Ok, so I guess as a Christmas offering to show solidarity (maybe?), MG has graciously placed Paula Fredriksen on the table, like a figgy pudding, and then… wandered off. Sitting at the table, it is unclear whether we’re meant to eat it or wonder if there is a point somewhere in there about the Great Apostasy. This is an example of the type of move that might end up with a poster being labeled a troll, just so it’s clear.
The Fredriksen pudding, when spooned out in delicate bite-sized goodness, reminds us that Christians thought the world was ending any minute. They still thought of themselves as Jews, so long as you don’t include the gentile converts, and were unaware and uninterested in founding a new religion, let alone establishing a long-term authority structure. She also treats us to the delicious news that the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD was a moment that changed everything, and forced all Jewish movements to adapt.
All of which is interesting, but it’s still not very clear what we are supposed to do with this information. Does this support restorationism, refute it, or just offer that the original members didn’t plan on a long-term ecclesiastical structure?
Limnor, sometimes I find myself thinking that I do not know what the end of the world means. Perhaps the earth falling into the sun. But people seem to think of a continuation after Jesus returns or last judgement not earth ceasing to exist.
In some sense the world ended with the destruction of the temple. Well not for Romans but for Jews. The result of the end of the world was not how it was expected however.
Limnor, sometimes I find myself thinking that I do not know what the end of the world means. Perhaps the earth falling into the sun. But people seem to think of a continuation after Jesus returns or last judgement not earth ceasing to exist.
In some sense the world ended with the destruction of the temple. Well not for Romans but for Jews. The result of the end of the world was not how it was expected however.
I’m not an expert in eschatology, but what you’re describing sounds somewhat consistent with preterism. My understanding is that Daniel was read as the last days, and what actually arrived in 70 AD was the end of “a” world—the Temple-centered covenantal order—rather than the end of the world as we know it.
I’ve read a bit of preterist material, and when you set it alongside Josephus’s account of Jerusalem’s destruction there are some interesting alignments, including the reports of an army in the clouds. If pressed, I’d probably land somewhere in a partial preterist space, but honestly it’s not where my attention usually goes. The inward transformation that early Christianity focused on seems far more compelling—and relevant to daily life—than thinking about timelines of the end of the world.
It is the ministry and teachings of Jesus Christ that are at the core of what the CofJCofLDS is all about. Sometimes this is forgotten or ignored by those that change their views/focus.
Forgotten or ignored/ How hardly.
Jesus failed to make his promise come true in which Joseph Smith and every soul who knew him would not witness Christ's prophesied return in their mortal lifetimes. Smith's generation did not witness the prophecy of Christ coming back, neither did the generations to follow, nor will any generation yet to come. The prophecy is false! I say that in the name of Jesus Christ!
D&C 34 wrote:6 To lift up your voice as with the sound of a Trump, both long and loud, and cry repentance unto a crooked and perverse generation, preparing the way of the Lord for his second coming.
7 For behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, the time is soon at hand that I shall come in a cloud with power and great glory.
8 And it shall be a great day at the time of my coming, for all nations shall tremble.
Nope. It did not happen under Joseph Smith's watch as he thought it would nor under the watch of his successors. Hundreds of years will pass away and still, nothing will happen, ever. Smith's prophecies of the second coming have failed much to the detriment of the LATTER-DAY church. 200 years, and nothing!
Limnor, sometimes I find myself thinking that I do not know what the end of the world means. Perhaps the earth falling into the sun. But people seem to think of a continuation after Jesus returns or last judgement not earth ceasing to exist.
In some sense the world ended with the destruction of the temple. Well not for Romans but for Jews. The result of the end of the world was not how it was expected however.
I’m not an expert in eschatology, but what you’re describing sounds somewhat consistent with preterism. My understanding is that Daniel was read as the last days, and what actually arrived in 70 AD was the end of “a” world—the Temple-centered covenantal order—rather than the end of the world as we know it.
I’ve read a bit of preterist material, and when you set it alongside Josephus’s account of Jerusalem’s destruction there are some interesting alignments, including the reports of an army in the clouds. If pressed, I’d probably land somewhere in a partial preterist space, but honestly it’s not where my attention usually goes. The inward transformation that early Christianity focused on seems far more compelling—and relevant to daily life—than thinking about timelines of the end of the world.
limnor, I share your general reaction. I have no set view about the time of Jesus return or how that would work. I do not see any particular signs pointing to soon or later. I read revelation as taking then current events as images of the threats and difficulties the future holds. It asks courage and points to an future overcoming for hope
The value as historical evidence of the accounts of Jesus's three years of public ministry given by the Four Gospels (in their present forms written decades after the end of his earthly life) is, at least, open to serious discussion. But the accounts given at the beginnings of Matthew and Luke of events that happened thirty years earlier are hardly to be taken seriously on such matters as at what time of the year he was born.
Agreed. But it's the best anyone has. Hell, nobody can prove that Jesus existed at all. My point is, if one is going to rely on the New Testament, Jesus was not born in December. "Church Fathers" are of no help either because they lived and wrote 120+ years after the "fact."
(P.S. I'm not a believer.)
I just heard something online about this, but I don’t have the references to cite as it being around 9/11 3BC.
"Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them." Psalm 139:16 ESV
Of course. The same might be said of quite a few other figures said to have existed in the past. But in the case of Jesus, the most economical hypothesis is usually taken to be that he did exist.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
Of course. The same might be said of quite a few other figures said to have existed in the past. But in the case of Jesus, the most economical hypothesis is usually taken to be that he did exist.
My understanding is that there is a strong historical consensus that someone named Jesus of Nazareth existed, and so was a real person. That’s not to say any of the miraculous events attributed to him retrospectively have any historical consensus.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
I just heard something online about this, but I don’t have the references to cite as it being around 9/11 3BC.
I think you will find that dates like that are usually based on the attempt to find some record of an unusual astronomical event and fit it into the story of the Magi [astrologers] who Matthew says turned up at some time after Jesus' birth. But the star Matthew describes is clearly intended to be a miraculous one, that somehow led the Magi to Bethlehem, something no real astronomical event could have done.
Believers might do better to note that for Mark and John it is Jesus' three-years ministry that they think it worthwhile to write about; his infancy concerns them not at all.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Mayan Elephant:
Not only have I denounced the Big Lie, I have denounced the Big lie big lie.
