i think this discrepancy is rather interesting...

the setting is jesus on trial before the sanhedrin...they ask him

mark 14:61“Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

now lets look at the same event from the gospel of luke


luke 22:67 “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.”

Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”


it could be argued that those who spoke to jesus in marks account, 20 or 30 yrs earlier than luke's account died and never saw the mighty one coming on the clouds of heaven...and thats why luke's account is different...

thoughts, comments, complaints?

waitasec said:

the setting is jesus on trial before the sanhedrin...they ask him

mark 14:61“Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?”
62 “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.”

now lets look at the same event from the gospel of luke


luke 22:67 “If you are the Messiah,” they said, “tell us.”

Jesus answered, “If I tell you, you will not believe me, 68 and if I asked you, you would not answer. 69 But from now on, the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of the mighty God.”


it could be argued that those who spoke to jesus in marks account, 20 or 30 yrs earlier than luke's account died and never saw the mighty one coming on the clouds of heaven...and thats why luke's account is different...

thoughts, comments, complaints?

Click to expand...

I think you pretty much hit it on the mark. The Gospel of Mark was still close enough to the time of Jesus, probably still in that same generation (as in, some people who lived during the time of Jesus were still probably alive at the writing of the Gospel of Mark). I personally would put the writing of the Gospel of Mark before the destruction of the Temple, so it would have been before a world changing event, which the Temple destruction was for Jews and the up and coming Jesus movement.

Luke occurred after this event, when the Kingdom of God was not as imminent. The Temple was destroyed, things got worse, and were moving in a negative direction. The end was further off, and the Son of Man was no longer coming in the short time. So it greatly changed the ideas.

but doesn't that beg the question...?
did the gospel according to mark, miss the mark in regards to jesus coming back?

mark's words suggested he would and he didn't.
the other 3 gospels seemed to have dropped the idea of him coming back on a cloud but rather have him raised from the dead instead

matthew says nothing about him coming back in the great commission
luke says this:
49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
and he's referring to the holy spirit...but of course the writer of luke is also the writer of acts...this promise wasn't mentioned in matthew, mark

in john however, there is reference to the holy spirit but no mention of his returning on a cloud either but we read this
20:29 Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

waitasec said:

but doesn't that beg the question...?
did the gospel according to mark, miss the mark in regards to jesus coming back?

mark's words suggested he would and he didn't.
the other 3 gospels seemed to have dropped the idea of him coming back on a cloud but rather have him raised from the dead instead

Click to expand...

Yes, Mark was wrong. But I think it captures what Jesus was saying better in this case.

There's also a theological difference here. Mark is concerned with the power of Jesus, and how he "does battle" with other powers. he battles with spiritual powers of demons and Satan. he deals with the power of the Roman empire. He deals with the powers of nature. This is, for Mark, a theological assertion of Jesus' ultimate power in the face of apparent powerlessness.

I'm not convinced it was meant to be a literal prediction of future events, so much as it was a statement about how power works in God's kingdom.

sojourner said:

There's also a theological difference here. Mark is concerned with the power of Jesus, and how he "does battle" with other powers. he battles with spiritual powers of demons and Satan. he deals with the power of the Roman empire. He deals with the powers of nature. This is, for Mark, a theological assertion of Jesus' ultimate power in the face of apparent powerlessness.

I'm not convinced it was meant to be a literal prediction of future events, so much as it was a statement about how power works in God's kingdom.

Click to expand...

then why do suppose the later gospels do not mention his return?

fallingblood said:

Yes, Mark was wrong. But I think it captures what Jesus was saying better in this case.

Click to expand...

can you explain what you mean?

waitasec said:

then why do suppose the later gospels do not mention his return?

Click to expand...

Because it doesn't suit the theological thrust of their stories, would be a good place to start.

Remember that there's really not a great deal of time difference here -- 10-30 years -- and the stuff that was written later (Luke and Matthew) use an older source than Mark uses (Q).

sojourner said:

Because it doesn't suit the theological thrust of their stories, would be a good place to start.

Click to expand...

i agree as jesus never returned and they needed to reconcile that early idea that he would.

Remember that there's really not a great deal of time difference here -- 10-30 years -- and the stuff that was written later (Luke and Matthew) use an older source than Mark uses (Q).

Click to expand...

i found this:

A related issue is the adoption of the Gospel of Mark as a Canonical Gospel, given that, like the hypothetical Q, it is largely reproduced in Matthew and Luke, but, unlike Q, it did not become "lost". Traditionally Mark's authority and survival has derived from its Petrine origins (see above "Authorship"). A recent suggestion is that Mark gained widespread popularity in oral performance, apart from readings from manuscript copies. Its widespread oral popularity ensured it a place in the written canon.[91]


Authorship

According to Irenaeus, Papias of Hierapolis, writing in the early 2nd century, reported that this gospel was by John Mark,[7] the companion of Saint Peter in Rome, who "had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it."[13] Most modern scholars believe that the gospel was written in Syria by an unknown Christian no earlier than AD 70, using various sources including a passion narrative (probably written), collections of miracles stories (oral or written), apocalyptic traditions (probably written), and disputations and didactic sayings (some possibly written).[5] Some of the material in Mark, however, goes back a very long way, representing an important source for historical information about Jesus.[5]
Mark wrote primarily for an audience of gentile Greek-speaking residents of the Roman Empire: Jewish traditions are explained, clearly for the benefit of non-Jews (e.g., Mark 7:1–4; 14:12; 15:42), and Aramaic words and phrases are expanded upon by the author, e.g., ταλιθα κουμ (talitha koum, Mark 5:41); κορβαν (Corban, Mark 7:11); αββα (abba, Mark 14:36). When Mark makes use of the Old Testament he does so in the form in which it had been translated into Greek, the Septuagint, for instance Mark 1:2; 2:23–28; 10:48b; 12:18–27; also compare 2:10 with Daniel 7:13–14.

[91]^ J. Dewey, "The Survival of Mark's Gospel: a Good Story?" Journal of Biblical Literature, 123 (2004) pp. 495–507

Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so really the dates you are referring to is a long time after the fact...so the 10-30 yr difference is really 80 to 110 yrs difference...enough time for the the sanhedrin to have died without seeing jesus coming back.

and it is interesting to note that a majority of todays christians believe he is coming back...i believe this idea stems from paul and mark....paul's letters are dated earlier than mark, so the idea of jesus coming back was still fresh in paul's day...well that's my hypothesis anyway

i agree as jesus never returned and they needed to reconcile that early idea that he would.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but that's not what I meant. You're confusing theological emphasis with historic reconciliation. Again, Mark's theological emphasis is on power and its distribution and use. A parousia not only reconciles with earlier prophecy, but it also showcases the ultimate power of God's kingdom over that of Roman rule.

A recent suggestion is that Mark gained widespread popularity in oral performance, apart from readings from manuscript copies. Its widespread oral popularity ensured it a place in the written canon.

Click to expand...

I would go further than this and state that all of Mark was originally oral, and not written down until later. Read David Rhoads.

so really the dates you are referring to is a long time after the fact...so the 10-30 yr difference is really 80 to 110 yrs difference

Click to expand...

I don't see how you're figuring that, or how the article you've copied suggests that. Mark was written post-70 c.e., but possibly told orally for a while before it was written down. Matthew and Luke were written mid-80's, and could have also been told orally for a while before being written down. That's about 10 years difference. Q, from which Matt. and Lk. glean a lot of their material, was probably very early -- its sources would have to be earlier than 10 c.e.

I suppose Matt. and Lk. could have written out the parousia from their stories because they saw that it wasn't going to happen, but then how do you explain its inclusion in John, which was written very close to the year 100 c.e.?

sojourner said:

Yeah, but that's not what I meant. You're confusing theological emphasis with historic reconciliation. Again, Mark's theological emphasis is on power and its distribution and use. A parousia not only reconciles with earlier prophecy, but it also showcases the ultimate power of God's kingdom over that of Roman rule.

I suppose Matt. and Lk. could have written out the parousia from their stories because they saw that it wasn't going to happen, but then how do you explain its inclusion in John, which was written very close to the year 100 c.e.?

Click to expand...

what seems interesting to me is that the parousia was mentioned before christ died in every gospel story, not one mentions his return after christ died.
i don't know but saying you are coming back after you've died is
self defeating...because he has come back, just not on a cloud (a glorious event that all would see) which was what the earlier traditions were expecting.

waitasec said:

what seems interesting to me is that the parousia was mentioned before christ died in every gospel story, not one mentions his return after christ died.
i don't know but saying you are coming back after you've died is
self defeating...because he has come back, just not on a cloud (a glorious event that all would see) which was what the earlier traditions were expecting.

Click to expand...

I don't think I follow your point. Can you be a little clearer?

sojourner said:

I don't think I follow your point. Can you be a little clearer?

Click to expand...

well he died...and never returned on a cloud of glory...the time for the parousia came and went...
how can that be reconciled?

waitasec said:

well he died...and never returned on a cloud of glory...the time for the parousia came and went...
how can that be reconciled?

Click to expand...

They were mistaken.
Or we are mistaken as to what, precisely, is meant by the parousia.

Could it not simply be speaking of the Last Judgement?

sojourner said:

Q ... was probably very early -- its sources would have to be earlier than 10 c.e.

Click to expand...

What does this mean?

Jayhawker Soule said:

What does this mean?

Click to expand...

It means precisely what it says. The hypothetical Q document would have had to have had it sources before 10 c.e. We know this, because some quotations are also found in Thomas. In order for Q to have time to have been absorbed into the synoptics and for the Thomas community to travel to Syria, and become established to the point that they began to create religious documents, the Q and Thomas communities would have had to have separated prior to 10 c.e. That means that Q and its sources are very early.

sojourner said:

They were mistaken.
Or we are mistaken as to what, precisely, is meant by the parousia.

Click to expand...

i read it more like projection based on hope rather than it being a mistake.

Shadow Wolf said:

Such discrepancies I dismiss as typical human error. It's basic psychology that two people can see the same exact event, but have a completely different recollection of it.

Click to expand...

Best of content so far.

And to see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of God....
is a future event for all of us.

Well most us, anyway.