Evidence for God from Science

Hello all,

As my tag says I'm agnostic- I believe in something and try to follow Jesus's moral teachings but I can't honestly say that I'm a Christian, mainly because I believe the Bible was written by men (not God) with little if any divine inspiration. My wife is a Christian though and I go to church with her on a weekly basis. After reading Rich Deem's well written essays that discuss empirical evidence of God's existence and indirect evidence of the Bible's status as divine revelation I remembered something that always gave me pause when reading the Bible...

In Matthew 24:34 (KJV) Jesus says: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled"

According to Jesus's earlier statements, "all these things" refer to the tribulation, the sun and moon darkening, false Christs and Jesus's second coming. These things will happen before "this generation shall pass." "This generation" is obviously refering to that of the disciples. Since we know that Jesus's second coming and the tribulation haven't occurred (at least not in the way described by every Christian I have ever met) there seems to be a glaring contradiction here. My question is this... has the fact that Jesus hasn't returned after 2000 years, even though he said he would be back before the disciple's died, made anyone else question the inerrancy of the Bible?

hi

this is certainly not the only reason you have to question the inerrancy of the Bible. There are many things, that apparently contradict each other. But making a deeper study, you will see that most can be explained. Your question about Matthews 24 is in fact a difficult one.

I suggest you give a read at the linked homepage, which gives a indepth explication about this issue:

Was Jesus Wrong about the time
of his Second Coming (his return to earth)?

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/was- ... oming.html

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/apo ... radictions

ElShamah, thank you for the link, I did read it; I suspected that the explanation had something to do with translation, however as you might imagine, me being skeptical and all, this argument didn't convince me. It says this generation but it turns out to mean (or so the scholars say) this people or race. With all due respect to the scholars, this seems to me to be a cop out- they are changing the meaning of the word to make their argument hold water. I am resigned to the fact that I will never find a solid argument/explanation one way or the other to knock me off my agnostic fence, I guess the only thing that would prove to me that the Bible is true is if Jesus comes back.

So if you don't mind another question, if Jesus comes back while I am still alive, and I admit my beliefs were incorrect and accept Jesus, am I then saved?

It is a tough verse. It is tough for those within the church as well. There are some who argue the use of the word "genea", which is translated generation. (genea 1074)
1. generation -s
birth; race, descent; offspring. It denotes an age or generation from the point of view of race.

So, one argument is that the word "generation" denotes something other than the contemporaries of Jesus. In 23:36 Jesus also uses the same Greek word, "genea." In this context he is referring to the scribes and pharisees. This is the seven woes of the pharisees. He obviously refers to them as a "generation." I don't think this can be overlooked. Then moments later, he has left the temple and is now privately talking to his disciples and says, "genea" this generation. Would it not make sense that He is still referencing the Pharisees?

There are many within the church that say no, Jesus is referring to the present generation, which leads to several other explanations. For example, this whole conversation starts when a disciple asks Him what He meant by this statement, "Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down." They had just left the temple. Certainly the destruction of the temple and the persecution under Nero would all occur during this generation. So in this case, the word generation is not at issue. Instead the question becomes what does Jesus mean by, "all these things?" Another question is asked. Actually it is two questions in one. Verse 3: ' "Tell us," they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?" '
Question 1: When will this happen? (The destruction of the temple)
Question 2: And what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?

Jesus obviously knows the temple will be detroyed. So, vs. 34 could simply tell them, this will happen during this generation. Through out the verses that follow, it seems to mix both of these questions. This could very well be intentional as Jesus often masked His teachings in parables.

To gain true understanding we can't take one verse at the exclusion of the others.
For example, Jesus says in verse 14, "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come." There is a condition, that the gospel will first be preached to the whole world. Then the end will come. That obviously refers to the end times. Obviously that would take longer than a generation to accomplish. In fact Jesus was emphatic that His minsitry during His life was to only reach the lost sheep of Israel. The whole world would obviously be reserved for His disciples and future disciples.

And in verse 36 he says, ""No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
No one knows. Why would Jesus say he knows, then he doesn't know? Just this statement alone begs us to look deeper.

Believe it or not there are several other attempts to explain this verse.

Any time end times are mentioned in the bible, we must note that they are veiled in mystery. Knowing Jesus' M.O. it really isn't a surprise that Jesus would continue to do the same in regards to the end times. To take this verse as reason to dismiss the divine nature of the scriptures would be haphazard at best. One can usually find the answer in how they ask the question. I would also ask, "did I arrive at this objection through my own study, or is this something I have picked up somewhere else?" Is this something that sincerely concerns you through your own study, or a stumbling block you have let someone else put in your way. If it is your own objection then also ask: Have I committed as much or more study to understanding the context of Matt. 24, as I have to the single verse in which I find contradiciton. In other words, beyond this verse, out of context, how much study have you done? To have a true objection means you are clear on the surrounding content, familiar with the context, and thus certain in your assertions that Matt. 24:34 is in fact contradictory.

I hope this shows that there is more going on here than a contradiction. In fact it is much more complicated than that. If the bible were math, this would be advanced trigonometry. So, I wouldn't let this be a hang up for you. I wouldn't tackle trig until I had the basics of math mastered.

So if you don't mind another question, if Jesus comes back while I am still alive, and I admit my beliefs were incorrect and accept Jesus, am I then saved?

Oh man, that is a different thread.

that webpage might give some clarification as well :

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/sg2372.htm

When Jesus' Disciples saw the resurrected Christ, they may have expected the 2nd coming in their lifetime. However, if we take a look at Matthew 24: 36, we read that only the Father knows when the Christ returns.

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matt. 24:36)

"Watch therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." (Matt. 24:42)

Dominic wrote:When Jesus' Disciples saw the resurrected Christ, they may have expected the 2nd coming in their lifetime. However, if we take a look at Matthew 24: 36, we read that only the Father knows when the Christ returns.

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matt. 24:36)

"Watch therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." (Matt. 24:42)

This is something that has always confused me, even when I was a Christian. Why is it that only God the father knows the "day and hour"? Are God the father and God the son not one and the same according to the doctrine of the trinity?

Are God the father and God the son not one and the same according to the doctrine of the trinity?

Dominic wrote:When Jesus' Disciples saw the resurrected Christ, they may have expected the 2nd coming in their lifetime. However, if we take a look at Matthew 24: 36, we read that only the Father knows when the Christ returns.

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matt. 24:36)

"Watch therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." (Matt. 24:42)

This is something that has always confused me, even when I was a Christian. Why is it that only God the father knows the "day and hour"? Are God the father and God the son not one and the same according to the doctrine of the trinity?

That is really a different thread.

The trinity is not easily explained.

There is one God. And that one God consist of three distinct persons. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus prayed to the Father. Jesus was fully man, yet filled with the very essence and nature of God. It is as if God of Heaven leapt off His throne, and thrust Himself into the same flesh that we also occupy. Yet, at the same time remained whole as He is in Heaven, God the Father.

In John 14, Philip asks, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me;"

Based on scripture Jesus was not omnipresent, he was real, flesh and blood, not a ghost or spirit. Also, according to this claim in Matt. 24, he was not omniscient. This would explain why only the Father knows. He was blameless, without sin, and just as important was given all authority.

What do you mean, when you were a Christian? Are you saying you were born again, and were living IN Christ, and then rejected it?

The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit are all equal in essence. In position, they are different.

"The Father sent the Son, the son sends the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit points back to the Son, and the Son glorifies the father."

http://www.letusreason.org/Trin20.htm

That is a great site that has answered a lot of important questions to me, so take a look at it.

hopefulcynic wrote:

Dominic wrote:When Jesus' Disciples saw the resurrected Christ, they may have expected the 2nd coming in their lifetime. However, if we take a look at Matthew 24: 36, we read that only the Father knows when the Christ returns.

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." (Matt. 24:36)

"Watch therefore; for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." (Matt. 24:42)

This is something that has always confused me, even when I was a Christian. Why is it that only God the father knows the "day and hour"? Are God the father and God the son not one and the same according to the doctrine of the trinity?

In Philippians 2:7-8, it explains that Jesus emptied himself. There are different ideas about this, but it relates to Matthew 24:36. Some say that Jesus emptied himself of his diety, while others say he took on the additional attributes of a man, which had an effect on his diety (if I'm explaining that correctly). Either way, as I've heard, Jesus did not know everything that "the Father" knew while still in his human body. He would know it once glorified, as part of the trinity. Maybe some others can explain this further.

I didn't see your post while I was posting, Dominic. I'll have to check out your link. Or jlay's, lol.

agnostic wrote:Hello all,

As my tag says I'm agnostic- I believe in something and try to follow Jesus's moral teachings but I can't honestly say that I'm a Christian, mainly because I believe the Bible was written by men (not God) with little if any divine inspiration. My wife is a Christian though and I go to church with her on a weekly basis. After reading Rich Deem's well written essays that discuss empirical evidence of God's existence and indirect evidence of the Bible's status as divine revelation I remembered something that always gave me pause when reading the Bible...

In Matthew 24:34 (KJV) Jesus says: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled"

According to Jesus's earlier statements, "all these things" refer to the tribulation, the sun and moon darkening, false Christs and Jesus's second coming. These things will happen before "this generation shall pass." "This generation" is obviously refering to that of the disciples. Since we know that Jesus's second coming and the tribulation haven't occurred (at least not in the way described by every Christian I have ever met) there seems to be a glaring contradiction here. My question is this... has the fact that Jesus hasn't returned after 2000 years, even though he said he would be back before the disciple's died, made anyone else question the inerrancy of the Bible?

Much could be said regarding this, the background setting, why the disciples saw the destruction of the template as being associated with Jesus' return, etc. My response is by no means a complete answer, however I offer it up to add to your own thoughts for consideration.

Firstly what is the original question the disciples asked?

Matt 24
1Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. 2"Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us," they said, "when will this [the destruction of the template] happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"

The disciples here ask two different things, the second of which they seem to associate with the first:
1. the destruction of temple
2. Jesus' coming and the end of the age.

Jesus was originally focusing on the destruction of temple, however the disciples' questions to Jesus also incorporates [wrongly?] His coming and the end of the age. In return, Jesus provides a complex dual-layered response that keeps inline with their questioning. As such Jesus' words can be interpreted as either applying to His coming, the end of times, or to the destruction of the temple, or a combination of these. Rather than clarifying two separate issues, Jesus responds to the disciples' loaded question with a loaded response. With this understanding try re-reading Matthew 24 and see if it makes any more sense.

While responding to this I came across <http://www.kencollins.com/jesus-37.htm> which seems to take this line of response also, only in far more detail.

Additionally, the temple being destroyed also meant God could no longer be approached and sins atoned for. The destruction of the temple cements in a new era based on Christ and a new Messianic kingdom comprised of those who place their faith in Him. No longer locked into the old situation where people were constantly required to see a priest, who would mediate and present a sacrifice to make atonement to God on their behalf... Jesus, the high priest and one mediator between God and man (1Tim 2:5; Heb 2:17) was now the new complete and final way. It could be said it was only after the destruction of the temple, when people could no longer could go to there to maintain the Levitical Law, that the need for Jesus, and as such Jesus' kingdom which consists of all who are saved, became a reality.

jlay wrote: In John 14, Philip asks, "Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us." Jesus answered: "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me;"

Jesus' remarks here are rather generic and therefore difficult to interpret. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christians are supposed to believe that once they are saved God is living inside of them and influencing their behavior. But that doesn't mean they are part of the trinity.

Based on scripture Jesus was not omnipresent, he was real, flesh and blood, not a ghost or spirit. Also, according to this claim in Matt. 24, he was not omniscient. This would explain why only the Father knows. He was blameless, without sin, and just as important was given all authority.

Was his lack of omniscience merely a result of being human at the time? Did he regain the omniscience when he ascended to heaven?

Was his lack of omniscience merely a result of being human at the time? Did he regain the omniscience when he ascended to heaven?

To be truly human Christ had to depend on the Father. As to whether Christ is omniscient now, I do not know, but assume yes. Perhaps someone else has scripture on hand that enlightens us to this.

Jesus' remarks here are rather generic and therefore difficult to interpret. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Christians are supposed to believe that once they are saved God is living inside of them and influencing their behavior. But that doesn't mean they are part of the trinity.

Generic? I don't know that generic would describe them. John 14 and 15 are a very in depth description of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the prototype. The perfect example of God living fully in a man. So much so that Jesus could say, "I and the Father are ONE." When Jesus says, in my Father's house are many rooms, He is not descrbing heaven. There is nothing in the context to indicate He is talking of heaven. I know the news of this will ruin many gospel songs. This is one of the most misunderstoor and abused verses in the scripture. In fact the word translated room or mansion (KJV) only occurs one other place, and it is also in John 14. In vs 23 it says, "Jesus replied, "If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." The word home, means abiding place.

In my father's house (household, family) are many rooms (abiding places). We are the abiding places. In God's family there are many abodes. Being born again isn't just about saying a prayer and going to church. It is about us relinquishing our hold on our life, and completely yielding ourselves to His direction. That is the difference between religion and faith. If religion was the answer then Christ would have not had to come.

There are many illustrations of the indwelling. I like the idea of a sail. We can see a sail moving a boat. We don't see the wind that is actually doing the work, but it fills the sail and thus produces the result that we see. The sail was designed to be occupied by the wind, and is only filling its purpose when it is available to the wind. The sail doesn't produce. It doesn't create energy. The wind is the energy, the source, the effect and the power.

Didn't the Apostle John see the end times anyway in a vision (Revelations) - and saw the second coming of Christ. Maybe that is what Jesus meant - in this generation you will see these things come to pass. John certainly did.

Any thoughts on that?

Silvertusk.