CJD

Why would someone have to say what everybody already knew?

Correct. He already assumes that the "when" of the parousia is entirely conditional and that that condition is repentance.

"Jeremiah" and "Daniel" are parts of the very stories or narratives that make up the lives of both the author and his audience. Retrojection is unnecessary, for the Tanak already permeates their own story.

So?

Yes.

Yes. This is the condition. Turn. The promise? To be saved (the coming 'day' of the Lord). Condition and promise. Thanks for making my case.

He's simply explaining to those who may have forgotten why it is the King has yet to return (given that many of the conditions had already been met).

Why must he introduce something everyone knows already?

Correct. He says that until God's people repent, the Christ will remain right where he is.

No, the argument is over the "when" of the parousia ("When is this 'coming' he promised?" 2 Pet 3:4), not over the luck of those who have yet to repent. The return was unexpectedly delayed. Why? Because God "is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance …" (3:9).

Cut-and-paste this so-called 'assertion'.

"As-sert — to state or declare positively and often forcefully or agressively."

Pervy, I might remind you, challenged: "You have provided no textual evidence to indicate that the return of Christ is intended as a benefit that will only happen if enough people repent."

My response was Acts 3:19–21, which clearly indicates "that the return of Christ is intended as a benefit that will only happen if enough people repent."

I don't know about the "enough" part, but I think the text makes the case.

In sum, it makes no difference if you think the author's (2 Pet) reasoning is valid or not. This is simply what the text says. Unless you can offer a more plausible alternative, I suggest you find another thread in which to post.

Regards,

CJD

CJD

For the benefit of the reader, what follows are some references that help explain two important features of this discussion. I know that just because "such-and-so" is used in one context, this does not mean that when "such-and-so" is used from then on it always means what it previously meant. At any rate, read the following passages that may bear (thematically) upon the discussion:

"the day of the Lord" as coming judgment:

Isa. 2:12; 13:6; Jer. 46:10; Ezek. 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1; Obad. 15; Zeph. 1:17; 1:14–15; Zech. 14:2; Mal. 4:1.

After judment comes restoration:

Isa. 10:20–22; 11:11; 43:5–7; Jer. 31:7–8; 31:31ff.; Ezek. 28:25; 34:11ff.; 36:24; 37:1–14, 21; Hos. 1:11; Amos 9:8; 11–15; Mic. 2:12; 4:6–7; Zeph. 3:20; Zech. 8:8.

Finally, one of the most basic themes in OT prophetic literature is the idea of coming judgment. Repeatedly, the prophets warned that judgment will befall those [i.e., Israel, in context] if they do not repent:

Isa. 1:10–20, 21–24, 31; 2:19–21; 5:30; 29:6; 51:17; Jer. 4:23; 25:11, 15–18; 26:3; Ezek. 5:9; 10; 16:15ff.; 16:31ff, 46; 22:17–22; 23; 38–39; Dan. 9:2, 24–27; Hos. 4:15; Amos 8:2; 9:8; Micah 1:3–5.

It seems to me that the conditionality of either blessing or curse permeates the OT prophetic literature. Going against the grain in this matter would see the 'insignificant' first and second centures (CE) as somehow missing this fact about the nature of prophetic utterances. (In other words, why would the authors of early Xian literature, i.e., the NT, [many of whom were purportedly Jewish] think differently than the family of tradition that preceded them?)

It behooves one who disagrees here (the one who goes against the grain) to show that they didn't "take for granted" this particular facet of the prophetic institution.

Regards,

CJD

gregor

I could spend time pointing out that the OT 'prophesies' are after the fact inventions - but it would be lost on you. Your wishes of "known conditions" are not consistent with the text.

And since you admitted the falsity of your argument, we can stop now.

Do you remember when you inadvertently admitted the falsity of your argument?

Think back.

Review your prior post.

You stated "The return was UNEXPECTEDLY delayed" (emphasis added).

Unexpectedly, huh.

Stated conditions are NOT unexpected events.

So, it was either conditional (and expected) or unconditional (and needed an excuse to explain the unexpected delay). Your position is too self-contradictory to warranty further discussion.

CJD

I hereby call on a moderator to publicly chastise gregor, and encourage him to either put-up or shut-up.

Not taking the time to do a little work in order to establish one's argument is pure laziness — nothing more. Pushing me aside with "it would be lost on you" completely conforms to his own nihilistic persuasion, and I for one find it extremely distasteful and cowardly. He has found himself out-studied, out-witted, and bereft of an intelligent counter-point. As such, he has resorted to the actions — ironically — of the 'last man'. Nietzsche would be ashamed.

Regarding the "unexpected delay." As Jon Promnitz has pointed out (in the current debate between he and Gastrich), many of the perceived conditions had taken place already (e.g., the evangelization of the known world). So the expected return grew increasingly into an unexpected delay. The same thing happened during Daniel's day. The time of exile was up. Why has the return from exile not begun? Lack of repentance, that's why. The same goes for the author of 2 Pet. Just because everybody knew that the timing of the return was conditional doesn't mean everybody knew what the conditions were.

I've been nice so far, keeping the debate in English. If necessary, shall we move on to the Greek and Hebrew? Do they teach that stuff at the Nihilistic Skeptic's Ranch in Texas?

Regards,

CJD

CJD

It strikes me further that you have not read closely anything I have written. Prophetic utterances are rarely single, specific prognostications. And much of the literature was indeed written after the fact (Isa., for example). If you would only rid yourself of what certain (modern and western) Xians have told you over the years regarding the nature of prophetic utterances, you would not be so flabbergasted today.

Furthermore, how can you possibly believe that you could show every prophetic utterance to be an "after the fact invention"? Do you know the precise dating of every scrap of OT literature? Who the hell are you, and why aren't you being interviewed on those PBS specials?!

gregor2

Activating blatherskite ignore function . . . now.