I think there is no getting around the fact that Jesus nowhere predicts the apocalyptic end within the lifetime of some of his followers. He certainly did not predict the fall of the Roman Empire. Same with John the Baptist. Same with Paul. Jesus rather appears to have affirmed the authority of Caesar over all that Caesar had authority over.

The best you can say is that, according to the gospel writers, Jesus predicted the fall of the Temple in Jerusalem. Critical scholars of the New Testament will of course say that Jesus living in the 30s did not predict the fall of the Temple because they don’t want a Jesus who makes as few accurate predictions as possible. I trust the gospel writers in the presentation of a Jesus who did as reflecting the historical figure of Jesus. But the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem can happen without the end coming, and without the Roman Empire tumbling down. God can bring down judgement on the Temple and the Temple system in favour of Jesus without the Roman Empire falling.

The fall of the Roman Empire was important for Jesus’ disciples. Even if Jesus wasn’t advocating the formation of a Jewish armed force to bring down the Romans (and he didn’t), if Jesus had thought the end would come the Romans would fall he could have given his disciples comfort by saying God would bring about the fall of the Romans with heavenly forces. Jesus would have gained more followers if he had done that given that he taught that his disciples would outlive him. The point is that Jesus didn’t teach that God would bring about the fall of the Romans.

The canonical gospels of ** you do not have permission to see this link **, Matthew and John all record Jesus saying something similar to this:

‘You always have the poor with you; and whenever you want, you can do something good for them. But you won’t always have me.’

Here Jesus is predicting a situation in which the poor will exist for a long time (indicated by the first ‘always’ above) after he is gone (that he will be gone from them is indicated by ‘you won’t always have me’). Not just within the lifetime of his followers but for as long as humankind exists and for as long as it is the case that the end has not come. For Jesus, there would never be a situation in which there were no poor people before the apocalyptic end comes. On this view, only God bring about the end to poverty. In fact poverty may get worse in the meantime before the end. The poor could well get poorer. The gap between the richest and poorest could expand. But, for Jesus, his followers were to consider helping to bring people out of poverty by doing good for them whenever they saw an opportunity to do so.

Jesus did not say to his followers that they would have the poor for a *short* amount of time, but that they will have him for an even shorter amount of time. Always is not a word indicating a short amount of time but rather all (in Greek the root word is ‘pan-‘) time. We have no record of Jesus ever saying that his would have the poor among them for another few years but that they would only have Jesus for another few weeks/months. To use the language of soon, Jesus is never recorded as having said: ‘Very soon you will no longer have the poor among you, but even sooner you will not have me’.

spiker said

ask21771 said
is there a chance revelations is a prediction of the far future

If it is you couldn’t tell by Christian commentary. Whatever, events are happening are proof positive it is happening NOW until such events pass with no bang as it were.

But then we get the same drum beat about another series of events which, forgetting they made any other predictions- are proof positive it is happening NOW. rinse and repeat ad nauseum.

In the 70s it was popular to say revelation was about the cold war. It was either Edgar Weisenett or Hal Lindsay who even gave specifics on how the soviets would start it, but when Russian Communism collapsed without a war, do you think they were chastened by their failure. Heck no! They just moved on to the next crisis dejour. In the mean time people who believed them gave away their property, homes etc.

Today, without even a sense of their history of failure, ISIS is the new trigger. Until they’re not.  

This is a reflection the popular mistake of Christians claiming to know when Jesus explicitly said he didn’t know. Unfortunately, some Christians are not comfortable with leaving at ‘don’t know’. Like Jesus of Nazareth, I am perfectly comfortable. I have never made any such predictions. I don’t think the Islamic State is proof positive that Jesus is coming in 2016. I can’t rule out Jesus coming in 2016 but I think anyone who says Jesus is coming in 2016 is overreaching. It is not justified. From my perspective, the only justifiable attitude is ‘I don’t know’ with regard to the apocalyptic end. I am not in the Harold Camping school of thought.

ask21771 said 

JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION IS THERE PROOF THAT REVELATIONS WAS ALREADY SUPPOSED TO HAVE HAPPENED!

You are missing the point. Prophets always came with a message for their own days. But that doesn’t mean people reading the prophets well after the day of the prophet can’t say a prophetic message applies to their day (think Isaiah 53 and early Christians). Does Revelation (not Revelations) contain apocalyptic imagery describing first century events? Yes, certainly. I agree with Ehrman when he says that portions of Revelation are clearly about Rome and the Roman Emperor Nero. It is clear that the last chapters of Revelation have not happened yet (I’m thinking of the no crying/mourning, no curse, no death, no night, no [hunger or] thirst aspects). Humankind is still waiting for that to come.

Stephen said
Colin opined

But you are begging the question (assuming what needs to be proven) if you say that Jesus in holding that there will one day be an apocalyptic end, that he therefore held to an apocalyptic end within the lifetime of his followers.

Well I would be if there wasn’t evidence, both textual and historic, that the apocalyptic viewpoint was the earliest part of the tradition. Actually examine the gospels.  The apocalyptic point of view is gradually mitigated the further into the first century you go although never completely submerged even in John.  Compare the authentic letters of Paul with the later forgeries.  Paul is fully apocalyptic. (The earliest document in the NT is Paul explaining why the end hadn’t come before members of the community started dying.  Why would that be so upsetting if they didn’t already have some idea the end was nigh?)  His “disciples” much less so.  Consider John the Baptist. Consider the Essenes.  Really, to interpret Jesus as anything other than as an apocalypticist requires an extraordinary level of myopia, or the possession of a prior faith commitment, as the case may be.

I agree that privileging the poor was in the earliest part of the tradition; that was Jesus’ natural constituency. 

 

ask asked

is revelataions[sic]a prediction for the future YES OR NO!!!

Sorry but to get that kind of inside information requires you first bring unto me thine tithes and offerings.  

You are using what I would describe as tactics of delegitimisation to rule out views that hold to an end that is nigh/soon and yet possibly 7000-144000 years later from consideration as ‘full’/’true’ Jewish apocalypticism. Give me a authoritative first century source which says ‘This is full Jewish apocalypticism: any view which espouses that the end will come in 40-70 years. Anyone who says the end is nigh and yet possibly 7000-144,000 years from now is not a true full Jewish apocalypticist. The one who teaches such things is a deceiver, false teacher, and a child whose mother and father is a snake.’ Ever heard of ‘no true Scotsman’?

col8lok8 said

Stephen said
Colin opined

But you are begging the question (assuming what needs to be proven) if you say that Jesus in holding that there will one day be an apocalyptic end, that he therefore held to an apocalyptic end within the lifetime of his followers.

Well I would be if there wasn’t evidence, both textual and historic, that the apocalyptic viewpoint was the earliest part of the tradition. Actually examine the gospels.  The apocalyptic point of view is gradually mitigated the further into the first century you go although never completely submerged even in John.  Compare the authentic letters of Paul with the later forgeries.  Paul is fully apocalyptic. (The earliest document in the NT is Paul explaining why the end hadn’t come before members of the community started dying.  Why would that be so upsetting if they didn’t already have some idea the end was nigh?)  His “disciples” much less so.  Consider John the Baptist. Consider the Essenes.  Really, to interpret Jesus as anything other than as an apocalypticist requires an extraordinary level of myopia, or the possession of a prior faith commitment, as the case may be.

I agree that privileging the poor was in the earliest part of the tradition; that was Jesus’ natural constituency. 

 

ask asked

is revelataions[sic]a prediction for the future YES OR NO!!!

Sorry but to get that kind of inside information requires you first bring unto me thine tithes and offerings.  

You are using what I would describe as tactics of delegitimisation to rule out views that hold to an end that is nigh/soon and yet possibly 7000-144000 years later from consideration as ‘full’/’true’ Jewish apocalypticism. Give me a authoritative first century source which says ‘This is full Jewish apocalypticism: any view which espouses that the end will come in 40-70 years. Anyone who says the end is nigh and yet possibly 7000-144,000 years from now is not a true full Jewish apocalypticist. The one who teaches such things is a deceiver, false teacher, and a child whose mother and father are snakes.’ Ever heard of ‘no true Scotsman’?

Adding to my previous post … There is no such manual on what should or should not be considered full Jewish apocalypticism. There are just cases upon cases upon cases of Jewish apocalypticists (John the Baptist) and Jewish apocalyptic communities (the supposed Qumran community of Essenes). That Jesus held a thoroughly Jewish apocalyptic worldview doesn’t mean he held to an apocalyptic end within the lifetime of his followers regardless of misquotes of single verses regarding not tasting death and the generation not passing away. Yes Jesus said the ‘some of you standing with me won’t taste death until’ verses (referring to the Transfiguration) and ‘this generation won’t pass away’ verses (next to the ‘my words won’t pass away’ and ‘do not know the time about which such things are to occur by’ verses). These verses are found in the same early sources (they are not quotes only found in the Johannine gospel). As far as I can see, not passing away can be fully explained in the apocalyptic lens with the apocalyptic idea of the inescapability of the end judgement. No should think they can die and by doing that pass away (escape) from the judgement to come. No, they can’t pass away. All dead will be raised. None shall pass away (escape) from the judgement by dying.

You seem to be saying with an unacceptably high level of speculation that if we had a surviving gospel earlier than Mark we would find ‘some of you will not taste death’ verses and ‘this generation shall not pass away’ verses without the almost adjacent  ‘my words will not pass away’ and ‘no one knows’ and Transfiguration verses. We don’t have a written gospel earlier than Mark. We do of course have Paul’s letters (quite probably but not certainly earlier than Mark) which, in my view, teach the end is soon, yes, but in a way which does not involve Paul falsely predicting he would still be alive to see it fully come. I don’t come to the sources with ‘failed prediction’ or ‘true prediction’ coloured glasses. I can see Paul’s notion of we who remain as perfectly consistent and interchangeable with ‘those in Christ who remain’ (in Christ is very Pauline) made in a sense without Paul including himself. Of course Paul thought it was possible the end would come while he was alive. In my opinion, no follower of Jesus was or is justified in ruling that possibility out.