Albert Schweitzer - Jesus thought the world was about to end

  • Thread starter Thread starter StMikhael
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

StMikhael

Guest
Which of course means Jesus was mistaken, which concludes He was not God.

From Wikipedia (only using this a springboard for my question):
He noted that in the gospel of Mark, Jesus speaks of a “tribulation”, with his coming in the clouds with great power and glory" (St Mark), and states when it will happen: “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (St Matthew, 24:34) (or, “have taken place” (Luke 21:32)): “All these things shall come upon this generation” (Matthew 23:36). “There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28) (or, “until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark 9:1); or, “till they see the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:27).)

My question is, how is this refuted in modern theology and how was it refuted in ancient times?

On face value, a clear and concise reading of the text, it does indeed appear Schweitzer makes a strong point.

I know this (my question) is nothing new. What I am attempting to discern in my post is; are the arguments against Schweitzers view strong, or are they glossed over with simple yet nonconvincing refutations.

Thanks in advance.
 
Hasty generalization. Being wrong about one thing wouldn’t necessarily imply someone’s wrong about everything. Even if Jesus was talking about the actual end of the world, it by no means makes him automatically not God.

The key thing is that a lot of this could just as easily refer to the Ascension.
 
StMikhael said:
Which of course means Jesus was mistaken, which concludes He was not God.

From Wikipedia (only using this a springboard for my question):
He noted that in the gospel of Mark, Jesus speaks of a “tribulation”, with his coming in the clouds with great power and glory" (St Mark), and states when it will happen: “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (St Matthew, 24:34) (or, “have taken place” (Luke 21:32)): “All these things shall come upon this generation” (Matthew 23:36). “There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28) (or, “until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark 9:1); or, “till they see the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:27).)

My question is, how is this refuted in modern theology and how was it refuted in ancient times?

On face value, a clear and concise reading of the text, it does indeed appear Schweitzer makes a strong point.

I know this (my question) is nothing new. What I am attempting to discern in my post is; are the arguments against Schweitzers view strong, or are they glossed over with simple yet nonconvincing refutations.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Read David Currie’s “What Jesus Really Said About the End of the World.” he specifically addresses Albert Schweitzer’s interpretation. Currie uses Catholic tradition and the Early Church Fathers to who lived right after the Apostles and who were disciples of the Apostles to clarify what is going on with this statement because it is often misunderstood.
 
StMikhael said:
Which of course means Jesus was mistaken, which concludes He was not God.

From Wikipedia (only using this a springboard for my question):
He noted that in the gospel of Mark, Jesus speaks of a “tribulation”, with his coming in the clouds with great power and glory" (St Mark), and states when it will happen: “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (St Matthew, 24:34) (or, “have taken place” (Luke 21:32)): “All these things shall come upon this generation” (Matthew 23:36). “There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28) (or, “until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark 9:1); or, “till they see the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:27).)

My question is, how is this refuted in modern theology and how was it refuted in ancient times?

On face value, a clear and concise reading of the text, it does indeed appear Schweitzer makes a strong point.

I know this (my question) is nothing new. What I am attempting to discern in my post is; are the arguments against Schweitzers view strong, or are they glossed over with simple yet nonconvincing refutations.

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
The general understanding is that Jesus was speaking of two separate events in the passages.
  1. the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD
  2. the end of the world
These appear to be conflated by the Gospel writers, which is actually evidence that the Gospel narratives had to have been written before 70 AD precisely because the writers did not separate out the two prophesies. From their perspective (before the destruction of Jerusalem) the two prophesies seemed to address the same event.

If the Gospels had been written after the destruction of Jerusalem, the writers would and could have made direct reference to that event to show that Jesus wasn’t mistaken by distinguishing between which part of the prophetic narrative referred to Jerusalem and which part referred to the end of the world. The fact they didn’t means they wrote before Jerusalem was destroyed (< 70 AD.)
 
KP3243 said:
Read David Currie’s “What Jesus Really Said About the End of the World.” he specifically addresses Albert Schweitzer’s interpretation. Currie uses Catholic tradition and the Early Church Fathers to who lived right after the Apostles and who were disciples of the Apostles to clarify what is going on with this statement because it is often misunderstood.
Click to expand...
You beat me to it. I strongly second this suggestion.
This book is a wonderful exposition on this subject.
In the very beginning, the author sets the bar really high for himself in bringing all these arguments out, and showing many examples of people who use this as a reason to disbelive Christ’s deity. He clears that bar.
 
FathersKnowBest said:
You beat me to it. I strongly second this suggestion.
This book is a wonderful exposition on this subject.
In the very beginning, the author sets the bar really high for himself in bringing all these arguments out, and showing many examples of people who use this as a reason to disbelive Christ’s deity. He clears that bar.
Click to expand...
I will purchase it for my Kindle today. Thanks
 
Razanir said:
Hasty generalization. Being wrong about one thing wouldn’t necessarily imply someone’s wrong about everything. Even if Jesus was talking about the actual end of the world, it by no means makes him automatically not God.
Click to expand...
[BIBLEDRB]Deuteronomy 18:22[/BIBLEDRB]
 
FathersKnowBest said:
So, you DIDN’T read Currie’s book? Perhaps you should read it first, and save the comments until after.

Just sayin’
Click to expand...
Look again what I was responding to:
Being wrong about one thing wouldn’t necessarily imply someone’s wrong about everything.
Click to expand...
What Razanir wrote was how it’s not a big deal if Jesus was wrong about a prediction, and I wrote back stating that it was a big deal according to the Bible. My response wasn’t about if man is minterpreting what Jesus was saying.

Perhaps you should read the comments first, and save your comments until after.

Just sayin’
 
I think the statements can normally be pretty easily understood in there own context if you take into account the end of second temple Judaism through the destruction of Jerusalem. That is, with a dose of preterism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top