of (close connection).Would say he dont know?.
If he dont know that.Then what can we be so sure he did know ?.
Whats pretty odd to me is you seem to get upset just over a comment.Its The Holy Spirit working?
I think the latest In Catholic scholarship claims that Jesus had only finite human wisdom and knowledge until he resurrected and got his version 2.0 body and mind--then he supposedly got his full God powers.
Another verse supporting that notion is Luke 2:52 which shows young Jesus as increasing in wisdom. An omniscient God-man would not need to increase in wisdom. Of course, this fits nicely with my own belief that Jesus was just a man.
Isn't it part of e logic of the incarnation that Jesus is fallible. its part of taking on the human perspective.
We don't (or I don't) expect Jesus to always add and substract correctly or have infallible knowledge of the location of the disciples. If you asked him he woudl probably say the earth is the center of the universe.
But this creates a puzzle since if anything is authoritative, the moral teachings of Jesus are. Jesus can be wrong about where Peter is, assuming some sort of Christianity, he can't be wrong about loving your enemies.
So what about prophesy then? Is it more like the moral case or more like the knowing how much wine Peter drank last night.
Maybe you can say this: Jesus can be ignorant, but if so he knows it, and this would fit with the text in question since it looks like Jesus may be hedging his bets.
Human beings make predictions all the time and we are not lying or being false. Even when we turn out to be wrong.
What principled reason is there for denying that some or all of the predictions made by Jesus are of this type?
If we knew that God had foreknowledge or what God's plans were AND we knew when such knowledge was revealed in Jesus' human consciousness, then we would not have a problem. But of course we have no such knowledge.
But there is nothing inconsistent in holding that Jesus is divine, and yet often mistaken about factual claims.
The reason this does not carry over to the moral realm is that while God, I take it, shed omnipotence and omnipotence in becoming human, God did not give up moral perfection.
Anon,
Who's upset? I'm pointing out a flaw in your claim and nothing more. Your response was predicated on what Jesus said, and I pointed out what Jesus also said. Christ's divinity, His being fully human and fully God, are deep and powerful questions, but if we're only going as far as the olivet discourse itself my point stands.
Appeal to limitations on knowledge due to the incarnation would seem to prove too much, no? If Jesus gets off the hook for falsely prophesying on the grounds of human limitations and fallibility, then why can't ordinary non-divine (supposed) prophets of Yahweh make the same appeal in the face of a false prophecy?
It's not just Jesus who got it wrong about the end, by the way. We have Paul and the rest of the NT writers say the same thing. I guess they're all false prophets, too. The whole religion just has no credibility, it seems to me.
Crude said... Anon,
Who's upset? I'm pointing out a flaw in your claim and nothing more. Your response was predicated on what Jesus said, and I pointed out what Jesus also said. Christ's divinity, His being fully human and fully God, are deep and powerful questions, but if we're only going as far as the olivet discourse itself my point stands."
Hi Crude.
Well it seemed you were upset, because you called it odd i would question what Jesus is said to have said.If its odd that i question what Jesus is said to have said.Then there are plenty of odd people around,going by your judgement.And so in my opinion that doesnt make me so very odd at all.
You running some type of dictorship here ?.We have need to be believing everything that Jesus was said to have said , or else you will be calling us out as odd ?.
I dont see how you pointed out any flaw in my claim .I suggest there is a flaw in your thinking that if jesus was said to have said something.Then that settles it,it has to be true.
By those type rules any faith book is simply proved to be true.And then that would be very odd set of rules for humans to live by.
You pointed out nothing i didnt already know that Jesus had said.And in my opinion nothing you said explains why somebody said to be divine and in such a extremely close relationship with the father.Still doesnt know these things,or even be able to give some kind of a round-about idea, about the time thats even close.
If it was said you were supposed to have such a extremely close relationship with your father.Who was telling you he will return to pick people up and sort matters out.Would it be thought odd if i thought it seemed a little strange , if you said you knew almost everything else,but then you said you didnt know at all what time the father would arrive?.You couldnt even give us a round-about idea that was close.
Explain why should i still have such good reason to believe you honestly had this close relationship with your father that you had been claiming you honestly had.
All of a sudden simply saying nobody knows but the father.To me is rather like producing a get out of jail free card.It seems like little more than an excuse.Specially when the person has already made so many other claims about how much he knows about the father!.
This should in the least leave us to wonder a little, how much it can be claimed Jesus did honestly know.
Looks to me like there is an EQUIVOCATION going on here.
In someone gives an opinion, but says they don't know, then they are not acting as a Prophet.
Hence, they are not a false prophet.
And lot of anti theists here are letting their hate for Jesus distort everything they say about him.
After all, that is what the mockers who crucified them, heaped lots of abuse and ridicule on him.
Well it seemed you were upset, because you called it odd i would question what Jesus is said to have said.
That's an interesting metric for "upset".
And no, I said it was odd to say that Jesus must have known when Jesus said "I don't know". If you want to say "Well I think he did know - and he was wrong!", go for it. While we're doing that, I think you know you're wrong in this case, but are ashamed to admit it.
Naturally, your denying this is something I'd expect you to say if I were right about you. Huh, this is a fun way to argue.
Babinski is just spamming advertising for Thom's book.
Lots of plugs for "how great it is".
Well, unless some signivicant excerpts are put up to review, no way I am going to buy one.
How am I supposed to know its great?
By relying no all of Thom's appeals to authority?
Look, he has no advanced degrees. So as John Loftus says, he has no right to be pronouncing on thes subjects.
Crude said.."And no, I said it was odd to say that Jesus must have known when Jesus said "I don't know". If you want to say "Well I think he did know - and he was wrong!", go for it. While we're doing that, I think you know you're wrong in this case, but are ashamed to admit it.
Naturally, your denying this is something I'd expect you to say if I were right about you. Huh, this is a fun way to argue."
"If you want to say "Well I think he did know "
Crude who else did you think was writing the comment ?.Why do i have to specially explain to you everytime like im talking to a child .."Hey Crude by the way, this is only what i think !"
L.o.L ... That would be getting a little odd.You know ,i was hoping you might be a little capable of working some little things out for yourself.
But in future i shall remember just for you! Crude i will need to try to be explaining every single detail all the time.
Anonymous said... Looks to me like there is an EQUIVOCATION going on here.
In someone gives an opinion, but says they don't know, then they are not acting as a Prophet.
Hence, they are not a false prophet.
And lot of anti theists here are letting their hate for Jesus distort everything they say about him.
After all, that is what the mockers who crucified them, heaped lots of abuse and ridicule on him."
Hi Anon.
Benny Hinn should learn this.Throw in ideas here and there, that he is not able to know certain things.
And Benny could also be just like a modern day Jesus.Prophet one moment ,not the next.
And dooms day priests could all have a ball.
They could say this is my opinion the world will end in 6 months, give me your money so i can divide it among the poor.
But when it didnt come to pass, simply claim well look here, we prophets dont know all the father knows, all the time.
What a great lark :)
Anon its got little to do with hate.And everything to do with thinking about matters,and trying to learn to not be like a human sheep.
But you can feel i hate Jesus, if it simply makes you feel better.
Hi Gordon Knight ,good day to you.
I just wanted to explain.Personally i dont at all think of Jesus as simply being some terrible blatant liar.Infact i still very much like much that i have heard about the man.Thats the truth.
I understand people do make honest mistakes and can even feel they are receiving divine messages and guidence etc.
This is why i also feel no hate toward my own family who still belong to an abusive Christian cult, that is publically well known to have even caused very many people much sorrow, pain and hurt.And even caused a number of suicides.
I realize they honestly mean well.I realize they honestly feel they are doing the right thing.
Hope this helps you understand where i stand.
Dear Anon:
I think the best argument against Christianity is the behavior of Christians.
Just today I read of Christian support of insane anti-gay legislation in Uganda. Insane as in genocidal. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129422524&sc=fb&cc=fp
really.
I don't know what you mean by "abuse" but my suspician is that it is grounded in the de-personfication of the "other" be that a muslim, an atheist, a pagan, a gay person, or whatever.
Ironically this de-humanization of the other is precisely what Jesus preached against. We don't see it, but its there. Just TALKING to the woman at the well is a bridge and sign of respect. If Jesus was alive today preaching in Franklin Graham's church he would no doubt replace "Samaritan" with "gay"
or "muslim" or "atheist"
(there were no Richard Dawkins characters wandering about ancient Judea--when Jesus spoke of faith it was TRUST not propositional belief like "God exist")
Its moral insanity. But the insanity is not in the gospel, but in us that use is.
Actually according to the FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA by Ludwig Von Ott when Jesus says he doesn't know the "day or the hour" but only the Father knows that can either mean that the knowledge is not present in his human intellect(but it is present in his divine nature) or that it's not knowledge he is free to disclose.
This is old hat. The Arian Heretics of the 4th century have been using this verse to try to deny the Divinity of Christ long before Atheists found it. Can't you guys come up with something a little more original?
The incarnation mean Jesus has a fully human & a fully divine nature united in a single divine person. I fail to see how logically the finite human nature of Jesus(specifically his human intellect & memory) couldn't in fact be ignorant of some things even thought his divine nature knows all. Thus logically Jesus can say he knows x & doesn't know x & both are true.
This is Chalcedonian Theology 101, it's not hard. Well at least for us Catholics.
Maybe God simply changed his mind.
The incarnation mean Jesus has a fully human & a fully divine nature united in a single divine person. I fail to see how logically the finite human nature of Jesus(specifically his human intellect & memory) couldn't in fact be ignorant of some things even thought his divine nature knows all. Thus logically Jesus can say he knows x & doesn't know x & both are true.
This is Chalcedonian Theology 101, it's not hard. Well at least for us Catholics.
His human brain did not know something that his God mind did? Could he access his God mind any time he wanted to, or was he denied access until after the resurrection?
It my be easy to assert beliefs like this, but it makes no rational sense. The concept of the Trinity defies rationality; one either accepts it as a mystery that must be believed to be "orthodox," or one can reject it completely, as I do.
>His human brain did not know something that his God mind did? Could he access his God mind any time he wanted to, or was he denied access until after the resurrection?
I reply: Rather Christ had three types of knowledge. Divine knowledge, Acquired knowledge, and Infused knowledge. Divine knowledge is self-explanatory. Acquired knowledge is the natural knowledge his human intellect learns over time(how to eat, how to speak, etc). Infused knowledge is knowledge his human intellect receives from his Divine Intellect that he is meant to reveal (i.e. his teachings, doctrines about God etc). Christ did not come to reveal to us the time of the End of Days hence that knowledge was not imparted to his human intellect. As God if he had originally willed to tell us then he would have infused that knowledge into his human intellect. Like I said it’s not hard.
>It my be easy to assert beliefs like this, but it makes no rational sense. The concept of the Trinity defies rationality; one either accepts it as a mystery that must be believed to be "orthodox," or one can reject it completely, as I do.
I reply: I hold to the classic definition of the Trinity as Three Hypostasis that possess the same single Divine Nature. You no doubt believe something silly like 3 gods in one God or three persons in one person. For those of us who have read Frank Sheed’s THEOLOGY & SANITY the Trinity is not a hard concept either.
Rather Christ had three types of knowledge. Divine knowledge, Acquired knowledge, and Infused knowledge. Divine knowledge is self-explanatory. Acquired knowledge is the natural knowledge his human intellect learns over time(how to eat, how to speak, etc). Infused knowledge is knowledge his human intellect receives from his Divine Intellect that he is meant to reveal (i.e. his teachings, doctrines about God etc). Christ did not come to reveal to us the time of the End of Days hence that knowledge was not imparted to his human intellect. As God if he had originally willed to tell us then he would have infused that knowledge into his human intellect. Like I said it’s not hard.
It is amazing how much confident knowledge you have about things you cannot possibly know. If Jesus were the incarnation of God, then you could not begin to understand how his mind worked. I guess that knowledge was infallibly revealed to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church at some point, eh?
It is easy to recite Trinitarian creeds, but not so easy to make sense of them.
That's your response?
Weak.
That's your response?
Weak.
If you say so, Ben.
All you have done is parrot Catholic dogma, which I find very unpersuasive. The Trinity is just an ad hoc rationalization that Christians devised so they could feel that they were not violating the first of the ten commandments.
Maybe God simply changed his mind.And so he wasnt the same yesterday today and tommorow after all.For he needed acquired knowledge that was only learned over time.And Christ did not come to reveal to us the time of the end times.Which is why he mentioned it.It all makes sense.
Maybe God simply changed his mind.And so he wasnt the same yesterday today and tommorow after all.For he needed acquired knowledge that was only learned over time.And Christ did not come to reveal to us the time of the end times.Which is why he mentioned it.It all makes sense.
The reason most believers will reject this viewpoint is that if God changes his mind about things, then he may even change his mind concerning the salvation of the elect. Most Christians don't want to go there.
"It is amazing how much confident knowledge you have about things you cannot possibly know. If Jesus were the incarnation of God, then you could not begin to understand how his mind worked."
I agree with this, Walter. I think it's a very wise point indeed.
Which leads me to my next point....
..."The reason most believers will reject this viewpoint is that if God changes his mind about things, then he may even change his mind concerning the salvation of the elect. "
I agree with this also...which leads me to my next point...
...being a Christian *requires* a sense of humility. What man speaks for God? Who dares to claim with authority that God cannot change his mind?
We Christians do ourselves a disservice by speaking FOR God as if we know. We don't.
We are called to follow. We are called to serve. We are called to witness. We should do those things with a great sense of humility.
All you have done is simply nay say what I have written nothing more. You have responded with nothing substantial. That is hardly persuasive either.
It's like the Monty Python Argument sketch only not as funny.
Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. Yes it is. No it isn't. etc... tedious and without John Cleese's delivery.
All you have done is simply nay say what I have written nothing more. You have responded with nothing substantial. That is hardly persuasive either.
The argument of exactly who and what Jesus was has been the cause of bitter disputes among believers that raged for centuries after Jesus' death. Just because you think these matters have been resolved by Catholic Church Councils does not mean that the matter is truly settled.
All you have stated is some gobbledy-gook Neoplatonic crap about hypostatic unions which says a mouthful but explains nothing. You then referred me to some obscure book written by a Catholic theologian instead of giving your own viewpoint and attempting to explain how Jesus can be completely human with limited, fallible knowledge, while at the same time Jesus has some kind of divine knowledge that he apparently could only access on special occasions, I guess?
It is a waste of time to replay centuries of historical disputes about Jesus' exact nature, so I will let you have the last word on the subject.
Peace.
"The reason most believers will reject this viewpoint is that if God changes his mind about things, then he may even change his mind concerning the salvation of the elect. Most Christians don't want to go there."
Yes Walter. There was just a little satire intended even if it wasnt conveyed succinctly.
Shackleman said... We Christians do ourselves a disservice by speaking FOR God as if we know. We don't.
We are called to follow. We are called to serve. We are called to witness. We should do those things with a great sense of humility."
If Christians know they do not know.Then how can they ever know what it might be they have been called to follow and serve or even witness to?.
I think BenYachov is correct.This type of material is becoming more and more extremely ripe material for use in a Monty Python type episode.
>It is a waste of time to replay centuries of historical disputes about Jesus' exact nature, so I will let you have the last word on the subject.
I reply: Rather it a waste of time for lazy modern Atheists to dig in the trash heaps of history for old arguments that have in fact been long ago defeated. Jesus did not predict an early coming for himself & his "lack of knowledge" of the precise time of the End of Days is unremarkable & has been explained centuries ago. Neither the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox or the Reformers argued over the matter of Chacedonian Christology. Even in modern times the Coptics, Syrians & Assyrian Oriental Churches have come to substantal agreement in these matters.
Like I said it's still not hard.
Rather it a waste of time for lazy modern Atheists to dig in the trash heaps of history for old arguments that have in fact been long ago defeated
For the record, my worldview is closer to that of English Deism than pure atheism, although I often get painted as a "New Atheist." I said that I would give you the last word defending your pagan influenced Trinity, and I am a man of my word ;-)
C,ya
>I said that I would give you the last word defending your pagan influenced Trinity, and I am a man of my word ;-)
I reply: No wonder you where confused. I was arguing Christology not Trinitarianism. The number of Hypostases who possess the One Divine Nature has little to do with the Incarnation. I supose one could in theory be a Modalist & still hold a Chacedonian Christology. But as I have shown a Chacedonian Christology solves the difficulty of Jesus being both the Omnicient God & being ignorant of the Date of the End of Days.
It's still not hard.
Now I have the last word.
Now I have the last word.
Feels good doesn't it?!
Now it does.
Post a Comment