The stars shall fall from heaven...

[Dawnofhope]

Probably meant he thought the stars would fall.

People didnt have a clue about astronomy in those days.

"Falling stars" were, after all, thought to be stars, for the
longest time.

The vice of overthinking things is common in religions.

It would be reasonable to consider Matthew 24:29 as a meteor shower if it we were talking about falling stars in isolation. However in the same verse there are other phenomenon such as the sun being dmmed and the moon no longer shedding its light which together would not plausibly be associated wit a meteor shower. If we move onto the next verse of the text we have:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 24:30 has many problems if taken literally.

Hebrew scripture is rich with symbolism and there are numerous examples of how the sun, moon and stars are used metaphorically. I listed a few in post #3.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The context of Matthew 24, is the actual second coming of Jesus in literal glory with real angels:

Mat 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
Mat 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Thank you for your posts contributing to this thread. I thought it best to make some preliminary comments as to where we may have points of agreement and differences.

1/ We both recognise the Divine origins and inspiration behind both the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible.

2/ We both beleive in prophecy and would see the Words of Jesus as well as the words recorded in the book of Revelation as prophetic.

3/ We both agree Jesus was the fulfilment of at least some Jewish scripture in regards a Messiah or Christ.

4/ We both would recognise that at least some events alluded to in the book of Revelation have already happened.

Poiints of differences between us would include;

1/ The extent to which prophecies recorded in the Olivet discourse and Revelations have already happened. It has been nearly two thousand years since these books were composed and I believe most (although clearly not all) events have already happened.

2/ The extent to which we would interpret the Sacred Biblical Writings literally or metaphorically.

 

[cataway]

what I see are peoples groping around in the dark hopping to find understanding . you look to each other for help to the times and seasons of these last days. you look for guidance from people who appear as points of light . they appear to have given you direction in the past but now have fallen out of favor .

 

[Dawnofhope]

what I see are peoples groping around in the dark hopping to find understanding . you look to each other for help to the times and seasons of these last days. you look for guidance from people who appear as points of light . they appear to have given you direction in the past but now have fallen out of favor .

I see people acknowledging Jesus as a Divine teacher.

Over 30% of the world's population identify as Christian and in 50 years time there will most likely be more than 30% of the world's population being Muslim as well. Jesus is seen as an important Prophet in Islam.

Why Muslims are the world’s fastest-growing religious group

So neither Jesus nor Muhammad appear to be 'falling out of favour.'

 

[cataway]

I see people acknowledging Jesus as a Divine teacher.

'

yes he is .however all to many fall short in adopting and living by standers he set

 

[Dawnofhope]

yes he is .however all to many fall short in adopting and living by standers he set

Sure. This thread is about the meaning of Matthew 24:29 though. Have you considered there may be a connection between the ‘fallen’ moral standards of these times and the fallen stars?

 

[Brickjectivity]

In the Gospel of Matthew the final recorded sermon spoken by Jesus one verse reads;

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.
Matthew 24:29

Assuming Jesus actually spoke these words, what did He mean and why?

Since I do not have the educational background of @amatuerscholar or @Windwalker or yourself I have a slightly different approach but arrive at a similar conclusion.

I look at the NT, the entire collection and the various references to signs in the sky and to Genesis, and the connection that I see between these and to Genesis is clearest to me in the gospel John. Many times I have read the first chapter of John trying to figure out if it supports Trinity or not etc, because that in the past was of great interest to me. Its not longer such an interesting question; but I find incidentally that John 1-3 borrows imagery from Genesis 1-3 and puts forward Jesus ministry as the light of creation.

I also look in the Psalms and see how it sings about the signs in the heavens, and I notice that the sons of God are sung about as being the stars. I notice, too, that they are stars in the story of Abraham when he is promised his offspring will be as many as the stars.

I look at other similar references. Isaiah calls the king of Babylon the morning star (Venus).

Now then I have to wonder if this tells me anything about Genesis, about the way the NT scholars are interpreting creation. I think it does. If John can interpret Jesus ministry as the light of creation, then why can't Moses interpret Genesis as the creation of Israel? Its suitable and fits so many otherwise confusing references and allusions. If Moses and John can interpret creation as the creation of a ministry then why couldn't Jesus or the apostles?

I also have to take into account the blatant usages in Matthew of the term 'Fulfil' to allude to quotes from prophets who are not predicting anything. Most people don't check these, but I have checked each one. I've looked up each fulfillment, and not any of them is fulfilling a prediction. Matthew is using a mode of communication that is no longer in use in our time but one which we can understand. Just as figures of speech are a mode of communication, Matthew is speaking in a different mode speaking truth but not in prose. He is taking us into many overlapping stories, but we're supposed to know them -- all of the stories in his canon. The stories are a tree with many branches, and he takes us into that tree. Scholars call its branches 'Types'. Call that tree the heaven tree. Its like if we were taken up into another dimension to bring back truths, but when we get back here we are here, on disappointing old sodden Earth. Now its up to us to take the beauty and lessons in the heaven-tree and make them be real here. In heaven there is peace and goodwill towards men, so we are to bring that back here to Earth.

Second-to-last: the prayer Jesus teaches the disciples is "...Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven..." This should be a dead giveaway that there is something other than straight speech about things of this world. Heaven is where we go when Matthew is talking to us. Earth is where we are now. We're to bring the lessons of Jesus here and make them change this world we live in. Similarly this indicates that the story of Moses is in heaven, too; and Jews are supposed to do the same thing.

One more staple so this thing can never fall down: The command in the Torah to the Jews to tell their children that they were personally slaves in Egypt. This is the source of much confusion to those of us who just grab a Gideon's Bible and start reading it not knowing what it is. Jews (and Matthew and John are Jews speaking to other Jews about heavenly things) are commanded to speak a certain way, to believe certain things, to go into heaven. This is what confuses people like us.

So why don't people 'In the know' explaining this to us? They probably aren't allowed. Paul says things in heaven are forbidden to be spoken of. The priests and so forth all are not permitted, but I am permitted. I'm under no vows and in truth have a burden related to this problem. You might say I've never quite been to heaven, so I can't really tell you what is there. I'm just talking about modes of speak in the canon, Ok? It becomes my decision to speak of things that are not lawful etc., not that I am completely competent about them. Far be it from me to claim mastery. Therein is another difficulty, but its not like I need to know and understand everything in order to understand Matthew is not speaking literally about things on Earth. There's Heaven, and there is Earth. I live on Earth.

I'm talking about modes of speech which confuse the living heck out of people today, and its been that way every time lay people have read the canon without proper introduction. We do get things from it such as the occasional nugget of wisdom, but we are also confused and think its telling us about the creation of planet earth. Why do we do that? Its because we're selfishly focused on getting an afterlife and proving to other people God exists. We're simply not cut out to read it. Its not written to us. Its written to the Son of Man, someone who can go up into heaven and bring gifts back down -- someone initiated into the ways of reading these texts. Shibboleth Shibboleth Shibboleth but without the knife. No harm is intended and there is no conspiracy to fool people. Its just that crazy things have happened, and the sacred texts were pulled out of their coves and read as if they were about this world instead of about heaven.

 

[Windwalker]

Since I do not have the educational background of @amatuerscholar or @Windwalker or yourself I have a slightly different approach but arrive at a similar conclusion.

I look at the NT, the entire collection and the various references to signs in the sky and to Genesis, and the connection that I see between these and to Genesis is clearest to me in the gospel John. Many times I have read the first chapter of John trying to figure out if it supports Trinity or not etc, because that in the past was of great interest to me. Its not longer such an interesting question; but I find incidentally that John 1-3 borrows imagery from Genesis 1-3 and puts forward Jesus ministry as the light of creation.

I also look in the Psalms and see how it sings about the signs in the heavens, and I notice that the sons of God are sung about as being the stars. I notice, too, that they are stars in the story of Abraham when he is promised his offspring will be as many as the stars.

I look at other similar references. Isaiah calls the king of Babylon the morning star (Venus).

Now then I have to wonder if this tells me anything about Genesis, about the way the NT scholars are interpreting creation. I think it does. If John can interpret Jesus ministry as the light of creation, then why can't Moses interpret Genesis as the creation of Israel? Its suitable and fits so many otherwise confusing references and allusions. If Moses and John can interpret creation as the creation of a ministry then why couldn't Jesus or the apostles?

I also have to take into account the blatant usages in Matthew of the term 'Fulfil' to allude to quotes from prophets who are not predicting anything. Most people don't check these, but I have checked each one. I've looked up each fulfillment, and not any of them is fulfilling a prediction. Matthew is using a mode of communication that is no longer in use in our time but one which we can understand. Just as figures of speech are a mode of communication, Matthew is speaking in a different mode speaking truth but not in prose. He is taking us into many overlapping stories, but we're supposed to know them -- all of the stories in his canon. The stories are a tree with many branches, and he takes us into that tree. Scholars call its branches 'Types'. Call that tree the heaven tree. Its like if we were taken up into another dimension to bring back truths, but when we get back here we are here, on disappointing old sodden Earth. Now its up to us to take the beauty and lessons in the heaven-tree and make them be real here. In heaven there is peace and goodwill towards men, so we are to bring that back here to Earth.

Second-to-last: the prayer Jesus teaches the disciples is "...Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven..." This should be a dead giveaway that there is something other than straight speech about things of this world. Heaven is where we go when Matthew is talking to us. Earth is where we are now. We're to bring the lessons of Jesus here and make them change this world we live in. Similarly this indicates that the story of Moses is in heaven, too; and Jews are supposed to do the same thing.

One more staple so this thing can never fall down: The command in the Torah to the Jews to tell their children that they were personally slaves in Egypt. This is the source of much confusion to those of us who just grab a Gideon's Bible and start reading it not knowing what it is. Jews (and Matthew and John are Jews speaking to other Jews about heavenly things) are commanded to speak a certain way, to believe certain things, to go into heaven. This is what confuses people like us.

So why don't people 'In the know' explaining this to us? They probably aren't allowed. Paul says things in heaven are forbidden to be spoken of. The priests and so forth all are not permitted, but I am permitted. I'm under no vows and in truth have a burden related to this problem. You might say I've never quite been to heaven, so I can't really tell you what is there. I'm just talking about modes of speak in the canon, Ok? It becomes my decision to speak of things that are not lawful etc., not that I am completely competent about them. Far be it from me to claim mastery. Therein is another difficulty, but its not like I need to know and understand everything in order to understand Matthew is not speaking literally about things on Earth. There's Heaven, and there is Earth. I live on Earth.

I'm talking about modes of speech which confuse the living heck out of people today, and its been that way every time lay people have read the canon without proper introduction. We do get things from it such as the occasional nugget of wisdom, but we are also confused and think its telling us about the creation of planet earth. Why do we do that? Its because we're selfishly focused on getting an afterlife and proving to other people God exists. We're simply not cut out to read it. Its not written to us. Its written to the Son of Man, someone who can go up into heaven and bring gifts back down -- someone initiated into the ways of reading these texts. Shibboleth Shibboleth Shibboleth but without the knife. No harm is intended and there is no conspiracy to fool people. Its just that crazy things have happened, and the sacred texts were pulled out of their coves and read as if they were about this world instead of about heaven.

There's a lot of what you say here that I find John Dominic Crossan speaking to in his works. You might enjoy reading, How to read the Bible and still be a Christian, by him. He goes into the different visions of how God is seen and projected in the course of the biblical texts. There is a "biblical heartbeat" he calls it, where there is, to use your terms, and cycling back and forth between heaven and earth, or the vision of God's justice in the world as a divine distributed justice, or the vision of God reflecting the world system as a God of retributive justice. These are perhaps the shifts you are picking up on your own. Great observations.

If you're interested, I started this thread after having finished reading that book. How to Read the Bible, and Still be a Christian

 

[Dawnofhope]

Since I do not have the educational background of @amatuerscholar or @Windwalker or yourself I have a slightly different approach but arrive at a similar conclusion.

Thanks. Its essential to have a few letters behind my name with the work I do but when it comes to faith its a level playing field. Pride in one’s education can be just as much a barrier as wealth. Some of the early Disciples of Christ were not educated at all yet their hearts were receptive to the Words of Jesus. OTOH Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest had no hesitation in condemning Jesus despite a face to face encounter.

I look at the NT, the entire collection and the various references to signs in the sky and to Genesis, and the connection that I see between these and to Genesis is clearest to me in the gospel John. Many times I have read the first chapter of John trying to figure out if it supports Trinity or not etc, because that in the past was of great interest to me. Its not longer such an interesting question; but I find incidentally that John 1-3 borrows imagery from Genesis 1-3 and puts forward Jesus ministry as the light of creation.

While I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit belief in the doctrine of the trinity is not an essential of my faith.

Now then I have to wonder if this tells me anything about Genesis, about the way the NT scholars are interpreting creation. I think it does. If John can interpret Jesus ministry as the light of creation, then why can't Moses interpret Genesis as the creation of Israel? Its suitable and fits so many otherwise confusing references and allusions. If Moses and John can interpret creation as the creation of a ministry then why couldn't Jesus or the apostles?

I like the parallels you draw between John 1 and Genesis 1. They are both theological narratives of course to enrich our understanding. I think you understand the use of celestial bodies to convey spiritual truths.

Moses, Jesus and John were all Inspired by the Holy Spirit. In that sense they were all Prophets. Of course John was under the shadow of Jesus as the Hebrew Prophets were under Moses.

I also have to take into account the blatant usages in Matthew of the term 'Fulfil' to allude to quotes from prophets who are not predicting anything. Most people don't check these, but I have checked each one. I've looked up each fulfillment, and not any of them is fulfilling a prediction. Matthew is using a mode of communication that is no longer in use in our time but one which we can understand. Just as figures of speech are a mode of communication, Matthew is speaking in a different mode speaking truth but not in prose. He is taking us into many overlapping stories, but we're supposed to know them -- all of the stories in his canon. The stories are a tree with many branches, and he takes us into that tree. Scholars call its branches 'Types'. Call that tree the heaven tree. Its like if we were taken up into another dimension to bring back truths, but when we get back here we are here, on disappointing old sodden Earth. Now its up to us to take the beauty and lessons in the heaven-tree and make them be real here. In heaven there is peace and goodwill towards men, so we are to bring that back here to Earth.

The Gospel of Matthew is the most Hebrew with over sixty references to the Tanakh.

OT Quotations in the Gospel of Matthew

Second-to-last: the prayer Jesus teaches the disciples is "...Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven..." This should be a dead giveaway that there is something other than straight speech about things of this world. Heaven is where we go when Matthew is talking to us. Earth is where we are now. We're to bring the lessons of Jesus here and make them change this world we live in. Similarly this indicates that the story of Moses is in heaven, too; and Jews are supposed to do the same thing.

You’ve totally got it.

One more staple so this thing can never fall down: The command in the Torah to the Jews to tell their children that they were personally slaves in Egypt. This is the source of much confusion to those of us who just grab a Gideon's Bible and start reading it not knowing what it is. Jews (and Matthew and John are Jews speaking to other Jews about heavenly things) are commanded to speak a certain way, to believe certain things, to go into heaven. This is what confuses people like us.

I doubt if either of us are confused about the Bible. Are there more mysteries for us to unravel? Always!

So why don't people 'In the know' explaining this to us? They probably aren't allowed. Paul says things in heaven are forbidden to be spoken of. The priests and so forth all are not permitted, but I am permitted. I'm under no vows and in truth have a burden related to this problem. You might say I've never quite been to heaven, so I can't really tell you what is there. I'm just talking about modes of speak in the canon, Ok? It becomes my decision to speak of things that are not lawful etc., not that I am completely competent about them. Far be it from me to claim mastery. Therein is another difficulty, but its not like I need to know and understand everything in order to understand Matthew is not speaking literally about things on Earth. There's Heaven, and there is Earth. I live on Earth.

We both inhabit the earth yet our thoughts are directed towards heaven in contemplating the Divine Teachings.

I'm talking about modes of speech which confuse the living heck out of people today, and its been that way every time lay people have read the canon without proper introduction. We do get things from it such as the occasional nugget of wisdom, but we are also confused and think its telling us about the creation of planet earth. Why do we do that? Its because we're selfishly focused on getting an afterlife and proving to other people God exists. We're simply not cut out to read it. Its not written to us. Its written to the Son of Man, someone who can go up into heaven and bring gifts back down -- someone initiated into the ways of reading these texts. Shibboleth Shibboleth Shibboleth but without the knife. No harm is intended and there is no conspiracy to fool people. Its just that crazy things have happened, and the sacred texts were pulled out of their coves and read as if they were about this world instead of about heaven.

That is exactly right.
John 8:32

Thanks for dropping by.

 

[Brickjectivity]

There's a lot of what you say here that I find John Dominic Crossan speaking to in his works. You might enjoy reading, How to read the Bible and still be a Christian, by him. He goes into the different visions of how God is seen and projected in the course of the biblical texts. There is a "biblical heartbeat" he calls it, where there is, to use your terms, and cycling back and forth between heaven and earth, or the vision of God's justice in the world as a divine distributed justice, or the vision of God reflecting the world system as a God of retributive justice. These are perhaps the shifts you are picking up on your own. Great observations.

If you're interested, I started this thread after having finished reading that book. How to Read the Bible, and Still be a Christian

Thanks I remember hearing about that one, reading a chapter and skimming. I should take another look in there to see what you are referring to, but I have a high energy threshold for reading so haven't read most of it. In 2017 I posted positively about his book while lambasting CS Lewis at the same time. I'm not going to link you to the post, because it was not done very smoothly. I had not read anything but Lewis fiction anyway. I'd love to go on an on like I did in that ugly post, but I'm not going to. Ignorance is too much fun. Crossan had an interesting book, and I had no complaints about it though I did not read more than a chapter or so. I think its still here, somewhere. Obviously I should have read it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Why wouldn't we take this literally: that Jesus (or whoever wrote this passage) really was trying to invoke the cosmology described in Genesis, where the sky is a solid dome and stars are suspended from it, and really was trying to say that literal stars were going to literally fall to Earth?

Why wouldn’t we take it literally. Because if we do we have stars literally falling to the earth and Christ literally reappearing on clouds (Matthew 24:30). So Jesus isn’t trying to invoke the cosmology in Genesis anymore than the sun literally stool still in Joshua 10:12-13. There are many examples of celestial bodies being used as metaphors in Hebrew Scriptures and this would allow a more meaningful and coherent narrative to be drawn from Matthew 24

 

[Invisibilis]

In the Gospel of Matthew the final recorded sermon spoken by Jesus one verse reads;

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.
Matthew 24:29

Assuming Jesus actually spoke these words, what did He mean and why?

The visible universe is in disharmony, a distortion, with what is true and unchanging. The universe as we know is in vibration.
In the End, Truth will prevail and restore and heal everything back to its authenticity. Harmony will nullify all that is in distortion. As quick as a flash, everything visible will become invisible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why wouldn’t we take it literally. Because if we do we have stars literally falling to the earth and Christ literally reappearing on clouds (Matthew 24:30).

And?

I get that the idea is silly by a modern understanding, but it would be anachronistic to assume that someone speaking ~2000 years ago had a modern understanding. What reason would someone of Jesus's era have had to reject the idea that the sky was a solid dome out-of-hand?

It was a relatively popular hypothesis right up until Copernicus in the 1600s, so I don't think it would be wise to assume a first century figure must have rejected the idea.

So Jesus isn’t trying to invoke the cosmology in Genesis anymore than the sun literally stool still in Joshua 10:12-13.

Who's to say that the author of Joshua wasn't trying to say that the Sun did literally stand still?

There are many examples of celestial bodies being used as metaphors in Hebrew Scriptures and this would allow a more meaningful and coherent narrative to be drawn from Matthew 24

Okay, but what bearing does this have on what the author (or the speaker, assuming the author just wrote what he heard) intended?

 

[blü 2]

In the Gospel of Matthew the final recorded sermon spoken by Jesus one verse reads;

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.
Matthew 24:29

Assuming Jesus actually spoke these words, what did He mean and why?

He meant that, in accordance with the cosmology found consistently throughout the Tanakh (and also in the NT, but that didn't exist yet) the stars are lights affixed to the firmament, which is the hard dome of the sky over the flat, immovably fixed earth; and if they come loose, they'll fall to earth.

Bible cosmology has no concept of a spherical earth, heliocentry, planets as worlds, the moon as reflecting the sun's light, orbits, deep space, or the stars as other suns, let alone galaxies. The purpose of the stars, moon and sun is set out in Genesis 1:

14: And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth ...
​

And Jesus thought no different.

 

[Deeje]

In the Gospel of Matthew the final recorded sermon spoken by Jesus one verse reads;

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.
Matthew 24:29

Assuming Jesus actually spoke these words, what did He mean and why?

Since Jesus was addressing the coming fall of Jerusalem, and the tribulation of those days, it is easy for some to dismiss what his words mean to us, as those who will see the end of another age. His prophesy has a direct meaning for us too, as his words will be fulfilled again in the days to come.

I see that Jesus not only warned Christians about the destruction of Jerusalem, but also used those first-century events to parallel what will occur again when the “great tribulation” suddenly breaks out at the time of his return as judge. (Matthew 24:9, 13, 14) But, the good news is that “a great crowd” of people will survive that catastrophic tribulation. (Revelation 7:9, 13,14)

How will the great tribulation that Jesus foretold begin? The book of Revelation answers by describing the destruction of “Babylon the Great.” (Revelation 17:5-7)
There, false religion is likened to a prostitute! The clergy have prostituted themselves with the leaders of this wicked world. Instead of loyally supporting Jesus and his Kingdom, they have given their support to human rulers and have compromised God's laws just to gain political influence. They stand in stark contrast with the spiritually clean anointed ones of God, who have kept themselves separated from this world as Jesus commanded. (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 11:2; James 1:27; Revelation 14:4)

But who will destroy the harlotlike organization, pictured sitting like a queen who will never be unseated? According to the Revelation, God will put “his thought” into the hearts of “the ten horns” of the “scarlet-colored wild beast.” These horns represent all the present political powers that give support to the United Nations, an organization that we believe is pictured by the “scarlet-colored wild beast.” (Revelation 17:3; 16-18) The promotion of a substitute for God's Kingdom will prove to be an utter failure.

When the tribulation breaks out, the majority of mankind will seek refuge in human organizations that are likened to “the rocks of the mountains.” (Revelation 6:15-17) The celestial phenomena accompanying Jesus judgments will leave no one in any doubt as to what is happening...and who is doing it.

God’s people will flee to the refuge that Jehovah provides. In the first century, the interval between 66CE (when the Romans first marched on Jerusalem and then suddenly withdrew for no apparent reason) and the time of their return in 70CE was a time for action and obedience on the part of those who were already Christians. They were told to flee to the mountains, taking nothing with them but a few supplies. Those who obeyed Jesus' command, survived the great tribulation that fell on Jerusalem.

According to Matthew, Jesus finished giving the composite sign of his "parousia" (presence) with the parable of the sheep and the goats, saying: “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will put the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left.” (Matthew 25:31-33)

This is what we see as approaching very soon.

This will be a time of permanent reward or punishment, seeing as how we are all in either one category or the other from God's perspective.....that is how we see this.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And?

I get that the idea is silly by a modern understanding, but it would be anachronistic to assume that someone speaking ~2000 years ago had a modern understanding. What reason would someone of Jesus's era have had to reject the idea that the sky was a solid dome out-of-hand?

It was a relatively popular hypothesis right up until Copernicus in the 1600s, so I don't think it would be wise to assume a first century figure must have rejected the idea.

I’m not sure it matters too much exactly what the cosmology was back then as the verses are about particular events that will accompany the Return of another Messiah. However, I agree it may be useful to consider Jewish cosmology at the time of Christ.

Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
Matthew 24:29-31

So let’s take it literally as you suggest. The stars literally fall from the sky, the moon stops shining and the sun becomes dimmed. However we have this phrase ‘The powers of the heavens shall be shaken.’ That appears to be an allusion to the Kingdom of God rather than purely the physical heavens. Somehow the clouds are part of this heavenly cosmology and the Heralding Angels certainly fit.

So what exactly was Jewish Cosmology at this time?

The idea that the Earth was a sphere was developed by the Greeks in the 6th century BCE, and by the 3rd century BCE this was generally accepted by educated Romans and Greeks and even by some Jews.

Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia

Its clear Hellenisation had an enormous influence on Jewish thinking from about 300 AD. No doubt there were other cultural influences through interaction through captivity by the Babylonians and Persians as well as the Romans.

So by the time Christ was preaching the realm of God appeared very much intertwined with the physical heavens.

What is most relevant is Christ’s modus operandi when teaching. He used allegorical stories or parables to convey His Message. So to insist that He was being literal throughout a sermon that uses a clearly apocalyptic style narrative has plausibility issues.

Who's to say that the author of Joshua wasn't trying to say that the Sun did literally stand still?

It is possible. The most honest answer is we don’t know exactly who the author was let alone his intent. It almost certainly isn’t an eyewitness account of an event that actually happened.

Okay, but what bearing does this have on what the author (or the speaker, assuming the author just wrote what he heard) intended?

The point is Jewish Scriptures have many passages that employ symbols or metaphors. Some of those verses relate to the sun, moon and stars. Not surprising as they are heavenly bodies after all.

 

[Dawnofhope]

He meant that, in accordance with the cosmology found consistently throughout the Tanakh (and also in the NT, but that didn't exist yet) the stars are lights affixed to the firmament, which is the hard dome of the sky over the flat, immovably fixed earth; and if they come loose, they'll fall to earth.

Bible cosmology has no concept of a spherical earth, heliocentry, planets as worlds, the moon as reflecting the sun's light, orbits, deep space, or the stars as other suns, let alone galaxies. The purpose of the stars, moon and sun is set out in Genesis 1:

14: And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years. 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth ...
​

And Jesus thought no different.

I don’t believe we can be absolutely certain what cosmology was considered at the time of Christ or to what extent it was actually relevant.

According to Wikipedia

The idea that the Earth was a sphere was developed by the Greeks in the 6th century BCE, and by the 3rd century BCE this was generally accepted by educated Romans and Greeks and even by some Jews.

Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia

It is often assumed the cosmology during Christ time was similar to that based on medieval European cosmology prior to Copernicus and Galileo. However the Medieval model is based on Ptolemy’s Geocentric model developed during the second century AD.

Geocentric model - Wikipedia

As stated to another, the language used by Christ was largely allegorical stories and those stories and images build on the culture at that time. The Jews had been heavily influenced by the Babylonians, Persians and Greeks. That in part accounts for a very different theological perspective in regards God, Satan, angels and demons. They are presented very differently in the Tanakh and New Testament.

 

[blü 2]

I don’t believe we can be absolutely certain what cosmology was considered at the time of Christ or to what extent it was actually relevant.

According to Wikipedia

The idea that the Earth was a sphere was developed by the Greeks in the 6th century BCE, and by the 3rd century BCE this was generally accepted by educated Romans and Greeks and even by some Jews.

Biblical cosmology - Wikipedia

I don't argue with that. I'm aware both of the achievements of the Greeks, and the Greek influence on Jewish culture from the time of Alexander on; and the like influence on early Christianity (eg souls and afterlife, judgment, Cynic views on taking to the roads and trusting to God &c), already in the NT. However, it remains the case that no other cosmology than the one I described is found either in the Tanakh or the NT eg ─

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them.​

And the one you referred to in the OP:

Matthew 24: 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken;​

And

Revelation 6: 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth ...​

Revelation 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth,
​

with nothing to the contrary.

As stated to another, the language used by Christ was largely allegorical stories and those stories and images build on the culture at that time. The Jews had been heavily influenced by the Babylonians, Persians and Greeks. That in part accounts for a very different theological perspective in regards God, Satan, angels and demons. They are presented very differently in the Tanakh and New Testament.

If I correctly read your last sentence as pointing to large theological differences between the Tanakh and the NT, then once again I agree.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Since Jesus was addressing the coming fall of Jerusalem, and the tribulation of those days, it is easy for some to dismiss what his words mean to us, as those who will see the end of another age. His prophesy has a direct meaning for us too, as his words will be fulfilled again in the days to come.

I see that Jesus not only warned Christians about the destruction of Jerusalem, but also used those first-century events to parallel what will occur again when the “great tribulation” suddenly breaks out at the time of his return as judge. (Matthew 24:9, 13, 14) But, the good news is that “a great crowd” of people will survive that catastrophic tribulation. (Revelation 7:9, 13,14)

I agree Christ's Olivet discourse refers to two main periods;

1/ The fall of Jerusalem and the plight of the early Church and;

2/ Events many centuries after this first event that will be like the plight Jerusalem but instead it will be Christendom that falls into rapid demise accompanied by the Return of Christ. Some Christian's adopt a Preterist view that all the events of this sermon along with the book of Revelation all happened in the early centuries after the Crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. However there are problems with this view IMHO.

From a Baha'i perspective, the Great tribulation or Armageddon began in 1914 with WWI. That tribulation continues in different forms today.

The great tribulation for the Jewish people culminated in the loss of temporal power with the destruction of Jerusalem during 70 AD. This was preceded by Christ, and so too was the final loss of Temporal power for the Roman Empire preceded by 'The Return of Christ'. Baha'u'llah even wrote Pope Pious IX along with other world leaders making clear and explicit His claim.

Baha’u’llah Warns Germany, Russia--and the Pope

Not long after the temporal power of the Roman Catholic Church was markedly diminished to a shadow of its former glory.

Temporal power of the Holy See - Wikipedia

Consider the small area of the Vatican today compared to how vast the Holy Roman Empire was at its peak in the 13th century. The Jewish Empire reached its peak under King David and one thousand years later completely collapsed after successive exiles culminating in the diaspora of the Jewish people after the destruction of Jerusalem.

How will the great tribulation that Jesus foretold begin? The book of Revelation answers by describing the destruction of “Babylon the Great.” (Revelation 17:5-7)
There, false religion is likened to a prostitute! The clergy have prostituted themselves with the leaders of this wicked world. Instead of loyally supporting Jesus and his Kingdom, they have given their support to human rulers and have compromised God's laws just to gain political influence. They stand in stark contrast with the spiritually clean anointed ones of God, who have kept themselves separated from this world as Jesus commanded. (John 18:36; 2 Corinthians 11:2; James 1:27; Revelation 14:4)

It is not just Christianity that has become corrupted, divided and confused but all religion. Are you part of the solution or part of the problem?

But who will destroy the harlotlike organization, pictured sitting like a queen who will never be unseated? According to the Revelation, God will put “his thought” into the hearts of “the ten horns” of the “scarlet-colored wild beast.” These horns represent all the present political powers that give support to the United Nations, an organization that we believe is pictured by the “scarlet-colored wild beast.” (Revelation 17:3; 16-18) The promotion of a substitute for God's Kingdom will prove to be an utter failure.

The beast in the book of Revelation does NOT refer to the United Nations according to Baha'i theology. An increase and intensification of international cooperation is exactly what the world needs. I could outline in detail the book of Revelation, what Empire exemplified the beast and its identity. However its off topic and I don't think you are too interested to hear how many of the prophecies have already been fulfilled in stark contradiction to what your church teaches.

All the best waiting for your apocalypse.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I don't argue with that. I'm aware both of the achievements of the Greeks, and the Greek influence on Jewish culture from the time of Alexander on; and the like influence on early Christianity (eg souls and afterlife, judgment, Cynic views on taking to the roads and trusting to God &c), already in the NT. However, it remains the case that no other cosmology than the one I described is found either in the Tanakh or the NT eg ─

Matthew 4:8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them.
And the one you referred to in the OP:

Matthew 24: 29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken;
And

Revelation 6: 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth ...
Revelation 7:1 After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth,
with nothing to the contrary.

All three examples provided, I personally would not interpret literally. In each case the prevailing cosmological worldview is used to communicate something quite different that transcends the images being used. The Bible provides a theological not a scientific or in many instances not even an historical narrative. There is nothing in the Bible to my knowledge that would inform us of a helicocentric view of the world, nor would I expect such a view to be promoted in ancient religious texts.

If I correctly read your last sentence as pointing to large theological differences between the Tanakh and the NT, then once again I agree.

Pleased to hear we are in agreement.