Freethought Nation

presented by Acharya S and TruthBeKnown.com, online since 1995

It is currently Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:08 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


hello

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 7:44 pm 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:02 am
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
GodAlmighty wrote:
ApostateAbe wrote:
Hyperbole is characteristic of exaggerations that go from greater to greatest. It is not characteristic of exaggerations that go from small to greatest. That would be considered falsehood, not hyperbole. If the prediction that "no one would be saved" is hyperbole, then it would mean that most people would die from the calamities. The prophecy was that global calamities were violent enough to be on course to wipe out everyone on Earth, but God would stop those calamities in time to save Christians. Didn't happen, the prophecy failed, and Christians after the deadline knew it. For the third time in a row, I refer you again to John 21:20-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-8. Please do not skip over this evidence a third time.


Nothing's been skipped over Abe, it's just that, for the third time, those passages do not prove your thesis. They don't even point Occam's razor towards your thesis. They simply do not contradict your thesis.

Those passages do not demand that the synoptics were written early or prior to the fall of Jerusalem, or even prior to the death of all the apostles. And BTW, on that point, seeing as how our earliest sources claim that John lived even until the reign of Trajan, they still could have easily been written in the 2nd century and yet not after all the apostles had died. But that aside, as I said, those passages from John & Peter to not demand an early date for the synoptics. They simply indicate a late date for themselves, a date after the death of John for John's gospel, and a date after a generation or two at least had passed when Peter was written.

Your thesis only works on the presupposition that the synoptics were written early and that there was a uniform view of eschatology among all four gospels and Peter. As books such as Bart Ehrman's "Lost Christianities" have shown, there was everything BUT a uniform view of anything in the Christian community in its early days.
Hell, it's agreed that the gospels vary in their perspective on other issues and contain discrepencies with each other. Why in the world should eschatology be immune from that?

If the synoptic gospels are in fact preterist in their eschatological perspective, then for them, just as it was for John Chrysostom and other ancient xians, these was no failure of prophecy, and hence there is no demand that they be written prior to the time when it was supposed to have been fulfilled.
There doesn't need to be a LATER apologetic excuse offered on their behalf by John & Peter if they themselves had their own apologetic rationale to explain away the failure by way of preterism. And I have already more than adequately shown that one is well within his/her rights to conclude as much (though to be fair that hardly closes the case).

So to sum up what I'm saying, it doesn't need to be the case that the synoptics were written prior to the failure of the prophecies and then John & Peter were written after the failure and offer apologies for it on behalf of the synoptics. It may very well be the case that the synoptics were likewise written after the failure, but the authors simply accounted for the failure in a different way than John & Peter, by way of the preterist perspective of eschatology.

I have read Lost Christianities, and I can tell you that Bart Ehrman's conception of early Christianity matches my own. And he agrees that all relevant evidence we have indicates that Christians stopped being imminently apocalyptic only after the composition of the gospel of John (90-100 CE), albeit there is some hedging starting to take place in the gospel of Luke. Ehrman uses John 21:20-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-8 to help build his case, in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I am sorry, but preterism is not on the table to explain those passages, because John 21:20-23 interprets the eschatological prophecy as a mere rumor, not as prophecies, let alone prophecies that were fulfilled in the past, and 2 Peter 3:3-8 reinterprets the prophecies by removing the deadline, as though the fulfillment is yet to come, in the face of mockers who ridiculed the Christians because the prophecy was left unfulfilled. I am not using my imagination to arrive at these conclusions. I am not speculating. These conclusions are seen directly on the face of these passages. It cannot possibly be any plainer. The only reason to reject such an explanation is to maintain a hold on a sexy but improbable theory. I think it is time to let it go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:26 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
ApostateAbe wrote:
Ehrman uses John 21:20-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-8 to help build his case, in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I am sorry, but preterism is not on the table to explain those passages, because John 21:20-23 interprets the eschatological prophecy as a mere rumor, not as prophecies, let alone prophecies that were fulfilled in the past, and 2 Peter 3:3-8 reinterprets the prophecies by removing the deadline, as though the fulfillment is yet to come, in the face of mockers who ridiculed the Christians because the prophecy was left unfulfilled.


Abe, my posts were very clear, so I am quite taken aback that you have confused yourself. I NEVER, once, even so much as alluded to John 21 & 2 Peter 3 being preterist passages.

I explicitly, unambiguously affirmed THE OPPOSITE.

The texts I DID suspect as having a preterist perspective were the SYNOPTICS.

Not John.

Not Peter.

Not Paul.

Not James.

I mean, really? This comment of yours shows to me that you aren't even paying attention to what I'm saying.

So as concerns John 21 & 2 Peter 3, the only two passages cited in your above statement, I absolutely agree with you that "preterism is not on the table to explain those passages", and I always have agreed with that, throughout this entire thread, I've never contradicted that.
So once again... I state, in clear, unambiguous terms...

"So to sum up what I'm saying, it doesn't need to be the case that THE SYNOPTICS were written prior to the failure of the prophecies and then John & Peter were written after the failure and offer apologies for it on behalf of the synoptics. It may very well be the case that THE SYNOPTICS were likewise written after the failure, but THE AUTHORS simply accounted for the failure in A DIFFERENT WAY than John & Peter, by WAY of the preterist perspective of eschatology."

Describing the preterist perspective as "A DIFFERENT way" than John & Peter cannot "possibly be any plainer".

You confusing yourself on this matter is all on you.



ApostateAbe wrote:
I am not using my imagination to arrive at these conclusions. I am not speculating. These conclusions are seen directly on the face of these passages. It cannot possibly be any plainer.


I co-sign all of that in regards to my own position as well.
I for one haven't accused you of imagining this or pulling it out of your ass or anything of that sort. I've read Ehrman and other scholars as well, and hell, I was a Christian for most of my life, so I believed that Jesus was a literal doomsday prophet once upon a time myself.

What I HAVE done is point out weaknesses in the argumentation you have tried to use to support said conclusions, such as your failed attempts to take hyperbole & post-hoc fulfillment off the table.

ApostateAbe wrote:
The only reason to reject such an explanation is to maintain a hold on a sexy but improbable theory. I think it is time to let it go.


Nah, the other reason to reject it is because the person putting it forward has thus far presented inadequate argumentation in support of it.

So now that we're back to square one and your confusion cited above has been straightened out,
what else you got?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 8:36 pm 
Offline
Hermes
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:02 am
Posts: 183
Location: Klamath Falls, OR
I am sorry I got the wrong idea. You said, "There doesn't need to be a LATER apologetic excuse offered on their behalf by John & Peter if they themselves had their own apologetic rationale to explain away the failure by way of preterism." I took that to mean you believed that the authors of the gospel of John and the second epistle of Peter were preterists. I am still a little unclear about what you take their apocalyptic beliefs to be. What were their eschatologies, if not preterists like the synoptics according to you? I ask because it wouldn't seem to make sense for them to shift to a new eschatology that forces them to make bad apologetic excuses. For example, why not just stay preterist?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:46 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
ApostateAbe wrote:
I am sorry I got the wrong idea. You said, "There doesn't need to be a LATER apologetic excuse offered on their behalf by John & Peter if they themselves had their own apologetic rationale to explain away the failure by way of preterism." I took that to mean you believed that the authors of the gospel of John and the second epistle of Peter were preterists.

Right, well, obviously the pronoun "they" in "they themselves" was in reference to the synoptics. And even if it wasn't as obvious as I think, just corroborating that with the other statements I cited in my previous post would've reconciled that for the reader. But no matter, seems like water under the bridge now.
ApostateAbe wrote:
I am still a little unclear about what you take their apocalyptic beliefs to be. What were their eschatologies, if not preterists like the synoptics according to you? I ask because it wouldn't seem to make sense for them to shift to a new eschatology that forces them to make bad apologetic excuses. For example, why not just stay preterist?

Well, because of problems, such as what you've pointed out in this thread, and others. Seems difficult to reconcile those with preterism, at least, more difficult than with the synoptics, though there are preterists today who sure as hell try their damndest to, lol. Though it may also simply be that the specific verses you've cited were later interpolations, but I wouldn't know about that.

Anyway, as I've stated here before, I'm not so sure there was a uniform view of eschatology among Christians in the early years.

For instance, concerning premillenialism/chiliasm, our earliest source for that outside of Revelation is the church father Papias, whose writings are typically dated to around 110-120 CE, in most stuff I've read about him. Yet his works are not extant except in quotes from later church fathers, fathers who definitely wrote after Revelation was written, such as Eusebius. And yet, when quoting Papias, Eusebus offered this curious commentary on Papias' doctrines, including some of his eschatology(i.e., his premillenial chiliasm):
"It may also be worth while to add to the statements of Papias already given, other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition.
...
The same person, moreover, has set down other things as coming to him from unwritten tradition, amongst these some strange parables and instructions of the Saviour, and some other things of a more fabulous nature. Amongst these he says that there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth."

It is interesting that Eusebius was writing in the 4th century and yet even by his time he still says this doctrine was strange and fabulous and appears to be unaccounted for prior to Papias, which Papias in turn had cited as unwritten tradition.

So here Eusebius clearly reflects one tradition of eschatological views, while Papias represents another. One might even say Eusebius reflects the textual traditions while Papias represents oral variants.

The point is, as per Eusebius, even in Papias' day there were variances in eschatological doctrines, so the Christian community at that time was hardly uniform in its views on the matter. And remember that Papias was another one whose life allegedly overlapped with the apostle John and claimed to have been a student of John. So it seems the case that variances already existed early on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 2:58 am 
Offline
Jesus

Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:49 pm
Posts: 11
ApostateAbe wrote:
The synoptic gospels are dated earlier than all other early Christian writings except the authentic Pauline epistles. How do we know? Basically, the gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke each contain prophecies of an imminent global apocalypse.

Why is this relevant? Because an opinion popular among mythicists is that the myth of Jesus originated as something spiritual or divine, getting "historicized" only later in the myth. However, the evidence shows the contrary. The earlier texts portray Jesus as more human and more imminently apocalyptic, but the later texts portray Jesus as more divine and less imminently apocalyptic. The mythicist position is a position that is improbable on the face of the evidence. It isn't impossible, but I think it should be understandable that reasonable thinkers would disagree.

Two passages in Mark (derivatives also found in Matthew and Luke) quote Jesus as follows:

    Mark 9:1 - And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’

    Mark 13:30 - Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.

A counterpoint is that Jesus was actually talking about the destruction of the temple, not a full apocalypse, when he was quoted as saying these things. I have heard this argument more than once, and I can't help but think that the person who first made the argument forgot to read the passages in Mark.

Here is the context of Mark 9:1.

    31 Then he began to teach them that the Son of Man must undergo great suffering, and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again. 32He said all this quite openly. And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. 33But turning and looking at his disciples, he rebuked Peter and said, ‘Get behind me, Satan! For you are setting your mind not on divine things but on human things.’

    34 He called the crowd with his disciples, and said to them, ‘If any want to become my followers, let them deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. 35For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake, and for the sake of the gospel, will save it. 36For what will it profit them to gain the whole world and forfeit their life? 37Indeed, what can they give in return for their life? 38Those who are ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of them the Son of Man will also be ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.’ 91And he said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.’

And here is the context of Mark 13:30.

    13As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, ‘Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!’ 2Then Jesus asked him, ‘Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.’

    3 When he was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked him privately, 4‘Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign that all these things are about to be accomplished?’ 5Then Jesus began to say to them, ‘Beware that no one leads you astray. 6Many will come in my name and say, “I am he!” and they will lead many astray. 7When you hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. 8For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs.

    9 ‘As for yourselves, beware; for they will hand you over to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them. 10And the good news must first be proclaimed to all nations. 11When they bring you to trial and hand you over, do not worry beforehand about what you are to say; but say whatever is given you at that time, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 13and you will be hated by all because of my name. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

    14 ‘But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee to the mountains; 15someone on the housetop must not go down or enter the house to take anything away; 16someone in the field must not turn back to get a coat. 17Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing infants in those days! 18Pray that it may not be in winter. 19For in those days there will be suffering, such as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, no, and never will be. 20And if the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he has cut short those days. 21And if anyone says to you at that time, “Look! Here is the Messiah!” or “Look! There he is!”—do not believe it. 22False messiahs and false prophets will appear and produce signs and omens, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23But be alert; I have already told you everything.

    24 ‘But in those days, after that suffering,
    the sun will be darkened,
    and the moon will not give its light,
    25 and the stars will be falling from heaven,
    and the powers in the heavens will be shaken.
    26Then they will see “the Son of Man coming in clouds” with great power and glory. 27Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

    28 ‘From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. 31Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

    32 ‘But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33Beware, keep alert; for you do not know when the time will come. 34It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his slaves in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. 35Therefore, keep awake—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or at dawn, 36or else he may find you asleep when he comes suddenly. 37And what I say to you I say to all: Keep awake.’

When Jesus said, "all these things," he was seemingly referring to the whole of his apocalyptic prophecies, including: "Then they will see 'the Son of Man coming in clouds' with great power and glory. Then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven," spoken directly before the given deadline. It was not merely about the siege of Jerusalem and the fall of the temple.

This belief in an imminent apocalypse is echoed in two of the epistles of Paul (emphasis added).

    1 Corinthians 15:50-54 - 50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters,* is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, [fall asleep] but we will all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:
    ‘Death has been swallowed up in victory.’

    1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 - 13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. 15For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. 16For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. 18Therefore encourage one another with these words.

If there is any doubt about this, then all doubt should be put to rest by two later passages in the New Testament. These are passages that were apparently written after the passing of the apocalyptic deadline, because they are each excuses for the failure of the prophecy. The prophecies were not fulfilled by the siege of Jerusalem and the fall of the temple, Christians knew it, and they did their darnedest to explain it. John 21:20-23 and 2 Peter 3:3-8 are as follows (emphasis added).

    John 21:20-23 - 20 Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?’ 21When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, what about him?’ 22Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!’ 23So the rumour spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’

    2 Peter 3:3-8 - 3First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts 4and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’

    [...]

    8 But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day.

The earliest "Gnostic" text is the Gospel of Thomas, and it is in a similar vein. Verse 113 says:

    (113) His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
    <Jesus said,> "It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying 'here it is' or 'there it is.' Rather, the kingdom of the father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it."


Hey, Apostate,

There is a major misunderstanding swirling around in a post such as yours. Nearly everyone is of the same persuasion, so don't count yourself as singled out. The "kingdom" is always 'here'. It is here for those who are taken there by their Master. All these things that signify immanence are pertaining to specific disciples who INDIVIDUALLY will experience the "second coming" when the Master deems them ready. In John 21, the beloved disciple (JAMES) is ready while living, as he is the successor to "Jesus". (I think it is John the B, not Jesus here, as John fits the timeline and events as well as Jesus does and exhibits historical attributes that Jesus does not.) Once you see that Masters are always here, and disciples are always becoming ready to go within to the kingdom, it all makes sense. That's the teachings (Sant Mat, "Saints' Teachings") of the current line of mystic Masters at Beas, India (www.RSSB.org). Gurinder Singh is the current Master, or 'Guru', 'Sat Guru' if you will (true Teacher). Hebrew Matthew shows a number of deleted phrases that demonstrate John the B as the true Master of his time: 11:11: "among those born of women none has risen greater than John the B" is not followed by the qualifier, "but he that is least in the kingdom is greater than he", because it was a gloss (interpolation). 11:13: "For all the Law and the prophets spoke concerning John", not "until" John, which is nonsense. 17:11: "Indeed Elijah will come and will save all the world" not "restore all things", more gibberish, obviously interpolated. And 21:32, where Jesus is speaking to the disciples, not the priests and elders, rebuking them for not believing in him [John]". These show an elevated John, so there are others saviors besides Jesus (I think they are the same, "Jesus" being a title, given after resurrection and retrojected into the life of John). James is routinely minimized in the gospels/Acts as Robert Eisenman has so masterfully shown. These things occurred so that early church elders could control the masses.

The "moon and stars falling" and the "sun not giving her light" are INNER experiences of the disciple just before the appearance WITHIN THEMSELVES of the inner Master (astral form). That's why they will "still be standing", some of them. ("Standing" is a common mystic term at Qumran. It is nearly ubiquitous in the gospels' resurrection passages when you know it has mystic significance.) The "coming on the clouds of heaven and in great glory" was spoken by James, not "Jesus", and is likewise an inner experience. These things are not collective visions, but individual events at the end of one's life ('Last Days', 'End of the world').

The whole Bible is mystic teaching, which is why it fits so well to the Dead Sea Scrolls and gnostic gospels. I have myself determined that the Gospel Of Judas shows "Judas" as James, the one who "sacrifices the man that bears me". See my topic elsewhere here "Judas and Lazarus as James".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:41 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:53 pm
Posts: 9
I was reading an article on dating the gospels, and much weight was given to the fact that the gospels never mentioned the destruction of Jerusalem. The argument was that they surely would have included such an apparent fulfillment of jesus' prophecies, so the absence of such mention clearly places their writing before it. Despite the existence of reasons why they would have left it out (it was 35 or so years after jesus' death), I'll grant them their argument.

This argument is essentially an argument from silence. What's interesting about this is that theistic scholars have been exceedingly hard when mythicists use such arguments. It seems a perfectly analogous argument to question the authenticity of Tacitus and Josephus in their accounts of jesus as no one mentions them until many years later, when contemporary writers would have surely referenced them. I find it interesting that a style of argument is deemed worthwhile when it suits their position.


The more I read theists the more it is obvious that their first principle is assuming the historicity. Bart ehrman is particularly guilty of this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:31 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
^Anyone advocating that position is obstinate and going against Occam's Razor. The "prophecies" themselves ARE the mention of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, thus the gospels post-date those events. They are being anachronistic. The only way to get away with advocating a pre-70 date is to appeal to the supernatural, i.e., they got the details so accurate not because that are writing post hoc but because they were divinely revealed ahead of time. But to invoke the supernatural in order to date a text is not scholarly. It's just idiotic.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:02 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:53 pm
Posts: 9
i understand that. their point is that a writer after the fall would have mentioned it as the fulfillment of the prophecy. i will admit that writers had a tendency to explain to their stupid readers when prophecies were fulfilled.

my guess is that they wanted to capitalize on the ambiguity of it all. they are playing on the equivocation between jerusalem ending and the world ending. to explicitly state that the prophecies referred to the former would kill the art of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:59 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:17 pm
Posts: 2273
Location: Everywhere
Yeah, the argument for writing before AD 70 requires faith in supernatural prophecy. How would the writers putting words in Jesus' mouth or a historical Jesus know how the future would unfold in AD 70 from the perspective of before it happened?

That leaves only one other option, the writers post date AD 70 and have the hero character making a prophecy about how the future did unfold by the time of their writing efforts, which, don't appear into the literary or historical record until the mid 2nd century.

So that leaves two ways of referring to prophecy fulfillment from within the context of the myths. One way is according to what they are suggesting was fulfilled from the OT as of the early first century.

The other way is alluding to prophecy made during the early first century by the hero which everyone would see as fulfilled looking at the story from the diaspora era after the destruction of the temple. They didn't have to claim fulfillment because the fulfillment is self apparent to the reader. People reading along would be like, "wow, Jesus fulfilled all these old testament prophecies during his life time and then predicted the future fall of the temple too, he must be the messiah." I think it's fairly obvious and pretty straight forward as to what the writers were attempting to do.

_________________
The Jesus Mythicist Creed:
The "Jesus Christ" of the New Testament is a fictional composite of characters, real and mythical. A composite of multiple "people" is no one.

The celestial Origins of Religious Belief
ZG Part 1
Jesus: Hebrew Human or Mythical Messiah?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:42 pm 
Offline
Newbie

Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:53 pm
Posts: 9
i think it is very telling about theists that when it comes to their conclusions, instead of letting the evidence speak for itself, they pick the conclusion that is only supported by their presupposition (that it was in fact supernatural) and which is supported by no other evidence.

as a scientist i have to say i find it offensive that they sully the word "science" in associating it with what they do.


ps. what makes this especially farcical is that we have plenty of examples in the old testament of prophecies being written well after the fulfillment of their "prophecies" solely in order to give the illusion of prophetic power when it claims to come before it.

the prophecies of daniel come to mind. these were proven to be all much later written then claimed because of all the historical errors that were in it. in other words it is problematic that a prophet would know so much about the future when the prophecies are to be realized yet know so little about the time he supposedly made the prophecies. looking at the gospels we find the same phenomena. errors abound concerning the geography, birth of jesus, character of jesus, death of jesus, and resurrection of jesus. analyzing the gospels under the same lens as the old testament forces us to conclude that they were written well after AD 70. there is just no other way around it...unless you believe a priori that jesus was the son of god of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:34 pm 
Offline
Moderator

Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 11:45 am
Posts: 550
Ahriman wrote:
i understand that. their point is that a writer after the fall would have mentioned it as the fulfillment of the prophecy. i will admit that writers had a tendency to explain to their stupid readers when prophecies were fulfilled.

my guess is that they wanted to capitalize on the ambiguity of it all. they are playing on the equivocation between jerusalem ending and the world ending. to explicitly state that the prophecies referred to the former would kill the art of it.


Ah, okay, I gotcha. But again, in using that excuse they reveal their ignorance of the culture and literature of those times and times prior. Would they accept that excuse for any of the pagan prophecies that scholarship has determined were likewise written after the fact, and yet likewise do not include explicit acknowledgment of the historical "fulfillment" but rather, like the gospels, are written as though prior to the "prophesied" events? Such as the Sibylline Oracles or Zoroastrian eschatology?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group