Sven

No, not a typo, but different grammar in German. I thought it's the same in English. Thanks, I'll edit this.

BTW, since you seem to be one of those who are interested in "serious textual criticism" - why don't you participate in this thread?

Dean Anderson

Serious textual criticism does not attribute the epistles of 'James' and 'Peter' to the apostles James and Peter.

Which sort of textual criticism are you using?

Dean Anderson

English uses the opposite. You warn against doing something if you want people not to do it.

I intend to - but I need to get a 'heads up' on what the original discussion was about, first...

Sven

Well, I hope the OP and the links therein help.

lulay

Zarathustra....prophet...all the monotheistic religions them got prophets.....what i means is A man who we are believed to believe has a "he-God" channeling through him. we are sked to believe this. and even now we are wondering about this
i am VERy wary of someone caliming they are channeling some invisible entities words through them. I cant see this entity, or hear him, so whay should i believe it? EVEN if i was in touch with some entitiy wanting to tell me stuff i would be extremely wary

to me it is a scam. an authoritarian scam. and again it takes Direct awareness from the individual and places a man as an intermediary who is the only one who has direct contact with "God" which then gets writ down, and becomes the 'word of God" you question it, and are told you cannot, 'why' ? cause its the 'word of God' already...bahhh humbug i say'

NOW the 'god' is PROFIT, and what he says goes too

Dean Anderson

Although the same Hebrew word would cannot be used (because the NT is written in Greek not Hebrew), it matters because you are claiming that Jeremiah's warning of troubles that will overtake the nation of Israel unless they repent from their wickedness applies to Jesus' words - despite the fact that the context of Jeremiah's warning is explicitly one of the form...

XXX will happen to this nation unless it repents!

...whereas Jesus gives no such conditions.

You wish to apply Jeremiah's conditions to Jesus' words - so you need to do two things...

1) Demonstrate that Jeremiah's warning of disaster that can be averted by a nation's repentance can be expanded to apply to all prophecies and warnings regarding nations, rather than just the specific ones that Yahweh is talking about through Jeremiah at this time.

2) Demonstrate that Jesus was talking about a 'nation' and as such the extended warning applies to his words as well.

From what I can see (and I apologise if you have done this elsewhere that I have not seen), you have made no attempt to do number 1.

Your attempt to do number 2 relies on Jesus talking about a 'nation'. That is why Sven wants you to show that Jesus' followers are explicitly described as a nation (the Greek εθνοσ).

The concept of Christians being a 'nation' does not arise until a late interpolation into the Bible - 1 Peter 2:9. Even here, though, such a term is not used by Jesus - only by the author of 'Peter's letter.

You are right up until the '-- equal to the nation of Israel' part. The verses talk about not all the 'Children of Israel' being the physical descendents of Israel. It does not mention nations - that is your own equivocation.

Sven

To clarify my point: I think it's clear that "nation" is used figuratively here to describe all Christians - while in Jeremiah it most likely means actual nations (having physical boundaries, regimes, etc.).

CJD

Okay, folks. first things first. I am interested in literary criticism — not higher criticism. I am completely bored by the latter. If it is the latter you wish to discuss, then go troll Toto or Vorkosigan or someone else who thinks forcing me to put quotes around "James" or "Peter" (as implied authors) means anything worth anything.

When I put forth an argument, it is going to be based on the text itself. If you wish to counter that argument, then I suggest doing it based on the text. Otherwise, don't waste the time. Authorship questions are so fluffy and subjective that I — having already dealt with this stuff — find Tradition to be an okay place to stop and rest.

That's just mean. But the reality is, they're just not interested. And I don't blame them. After all, they're not the ones trying to live this ancient faith.

From the perspective of those outside the tribe, yes. My response is the same as before: "But my God can beat up your god." It is a question of loyalty.

I am not trying to fool anybody; I am showing you what the text says. You yourself see that Saint Paul does the twisting — not me. I agree with him, that's all.

Again, it not my equivocation. It is the apostle's. I cannot believe that I need to argue that according to early Xian documents, Christians saw themselves as the People of God (especially Jewish Christians, who rightly understood that Christianity was a continuation of Judaism — not a substitution for it). Paul quite clearly argues in the passage I quoted that it is those who have faith in the covenant fidelity of Jesus the Christ — not those who have done the works of Torah — that constitute the new humanity of God, his people, his nation. Come on, people; this is not difficult! I am not doing the equivocating. This Paul has stated it as clearly as one ever could.

I have indeed done this elsewhere.

He was clearly talking to his people, which people constitute the nation of God. But let us ask another question: Why is the focus on the addressee and not on the actual nature of prophetic utterances? Is that argument in the bag? That is the real issue; what is the nature of prophetic utterances? I have more than ably shown my case.

This is a clear bifurcation on your part. "Nations" constitute a given people. For example, do exiled peoples typically discontinue referring to themselves as a "nation"? I would bet that not until the third or fourth (or more!) generation does this happen. Consider the Israelite exile beginning with Assyria. Did they stop considering themselves as a distinct nation, the nation of Israel?

You're kidding, right? The guy was exasperated with his own inability to understand ANE literature, Hebrew idiom, etc., that he lashed-out one last time in the desperate attempt to label me an apologist with the hopes of relevatizing my argument (as if I have some deviant agenda or something). Anyone that's been here long enough ought to see that my only agenda is to help pimple-faced skeptics remove their heads from their asses and read the pertinent literature in its socio-grammatical context.

Regards,

CJD

Jack the Bodiless

I think it's a pretty big assumption that all the various authors of the Bible, over many centuries, had a consistent position on what "prophecy" was.

For instance, Genesis has a rather famous example of a "prophecy" that was actually a lie from God to make Adam and Eve refrain from a specific action: "on the day that you eat the fruit, you will surely die". Apparently, this author was prepared to portray a God who would say whatever was convenient, regardless of truth or falsehood.

Dean Anderson

Calling the author of 2 Peter by the name Peter for want of a better name does indeed mean nothing. However, whether 2 Peter was written by an apostle that followed a historical Jesus around and listened to his words first-hand or it was written by a 2nd century apologist as an attempt to counter the teachings of other Christians that he deemed heretical by forging a letter from an earlier apostle that agreed with his interpretations has a huge bearing on its context.

By ignoring all 'higher' criticism and authorship issues you are simply left with no context available to you other than a literalist one that, for example, ascribes the whole Torah to Moses despite his dying before the end of it.

Please tell me you are not a literalist.

No-one is claiming that 2nd century Christians didn't see themselves as the people of God. However, your claims rest upon Jesus referring to them as such and upon Jesus' words about his return being intended as a 'prophecy of a nation' that may or may not come to pass. You have provided no evidence that Jesus intended this.

His 'children', yes.

His 'nation', no.

Besides, even if Paul had specifically talked about the 'nation' of God, who cares what Paul thinks. Where does Jesus say that his return is conditional?

Then kindly either provide a link or reproduce your arguments here.


You are right, the nature of prophecy is the real issue - and it is one on which we must take into account authorship and dating of texts.

Biblical prophecy generally falls into one of four categories.

1) Writings predicting the future - whether rightly or wrongly.

2) Writings with no prophetic intention - but which are claimed as successful prophecy when something vaguely similar later happens.

3) Writings done after an event which claim to have been authored before it and - of course - accurately depict it as a 'future' event.

4) Warning prophecies that produce win-win situations for the 'prophet' - for example declaring that a city will fall unless people repent. If the city falls, the prophet was 'obviously' correct. If the city stands, then the people 'obviously' repented enough and the prophet still gets to be correct.

The prophecies of Jeremiah are obviously in category 4. The prophecies that Jesus makes about his imminent return are in category 1.

Having read your arguments in this thread and the previous one, I am yet to find any good argument as to why all prophecy should be conditional and for purposes of warning.

Except that unlike the skeptics you insult - who do look for socio-grammatical context - you refuse to read the literature in its social context because you refuse to partake in the higher criticism that attempts to discover that context.