The Question of the "Great Apostasy" and the Historical Continuity of Christianity

by aqwsed12345 60 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Jeffro

  tldr.

  The fact that JW claims about the origin of the Catholic Church are incorrect does not mean that Catholic claims about the origin of the church are true.

  Matthew 24:9-28 speaks of 'false prophets' arising prior to and during the 'great tribulation' but prior to Jesus' 'presence'. The 'great tribulation' was the period during 66-70 CE, and cannot be associated with any 'apostasy' of 'true Christianity' after the first century, and Jesus' 'presence' was expected to occur within a generation of Jesus. It didn't happen, and different Christian groups have been making up excuses ever since.
  
• 

  peacefulpete

  There is good reason to include the events of 135-136CE in the context of Mark 13 and related texts. There were many would be Messiah's in those decades, (including and culminating in Simon Bar Kokhba) to inspire those words of 'false prophets and Christs'.

  Deutero-Paulines like 2 Thess were also 2nd century works addressing then current issues such as doubts due to long delay, a reinterpretation toward a realized eschatology, and continuing rejection of efforts to establish an orthodoxy.
  

  In both cases we have efforts to explain and manage the realities surrounding them.
• 

  Jeffro

  peacefulpete:

  There is good reason to include the events of 135-136CE in the context of Mark 13 and related texts.

  This reinterpretation might seem convenient but is not consistent with the order of events relative to the ‘great tribulation’. Mark wasn’t written that late and there’s no reason to assume a superstitious ‘fulfilment’.
  
• 

  Jeffro

  Deutero-Paulines like 2 Thess were also 2nd century works addressing then current issues such as doubts due to long delay, a reinterpretation toward a realized eschatology, and continuing rejection of efforts to establish an orthodoxy.

  This is an accurate assessment though.
• 

  KerryKing

  The fact that Catholics venerate the Pope makes them apostates
• 

  vienne

  Catholic doctrine is not apostolic. So while they may see a centuries long connected chain, it is a connected history of apostasy. The OP's pervious posts defended the Trinity, the veneration of Mary and other such nonsense that all derive from pagan worship. The Catholic church's history of murder and repine - something that continues - shows it to be anything but Christian. It is Christian in name only.

  The past century Witnessed the kidnapping and murder of a young woman, a resident of Vatican City; the concordant with Hitler; the compromise of the Catholic Centralist party in Nazi Germany; the hiding of war criminals, financial 'mismanagement'; interference in and threats to Central American states; priestly support for the Argentinian dictatorship; murders and rapes in Catholic run Canadian schools for indigenous children. None of this is Christ - Like behavior. And none of it is new. And similar things continue. Yet, the OP thinks he's part of and defending the one true church. That's deranged thinking.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Nothing superstitious. My research has led me to the opinion that Mark in it's final form could be that late. The min-apocalypse shows signs of being reworked/updated to include events of the 3rd war. Matt followed soon, Luke a decade or so later. I'm being brief typing on my phone. This dates Luke roughly contemporary with 2 thess.
• 

  peacefulpete

  Not that it is a terribly important matter but I wish to clarify what I meant in my last comment.

  Daniel and it's companion text 1 Macc (5:54) describe Antiochus' setting up an idol in the Temple. This triggers a successful rebellion under the Maccabees. The idol is removed.

  While Caligula intended to do the same his order is resisted by the Jews and delayed by Petronius, Caligula's death ends the matter. (Some have suggested this is the source of the 2 Thess Man of Lawlessness, which may be a snippet of confused Pauline material included in 2 Thess).

  After another rebellion, 66-70 sees the destruction of much of the city including the Temple, Jews are banished from the city until 118CE.

  Then around 130CE:

  ” At Jerusalem Hadrian founded a city in place of the one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter. This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious rites planted there.”
  – Cassius Dio, Roman History, 69.12.

  Note, this again triggers a revolt. The Bar Kokhba revolt is successful and begins the reestablishment of an independent Jewish state for about 3 years. Temple rebuilding was started during this time. Simon bar Koseva the leader of the revolt was given the title Kokhba (star) as he was hailed the Messiah by prominent religious leaders including Rabbi Akiva. Coins were minted with a picture of an imagined rebuilt Temple with a star above.

  The parallel to the Maccabean revolt is hard to miss. The triggers in both cases was the placement of foreign idols on the Temple mount. The rebellion/war creates the 'great tribulation'.

  When the writer of the Markan version explicitly says, 'let the reader use discernment' he is indicating parallels with the past.

  Those that insist the 'abomination' refers to Roman army standards on the Temple mount after the conquering of Jerusalem in 70CE, must ask how after the destruction would it make sense to flee? It makes sense narratively to suggest the A of D was a prelude to the horrors needing to be escaped.

  Also, the political situation of the years between 70 and 135, where empire wide Jewish rebellion and war called the 2nd Revolt, fits the "wars and rumors of wars' descriptor better. A prominent earthquake in 114 as well as the beginning of organized State oppression of Christians etc. best describe events well after 70CE.

  This naturally complicates a simple reconstruction of Synoptic order. It might suggest as Hermann Detering suggests Luke preserves an older form by not including the Ab. of Des. phrase but only a reference to Roman armies. Then again, the author may have had his own reasons for amending what he saw in Matt and Mark

  Is Mark 13 an abridgement of Matt 24 and an addition to the original Markan text? Maybe, some think so.

  In the end, the basic hypothesis of Markan priority holds, with recognition that there were harmonization efforts for centuries. Some of these may be as large as the majority of Mark 13.

  In the end we have to leave open the possibility that Mark, in essentially final form, may date later than most reference works suppose.
• 

  KerryKing

  Peacefulpete

  Can you recommend a website or book about the part of Jewish history you mention? I am not familiar with it , would like to educate myself a bit better.
• 

  Jeffro

  peacefulpete:

  My research has led me to the opinion that Mark in it's final form could be that late. The min-apocalypse shows signs of being reworked/updated to include events of the 3rd war. Matt followed soon, Luke a decade or so later.

  I’m not saying it’s impossible, but it is unnecessary and not entirely likely. Picking an event that seems similar about ‘false prophets’ and concluding that it ‘must’ be part of the ‘fulfilment’ (irrespective of whether it is asserted as ‘prophecy’) is falling into the same trap as people who say there are ‘false prophets’ fulfilling it now. In the same manner, if Mark were written when most scholars say it was, people in the 130s could have run around saying , “See, Mark has prophecy about what’s happening now,” but really it’s just more events that are ‘similar enough’ to some vague statements. Then through the years, there are more and more events that ‘fit’ (due to ambiguity), and you get to where we are now.