Was Jesus wrong or mistaken, or are we?

En Hakkore

Well-known member
It is those Evangelical and fundamentalist style of academies which I'm referring to. Specifically the dispensational Bible colleges. They typically have their professors agree to a doctoral statement which mimics or represents their perspectives.

So if by chance you were seminary is called an academy I can see where you would be offended. But I was just using your use of the word academy to apply to colleges and seminaries which I knew used this technique of agreeing to a set of doctrinal beliefs I also think that it occurs in Baptist spheres.
That you brought it up at all assumes it was directed at me, otherwise there was no point in raising it... I am clearly no conservative Christian or evangelical. I'm glad we can at least agree on where these doctrinal statements exist in the academy and it would also seem we are both opposed to them, though perhaps for different reasons.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Tonyg

Member
and am a researcher currently affiliated with a mainstream multidenominational Christian theological seminary committed to interfaith dialogue and the peaceful coexistence of all people, religious and secular.
Yup...... But how can you consider yourself a part of a Christian theological seminary and then come and state your opinion that Jesus was wrong about his statements of the olivet discourse?

Perhaps there are perspectives which you and your circle of scholars have not considered!

That's why this is a good discussion and a good point for Hillsboro mom to bring up.
 

Tonyg

Member
It is nothing of the sort... it is taking a sledgehammer to the text and pounding it (your words, not mine) until it says what you want. At least you admitted paraphrasing... the next step would be to acknowledge that by doing so you are ignoring what the text is actually saying.
Pounding the text is not taking a sledgehammer to it. I think you owe me an apology for misrepresenting the intent. Inductive study pounds by continuously asking questions of a passage or chapter or a book which questions can help and determine any insights and meanings that aren't directly evident. I'll see if I can find a quote from a hermeneutics resource that uses the word pounds but it was intended to represent a persistent Inquisition into the text. That's far from taking a sledgehammer to motor into what I think it says. And as mentioned before the apostles Peter and Steven both acknowledge that Deuteronomy 18 was being fulfilled in their time frame. Peter gave warnings in Acts 3 and again in 2nd Peter 1 through 3 of the prophesied judgment to come upon those who would not receive the words of this new prophet it is that understanding and knowledge when applied to those similar words in Deuteronomy five which help clarify its meaning.

Back to the olivet discourse!
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Yup...... But how can you consider yourself a part of a Christian theological seminary and then come and state your opinion that Jesus was wrong about his statements of the olivet discourse?
That "opinion" is backed by a contextually-sound exegesis, no matter how uncomfortable that may make (most) Christians.

Perhaps there are perspectives which you and your circle of scholars have not considered!
I haven't polled my colleagues on this question (nor have I any intention of doing so), but I can't imagine there are many (if any) of them that would disagree with it being a sound interpretation within a first-century Jewish milieu even if they struggled with the implications of it on a personal level.

That's why this is a good discussion and a good point for Hillsboro mom to bring up.
Another point on which we agree...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Tonyg

Member
An example of inductive study as it pertains to the olivet discourse is readily apparent.

Jesus declared that the sun would be darkened,, the Stars would fall from heaven, and the Moon would not give its light.

If one uses the literal hermeneutic which is a common practice among many, we would say that there's no historical record of those occurrences in the first century,.

But using inductive or simple Inquisition we ask what could Jesus have meant by those phrases. Then we would begin a search of other uses of those words and the old testament or the New testament. We would ask the spirit for wisdom and guidance as we made those searches.

Eventually we would come to passages such as Isaiah 13 and Isaiah 51 where the same exact words and ideas are used to convey the end of a religious administration.

And Isaiah 13 it's particularly spelled out for us. In the beginning of the chapter he says a prophecy against babylon. at the end of the chapter or towards the end of the chapter he says for God will raise up the needs against Babylon for her sins or some similar wording.

The sun moon and stars are references to the religious leaders of Babylon and/or the idea that the burning of the city would obscure those heavenly bodies.

Did those things happen in the first century? Yes both those things happened in the first century. The religious leaders of Judea fell by the Roman sword or by their own sword. And the smoke from the burning City and Temple did obscure and cloud the sun moon and stars from sight.

By applying a literal hermeneutic which is common among the Bible college movements though taught against in their hermeneutic classes, we would think that the physical sun moon and stars are in topic.

By applying a literary / grammatical /historical hermeneutic and inductive study techniques we come to the conclusion that these things did indeed happen in the first century, the same as they happened to the Babylonians several centuries earlier.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
I'll see if I can find a quote from a hermeneutics resource that uses the word pounds but it was intended to represent a persistent Inquisition into the text.
This is no better, perhaps even worse as I would then move from the sledgehammer analogy to that of torturing the text to make it say what you want. You do know what the Inquisition was, don't you?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Tonyg

Member
Another example of inductive study as it applies to Matthew 24:1-3 especially verse 3.

A literal reading especially of the King James would cause one to believe that the disciples were asking about Jesus coming at the end of the world.

By studying the Greek words, by consulting Greek lexicons and dictionaries we come to consider that the end of the world is not in question as Robert's or Vincent's word studies expressed. Quoting them previously, maybe 20 or 30 posts ago, the quote in question openly stated that the end of a world was never in consideration by the apostles but rather an end of an age.

Thus, the subsequent inductive question would ask what age were the apostles and disciples asking about.

Were they still of the Jewish unbelieving millennial mindset where there was still the end of this age and a coming eternal age or whatever you suspect was in the unbelieving Jewish mind.

Or were the apostles of the mindset that they were already beginning to live in the eternal age which had been prophesied to come through shiloh, a prophet like moses, messiah, emmanuel, one head from Hosea one, two, King david, one Shepherd, and Elias as well as likely others.


Persistent inductive study would come to note that an end of the Mosaic covenant Nation (age) had been prophesied right when Moses had given the covenant which formed the temporary nation. It would also note that Peter had stated that all the prophets had spoken of these days in which they were living.

Further inductive study would indeed uncover the fact that the apostles were told by Jesus that Moses spoke of Jesus, which would either refer to Shiloh and Genesis 49 or a prophet like unto Moses in Deuteronomy 18.

So as evident in Acts 3:24 through 26 in Acts 7, the apostles were well aware that the prophesied new prophet had come and many of the people who remained loyal to the older way of Moses would be required of their lives in the generation of the new prophet. That is what Peter is warning in Acts 3:24 through 26.

Thus it's quite logical and very reasonable to consider and theorize that the three apostles were asking Jesus in Matt 24:3; 3 parts of one time. When would he come in presence to destroy the temple and publicly end that age? which age had;already been internally ended within them.

For me the theory has so many substantiated and supporting passages and information that it is well beyond a theory and into a theorem.

Though it might be difficult for some to accept, understand and believe, Jesus was not mistaken and all those things did indeed occur within the generation of his disciples.
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member
This is no better, perhaps even worse as I would then move from the sledgehammer analogy to that of torturing the text to make it say what you want. You do know what the Inquisition was, don't you?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
That's funny. Using the word Inquisition because I use it as a hermeneutic tool.!!!

Do you and your peers as you would call them ascribe or affirm a literal hermeneutic? As contrast with a literary hermeneutic?

It is the literal hermeneutic that has shown itself to be the source of much, much error. I didn't think anyone used that literal reading of scripture anymore.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
An example of inductive study as it pertains to the olivet discourse is readily apparent.

Jesus declared that the sun would be darkened,, the Stars would fall from heaven, and the Moon would not give its light.

If one uses the literal hermeneutic which is a common practice among many, we would say that there's no historical record of those occurrences in the first century,.

But using inductive or simple Inquisition we ask what could Jesus have meant by those phrases. Then we would begin a search of other uses of those words and the old testament or the New testament. We would ask the spirit for wisdom and guidance as we made those searches.

Eventually we would come to passages such as Isaiah 13 and Isaiah 51 where the same exact words and ideas are used to convey the end of a religious administration.

And Isaiah 13 it's particularly spelled out for us. In the beginning of the chapter he says a prophecy against babylon. at the end of the chapter or towards the end of the chapter he says for God will raise up the needs against Babylon for her sins or some similar wording.

The sun moon and stars are references to the religious leaders of Babylon and/or the idea that the burning of the city would obscure those heavenly bodies.

Did those things happen in the first century? Yes both those things happened in the first century. The religious leaders of Judea fell by the Roman sword or by their own sword. And the smoke from the burning City and Temple did obscure and cloud the sun moon and stars from sight.

By applying a literal hermeneutic which is common among the Bible college movements though taught against in their hermeneutic classes, we would think that the physical sun moon and stars are in topic.

By applying a literary / grammatical /historical hermeneutic and inductive study techniques we come to the conclusion that these things did indeed happen in the first century, the same as they happened to the Babylonians several centuries earlier.
There is nothing in the Olivet discourse to suggest these events in the sky were intended in some allegorical sense... nothing else before or after is allegorical, to invoke it for these verses is idiosyncratic. Incidentally, the stars fall rather than become obscured (see bold underlined section above in tension with earlier correct claim that they fall). Mark may very well be culling imagery from Isaiah, but there is no more reason to think the celestial bodies there are allegorical than here... that these cataclysmic events didn't happen at the time of Babylon's overthrow is no more evidence that the prophet intended something else than Jesus did in the gospel text under consideration. Your "inductive" method follows a plain reading of the text that yields an understanding that does not correspond to reality... instead of accepting this, as I do, you look for any which way to rescue the text -- sorry, this is not how scholars go about their work; above is displayed the hermeneutic of those with faith commitments that prevent them from accepting any error in their sacred texts.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
That's funny.
The sledgehammer and Inquisition analogies -- both deriving from your own turn of phrases -- were intended somewhat humorously, both aimed at showing that the method employed is flawed. These texts are not difficult to understand and their authors mean what they say... paraphrasing or now allegorizing them because the plain reading is not consistent with your interpretation is a serious exegetical misstep.

Do you and your peers as you would call them ascribe or affirm a literal hermeneutic? As contrast with a literary hermeneutic?

It is the literal hermeneutic that has shown itself to be the source of much, much error. I didn't think anyone used that literal reading of scripture anymore.
I think you'll find that biblical scholars are sensitive to genre and factor in non-literal genres to interpretation where applicable... there is nothing allegorical here, however: the warring nations are literal, the earthquakes are literal, the famines are literal, the beatings in synagogues are literal, testifying before governor and kings is literal, betrayals by family members are literal, the desolating sacrilege is literal, the flee to the mountains is literal, the false messiahs and false prophets are literal, the celestial events are literal, the coming of the Son of Man in the clouds is literal, the gathering of the elect by angels is literal --- all of these are predicted to take place before that generation passed away. To suggest only the bold underlined portion is allegorical is not sound exegesis.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Tonyg

Member
The sledgehammer and Inquisition analogies -- both deriving from your own turn of phrases -- were intended somewhat humorously, both aimed at showing that the method employed is flawed
How does re-using words employed to exaggeratingly describe a system show that that system is wrong? It doesn't. So it's your non-inductive / literal emphasized opinion over a inductive, literary (literal) grammatical historical method.?

I think you'll find that biblical scholars are sensitive to genre and factor in non-literal genres to interpretation where applicable..
Let us not forget such things as conversational context, the mind and heart of the original audience, purpose, theme and so forth, just to name a few..

As we would acknowledge Jesus wasn't speaking in conversation to a Greek or English audience. He was simply explaining in private conversation, the answer to their particular question about his statement, which statement was a response to their proclamations about the magnificence of the temple.

Had Jesus previously used hyperbole and allegoric or symbolic language in communication with his disciples?

For one quick instance, what about referring to himself as Elias?

So, you can refer to your method and opinion as scholarly but is it? No, it's showing itself unscholarly.

And again there are multitudes of scholars with letters after their names supporting this understanding. Jesus was simply using the same language Isaiah employees to describe the medes conquest of Babylon, to now refer to the Roman invasion of Judea and conquest of jerusalem.

That you don't understand or accept the use of those words in Isaiah 13 is a different issue. If hyperboly and allegoric or symbolic language isn't permitted to be used in prophecy such as Isaiah 13, then when is it used.??

Again the weakness of your reliance on your self called scholarly hermeneutic is revealing itself.
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member
This is called reading a text within its own cultural and historical context... it is a basic step in sound biblical exegesis.
It also ignores the first century Jewish/Christian concept that the age to come was the New covenant age of Christ.

If the Jews were right about a present age and age to come thinking, then they who disbelieved were wrong or in rejection about what they expected in the age to come.
Sadly part of Christianity is still under the same rejection of present kingdom and future expectation.
 
Last edited:

Tonyg

Member
I "am a researcher currently affiliated with a mainstream multidenominational Christian theological seminary committed to interfaith dialogue and the peaceful coexistence of all people, religious and secular" was in any way unclear?
Could you name the seminary? Does it pronounce itself as Christian?

If it's goal is to harmonize religions then it's understandable about how and why you've come to your opinion and teaching on the topic of the olivet. To harmonize the religions the one must likely denounce Christ as authoritative and truthful.

Though there is room for coexistence at least from the Christian perspective, the Christian would consider one in belief and one in disbelief of Jesus as God incarnate.

Places such as Christ stating that all authority is given unto him in heaven on Earth would be rejected by the others.

A perfect example is this matter of the new prophet of Deuteronomy 18.

Some early Islamic documents and some present Islamic theologians claim that Moses was referring to Muhammad when he spoke these words.

Judaism would not acknowledge Christ as the prophet spoken by Moses because they would recognize that the vocal announcement from heaven would usher in new words which would mortify the words from Mount Sinai and the nation it formed.

This might be all for today and possibly for a while. Perhaps a few others might join in and I might offer this to a few of my colleagues, but I have no guarantee of their coming to help you understand.

One might even consider that certain groups formed Islamic doctrine and thought of his being the prophet spoken of by Moses in order to deflect that Jesus was that prophet, in order to reject the end of the Mosaic covenant Nation by the establishment of new laws of God/Christ,.
 
Last edited:

En Hakkore

Well-known member
How does re-using words employed to exaggeratingly describe a system show that that system is wrong?
I have no idea what it is you're trying to say/ask here.

your non-inductive / literal emphasized opinion over a inductive, literary (literal) grammatical historical method.
As it regards your "method", I believe what you're trying to convey is that you use (or think you use) the historical-grammatical method, which is basically a Christianized knock-off of the historical-critical method since the results of the latter are incongruent with Christian faith as it has traditionally been understood. Instead of rethinking (not abandoning) those beliefs, the method itself is unjustifiably questioned and replaced with one that yields "better" results, namely support for whatever faith propositions the interpreter approaches the text with. This is no way to approach a document if one is interested in what the original author intended to convey...

As we would acknowledge Jesus wasn't speaking in conversation to a Greek or English audience. He was simply explaining in private conversation, the answer to their particular question about his statement, which statement was a response to their proclamations about the magnificence of the temple.
The author, however, is writing in Greek to a Greek-speaking/reading Gentile audience (confining ourselves for the moment to the gospel of Mark) about an historical figure (namely Jesus) who is diegetically speaking to an inner circle of his disciples, presumably in Aramaic. You can read the former and suppose you are hearing words as they left the lips of Jesus, but to do so would be methodologically unsound... and this can be demonstrated by a quick comparison of the parallels in Matthew and Luke, which contain both subtle and not-so-subtle differences when compared to Mark and each other --- what the historical Jesus said must be reconstructed from these sources and remain a matter of probability rather than certainty. What Jesus as a character in a particular gospel does or says may be quite different from what the historical Jesus probably did or said.

So, you can refer to your method and opinion as scholarly but is it? No, it's showing itself unscholarly.
You are welcome to your opinion, however uninformed it happens to be... my method, incidentally, is called historical criticism --- it is the primary approach of contemporary biblical scholars and includes a number of subsidiary methods such as form, source and redaction criticisms.

And again there are multitudes of scholars with letters after their names supporting this understanding.
Perhaps you would be so kind as to cite one who has published in a respectable academic venue within the past few decades...

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
It also ignores the first century Jewish/Christian concept that the age to come was the New covenant age of Christ.
The historical Jesus and his contemporaries were not Christians, but Jews... by merging these religious identities in the way you have reveals the anachronistic nature of the framework you are imposing on the text.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Could you name the seminary?
I could, but I have no intention of doing so... I keep my outside/academic life and casual posting here completely separate, I always have and always will.

Does it pronounce itself as Christian?

If it's goal is to harmonize religions then it's understandable about how and why you've come to your opinion and teaching on the topic of the olivet. To harmonize the religions the one must likely denounce Christ as authoritative and truthful.

Though there is room for coexistence at least from the Christian perspective, the Christian would consider one in belief and one in disbelief of Jesus as God incarnate.
You seem to be conflating my position with that of the academic institution with which I am currently affiliated... they are not the same. Nor is interfaith dialogue an attempt to "harmonize religions" as you suggest, it rather acknowledges, respects and celebrates differences in religious beliefs and even in no religious beliefs.

This might be all for today and possibly for a while. Perhaps a few others might join in and I might offer this to a few of my colleagues, but I have no guarantee of their coming to help you understand.
You're welcome to summon the cavalry, but I understand your position perfectly well... and reject it as methodologically flawed and thus erroneous.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Tonyg

Member
What Jesus as a character in a particular gospel does or says may be quite different from what the historical Jesus probably did or said.
And it might be quite similar! Or very similar with only a few different nuances, as noted which are actually good to verify the originality of the apostle.

That they wrote in Greek May equally indicate the end of the local language due to the end of its nation and the global/universal audience of the reader.
And yes I would be quite aware of that the words are sometimes read and interpreted differently than the intent of Jesus when he spoke them in Aramaic. Understanding original intent is the goal of inductive study.

But that applies to your analysis and interpretation as equally as mine. That's why I brought up the conversational context. Jesus isn't speaking to a global population, though his words are recorded that we can observe what he spoke to his disciples.

The same situation occurs in John 14:3. Multitudes of persons and scholars with several letters after their names have declared that John 14:3 is proof text for a future return of Christ and some interpret it to also apply to a rapture.

He says I go and prepare a place for you and if I go, will come again and receive you onto myself.

Jesus isn't declaring these words oto a corporal body of the church in a future time.

He is talking to Peter in the continuation of a conversation that began in chapter 13. He is comforting Peter, anticipating his sadness when he goes through the crucifixion and leaves them.. But he says that he is going to the father to prepare a place and that after he goes he will come and receive him to himself. I won't get into the full explanation as it involves reference to to verses in ch 13-17, and dan 7.

But the fulfillment of his returning to Peter and the disciples need not go further than the evening of the resurrection when after ascending to the father it appeared to them and welcome them to embrace him as he embraced them.

This hearing of jesus's promised return and receiving Peter to himself would have been particularly important to Peter to hear as a bitter betrayal by him had been foretold concerning him.
 

Tonyg

Member
The historical Jesus and his contemporaries were not Christians, but Jews... by merging these religious identities in the way you have reveals the anachronistic nature of the framework you are imposing on the text.
Yes they were jews, but they were also the first Christians. They were called that first at Antioch I believe. so they were the first ones to experience the new age to come!!!
 

Tonyg

Member
I think you're getting a little defensive in always proclaiming that my interpretations are erroneous when yours could be equally erroneous.

Yes, the historical critical method is the foundation for the historical grammatical / literal interpretation that was taught by a Terry and RAM and likely many others. It was applying the Bible to previously declared standards of interpretation which as you know was referred to as the historical critical method. But the word literal has taken on a meaning of reading word for word verbatim rather than original meaning of the word literal to mean considering all the literary constructs and factors of the text in question.

For one you mentioned the genre of literature. And yet you ignore the prophetic genre of Isaiah 13 which prophetic genre includes if not demands the probability of allegory, symbolic and hyperbolic language.

When one cannot objectively defend their stance against analysis, it's common and easy to get offensive towards the person or claim their method rather than the issue at hand is flawed.

Does your School or discipline of hermetic not teach that hyperbolic or symbolic language is to be considered especially in prophecy.??

Can you direct me to a website that refers and teaches the tenants of this historical/critical method?

I can point to several websites which discuss inductive study and a historical grammatical literary of interpretation.

You claim to use a critical analysis, but mock the use of the word Inquisition.


From your denial of Jesus as anything other than a historical teacher, and having interacted with persons from other faiths before, I have suspicions about your background religion as to whether it is Christian or other,

That is part of the reason about asking about your seminary and whether or not it was labeled as christian.

We may have limited time in the future for interaction and dialogue.

I believe I said my piece on Matthew 24 and other topics. I'll see if I can find a good book on the olivet. But I have a suspicion that you would analyze and criticize the authors academic standards and qualifications no matter who that author would be, even GOD himself.

There is a fellow doing a extensive video series on YouTube on the olivet. I agree with some of those points but perhaps not all.
 
Last edited:

Timtofly

Member
don't want to belittle your education and understanding but I think this is commonly referred to as covenant theology. If you don't understand that this age in which the apostles were living was still part of the Mosaic covenant age and the age to come was referred to as the kingdom of Christ age or the New covenant age, being begun at that time, then I'm quite puzzled.
It was Paul an educated Jew that still claimed an age to come in the NT. Paul saw the continuation of the Covenant in the growing church. It was Peter who actually lived with Christ, who could not understand where Paul was coming from, because Peter was not indoctrinated in academia, but Christ and the Holy Spirit.

However Peter did not claim the church was the age to come and deny a physical Kingdom for a spiritual one, himself. Peter in knowing Jesus and Peter's denial of the Cross (at first) should be self explanatory, no? The Resurrection of Christ changed Peter's view of a new age and and earthly Kingdom, but it would be postponed, not a natural realization of the church itself.

Paul was coming from the point of Jewish education. Peter was coming from being taught by Jesus Christ.

Neither of them deny a coming age. The age to come was not their focus, but a thriving church in relation to the Covenant itself. The Covenant that still postponed an earthly Kingdom in an age yet to come. Why do some deny that both taught an age to come, even though they (Peter and Paul) did not see fit to describe that age? There was a good reason not to put emphasis on an age to come. The church had to get through the great tribulation of many generations in the current on going Covenant age.


The Cross changed the after life more than the Covenant age. Why is that hard to grasp? The church was freed from Abraham's bosom in the domain of hell, and allowed to enter the heavenly Paradise, a city not built by human hands. That was the promise, that physical death allowed entrance immediately and no more waiting under the earth. It was not about judgment on physical Israel. It was about being alive in Christ. The vineyard of the earth was taken from Israel as Stewards and handed to the church. Now 1990 years later the church is facing the same judgment as Israel, and all the church can do today is point fingers at 70AD Israel.

Is the church trying to ignore her own condition and concentrate on a totally irrelevant historical event written down from a non church perspective, and totally missing from God's Word? Why has this event even been conflated into Scripture? The event of the church today giving account to God is far more pressing than Israel 1990 years ago. In the Words of Christ, "Let the dead bury the dead". The church is full of dead people reliving the past.
 
Top