The historical Jesus predicted a first-century doomsday

It has been an enjoyable learning experience for me and hopefully for others as well. Thanks, Abe! SUMMARIES Evidence for Jesus' Apocalypticism There is no evidence of Jesus holding apocalyptic views. The apocalyptic attitudes recorded in the gospels are all clearly attitudes of the authors: they relate to neither Jesus' time nor situation; they only relate to the immediate situation of the authors (namely the first Jewish revolt). These references cannot be relied upon as evidence of Jesus having an apocalyptic attitude. Evidence against Jesus' Apocalypticism There is evidence against Jesus holding apocalyptic views. In the earliest gospels, Jesus denounces apocalypticism, chiding his disciples for focusing on the apocalyptic aspects of Messiah. Whenever we see Jesus' true words, they are always anti-apocalyptic. Despite the fact that some of our earliest writers were apocalypticists themselves, the strong tradition of an anti-apocalyptic Jesus seemed unavoidable—they couldn't help but write about it. Argument to the Best Explanation There is an alternative explanation behind the rise of apocalypticism in early Christianity. We don't need an apocalyptic Jesus to get an apocalyptic Christianity. Unlike modern times in which apocalypticism is a fringe ideology, in first century Palestine it was a wide-spread belief. It is difficult to imagine apocalypticism in a modern cult that does not originate from an apocalyptic leader, but this is not something we have to imagine for the first century Jewish world. A better analogy would be to compare apocalypticism of the first century to Creationism of today. Even in a church group that is not founded with Creationist beliefs, and whose founders may, in fact, accept the theory of evolution, the Creationist belief is so prevalent in mainstream Christianity that it is inevitable that it will find its way into the group, especially among sections of the group that are very far removed from the central authority. We can look to the caricature of America's Founding Fathers that many present fundamentalists preach for a further analogy. Despite strong evidence to the contrary, many fundamentalists believe and argue that the Founding Fathers were devout Christians who believed America was supposed to be a Christian nation. These people invoke the Fathers in order to add strength to their arguments, even though the Fathers do not hold the positions these folk claim them to hold. The same is true of the early Christians. None of our gospels come to us from Jesus' closest followers, but only from people writing decades after his death. They were far-removed from the central authority: Jesus. These people are outsiders to the Jesus movement, bringing their own theology to the already-present mix (Paul himself, for example, admits that the earlier disciples did not agree with his theology at all, Galatians 2). These people brought with them the apocalypticism prevalent at the time, even though it was not an aspect of the original Jesus movement. Though they relied reluctantly on anti-apocalyptic traditions to tell their stories of Jesus, they still inserted apocalyptic words into Jesus' mouth when they found the chance, doing with Jesus what modern fundamentalists do with the Founding Fathers. And this is not speculation, as my opponent would have you believe; but it is documented fact. Not Paul, not Mark, not the author(s) of the Q material(s)—thanks to my opponent for providing some references—, none of them were followers of Jesus. These people clearly held apocalyptic mentalities, and they clearly put words into Jesus' mouth in order to give their mentalities credit. This is what we know; it is not conjecture. Furthermore, it is an explanation that possesses the utmost of explanatory power in that it fully explains apocalyptic thinking in early Christianity. CONCLUDING REMARKS Might the historical Jesus have preached an imminent day of doom? Of course; but my opponent has no evidence to back up the position that he did and no reason to conjecture to that end. There is simply nothing that needs to be said on Jesus' beliefs in order to explain apocalypticism in early Christianity. In this, my opponent has nothing to stand on; the only reason he supposes that Jesus was apocalyptic is because he finds it possible. I cannot bring myself to draw such sure conclusions on the basis of such shaky evidence, and I trust that none of you will bring yourselves to make that mistake either. Thus, I am confident that the voting audience will see through my opponent's thinly veiled appeal to his own personal opinion and realize, as I have done, that there is no evidence to support the notion of 'Jesus the apocalyptic preacher', neither solid nor circumstantial. Again, sincere thanks to Abe for setting up this debate. It has been an enjoyable learning experience for me and hopefully for others as well. I hope for many future debates between us. JM