gregor

Thanks for the response. However, it didn't really respond to my points.

In summary, if you read 2 Peter and other late NT books you either have to decide that (i) the authors were making up excuses for failure or (ii) God changed his mind. And you can't rely upon the OT as support for this latter choice. The 'God changed his mind' argument has been made against failed OT promises (i.e. Tyre, the Land promise to the Israelites, etc.) without much success.

I personally see nothing in the NT (read the apocalypse of John, in particular) that implies that the followers in 55 - 155 CE did not believe that the return was imminent. Further, I read nothing that implies the previously imminent return had been put 'on hold' because of the wickedness of the people.

Sven

Which only works if we can be sure that the god uttering this loophole is the same in the OT and in the NT. Comparing the two portraits of god from th OT and the NT clearly shows that they aren't the same. You are of course free to disagree.

The fact remains that almost all (?) Jews think that Christianity is nonsense.

And ignored again the omniscience of god. He would have known in advance that the motivation won't work.

Some independent conformation of his existance would be a good start.

Sven

Exactly what I'm asking for. Or at least a reference to Jeremiah.

CJD

Gentlemen, did you know that generally speaking America cannot keep its nose out of other people's business?

Of course you do. Everybody knows that.

Regarding the way God works (i.e., see the Jeremiah text), this is the same way it was for ANE Jews, as well as any Christians who were themselves Jewish or who understood its Jewish roots.

This is my premise. The beauty of it is, is that neither you nor anybody else has a defensible position outside of the pertinent texts (i.e., the whole of Scripture). Neither do I, of course. But I at least have the text. You just have a misinformed, fundamentalized conception of prophetic utterances.

For clarity's sake, it is not "God changed his mind"; rather, it is "You did this, therefore I will do this." Secondly, I can and do rely on the OT for support. I know that I can. Do the search I mentioned earlier (and I beg you to take it to task).

I nowhere suggested that I disagree with this. The NT clearly teaches an imminent return.

And Sven, thanks for adding nothing to the argument. I disagree that the two gods are different. I also see that God's knowing in advance that certain people will or will not do something has no effect or bearing whatsoever on what he demands from them.

2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord isn't really being slow about his promise to return, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to perish, so he is giving more time for everyone to repent (just like the prophet Jeremiah described many years ago)."

Happy?

Heh. Good one. You're joking, right? I … I mean, Jesus was a real person, wasn't he!?

CJD

Sven

I only wonder why I never heard about your position about prophecies before. If it's really such an easy explanation why this particular prophecy didn't fail, it's quite astonishing that nobody has ever brought it up before here. This alone makes me skeptical of your explanation.

I didn't expect otherwise. But please note the type of forum you are in; here, this is not taken for granted.

So he knows in advance that no one will follow his advice but gives the advice nevertheless? OK, if you think so...

If the reference you put in brackets were indeed there, I would indeed be more happy.

Says who? Hey, you have already over 400 posts in this forum and still think that everyone thinks that his existence is a fact?

gregor

2 Peter is still saying the return is imminent - don't you get it? He's not saying the rules have changed and now its both conditioned and non-imminent. You are now saying it's both conditioned and non-imminent by re-writing the text.

So, the 2nd Century Jewish followers of Yeshua were worse at interpreting OT prophesy than you? You, with the benefit of a separation of 1,800 years, can interpret OT and NT prophesy better than the original hearers?

CJD

No, just you; and Sven too!

Also, I am not saying that prophecy (2 Pet. included) is now conditioned and non-imminent; rather, I am saying that prophecy is always conditioned. And 2 Peter does speak of an imminent return. If the return itself has conditions, then the return itself will always be potentially imminent. Don't you get it?

Also, which "2nd Century Jewish followers of Yeshua" interpret OT prophecy worse than I? Are you referring to late NT writings? Understand something. I am not defending anything here. I am telling you that this is how prophecy is to be read. Take it and use it according to your will. It is better than reading certain skeptics rant about the same, misinformed positions over and over and over …

This simply betrays a lack of reading and studying on your part.

Because most Xians that bother posting here (esp. on prophecy) are fundamentalized dispensationalists, and I can only assume that you won't accept the fact that there is a more responsible socio-grammatical approach to the pertinent texts because you like to punch holes in paper bags.

I did mention I was a sarcastic fellow, didn't I?

Common_Cents

I am sorry for not reading the entire discussion but i am in a slight hurry so i will just say it and apologize if i am repeating anyone. When the apostles and others of the immediate time after the resurrection say that Jesus is "coming" or when any christian has said jesus is "coming" i think that it is important to remember that at death which is at everyone's doorstep jesus has "came" for you at that time. Death is the "end" for you. At the time after Christ christians were being heavily persecuted so it would seem right to say that to them meeting their maker was a very near thing. The prophecies as to the end of the world and judgement are later on however IMHO.

Sven

OK. I admit that.

Seems to be a sensible explanation - but there are lots of other types of Christians here, and you are still the first one who brought this explanation up. Just for my info: Where did you get it from?

Of course I accept that this approach exist. This has nothing to do with me finding this approach nonsensical.

And a final hint: Smilies help a lot sometimes.

l-bow

Anybody here read theollogyweb.com here? The moderator there, Dee Dee Warren, is a preterist.

Also, there's this guy Bob Enyart, that believes that Christ was supposed to return early, IF Israel repented, but because they didn't, everything changed.