Chris Weimer

this also reminds me of the family guy episode when the aliens watch "Single Female Lawyer" McNeal a.k.a. McBeal and Fry asks "what happened to all the videos?" The professor answers "Most of them were damaged with the second coming of Christ."

doubtingthomas

I thought fry was in futurama, not family guy.

CJD

The whole discussion need not go beyond one post. (Unless, of course, one misunderstands the rhyme and reason of prophetic utterances. If you're really that interested, do a search "CJD; failed prophecies; Isaiah 7; Messianic prophecies.") At any rate, Saint Peter gives a reason for the so-called delay of the Parousia (to which gregor rightly alluded but wrongly understands):
You can take it or leave it, but what the apostle is saying there is that the return of the King has yet to happen because there is a lack of repentance on the part of God's people. This is perfectly in line, by the way, with many of the delays recorded in OT prophetic literature.

Alas, for certain skeptics to give up the notion that prophecies are to be interpreted as jot-and-tittle, static utterances of the future is too great a thing to ask. The fun they have bopping fundamentalists on the head is worth never moving beyond the elementary, I suppose.

Regards,

CJD

Sven

You are free to believe that Peter contradicts what Jesus (supposedly) clearly stated.

So the meaning pf prophecies can be changed at any time - without even mentioning it? Then please explain why any prophecy is worth a dint.
With this loophole anyone can be a prophet about anything.

gregor

As CJD brings up, the Xian has several options with the Olivet discourse (each unpalatable for different reasons):

1. Preterist: It was not an error, and it happened in 70 CE.

2. Genea deny-er: It was not an error, and let me do a couple of dozen back-flips to avoid the language of a couple of dozen phrases in the NT.

3. Goal-post mover: It was not an error, God simply changed his plan, and let me try and make excuses for the dozen "these are the last days" references.

4. Uncomfortable admitter: Ok, there is obviously something wrong with this prediction, so I'll ignore it. But it doesn't detract from my other slavish following of selected portions of the Bible that I chose to claim are inerrant. "He will return, he will return, he will return. . ."

And CJD, 2 Peter was written by an unknown author after 150 CE. Please read Kirby's discussion of its provenance.

CJD

Cruel world! I have been found out. There is no doubt the NT teaches an immanent return, but 2 Pet basically says that "We have delayed his coming. It could've happened after the apostolic witness went out, but it didn't." See Acts 3:17ff: "Repent … that your sins may … times of refreshing may come … that he may send … until the time of restoring all the things … ." It is all touch-and-go, and quite clearly depends on the situation (or, "intervening historical contingencies") as described in Jeremiah below.

Would it make you happy if I wrote, "'Peter' wrote that … ."? Saint Peter is the implied author; maybe not the real author, but who cares?

Oh, I fear it has been mentioned. Prophetic utterances are almost always intended to motivate action, not prognostication.

Look, this is all simple and straightfoward stuff. I am just giving the view of the ancients themselves (according to the text). Don't you think it helps to know what it is exactly with which you disagree?

Except for those, of course, who have not been specifically called and sent by YHWH as prosecutor from his court to the earthly courts of man.

It's an ancient faith, and even more stupid than you may realize.

Regards,

CJD

Sven

Some problems:
(1) Why Jesus even said that he'll return in this generation? After all, he was supposed to be god, god is supposed to be omniscient and would have known in advance that he/Jesus will not return in this time.
(2) The same problem applies to OT prophesies.
(3) We have yet to establish that the god of the OT is the same as the one from the NT. Some millions of Jews, for example, disagree on this.
(4) I was specifically referring to a verse along the line: "As said in Jeremiah.... , this prophecies would be not fulfilled as long as ... you have to interpret what Jesus said in the light of Jeremiah...." etc.

We have yet to establish that Jesus was one of those.

Is this a typo or sarcasm?

CJD

I suppose you like your steak in a blender, too. In other words, the Jeremiah text is saying, "This is how I work, unless otherwise notified."


Whatever. The fact remains that "Christianity" was quite clearly a sect of Judaism until the late-middle first century.


To which I already answered: "Prophetic utterances are almost always intended to motivate action, not [intended to serve as] prognostication."

N.B. I am sarcastic.

[Edited to add the following:
Um, yeah. According to the text he was just that; even better, he was the penultimate that. Apart from the text, how do you propose "establishing" Jesus as a/the prophet of YHWH? Do you plan on doing a little empirical investigating? Please do share your methods.]

gregor

Who cares about the author of 2 Peter?

Well, me for one.

It was either (i) authored by a second century person, addressing second century complaints about a delayed return that was causing a schism or (ii) it was authored by St. Peter in 65-75 CE which cannot explain why a schism over the second coming existed at so early a date.

If the answer is (i) you have to ask yourself:
A. Was the author a divine messenger from God who said the prophesy had changed or
B. Was the author just making up an excuse for a failed prophesy?

If your answer is A, please show in the text where he advises that God had spoken with him recently, told him that Jesus was mistaken earlier, and this is the real skinny.

Once you answer that, explain how even 2 Peter indicated that 150 CE was still the "last days." There is still an imminency in 2 Peter.

If another 2,000 years go by with no return, when will the "last days" be here?
If a second coming never comes, how accurate are other statements in the book?

CJD

I don't see any reason whatsoever to disallow a "thirty"-year delay to cause enough concern within the Messianic sect so that "Saint Peter" would have to address it. If the Christ said, "This generation," thirty years or so is plenty of time to start pacing. Already in Thessaloniki (c. AD 60) the "Christers" were a bit unsettled. Try again.

But let us assume an early second century date for 2 Pet. First, you have to blow your modern, western concept of "failed prophecy" completely out of your mind. Then you will see that the author fully intended to be writing with some apostolic authority (through tradition) and to be offering a kick in the pants to his readers by suggesting that due to a general lack of repentance, Jesus hadn't come back yet: "Hey folks, we're still in exile." Think Daniel and the prolonging of the exile in Babylon. This, as I wrote earlier, is completely in line with the prophetic tradition. You may not like his "excuse," but let's be careful not to misunderstand the nature of OT prophetic literature in the process.

In sum, the return isn't the issue; the how and when is. And that, as indicated by numerous OT passages (and 2 Pet) is quite dependent (in God's providence, of course) upon the people of God.

Regards,

CJD