Christianity sets a date for the end of the world--effects?

[Arkenfolm]

This thought's been interesting me for a while--what would the effect on society be if a set date for the end of the world (Jesus's return) is established as Church doctrine? I don't mean the idea that Jesus said in Matthew 24:34 that the world would end in the lifetime of his followers. I mean long term. Say there evolves a tradition in the 2nd/3rd century that Jesus will return a thousand years after he ascended to heaven. This tradition, as preached by a very noteworthy Church father and repeated by other noteworthy church fathers, becomes an established part of Christian doctrine. This doctrine establishes the date of Jesus's resurrection to have occurred in 33 AD, and that in 1033 AD, Jesus would return and his kingdom established over the world.

We will assume that aside from these additional writings/doctrinal conflicts (of which the end of the world in 1033 is established as fact), the history of Christianity and indeed the world continues as normal. It becomes the state religion of the Roman Empire. After the fall of Rome, the barbarian kingdoms carry on the legacy of Rome and Christianity and by 1000 AD most of Europe is Christian. A man name Muhammad preaches his new religion of Islam, and Islam conquers the Middle East and North Africa. Of course, we'll also assume the entire concept of "AD" exists TTL.

So as the 2nd millennium begins and most all Christians believe the last decades of the world are at hand, what are the effects on Europe and the surrounding areas? What will happen as 1033 begins and the last months of the world are at hand? And what happens in 1034 as the age old church doctrine is proven wrong as Jesus does not appear? And what happens by the end of the 11th century as all the Messiahs and other claimants of Jesus who arise because of the end of times prophecy are proven to be little more than the false prophets and antichrists warned against in the Bible?

 

[moxn]

And what happens in 1034 as the age old church doctrine is proven wrong as Jesus does not appear? And what happens by the end of the 11th century as all the Messiahs and other claimants of Jesus who arise because of the end of times prophecy are proven to be little more than the false prophets and antichrists warned against in the Bible?

Judging from the doomsday cults of OTL, the church leaders claim there must have been some miscalculation in their prediction (either they interpreted the verse wrong, some years had been counted wrong, or the exact birth or resurrection of Christ had been estimated wrong) and they push the doomsday further back. Some followers leave the church, usually just for another sect, but many still remain even after the prediction fails to come true. The Jehovah's Witnesses have made dozens of predictions for the end of the world, and each time that date passed they simply picked another one further into the future. At one point, they simply gave up and now say the world will end "soon", but without any specific date attached. Despite all these failed predictions, the church has lived on just fine.

 

[Joshuapooleanox]

From my knowledge, there was a prophecy in the Byzantine Empire that 1000 years after Rome's fall the world would end. Or that it would when Constantinople fell.

 

[Shiva]

Well the VERY Early Christians believed that the world would end within Two Generations of the Ministry of Jesus. When it didn't happen they suffered a minor crisis until they reinterpreted things as 'God has a Different Perspective of Time'.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Judging from the doomsday cults of OTL, the church leaders claim there must have been some miscalculation in their prediction (either they interpreted the verse wrong, some years had been counted wrong, or the exact birth or resurrection of Christ had been estimated wrong) and they push the doomsday further back. Some followers leave the church, usually just for another sect, but many still remain even after the prediction fails to come true. The Jehovah's Witnesses have made dozens of predictions for the end of the world, and each time that date passed they simply picked another one further into the future. At one point, they simply gave up and now say the world will end "soon", but without any specific date attached. Despite all these failed predictions, the church has lived on just fine.

I think there's a difference here between what mostly Protestant groups (Millerites, Jehovah's Witnesses, Harold Camping, etc.) have said and what might as well be a foundational church doctrine from the earliest times. It's interesting that most doomsday prophecies are predicted to come true in the lives of the people listening to them rather than at some date infinitely far into the future. An end of the world date in 1033 could cause a breakdown in the church and the mass rise of heresy as people try and make sense of why Jesus never returned, in addition to tons of Messiah claimants. Even Jews would be affected by this, because of centuries of living alongside Christians--at least one or two Jewish Messiah claimants would arise and start a fuss in the Jewish communities of Europe and elsewhere or even society at large.

Well the VERY Early Christians believed that the world would end within Two Generations of the Ministry of Jesus. When it didn't happen they suffered a minor crisis until they reinterpreted things as 'God has a Different Perspective of Time'.

They certainly did. Which might mean for this scenario to work, we need Matthew 24 to have a few alterations, including Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only," although of course keep the apocalyptic tone of that chapter. And since Matthew was probably not composed until the end of the 1st century at earliest, why I said that this doctrine would have to evolve between the 2nd and 3rd centuries for maximum dispersal throughout the future Christian world.

 

[dartingfog]

Well the VERY Early Christians believed that the world would end within Two Generations of the Ministry of Jesus. When it didn't happen they suffered a minor crisis until they reinterpreted things as 'God has a Different Perspective of Time'.

Or even better, say that their faith has persuaded God to postpone the end of the world until a later date. Rinse and repeat every few years.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

As others have pointed out, this isn't a particular problem. Incorrect doomsday predictions have been part and parcel of Christianity since its earliest inception, with beliefs of Christ's imminent return, a doomsday one thousand years in the future, or the more modern predictions that within the time of the re-establishment of Israel the world will come to an end. Eschatology is a fascinating breed of theology, but one that deals in even more vagueness than simple interpretation of religious text. That fundamental vagueness of a prophecy lends itself to a great deal of fluidity in how one interprets a particular prophecy.

Had the early church made a firm date, you can bet that if it did not come to pass it would be written off and reinterpreted (or rejected as "mortal impertinence on divine revelation" or something) or after a while they would give up the ghost and stop trying to interpret the end of the world.

 

[Nik]

IIRC, AD 100 was pitched as the end of the world for a while. Then, when the 999/1000 roll-over arrived, more of the same. I've read that several Medieval 'predictions' prompted folk to build Arks. Then, we had that Y2K fun, headed off by the IT folk. The 2012 'long cycle' thing...

It's when the cultists get too self-involved and commit group suicide that you just have to shake your head...

 

[Corjomc]

The Western World Ends on January 1st, 2000, the Eastern Orthodox world ends about a week later.

After that many people now have sheds in their backyard that resembled upside down Arks

Hopefully on December 31st hopefully no one high thinks

"wellwe have all these nukes just laying around . . . meh . . .what the heck!"

 

[samcster94]

I'm pretty sure some theological doctrine, like ending in 400 could be changed when Jesus does not come.

 

[sloreck]

If the end of the world is a central and foundational tenet of the faith then when things don't end there is a huge crisis. What I am talking about is Christianity develops a theology that somehow equates the divinity of Christ with this prophecy, the two are totally bound together if one goes so does the other. If this happens Christianity splits big time. The Jews, who never accepted the divinity of Christ nor (mostly) an apocalyptic end of the world (the coming of the Messiah is not the same thing) , will actually be (mostly) vindicated and may get some converts from this breakup. Of course if Islam is already around when this happens, they also become winners.

As long as the explanation of "we miscalculated" or "the Lord's time is not ours" or similar is acceptable the failure of the apocaplypse is not a game changer. If the end of days, at a particular time, is a central tenet when it does not happen then everything is discredited.

 

[Corjomc]

Remember if the Prophet says the world will end in the year 1000 and when that year comes and the world does not end it is not the prophecy's fault.

It is obviously man's fault in his impatient way of measuring his years.

Obviously the best way would be to wait for the actual end and then divide the time it took to get there by 1000.

When man cries up to the heavens there is no way he can do that a burning bush appears to tell him

"Not my problem."

 

[Arkenfolm]

As others have pointed out, this isn't a particular problem. Incorrect doomsday predictions have been part and parcel of Christianity since its earliest inception, with beliefs of Christ's imminent return, a doomsday one thousand years in the future, or the more modern predictions that within the time of the re-establishment of Israel the world will come to an end. Eschatology is a fascinating breed of theology, but one that deals in even more vagueness than simple interpretation of religious text. That fundamental vagueness of a prophecy lends itself to a great deal of fluidity in how one interprets a particular prophecy.

Had the early church made a firm date, you can bet that if it did not come to pass it would be written off and reinterpreted (or rejected as "mortal impertinence on divine revelation" or something) or after a while they would give up the ghost and stop trying to interpret the end of the world.

Except it kinda is if this idea of "Jesus will return a thousand years after he ascended to heaven" is an important part of church doctrine. It's not so much a prophecy but an integral part of church doctrine TTL. And this is something which is preached and promoted for many centuries before the year (1033) finally comes and goes and the church is left hanging as Jesus fails to return, but quite a but of chaos is left in the wake of it.

IIRC, AD 100 was pitched as the end of the world for a while. Then, when the 999/1000 roll-over arrived, more of the same. I've read that several Medieval 'predictions' prompted folk to build Arks. Then, we had that Y2K fun, headed off by the IT folk. The 2012 'long cycle' thing...

It's when the cultists get too self-involved and commit group suicide that you just have to shake your head...

I don't recall about AD 100, although it makes sense with Matthew 24 (Jesus's generation will be the last, by that interpretation), even if the canon Gospels were written not long before AD 100. It would be strange, considering the AD calendar wasn't invented, and no calendar existing at the time would seem to predict anything special about that year.

AD 1000 I have heard as well (quite a bit of craziness in medieval nutjob fashion, evidently), and also AD 1666 (God will save us from the year being Satan's number). That makes more sense since the AD calendar epoch was in wide enough use by then. But I'm saying 1,000 years after Jesus ascended to heaven, or AD 1033, even if it's obvious that dates on the calendar make stupid people superstitious.

The Western World Ends on January 1st, 2000, the Eastern Orthodox world ends about a week later.

After that many people now have sheds in their backyard that resembled upside down Arks

Hopefully on December 31st hopefully no one high thinks

"wellwe have all these nukes just laying around . . . meh . . .what the heck!"

Sure, I mean Harold Camping said God would rapture people by timezone, where once Australia and New Zealand's faithful got raptured, America and Europe would get several hours to repent so they'd get raptured too when their time would come.

If the end of the world is a central and foundational tenet of the faith then when things don't end there is a huge crisis. What I am talking about is Christianity develops a theology that somehow equates the divinity of Christ with this prophecy, the two are totally bound together if one goes so does the other. If this happens Christianity splits big time. The Jews, who never accepted the divinity of Christ nor (mostly) an apocalyptic end of the world (the coming of the Messiah is not the same thing) , will actually be (mostly) vindicated and may get some converts from this breakup. Of course if Islam is already around when this happens, they also become winners.

As long as the explanation of "we miscalculated" or "the Lord's time is not ours" or similar is acceptable the failure of the apocaplypse is not a game changer. If the end of days, at a particular time, is a central tenet when it does not happen then everything is discredited.

Yeah, this is more what I mean. Things will get messed up big time when the date so believed in doesn't come true. Christianity made up a ton of doctrines in the early church era with scant Biblical support (and even many Protestants follow these). A second coming prophecy, which could very well come from the failure of Jesus to return within the generation, could be huge.

The Christian response would have to be the same as OTL's Christian responses to failed prophecies, but this time far, far more painful to admit, especially since it would come after so much chaos caused by the prophecy.

 

[AwesomeCarlos1]

Except it kinda is if this idea of "Jesus will return a thousand years after he ascended to heaven" is an important part of church doctrine. It's not so much a prophecy but an integral part of church doctrine TTL

Are you talking about the Millennium since my church's doctrine is that only happens after the 2nd coming and that Christians are wrong to assign dates since Jesus said that no one would know the time of his return. We have always dismissed these dates as fallacy and unbiblical. We believe that we are in the end times due to our interpretation of Daniel and Revelation and the moral state of the world but we don't assign a date.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Are you talking about the Millennium since my church's doctrine is that only happens after the 2nd coming and that Christians are wrong to assign dates since Jesus said that no one would know the time of his return. We have always dismissed these dates as fallacy and unbiblical. We believe that we are in the end times due to our interpretation of Daniel and Revelation and the moral state of the world but we don't assign a date.

Kinda, but kinda not. I'm just throwing a suggestion out there which hypothetically the early church might latch onto to the degree it becomes a notable part of church doctrine. Basically Matthew 24:36 is ignored or interpreted to mean something else. Something like "yes, man doesn't know, but God knows, and God has revealed to man that Jesus will return in a thousand years."

 

[Sheliak Lawyer]

I seem to recall their being a biblical reference to "no one including the Son knowing the day or the hour".

 

[Sian]

yeah ... early Christianity, was heavily millennialistic, in terms of believing that the end of times was 'just around the corner'

 

[EnglishCanuck]

yeah ... early Christianity, was heavily millennialistic, in terms of believing that the end of times was 'just around the corner'

You still get that attitude amongst some people.

 

[EnglishCanuck]

Except it kinda is if this idea of "Jesus will return a thousand years after he ascended to heaven" is an important part of church doctrine. It's not so much a prophecy but an integral part of church doctrine TTL. And this is something which is preached and promoted for many centuries before the year (1033) finally comes and goes and the church is left hanging as Jesus fails to return, but quite a but of chaos is left in the wake of it.

Yeah, this is more what I mean. Things will get messed up big time when the date so believed in doesn't come true. Christianity made up a ton of doctrines in the early church era with scant Biblical support (and even many Protestants follow these). A second coming prophecy, which could very well come from the failure of Jesus to return within the generation, could be huge.

The Christian response would have to be the same as OTL's Christian responses to failed prophecies, but this time far, far more painful to admit, especially since it would come after so much chaos caused by the prophecy.

You're overlooking a few things here. Firstly all of Christianity must agree on this central tenant for this to be plausible. Look at the contentious nature of early Christendom and the Councils of the early Church, literal blood on the floor over doctrine. The nature of the divinity of Jesus was a matter of intense debate for centuries. Even if the early Church picked up on this doctrine of "Jesus will return after a thousand years" you'd have people who disagreed with it, or would say the dating system is incorrect, or that its not a human thousand years. No religion is a monolithic bloc, so one failed prophecy, even if it was central to early Christian doctrine, isn't going to break the faith.

Secondly, even if it caused a serious schism in theology, the worst you get is a crisis of faith in whichever major church adopted this, or they rewrite the theology to accommodate that point, or they get trounced by an opposing theological school which disagrees with them. That's assuming it doesn't take place well before the coming of the prophecy too.

 

[Sian]

You still get that attitude amongst some people.

Well, sure ... but relatively speaking it was pretty mainstream at least doing the first century, and a significant minority the next couple of centuries, up to somewhere around the time of Nicaea