Dean Anderson

That wasn't prophecy - that was a simple coercive threat by Yahweh...

Sven

How do you know? After all, at least PHF seems to be interested.
And re:being mean... "Many have no concern for responsible textual criticism" is also not the kindest description of many of the people posting here.

Hint: A lot of them tried to live this ancient faith in the past. So they surely can sympathize with you.

You mean, outside of blind faith? :Cheeky:

I don't know why I should be loyal to a being a have no evidence for and which, if it indeed existed, is a mass-murderer. But this is off-topic...

OK, "to fool" was the wrong word. "Persuade of your view" is better.

I don't see that Paul does the only twisting, you certainly help him along.

Where? See, exactly here your twisting comes in - and you apparently not even realize it.

You don't have to. I never disputed this.

I also didn't dispute this.

I only dispute the "=". Especially that "nation" here means the same as in Jeremiah. See my clarification.

If you think so...

Edited to add answers on more:
This is entirely irrelevant. The only question is in which sense "nations" was used in Jeremiah. I still fail to see how this usage would encompass the figurative "nation of God".

In other words: You're an apologist.
This "socio-grammatical" context is such an easy loophole for problems, isn't it?

CJD

I nowhere claim to "ignore" higher criticism. Where it is relevant to the argument, please do bring it up. The reasons for a late second-century date on 2 Peter are not convincing, IMO.

I would think you'd know the answer to this already. On the other hand, granting the text's socio-grammatical context, I then read the text "literally" (which is why I deem, for example, the creation narrative as a literary framework tale or Job as a historical framework tale, etc.).


If Jesus uttered a prophetic statement, and if prophetic utterances are to be understood in a certain way, then there is all the evidence I can offer. You're not willing to argue that Jesus did not see himself as the equivalent of an OT prophet, are you?


The conditions of prophetic utterances can be explicit or entirely unspoken.

Allow me to offer (a more precise) version of the nature of prophetic utterances according to the text, using the gospel of Saint Matthew as an example:

The term fulfillment (Heb. male; Gr. plhrow) is not to be understood in such a binary fashion. Not all prophecies are singular, specific prognostications. Some are non-predictive statements; some are predictive, but historically fulfilled; some are predictive, begun and continuing; and some are predictive, unfulfilled statements. Let's look at these four categories in relation to the aforementioned gospel.

1) Non-predictive statements (made by a prophet and used by Matt):

Hosea 11:1 — "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."

Matt. 2:15 — "This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt I called my son.'"

* Bad textual criticism suggests that even though we know that Hosea was not uttering prediction (for he was merely promulgating Exodus typology), Matthew uses it thus, and we must therefore swallow it. No, the gospel writer did no such thing. Matthew is saying that this coming of Jesus the Messiah is — typologically speaking — the exodus. As such, Christ Jesus identifies with his people through his own exodus from Egypt.

2) Predictive, but historically fulfilled: Isa.7–8 falls into this category. God says he will destroy the Syro-Israelite coalition, Ahaz the hypocrite does not ask for a sign, Isaiah speaks of a sign, his sons are the sign, which sign becomes a typology that Matthew merely connects the dots to. That is, in the same way Isaiah's son was a sign of blessing or curse, so, too, is this Jesus (except he is the ultimate sign).

3) Predictive, begun and continuing:

Jer. 31:15 — "Thus says the LORD: A voice is heard in Ramah, lamentation and bitter weeping. Rachel is weeping for her children; she refuses to be comforted for her children, because they are not more."

Matt. 2:18 — "[Basically the same thing.]"

* Why was Rachel originally weeping for her children? Because the Babylonians had her children in exile. But had the exile ever ended? No, it continued through the Medes, Persians, Greeks, and, at the time of Jesus, the Romans. Who was Herod working for? In other words, the 'Babylonian' exile was still on and Rachel was still weeping for her children. The original prediction, which had no sight of the Messiah whatsoever, began and continued up through the time of the Messiah, which Matthew rightly saw and applied. Prophecy never articulates every historical contingency.

4) Predictive, unfulfilled statements:

Isaiah 8:12 — "But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.

The people who walked in darkness
___have seen a great light;
those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness,
___on them has light shined."

Matt.4:14 — "[again, pretty much the same thing.]"

* Isaiah is predicting a time when the North will be restored. At precisely what time does Matthew conjoin this prediction to the life of Jesus? When Jesus ministers in the North. This obvious but important point must not be overlooked. Restoration of Israel must needs include both the North and the South, only then will true restoration from exile take place. Jesus, at the outset of his ministry, goes to the North. Why? To preach restoration, for the kingdom of God was at hand. In other words, the return from exile and the restoration of God's people had begun. Did Isaiah foresee some kind of messianic reference here? Of course not. He was predicting a restoration of the North that was supposed to come after the Assyrian judgment. but it did not come, because the people did not repent (see Daniel). Zerubbabel's attempt ultimately petered out. But did that attempt from other son of David, you know, that one born in Bethlehem?

I have taken the time to go through this for a one simple reason: to show that predictive statements found in the Tanak cannot be treated the way they usually are in modern western culture. Saint Matthew, I believe, knew this well, and shows it in his use of the Tanak and its typological promises of the coming royal son of David. It can only be considered a stretch if you are demanding from him things he did not intend as an author. Nor do I think such demands do justice to the actual text. That is to say, it's seemingly not even given a chance (like your "four categories" of prophecy; tell me that's not an outright hermeneutic of suspicion!).

Jesus' utterance falls into category 2 above: The intial eschatological perspective of the NT writers (some of which, presumably, actually followed Jesus around) was that the blessings of the eschaton had been realized in some measure, and the imminent return of the Christ was offered as a benefit of repentance. However, the lack of repentance within the covenant community caused an indefinite delay of the Christ's return. Nevertheless, the hope and prayer of every true believer is that through their repentance and faithful living the return of the Christ may be hastened.

That Jesus didn't specifically say it like this is of no consequence, for the very context that surrounds him (both the nature of OT prophetic utterances and NT "commentary" on his life) pushes the reader to see it in this way. That is why understanding the "ministry" of prophets is so essential to understanding how to read their writings or prophetic utterances.

Balderdash. I just refuse to get bogged down in higher criticism. I mean, it can go on and on and on. Don't take my ambivalence toward it as ignorance, Pervy. I am degreed. What I found more often than not is that Tradition is just as viable as Deconstruction, if not more so, precisely because it is Tradition. What a beautiful circle!

Further, the skeptics I insulted need it. They need to be driven toward a more responsible skepticism, so that they are quick to listen instead of talk.

Regards,

CJD

Jack the Bodiless

I think most of us are aware of what "midrash" is, CJD.

It doesn't appear to be particularly relevant to the OP: should something specifically stated to be future prediction (which the verses Matthew "ripped off" were not, as you admit) should be taken as conditional even when this is not specified.

Mathetes

All prophecies, in the Bible and elsewhere, are conditional; the condition being the prophesied event itself.

I hereby predict that Washington DC will be destroyed by a meteorite. But it is conditional, see. The condition for the prophecy to be fulfilled is that Washington DC is destroyed by a meteorite. If this condition doesn't occur, my prophecy will not be fulfilled.

Easy.

Dean Anderson

I agree with you here. If prophetic utterances are to be understood in a certain way then your point stands.

Unfortunately, you have failed to demonstrate that all allegedly prophetic utterances can or should be understood in the same way.

Of course I am. The traditional view (your favourite view) shows the OT prophets as otherwise normal men who God chooses to speak to. Jesus, on the other hand, IS God. There is a vast difference there.

Your version of the nature of prophecy simply assumes that all alleged 'prophecy' is true prophecy (albeit fulfilled in different ways), ignoring the socio-grammatic context of the writings.

You see, there you go again. You assume that some of the NT writers followed Jesus around, ignoring all the higher criticism that indicates this not to be the case.

In any case, 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.

I'll say it once more. WHERE IS YOUR TEXTUAL EVIDENCE FOR THIS?

That Jesus didn't say it is of supreme consequence. The 'context' that you say surrounds him is the product of your own Christian presuppositions. I'm afraid that you will need more that to put together a convincing argument.

By 'a more responsible skepticism', I assume you mean 'apologetics'.

gregor2

CJD

Thanks for advising that you were providing 'textural criticism;' otherwise some might think you were only attempting poor-quality cut and paste apologetics.

I also appreciate your declarations of victory by having proved certain things. I typically expect these empty assertions of folks like Turkel and Gastrich.

What you refuse to acknowledge is that the author of 2 Peter implicitly rejects the post hoc excuse that all prophesies are conditional. The story behind the creation of 2 Peter is telling. You have a Jerusalem church leader in 150 CE who was losing some church members and was being ridiculed by some non-members. Why? Because Paul had been dead 100 years. The putative apostles had been dead 70 years. Yet, no return. How did the author respond? He could have said - "well, Jesus' prophesy and Paul's warnings were conditional - until you guys shape up, Jesus won't return. And it'll be a long time til that happens."

He didn't. His only excuse was "well, God takes his time. But, don't worry, he'll be back soon."

Wouldn't it have been so much easier for him to say "Well, look at Jeremiah." Then, he could try and retroject some circuitous argument by analogy to explain the missing, but long-awaited return. His excuse was that God's calendar is different than ours, but the return is still imminent.

At some point, that argument lost its last vestige of believability to many, so some people became preterists. Others have apparently invented an unmentioned and un-implied precedent condition. Still others point to conditions actually mentioned in the texts.

At least Gastrich has the benefit of pointing to some ACTUAL conditions mentioned in the NT (e.g. rebuilding the temple, preaching throughout the world, & etc.). These are unpersuasive for a number of reasons, but at least he has some bases for his argument.

CJD

Gregor2, you've missed the entire point: Prophetic utterances found in the ancient texts of what we now call 'the Bible' cannot (and should not) be used as an apologetic, precisely because many, many prophetic utterances have failed to materialize in time. Now, underlying this notion is the textual evidence that most prophetic utterances are not single, specific prognostications. Anyone familiar with prophetic literature can testify to this fact. Statistics, probabilities, etc., a la McDowell, are well-nigh a waste of time.

The notion of conditionality is not an apologetic for anything other than how to read the text in its orginal context. I am in effect saying to the skeptic, "No, you can't use this for any deviant purpose, because the text doesn't allow it." To the fellow Christian who insists on using prophetic literature as an apologetic, "Leave it. It's looks ad hoc and suffocates under its own weight."

This leaves out (deviously?) the gist of the passage entirely. What the author actually wrote was:

"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day [time, to one who transcends time, is not calculable]. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness [i.e., the promise of the day of the coming of the Lord], but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish [another promise, to be effected on that day], but that all should reach repentance [the condition of those promises]. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief [imminent, yet conditionally so]… ."

Clearly, then, "Saint Peter" insisted that God was showing great patience toward his people ("toward you") by waiting to send the Christ back. The author did not want anyone to "perish," but desired that "all should reach repentance." Just as described in the book of Daniel, the lack of repentance was the reason for the delay of eschatological blessings (Dan. 9:1–27).

You can't just swoop down and claim an empty victory, either, gregor2. I at least have textual precedence; your reading, on the other hand, smacks of untried skepticism.

Pervy, I didn't see a whole lot I needed to respond to in your post. For example, I never attempted to "demonstrate that all allegedly prophetic utterances can or should be understood in the same way"; nor does the traditonal view that sees Jesus as more than just a prophet seem relevant. While he supposedly walked the earth, he was not seen (at least by the large majority) as God incarnate; he was seen as a prophet (and a king by some, but that's another story).

It presumes no such thing. I gave a brief synopsis of how, according to the text of at least one early Christian writing, OT prophetic utterances were employed. The veracity of said prophetic utterances is not even the issue. I am the one taking into account socio-grammatical context. As I noted previously, your categories amount to nothing more than your projected skepticism upon the text, a literal hermeneutic of suspicion. My attempt, far more than yours, achieves some level of 'objective' criticism (not ignoring the fact of bringing to the table my own presuppositions, of course).

If any young skeptics are reading, I encourage them to take note: this is the kind of double-standard skepticism that you want to avoid.

There is no real good higher crit reason to reject outright many of the traditional views. State your case that has some bearing upon our discussion in another thread; I implore you.

Acts 3:19–21
Let's look at the grammatical structure of these words. (Presumably Peter's, but that is irrelevant. On the other hand, it is interesting that the two texts we have looked at thus far allegedly come from the same mouth.):

"repent … turn"

— "that your sins may be blotted out"
— "that times of refreshing may come"
— "and that he may send the Christ"

The speaker here begins with two imperatives and then follows with three result clauses. Those listening were told to repent and turn in hopes of the three results listed above. The first is obvious. The second, not so much. Maybe it refers to the existential awareness of being redeemed; or maybe to the age of refreshment, the consummation of God's kingdom? The third result, as seen in the text, is that God would send the Messiah. It is clear that the speaker is thinking of the parousia of Jesus by speaking of him remaining in heaven "until the time for restoring" everything, and we must not overlook the fact that he indicates repentance to lead to this time of restoration.

Well?

If you or gregor2 don't answer back with some form of textual criticism, I'll be done with you.

I shouldn't have to write this, but showing the positive (repentance = leads to the coming) also shows the negative (no repentance, no coming).

I refer you back to hypocritical double-standard I mentioned above. And by "responsible skepticism" I meant just that: If you're (not you specifically, Pervy) going to disagree, then let's avoid looking like an ignorant dumb-ass by making some intelligent rebuttals.

Regards,

CJD

gregor

If that's the best you can do, we should stop conversing.

You have thrice ignored the point, I'll write slowly:

1. The author of 2 Peter did NOT SAY that Jesus' promise was originally conditional.
2. The author did not say the second coming had been steamrolling towards the earth, only to be diverted because many people went bad.
3. He does not retroject Jeremiah into the story - as you do. He does not retroject Daniel into the story - as you do.
4. He purports to speak for God.
5. He gives two excuses: (i) god's calendar's different and (ii) "he's nice and wants more of you to turn and be saved." He's not re-writing the Olivet discourse and he's not explaining the Olivet discourse.

And he does NOT introduce conditionality. He does not say "until enough of you are saved" this won't happen. It's merely a warning that "you've been lucky so far in not repenting, but shape up, buddy, cause it will sneak in like a thief."

Your bias is not showing - it's being trumpted around the city walls. We are again asked to decide does you position look like an excuse or a valid explanation.

gregor

And to assert that Peter is the author of L/A too doesn't improve your objectivity.

And we weren't discussing whether the guy who wrote L/A in 90 CE created a conditioned return.