Brown's transitional phase concept

[Sophiee]

This falls into a general category because Brown mentions it in 2.1 and 2.2.

His claim is that J-sus didn't fulfill the messianic prophecies because this is a "transitional phase." I'm not quite sure I know what a 2000 year old "transitional phase" might be given that there is no criteria for someone who comes, claims to be the messiah and doesn't actually fulfill any prophecies. But this is Brown's excuse.

And make no mistake it IS an excuse. Brown says:

this is the transition age, the age when G-d’s kingdom is being established . . . During this era, because the population of the world has increased and technology has advanced, there are now more evil people capable of doing more evil things, causing an increase in human suffering.

The only problem is this is nowhere propheseid in the Jewish bible. Brown speaks of an increase in human suffering, but once again the messiah is supposed to do just the opposite! He is to bring peace, not war:

Zechariah 9:10, ''And he shall speak peace unto the heathen"

Isaiah 2:4, "And they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."

J-sus failed to fulfill even one messianic prophecy so Brown and others like him must come up with an excuse -- aka "the transition age" or "second coming" none of which is prohesied.

Then Brown says:

Also, J-sus told his disciples that before the end of this age, there would be great turmoil and upheaval, the final birth pangs before G-d’s kingdom was fully established on the earth.

End of days?

J-sus told his followers that he would be back IN THEIR LIFETIMES. Not after some mythical transition phase that has now lasted more than 2000 years.

Revelations 1:7 Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him

Those who pierced him (if he isn't fictional) died 2000 years ago.

And for those who say "oh, they'll be resurrected -- Revelations 1 doesn't give a time frame" I invite you to read Revelations chapter 22

6 (these) things that must soon take place." 7 Behold, I am coming soon!

Soon. They "must soon take place."

No transition age.

Not 2000 years from now. SOON.

Through out the GT the same refrain is given: no "transition age" Dr. Brown. J-sus is going to return any moment --- within the physical life tiems of people who died thousands of years ago.

False messiah.

False prophet.

No transition age.

When they persecute you (Paul speaking to the followers) in one town, flee to the next, for truly I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel, before the Son of Man comes. [Mat 10:23]

For the Son of Man is about to come [mello]. . . Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. [Mat 16:27-28]

. . ."I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of G-d come with power." Mark 9:1.

I tell you the truth, this generation[a] will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. Mark 13:30

[Sophiee]

Drashi said

Brown is wrestling with an old problematic point in Christian theology that has fallen by the wayside for some segments, and he has argued it poorly. His statement of "these days" really means "this age", falls apart if he argues that these were Jews talking, since "days" refers to a relevant period of the speaker as in "the days of king Jeroboam" and so forth. Can anyone find the expression to be used for an open ended period of 19-20 centuries?

This "second coming" gambit is also old. One the one hand he claims that Jesus died for the salvation of mankind, but on the other he claims that evil has prospered and salvation is less apparent than it was during the days of Jesus (or as he notes, the 730,000 days of Jesus!)

Mark 9:1 is a big problem (from which Matthew borrowed). Many of the Christian commentators who address this (better than Brown) redefine what "these things" are, but Brown just redefines a time period which undermines the gospels rather than redefining "this" and declaring that it was fulfilled.

In other words, for his form of the argument to work, he has to dismiss the gospels. For him to retain the gospels, he needed to take another tactic, such a Gill, Clarke, and others. But he should have thought of that ahead of time.

[Sophiee]

Chaysa (Gretta) opined:

Shalom, Sophiee and Drashi.

It appears to me that what Dr. Brown is using is not an excuse; it is a fallacy. It seems to me that the above statement by Brown, "During this era, because the population of the world has increased and technology has advanced, there are now more evil people capable of doing more evil things, causing an increase in human suffering.," is typical "Confusing Cause and Effect."
Look here:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... ffect.html

Evangelical/Missionary type Christians use fallacies quite often. "Appeal to Fear" is the most frequent fallacy used. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... -fear.html

Look at # 3 on the list located at the above link.

You will find "Appeal to Belief" often used by Evangelical/Missionary type Christians. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... elief.html

Other fallacies used are "Appeal to Authority," "Appeal to Emotion," and "Appeal to Tradition".

Some may be aware of the illogic that they use; some may not.
Certain Christian mindsets are taught. How to Evangelize is something that is most certainly taught in classes, in sermons, and etc. Some Christian Bibles have "how to" sections on "witnessing" and "Evangelizing" which I have noticed are geared toward some of the fallacies that I have mentioned above.