CJD

Kilgore wrote: "Correct me If I'm wrong but as I see it, you are saying that god has conditions built into the prophecies. So you are saying if a prophecy did not come true it's because one of the conditions was triggered and thus god changed his mind. I agree that god is allowed to change his mind. Like you point out in Jer 18, if god says to people "Repent or I will send a plague on you!" and the people repent of course I don't expect this "prophecy" to be "fulfilled". The big problem I have with your explanation is that your argument that ALL prophecies are conditional so ALL the ones that didn't come true were ones that god changed his mind."

Yes and no. Yes, in that you got the part right where if such-and-so conditions are not met, said prediction will go the other way (and vice versa). No, in that I think you are assuming that all OT predictions are specific prognostications. This was not the case at all, as I have shown elsewhere. Whether the oracle was for doom or blessing, its outcome depended upon the conditions therein. IF all predictions were as I think you are reading them (statements about what must necessarily come true, as opposed to what potentially may come to pass), then you would be right. We must rid ourselves of the notion that all predictions predict a necessary future. Then, for example, we can see how when the Israelites did not return from exile at the time of Daniel (when they were originally supposed to), it was because of their lack of repentence (not because "God changed his mind").

Kilgore Trout: "This is totally untenable and based on the assumption that all prophecies are legitimate words of god and none were by fakers. It, of course, also assumes there is a god in the first place. This is the same sort of reasoning that the fundies use."

I am just dealing with the text, after all, this forum is called Biblical Criticism. That is my concern here. I consciously submit to certain authorities everyday by choice. As such, I assume a lot, because I assume an authority greater than myself. I have never claimed impartiality, as the notion itself is ridiculous. Please spare me the discussion about my motivations, and show me--textually--where my argument that all OT predictions are conditional is untenable.

I'll respond to the Second Coming bit tomorrow, that is, if there is one.

Regards,

CJD

Calzaer

Stop right there.

BY DEFINITION it means he didn't fulfil the scripture. The scripture said "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

THE VIRGIN WILL NAME HIM 'IMMANUEL'.

Not "Other people will secretly call him a title that "immanuel" might translate to".

<mode=Mojo Jojo>
If he was not called Immanuel, then he was not called Immanuel. The scripture said he would be called Immanuel. He was not called Immanuel. Immanuel he was never called. The scripture demanded Immanuel, but there was no Immanuel. The scripture must be wrong, for Jesus was not called Immanuel. </mode>

He BY DEFINITION fails to fulfill this prophescy. Your attempt at conconcoting some sort of "excluded middle" fails; this is one of the few Bible verses that's VERY clear.

YHWHtruth

I can't believe that you quoted me completely out of
context.

I continued:

It was meant to state a fact regarding his mission rather than to give him a literal name. This can be illustrated by another prophecy of Isaiah, found at chapter nine, verses six and seven: “For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. To the abundance of the princely rule and to peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom in order to establish it firmly and to sustain it by means of justice and by means of righteousness.”

So your statement:

If he was not called Immanuel, then he was not called Immanuel. The scripture said he would be called Immanuel. He was not called Immanuel. Immanuel he was never called. The scripture demanded Immanuel, but there was no Immanuel. The scripture must be wrong, for Jesus was not called Immanuel

And your conjecture, again, does not apply.

Max

Kilgore Trout

Hi again CJD.

Let me try again with diffent words. I was trying to say that I understand that if god tells a nation that is sinning "I am going to send a plague on you!" and then they repent of their sins, god is not going to send a plague on them. I do not consider that an unfilfilled prophecy. The classic example of this is the people of Nineveh in the book of Jonah. They were evil, Noah predicted distaster on them, they repented and so god spared them. So we agree that prophecies can have conditions. That is not what I have a problem with.

I just am trying to point out how do you find false prophets? For example say a "prophet" told the Jews "a huge flood is coming next week" and a flood does not come. How could you ever know if this guy was a false prophet? Based on your idea that all prophecies have conditions everybody would always think this guy was a real prophet no matter what because if his prophecy doesn't come true people would assume the certain conditions were met to make it not happen.

As I said, that is the point of Deuteronomy 18. God knows there is such a thing as people who are dishonest and would pretend to be prophets. So I would like to know how you can tell fakes. Surely you realize there can be people who aren't real prophets.



You said:

I wasn't saying you can't assume there is a god, I was just trying to figure out how you know when god is talking through someone and it's not just a dishonest or crazy person.
I can't show you a verse in the bible that says your argument is untenable because it's not going to say such a thing in the bible. But the whole point is that it's also not going to provide proof of your argument either. On the other hand, if I told you the bible was written by a bunch of twelve year old kids you couldn't prove that wrong either.

Calzaer

Thank you for adding yet another prophesy he never fulfilled, since nobody ever called him any of those things (and he gave really mixed messages about the first two while totally denying the last one by the "bring a sword" comment). And princely rule never came upon his shoulders, only heavenly rule. He never ruled as a prince (which would mean "on earth").

But it said the Virgin (his mother) will call him thus. Does Mary ever refer to his "mission" as being "god with us"? The difference between this verse and the other unfilfilled verse you quoted is that this one specifically names the person who will apply this label.

CJD

Good morning (eastern time), Kilgore Trout.

The Lord did not return during the night (sigh). Your last post was much clearer. Thank you. I'll try to return the favor. As an aside, a discussion about the Second Advent might do better in a new thread. Suffice to say that I consider myself in total disagreement with popular theology on this issue (i.e., Dispensationalism), like, for example, Tim LaHaye's Left Behind. I think that stuff is science fiction—bad scifi at that. But it does not affect our agreement on the centrality of the Gospel message.

I think, according to your last post, that you understand me. You also point out the question that I beg. Good. I have dealt with this in part elsewhere, but I do not presume to articulate it with absolute certainty. To me, it just makes sense—given the whole Tanak is taken into account. You are right, there is no chapter and verse "proofs" for mine or your argument (or really for any argument). But there is, I believe, a logic to the text. It is that logic that I have tried to expound upon in recent threads. That logic, I believe, does make my argument more plausible than any I have seen offered to the contrary. It's really that simple. Now, for your most important question: "How can you tell [based on what I have written re: conditional prophecies] if a prophet is a fake?"

We have seen, and you have agreed, that according to the text intervening historical contingencies affected the outcomes of predictions, but how can I suggest that this applies to all OT prophecies? The answer, as I have argued elsewhere, is found in Jeremiah 18:1–12.

In short, the inhabitants of Jerusalem opposed the prophet because they believed divine protection for the holy city was entirely conditional (e.g., Jer. 7:4). But what Jeremiah 18:1–12 amounts to is a rebuttal of this false security. It stated that all unqualified predictions, even those concerning Jerusalem, operated with implied conditions.

But how do I get from this particular pericope to the notion that this is paradigmatic for all OT predictions? There are three main reasons: "At some time" (v. 7); and "at some other time" (v. 9), suggest to me that YHWH's words apply to every situation. Secondly, the all-inclusive phrase "any nation or kingdom" (v. 7) also points us in this direction. Thirdly, the oracles described in this pericope are categorically judgment and salvation oracles. At the very least, form critical analysis shows us that all prophetic oracles gravitate in one or both of these directions. This is an important point as it subsumes all OT prophecies. Put differently, the language of this passage is so categorical that it would seem necessary for an absolutely unconditional prophecy to state explicitly that it is an exception to the rule. This text sets no limitations on time or subject matter; indeed, the only qualification is that historical contingencies must intervene between the prediction and its fulfillment.

The text, then, portrays a God who exercised great latitude because his responses were situation specific, appropriate for the particularities of each event. But there is also a basic pattern at work: the realization of all unqualified predictions were subject to modification as YHWH reacted to his people's responses. In every case, significant responses preceding fulfillments had the potential of effecting to some degree how YHWH would direct the future.

Again, we are still left with your question. But do not miss that I am fairly convinced of the above. As such, it helps me to understand the "test" outlined in Deuteronomy 18—the test that you have wisely spoken of: "God knows there is such a thing as people who are dishonest and would pretend to be prophets." If this text was as rigid as some assume, then every prophet recorded in the Tanak would be a false. But such a straightforward reading would be of no value to its audience. Hengstenberg (where, I forget) wrote how such a interpretation would be useless, since recourse might always be had to the excuse, that the case had been altered by the not fulfilling of the condition. Since you assumed this straightforward reading, Kilgore Trout, your critique followed suit: "How would anybody know a false prophet if everytime his predictions didn't happen, everyone just smiled and said, 'Well I guess god changed his mind.'" If you follow me, reading the Deut. 18 "test" in that fashion renders it a useless test—a non-test, one that cannot differentiate between prophets at all.

If you are entertaining me, consider, then, the possibility that the implied audience of Deuteronomy (c. 1400) realized that unqualified predictions had implied conditions (I, for one, think that this covenant document was edited to keep it current up until the time of Josiah). If this dynamic was indeed well-known, then it need not be repeated explicitly when the criterion of the Deuteronomy 18:22 "test" was offered. Thus, this test instructed the Israelites to expect a prediction from a true prophet to come about, unless significant intervening contingencies interrupted. Maybe that is why so many passages highlight historical contingencies that have interrupted many fulfillments? Why were the various authors so specific in detailing the human responses that curbed the outcome of the predictions? (Jon. 3:6; 2 Chron. 12:6; 2 Kgs. 22:17; Jer. 26:19). Could it be that by pointing to significant historical contingencies, the Israelites would have no trouble accepting interruped predictions as originating with YHWH?

But how did they tell a fake? My final answer might be unsatisfying. Given that the people realized that unqualified predictions had implied conditions, they were therefore forced to discern the intentions of the prophet. If they understood the role of the prophet (an emissary from the heavenly courts) as one who spoke to motivate the people in a certain direction, they would then have to discern whether the direction in which the prophet pointed was godly. One must remember that the people were convinced that YHWH would carry his covenant through to the end. How he would do it, though, the people understood to be entirely shifting, based on their obedience. Only time could tell whether a prophet's motivations were deviant or godly, that is why we do not see many false prophets dying violently at the hands of the people (while the true ones were!). But false prophets nonetheless plagued Israel. IF the Tanak, in telling the story of Israel, portrayed its people to be godly and faithful to the covenant, then this might not be consistent. But we know from the text that Israel was anything but faithful (hence the exile), and its entertaining false prophets serves as proof of their lack of discernment.

I am sorry it is not as neat as some might like it to be. I nonetheless think that this is what the logic of the text points us to, and I offer it as a more plausible alternative to the popular theology of modern Xianity.

Regards,

CJD

Kilgore Trout

Hello CJD

I guess I now understand your point of how according to Jer 18 all prophecies have implied conditions. The problem we skeptics have is that we don't share your belief that the bible is the word of god (or inspired by god or whatever). So while I understand where you get your reasoning from, to people not already predisposed to believing the bible, its not going to mean much.

I see what you are saying about people judging prophets by whether or not they seem godly. Deut 13 says how to deal with prophets who try to get people to rebel against god. One big problem I have with with Jesus is that he is rebelling against the covenant of Moses, therefore he is leading people away from god. As an example, he said it was OK to eat anything you want that goes against the dietary laws in the Torah. The Jewish leaders of the time saw that he was he was against god. Since they were the ones that were supposed to judge things like that, who are we to argue with them. Only by assuming beforehand that Jesus was sent by god can you read the NT and not notice that he fits Deut 13 and is a false prophet. That is the problem I have with apologetics. It starts by assuming Jesus is god and then they explain "difficulties" in the bible based on that assumption. With that kind of thinking every religion could seem real.

People say Jesus was the messiah and the jewish leaders did not recognize that. I did not say that was impossible, I just say that it is not valid to assume things like that. That is blind faith. With assumptions like that you would have to believe Islam, Mormons and Hare Krishna are all true beliefs.

Jack the Bodiless

YHWHtruth:

As we already know that Isaiah 7:14 does NOT refer to Jesus (it was fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3 by the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz), why do you keep pretending that it does?

Please try to stay on topic.

YHWHtruth

We were brought into this discussion over this particular issue. I have placed no restrictions on how broadly we may consider the topic. In fact, I prefer that we explore the issues to the fullest extent possible, for only then will others have a chance to understand the significance of our differences. What is your interpretation?

Max

CJD

Kilgore, thanks for your response.

This, of course, is a given. But as you well know, you do not have to share my belief about the Scriptures to agree with me as to what the actual text is saying. I admit my hermeneutic is motivated by the fact that I believe the Scriptures have something important to say. But I am also motivated by the fact the text itself is treated violently by many armchair bible critics who presume to fault Xianity based on their mistreatment of the text. I think of it like this: If I were an English professor, and we were discussing Wordsworth's "The World Is Too Much With Us," and one student argued that the poem encapsulated Marxist economics, I would flatly reject that reading to their face, while giving him/her the proper respect due to each person. Words have meaning (though shifting, it is true)—enough meaning to show that one reading is more plausible than another.

I suppose this means I was sufficiently clear this time around. While I do not expect a proper understanding of OT prophecy to "mean much" practically for the atheist, I do think it can at least mean that the next time you find yourself debating with an Xian who (mis)uses OT prophecy as an apologetic, you will think of at least one Xian who cannot be faulted for the reasons you would fault the other Xian. As such, IF you agreed with the logic of the text as I have presented it, then it would be a move in "bad faith" for you to verbally fault the other Xian on this count. Why? Because you would know that the text does not quite work the way the other Xian wants it to, and that knowing would force you to assume the role of teacher rather than antagonist. Forced congeniality (I am not suggesting that you are not congenial. In fact, I think you are).

Yes. Even according to the text, people (prophets included) do not know the future—that is a position reserved entirely for God.

Quite the can of worms you've opened.

What you say about apologetics I largely agree with. There must be some way, however, to get at this Jesus-thing without our a priori commitments becoming too controlling. Maybe it can be found by looking at how the NT authors' used OT prophecy? If they understood it as I have outlined above (and elsewhere), then contrary to what many suppose, their use of OT prophecy was not all that willy-nilly. Still, I would not waste time arguing for the authenticity of Jesus' Messiahship based on prophecies, since there is no way to calculate the probabilities thereof.

Regards,

CJD