Does the fulfillment of biblical prophecy provide evidence that God exists? Farrell Till is a well-known skeptic who argues against this claim.
HT: Amanda Chandler.
102 comments:
Gregory
said...
This is rather lengthy article for me to offer an adequate response. I do believe there's a problem with his idiosyncratic interpretations of the Old Testament. So my simple reply is:
How does he explain the fervent rise of Messianic expectations in the intertestamental period, if the Old Testament was not understood by the Israelites to indicate a coming Messiah?
Secondly, how does he explain the fact that Jesus was identified as "Christ" among pious Jews, Rabbi's and pagans of the first Century? **see my first point above.
Thirdly, how does he account for the eyewitness record of the New Testament which claim that Christ was, not only Messiah, but raised from among the dead....and that the phrase "Will not let your Holy One see corruption", of which David spoke (Psalm 16:10), could not have been referring to David? Why? St. Peter's response is:
"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the Patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." (Acts 2:29)
But the article disputes the meaning of this passage. My question is this: why should I think this articles interpretation of Psalm 16:10 is correct, especially since the author is tainted with skeptical prejudices and bias against the Old and New Testament, instead of the opinion of the Apostle Peter?
So, to make my point, allow me to rephrase Hume:
"When anyone tells me that he disbelieves that a dead man was restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable that that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the skeptical point he raises should actually turn out false. I weigh the one skeptical point against the other (i.e. skepticism of miralces vs. being skeptical of skepticism); and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater skepticism. If the truth of his skepticism should turn out less disastrous for human understanding than belief in miracles, which he rejects; then, and not til then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."
I highly recommend Paul Barnett's excellent and informative book, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity and Pinchas Lapides The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective.
The article affirms my observation that skeptics are very poor Bible expositors. This one is far too much of a literalist for even my most fundy friends. He does violence to the clear meaning of specific passages. He only "dis-proof texting" without any attempt to understand the biblical authors and their context.
Victor, what do you mean by "evidence for God"? God's existence, or evidence supporting a claim about God?
Neither side in these articles seems to be talking about the former, so I'll put that aside. Only the latter comes into play, and in that case it certainly seems to be evidence. At the very least successful prophecy is easily taken to indicate an agent potent enough to either see, or even set the future, depending on the nature of the claim.
The original article could have approached this in 2 ways.
1) He could have argued for the impossibility of miracles...in which case, he needn't raise questions about the epistemic propriety of fulfilled prophecy.
2) He could have cast doubt on the meaning of the prophetic passages in question. Of course, that is the route the article took.
There is a way of looking at this issue of reputed prophetic fulfillment that meshes very nicely with Victor's "moderate" rationalism, and also happens to give some insight into how we respond to "facts". Jesus, in John 2:19-23, predicted his death and resurrection to the Jewish authorities and to his own followers. But the common interpretation, made by both the Jewish authorities and Jesus' disciples, was that the "temple" meant "Solomon's Temple". It's an almost understandable mistake, considering the significance that the Temple played in worship; but also, because concepts of resurrection were restricted to the "general" resurrection, which was believed to occur at the end of the ages. Therefore, the interpretation that Jesus' audience took was "reasonable".
So, I think this passage illustrates the fact that God does not overwhelm people with "evidence". And there are many reasons why this might be the case. For one thing, God is not coercive. He wants people to freely seek Him, rather than come to Him by epistemic force and submission. That is one way to look at it. Another way of looking at this is that the "evidence" will have no effect on people who are unwilling to accept it. But surely, you might say, a person will "believe" in God if they are simply shown a miracle or two. I don't think that's the case at all.
Let me illustrate. How many people have felt blind-sided by a "break up" or divorce that they couldn't possibly have imagined happening at the time it did, even when the "evidence" of unfaithfulness was there all along? How many friends and family member had been warning them that the signs were there, but that they refused to believe it? So, even though the "evidence" was sufficient enough to consider the truth claims of the friends and family members, yet the truth did avail itself in the mind of the doubting spouse/mate. They simply did not want to believe it. Yet, it's also possible that they could change their mind about the whole situation. Perhaps they will concede that "it's over" when the divorce papers are finally served, or when the locks on the house have been changed and their personal belongings are left in a heap on the front porch?!? In other words, unless a person is willing to face the truth, the "facts" will be irrelevant to them.
So, why should it be any different with our response to miracles or fulfilled prophecy?
Victor, I don't think that proving the existence of God is the intent of fulfilled prophecy. For those who believe in God, fulfilled prophecy is the means to verify who is speaking for God. This is how true and false prophets were differentiated. It was also important for validating Jesus as Messiah to the Jews. If you are trying to prove the existence of God, fulfilled prophecy is likely the wrong tool. It is based on historical verification. History is a tenuous epistemological foundation these days.
Your post encouraged me to look at this question for the first time in many years. Some of my conclusions are here in The fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. There is considerable doubt about the historical fulfilment of Ezekiel's oracle in the literal sense required to mount this argument, although Ezekiel got it broadly right.
Whatever the merits of the argument, it's not going to convince many non-believers because of these historical problems.
Hmmm ... so "evolutionary predictions" (which seem, always, to be retrodictions) are proof that Darwin Lives (and Rulez!), but Biblical predictions are not only not proof that God Lives, but aren't even evidence that he is? Is that how it works?
@ Gregory You say, "So, I think this passage illustrates the fact that God does not overwhelm people with "evidence". And there are many reasons why this might be the case."
Could one of the reasons be is that there is no evidence? Every prophecy ever told in the NT, all of them retrojected backwards into the OT when the writers of the NT sought to 'establish' some form of link to 'substantiate' their claims.
@ Crude You say, "At the very least successful prophecy is easily taken to indicate an agent potent enough to either see, or even set the future, depending on the nature of the claim."
These days, they call it 'forecasting' or 'predicting' and is much used in economics. And it has about the same rate of success as a 'successful prophecy', about 50/50.
Additionally, you say, "Thirdly, how does he account for the eyewitness record of the New Testament which claim that Christ was, not only Messiah ....?"
I note, the NT is not an account of the eyewitness record. The NT books were all written long after the event, indeed two-three plus generations after. They are at best hearsay accounts of the story. Matthew and Luke are both additional embellishments of Marks story [therefore constitutes one account] and the other, John, was written even more generations past, and is a story of a man who is completely different to that portrayed ion the synoptics. Indeed John's jesus is all human, Matthew and Luke's jesus is either an adoptionist ideation or a man-god, and John's jesus is all god in the form of a man.
So I am not sure where you get the idea that the NT is an account of the eyewitness record. Theye are acounts of accounts of accounts before the synoptics and John got to them.
@ Mike Darus You say, "t was also important for validating Jesus as Messiah to the Jews."
This is plain wrong as a blank statement. No Jew today, validates jesus as the messiah to the jews. It may have been partly true 2,000 years ago when christians attempted to lure wavering Jews to christianity. But it seems the vast majority of jews at the time, did not, would not and never will accept jesus as the messiah. Such a blanket statement is pure apologetics.
Ilion said: "Hmmm ... so "evolutionary predictions" (which seem, always, to be retrodictions) are proof that Darwin Lives (and Rulez!), but Biblical predictions are not only not proof that God Lives, but aren't even evidence that he is? Is that how it works?"
A very foolish statement. Evolutionary predictions are testable, verifiable and have been confirmed. There has been much work in evolutionary biology with organisms having very short life spans such as various insects and fish etc and bacteria, through which genetic and evolutionary changes have been observed as they occurred. Ilion, these are not figments of the imagination. Evolution in the lab is predictive. With that wealth of information it is without doubt that evolution works and has well earned its position as the single greatest maxim that drives all the life sciences. The explanatory power of prophecy is simply a candle in the wind in comparison to that of Darwinian evolution through natural selection. The jury has delivered a verdict on this one. End of story.
Papalinton is following some very discredited New Testament scholarship in his statements that the Gospels were written generations after the event. That idea might have passed for "common knowledge" a century ago, but has since been blown to bits by more contemporary scholars who had no naturalist axes to grind when dating the Gospels. Indeed, the best estimates nowadays place the composition of (at the very least) the Synoptic Gospels as prior to the Destruction of the Temple, i.e., before 70 AD at the absolute latest. John "might" be later, but there is zero evidence of any sort whatsoever that compels us to think so.
Indeed, the best estimates nowadays place the composition of (at the very least) the Synoptic Gospels as prior to the Destruction of the Temple, i.e., before 70 AD at the absolute latest. John "might" be later, but there is zero evidence of any sort whatsoever that compels us to think so.
Is that the majority consensus of NT scholars? I know Bart Ehrman does not believe in pre-70 CE dates for the gospels--with the possible exception of Mark. I think most conservative believers have simply latched on to J.A.T. Robinson's thesis that the gospels *might* be pre-70 CE, while most skeptics favor a later date, but can anyone say definitively which is correct?
You may have hit the nail on the head with your use of "believers" and "skeptics", vis a vis dating the New Testament. A skeptic will (ironically) accept anything that justifies his scepticism, no matter how convoluted - whereas the believer requires at least some modicum of proof before rejecting what common sense tells him.
For example, The Gospel according to John is riddled with phrases such as "He who saw it has borne witness", or "this is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things", yet the skeptic will insist that John is not an eyewitness account. Incredible!
A skeptic will (ironically) accept anything that justifies his scepticism, no matter how convoluted - whereas the believer requires at least some modicum of proof before rejecting what common sense tells him.
Riiight.
For example, The Gospel according to John is riddled with phrases such as "He who saw it has borne witness", or "this is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things", yet the skeptic will insist that John is not an eyewitness account. Incredible!
First, there are several reasons that scholars date the fourth gospel late. Secondly, the author(s) never name John as the beloved disciple.
Bob, the scholars who push for late dating of the gospels are mostly comprised of Christians, although admittedly these scholars tend towards the liberal end of the spectrum in their religious faith. There is simply not that many agnostics or atheists who are interested in devoting a career torwards studying the NT. There are two famous Catholic Christian NT scholars who believed the gospels dated to post-70 CE: Joseph Fitzmyer and Raymond E. Brown. So it isn't just the agnostic "Bart Ehrmans" who are skeptical of extremely early dates for the gospels.
"Dating Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs.
Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus) view as follows: Mark: c. 68–73, c 65-70 Matthew: c. 70–100. c 80-85. Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, c 80-85 John: c 90-100, c. 90–110, The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis): Matthew: c. 50 to 70s Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70"
You will note, Bob, apologists invariably go for the early dates, due of their great desire to fudge the boundaries to bolster their investment in the mythos. But the majority of genuine scholars err on the side of caution and opt for the later dates. You will also recall that the very earliest recorded gospel we have was written in Greek AND a product of the 4thC CE. It is a copy of a copy of a copy of the original autographs. That is why HigherTtextual Criticism is the only method by which the proposed dates of the original autographs are posited. There is no other evidence extant.
Assuming a generation is about 20-25 years, [given today's life expectancy and cultural mores] and probably a good deal shorter during that time when life expectancy was around 40 years old and girls were married around 12/13, shortly after puberty. Mark would have been written at least two and even into the third generation after jesus' purported death. The other gospels would have been written 3>4 generations after the mid-30s.CE
Bob, your statement, "That idea might have passed for "common knowledge" a century ago, but has since been blown to bits by more contemporary scholars who had no naturalist axes to grind when dating the Gospel", really is an egregious furphy. Try not to 'lie for jesus'. It is a bit unbecoming.
I don't understand how writing down what I actually believe to be true can be considered a "lie". Now if I believed one thing, and wrote another, you might just have a case. But as regards my original posting, I believe every word to be true. No "lying for Jesus" there.
In fact, because I was referring to scholarship and not to my own personal opinion, I also decided to "err on the side of caution", as you put it, and go for dates approaching 70 AD. My actual belief is that the Gospels were set down (in at least rough draft form) within months of the Resurrection. I even suspect that large segments of the Synoptics existed in written form prior to the Crucifixion.
>But the majority of genuine scholars err on the side of caution and opt for the later dates.
Paps how would you know what constitutes a "genuine" scholar? Someone who agrees with your Atheist's presuppositions?
Also Paps since when do you care about what the majority of scholars think?
When I first encountered you over at Biologos you where spouting Jesus Mytherism. Is the idea Jesus never existed a view held by the majority of scholars including Atheists (excluding Richard Carrier)?
As I recall you cited an ex-piano teacher turned amateur archeologist as you authority the town of Nazareth never existed in the first century.
You are just giving us mere Atheist apologetics. Straight from either Dawkins, Loftus or the 19th century.
I see no reason why God could not exist and the Gospels could still be early.
Examples of Gospel passages I believe to have been written down prior to the Crucifixion:
The Temptation in the desert in Matthew The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew Most of the parables in all three Synoptics The visit by night to Nicodemus in John The "Woman taken in adultery" scene in John
A high percentage of the 12 Apostles appear to have been literate. It would frankly astonish me to learn that they were not taking down every word of Christ that they could shortly after they were spoken.
>You will also recall that the very earliest recorded gospel we have was written in Greek AND a product of the 4thC CE.
I could have told you 15 years ago the oldest intact and complete manuscripts of the Gospels comes from the 4th century. But citations and incomplete fragments of the Gospels are a wee bit older which is why even those scholars who give a "late" date still put them in the 1st century.
>Mark would have been written at least two and even into the third generation after jesus' purported death.
Of course you are assuming there where no 70 or 80 year olds living in the first century. You are also assuming they didn't write notes from the beginning.
If we live in your Fundie Atheist fantasy land(even given later dates) the Apostles didn't write a word for decades and Gospels are not based on any earlier unpublished work?
Wouldn't the "Q" source by definition be older than the Gospels and thus earlier?
Examples of Gospel passages I believe to have been written down prior to the Crucifixion:
The Temptation in the desert in Matthew The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew Most of the parables in all three Synoptics The visit by night to Nicodemus in John The "Woman taken in adultery" scene in John
Any actual evidence for your theory, Bob? Or are you simply speculating out loud?
So, according to the selectively hyper-skeptical "skeptics," the authors of the Gospels were either devilishly clever or incredibly stupid? On the other hand, knowing how these "skeptics" "think," I think we can safely count on them to assert both. Simultaneously.
For, according to these selectively hyper-skeptical "skeptics," since the Gospels appear to prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, they *had* to have been written post-70 AD. For, were they written before the 1st Roman-Jewish War, that would mean that they contain a real before-the-event prophesy which came to pass, and that would be *gasp* a miracle *gasp*. And, as we know, following the Great Hume-bug, miracles are known to be "logically" impossible ... by the mere device of denying that they are possible.
Yet, the Gospel writers -- who, according to the "skeptics," put a false, after-the-fact pseudo-prophesy in their works, pretending that it was made decades before the event -- were, apparently, too stupid to tell their readers that the prophesy had been fulfilled, as one would have expected normal human beings to have done when trying to pull off such a scheme.
At the same time, they were so devilishly clever that they had anticipated the thought-processes (such as they are) of selectively hyper-skeptical "skeptics" many hundreds of years in their future, and, rather than saying something like, "And it came to pass as Jesus had foretold," said instead, "We, along the rulers (of the Jews), thought that he was referring to the Temple, but it was only after the fact (of the Crucifixion and Resurrection) that we understood that he was referring to himself."
For instance, there are only two passages in all four Gospels, in which Jesus is utterly alone (and therefore, we have to wonder, how did these events get recorded?). The first is the temptation in the desert, and the second is His praying in Gethsemane while the apostles are asleep.
The second is the easiest to explain. The enigmatic mention in Mark of the "young man who fled naked" from the arrest scene is likely the source of the prayer narratives. The temptation narratives, on the other hand, can only have been obtained by Jesus Himself telling the apostles about the incident. In my humble opinion, they would have written such an amazing story down word for word, realizing its significance. I know that's what I would have done.
"The second is the easiest to explain. The enigmatic mention in Mark of the "young man who fled naked" from the arrest scene is likely the source of the prayer narratives."
Clutching at any straw wherever possible. 'Enigmatic' is the operative word here, and totally counter-factual.
Victor Are these 'supporting' comments, such as Bob's note of Mark's gospel's 'young man who fled naked', really what Apologetics scholarship has boiled down to, in the final analysis?
And Bob is no fool. But is seems the dearth of evidence and deep uncertainty about the level of historical veridicality in the Gospels is as problematic as it was 2,000 years ago.
Indeed recent biblical scholarship is putting even greater pressure on those traditional and conventionally accepted apologetical 'truths' as never before.
Conventional wisdom built on the foundations of apologetics, seems to be eroding away at each and every peek into the christian narrative, through science, anthropology, sociology, psychology, neuro-physiology etc.
Actually, I wasn't engaging in apologetics. Recall that in an earlier posting, I said I had reasons that convinced me, but that I in no way regarded them as proof for anyone else. The passage from Mark falls within that category. Decades later, I still clearly remember how that single line struck me, once I realized its significance.
"Furthermore, if such a god as this were going to choose men to serve as prophets of his word, surely he would have selected men of high integrity. Integrity, however, was a quality that was often lacking in the Old Testament prophets. The prophet Jeremiah, for example, deliberately lied in order to gain his release from a prison dungeon."
If God had to select a person of "high integrity" as a criterion for accomplishing some task, then He wouldn't have anybody left to select.
Till again:
If the Judean prophet was truly in touch with Yahweh, why wouldn't he have known that the old prophet was lying to him about the angel's visit?
A "prophet" is someone who foretells, or tells forth, something....not that they "know" all things; certainly, they may not "know" many things.
"Other than this, they have been educated to believe in Bible prophecy in the same way that Moslems have been educated to believe in the prophetic talents of Mohammed. Once they have been brainwashed from childhood through adulthood to believe this, they are going to believe it come what may."
Really?!? Try telling that to a seminary trained ex-Christian.
About Tyre:
Was Ezekiel's prophecy concerning "Tyre" true? Yes, and Till lists some Encyclopedia's as evidence that Nebuchadnezzar did lay siege to Tyre. What becomes murky is how he understands this verse:
"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it. Therefore thus says Yahweh God: `Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army'" (29:18-19).
Here's Till's commentary:
"Strangely enough, Ezekiel was admitting in this statement that his prophecy against Tyre had failed, for if Nebuchadnezzar had taken the island part of the city, he surely would have carried off its multitude, taken its plunder, and taken its prey, and these would have been his 'wages.'"
....unless, of course, Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed everything that could have been considered a "wage".
Bob Your notion is just one of many explanations [perhaps no more than an assertion] that has been attached to this little snippet in Mark.
The one that seems to capture the varying interpretations of this scene in a nutshell seems best represented by the following statement from Chris Masterton:
"If you listened to ten different traditional scholars, you would get ten different possibilities to what the mysterious text in Mark may or may not mean. The naked represents this … the man represents that … the linen cloth means this … the struggle means that … and so on and so forth until nothing makes much sense. So far, it all boils down to speculation because this incident is not mentioned in any of the other gospels; nor is it elaborated on in Mark. The guy in question just pops-in and pops-out in a flash. Nothing more is said about him. So, whatever their religious background, traditional scholars build speculation around these two verses within the confines of their respective belief systems."
I have also read that the grasped young man escaping by leaving behind his linen clothing behind is a gesture of prophecy symbolic of jesus' ensuing death and resurrection [escape] from eternal darkness.
I guess 'horses for courses', whatever tickles your fancy, is about as strong as this 'evidence' can take us.
The New Testament witnesses did not rely on "biblical prophesies", alone, to establish their belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. Many, like St. Peter, were not even literate men. Instead, they saw and heard things by Jesus that, over the course of Jesus' ministry, convinced them that He was the Son of God. And many did not even "believe" Jesus until after He rose from the dead and appeared to them. But it became clear to those that knew the O.T. that the O.T. offered a prefiguring of the Christ, to whom they eventually saw as Jesus. But their primary "data" was their having bore witness to the person and work of Jesus.
For instance, having witnessed the crucifixion and resurrection first-hand, a logical connection was made that Psalm 22 was about Jesus and not David. What David wrote as a poetic vision/metaphor of his own struggles was, for them and us, actually a literal description of Jesus' death and His victory over it [death].
Why did they think it was about Jesus, rather than David? First and foremost, because Jesus uttered the first line of that Psalm on the Cross, drawing everyone's attention to it's coming fulfillment.....which some of His followers had witnessed first hand. Secondly, because none of the accounts of David's life relay anything about being "pierced in the hands" or having "lots being cast for his clothing"....or even mentioning anything about having been put up for execution at the hands of his enemies.
Papalinton arguments to date can be neatly summed up as this.
God doesn't exist science has proven it so. The Bible is false because scholars or fringe people I agree with say so & any rational response to my ambiguous assertions and nay-saying I will demolish with the magic word "Apologetics!".
"For instance, having witnessed the crucifixion and resurrection first-hand, a logical connection was made that Psalm 22 was about Jesus and not David. What David wrote as a poetic vision/metaphor of his own struggles was, for them and us, actually a literal description of Jesus' death and His victory over it [death]."
How was the connection made apart from assertion and relief?
Following my reading of the recount of Appollonius of Tyana, I too gasped, and said, OMG, OMG, this is truly the story of jesus. The story was so alike as to be amazing.
Gregory if the words jesus said on the cross that relate to Psalm 22 were so prophetic and astounding why was it not recounted in all of the gosples? Why are the words that jesus said on the cross be completely different in all the gospels.
A quick check around sites such as Wiki come up with a range of explanations; " ...the first saying from (Mark and Matthew) is a quotation from Psalm 22, and is therefore occasionally seen as a theological and literary device employed by the writers."
>The only polemics on this thread so have have been yours.
No Seriously?
QUOTE"Could one of the reasons be is that there is no evidence? Every prophecy ever told in the NT, all of them retrojected backwards into the OT when the writers of the NTetc"
You are simply not living in reality buddy.
>"I don't believe all non-Catholics are fundamentalists." Such a lowly patronizing statement against his own ilk. A real Benedict Arnold.
Anybody who is a Theist in some remote sense is my "ilk"?
We that proves my thesis Gnu'Atheists have a simplistic one size fits all approach to religion.
I believe that Christian claims of fulfilled prophecies are not persuasive for two reasons:
1) Testimony that a prophecy had been fulfilled inevitably appears less credible than that the witnesses have deceived themselves and/or others. (This includes intentional deception, of course, but also mistakes, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, the lottery fallacy, etc.) 2) Christian prophecy appears to have only been successful from Biblical accounts, and not outside those accounts. This starts with the failed prophecy for Jesus's second coming in the generation of his death all the way to the present day predictions of Camping. More importantly, it also ignores the many, many examples in which the biblical accounts of creation, life, etc. all fail to accurately predict what later, more reliable investigation reveals. To deny this second phenomenon seems similar to the Camping followers who deny that Camping's prediction failed on May 21.
Tom: Christian claims of fulfilled prophecy are not intended to be persuasive to those who do not include biblical revelation as authoritative. It was intended to be persuasive to those who believed the promises in the Jewish Scriptures. Even then, only those willing to listen were persuaded. Those with too much power to lose were not persuaded.
@ Mike Darus "Tom: Christian claims of fulfilled prophecy are not intended to be persuasive to those who do not include biblical revelation as authoritative. It was intended to be persuasive to those who believed the promises in the Jewish Scriptures. Even then, only those willing to listen were persuaded. Those with too much power to lose were not persuaded."
Mike, your statement is the antithesis of reason and logic and confirms my contention that prophecy as recounted through biblical text can only be considered through those texts. It is limited and constrained, and confined within theology and is solely a wholly-owned derivative of theospeak which has no basis whatever in fact or proofs. Indeed it is my contention that the judeo-christian writings are a collection of allegories, parables, metaphors and similes interwoven by the writers into their daily lives and prevailing social mores. The christianizing process sought to characterize humans engaged in a monumental battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil, with these forces inextricably all motivated from outside the natural world through supernatural [and putatively] live active entities over which we have no control, except by way of attaching ourselves to one of these supernatural beings, either god and his team of justice fighters or satan and his cronies.
And the two points Tony Hoffman raises are particularly relevant in correctly placing prophecies in a category of ideas that can only appeal to those who wish it to be so, who wish to posit biblical revelation as 'authoritative', for no other reason than personal proclivity.
And that is fine. But we must all continually remind ourselves that there is no basis in fact or evidence or proofs that can advance these ideas any further than the perimeter of our particular theology. And this applies to all other religious theologies that you would gladly concede.
Is the "argument" from 'Science!' a busted axle?-- "once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street."
Isn't it amazing, the stuff that these selectively hyper-skeptical and thoroughly intellectually dishonest persons will believe?
a silly person who is as intellectually dishonest as the fool he recently called a liar: "I don't believe all non-Catholics are fundamentalists."
Your "definition" of 'fundamentalist' merely means "those people I look down my nose at as being ignorant rubes." You know, the same "definition" that Paps applies to you.
Meanwhile, I -- who am a "fundie" -- and more intelligent (and possibly better educated) than both of you put together, just laugh at you.
a silly person: "Plus some Protestants are Classic Theists which makes them awesome."
To properly be called a 'Protestant,' does not one need to be a Christian? Since this "classical theism" you (and Feser) are always banging on about is *not* Christianity, it impresses me not in the least that some non-Christians are advocating for "classical theism," any more than that some other non-Christians are advocating for "open theism."
a silly, intellectually dishonest, person: "Plus Gnu'Atheist polemics against Natural Theology are almost always aimed at a Theistic Personalist "god"."
So-called atheists argue against Zeus, and then pretend they've argued against the Living God, the Creator-of-all-that-is-not-God. This mirrors your (and Feser's) silly attempt to paint so-called "personalistic theists" as advocating a conception of God that equates to Zeus.
God *is* personal. The pseudo-god of so-called "classical theism" is just the impersonal non-god of the philosophers.
So basically Ilíon you are pissed at me because I am a convinced believing Catholic Christian in communion with the Bishop of Rome and successor of Peter?
You are upset because I actually believe the Catholic Christian Faith is The Truth and I speak and act and assume it to be The Truth? Also I don't pretend to think otherwise.
I judge the doctrines of other religions and Christian denominations by Her teachings as the standard of truth.
You would be happy if I was a hypocrite and treated all Christian denominations equally & say they are all true? Well how is that any different from saying all religions are true?
I can't do that and I won't do that. I won't pretend the particulars of Calvinism, Wesleyianism, Dispensationalism. that contradict the Council of Trent or the Holy Church are true.
I don't apologize for it either.
>To properly be called a 'Protestant,' does not one need to be a Christian?
The council of Trent says the Trinitarian baptisms of the Heretics are valid and it is heresy for a Catholic to say otherwise.
That goes for Classic Theistic Calvinists like Paul Helm or self professed Fundamentalist Theisitic Personalists like yourself.
>More importantly, it also ignores the many, many examples in which the biblical accounts of creation, life, etc. all fail to accurately predict what later, more reliable investigation reveals.
Here you are conflating Biblical Prophesy with Biblical Concordism(i.e. the Belief the Bible explicitly and specifically teaches scientific truths). I like Augustine can believe the Bible gives true Prophesy without believing it's giving a scientific description of the world.
>This starts with the failed prophecy for Jesus's second coming in the generation of his death all the way to the present day predictions of Camping.
Tony you have absorbed the irrational one size fits all weirdness of the Gnu's. You are better than that. I reject the above claim because I am a Catholic not a Reformed Dispensationalist Christian.
The whole nonsense that Jesus foretold he would come again during the Apostles lifetimes is false because the proponents of that claim conflate the establishment of the Kingdom of God with the Second Coming. They are not the same either in the NT or the OT or the Book of Wisdom or Patristic literature.
Jesus clearly foretold the Apostles would see the establishment of the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven during their lifetimes but that is not the same as the Second Coming.
See the Catholic Enyclopedia for details.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm
He told them to watch and be ready for the second coming but that is not the same as teling them he would return during their lifetimes.
Here is an alleged "troublesome" verse and a simple solution.
"Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" -Matt 16:28
So that's a slam dunk right? But what about what comes after.
"After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him.
It seems the Son of man had been glorified? That didn't take long.
The footnote in my Catholic Bible says "since the kingdom of the Son of Man has been described as "the world" and Jesus' sovereignty precedes his final coming in glory (Matthew 13:38, 41), the coming in this verse is not the parousia as in the preceding but the manifestation of Jesus' rule after his resurrection".
One doesn't have to believe in God to see the "Jesus foretold his Second Coming in the lifetime of the Apostles" meme is merely read into the text by hopeful Atheists looking for a cheap gotcha.
But as far as I am concerned. If I deny God tomorrow. I see no reason to believe Jesus was talking about the parousia when he foretold the Kingdom of God being established during the Apostles lifetime.
Now you may still be skeptical and maybe your other arguments have some merit. I don't know & I don't care since I am bored now and will go watch some Netflix or play my new MMORPG.
But I see no reason to believe Jesus foretold his parousia vs foretelling the establishment of the Kingdom of God.
Regarding Concordism and Augustine, I see your point, but I think this could also be criticized as a kind of "heads I win, tails you lose" position. My question would be, Why are descriptions of reality (concordism) to be distinguished from predictions of reality (prophecy) in the Bible? And doesn't it seem like prophecies in the Bible must be re-interpreted in the same way that descriptions of reality must be re-interpreted, i.e, classified as allegorical, in order to maintain the premise that the Bible is the word of God? Another way of saying this is, what good is a Biblical prediction if it's not clear how it will track with reality?
Ben: " Tony you have absorbed the irrational one size fits all weirdness of the Gnu's. You are better than that. I reject the above claim [that Jesus and Paul taught that the second coming would occur within the lifetime of those who witnessed Jesus's resurrection) because I am a Catholic not a Reformed Dispensationalist Christian."
Okay, but I believe that this requires applying a similar standard to this prophecy that Augustine suggested with Biblical descriptions of reality.
Ben: "One doesn't have to believe in God to see the "Jesus foretold his Second Coming in the lifetime of the Apostles" meme is merely read into the text by hopeful Atheists looking for a cheap gotcha."
Well, there are other prophecies than the one you mentioned -- Jesus says pretty much the same thing in Luke, for instance. And Paul makes similar statements.
Me: "This starts with the failed prophecy for Jesus's second coming in the generation of his death all the way to the present day predictions of Camping."
Ben: "The whole nonsense that Jesus foretold he would come again during the Apostles lifetimes is false because the proponents of that claim conflate the establishment of the Kingdom of God with the Second Coming."
I understand that you distinguish between Catholic interpretation of what appears to be a prediction for the second coming with Camping's prediction for May 21, but both could be accused of sharing a similar post-hoc rationalization. In the case of the Catholic, the prediction is interpreted to be about the Kingdom of God (a kind of spiritual understanding, as I have come to understand it), and with Camping the prediction of the world ending on May 21 was re-explained by time in this way: "We have to be looking at all of this a little bit more spiritual, but it won't be spiritual on Oct. 21."
In both cases above, words that (if taken literally) predict the end of the world are re-interpreted to be about a spiritual transformation. If a prediction can be re-interpreted so that it cannot be seen to fail, then it appears worthless as a prediction.
>In both cases above, words that (if taken literally) predict the end of the world are re-interpreted to be about a spiritual transformation.
Here is your problem I don't think you understand my rebuttal so I will refocus my objection.
Even if God doesn't exist it is clear to me the concept of the establishing the Kingdom of God/Heaven is clearly not the same as the concept of the parousia in the NT.
"The Kingdom of God is within you" "Preach the Gospel of the Kingdom"etc...It is a concurrent theme threw out the NT that Jesus spurned an Earthly natural political Kingdom. It is clear every single so called verse where Jesus allegedly said he would come again during the Apostle lifetime in fact doesn't teach that at all.
The burden of proof is on the Atheist who needs to provide the exegesis to back up his novel assertion.
Like I said I can become an Atheist tomorrow & my contempt for anti-intellectual Jesus Mythers & person who read this meme into the NT will continue.
>but both could be accused of sharing a similar post-hoc rationalization.
In order to show it is post-hoc the burden of proof is on you to provide the exegeses of the passages to prove your contention they where always understood to be about the parousia.
I may address your other points later.
It's good to talk to an intellegent Atheist who is interested in dialog. Gnu's so bore me at this point.
>Okay, but I believe that this requires applying a similar standard to this prophecy that Augustine suggested with Biblical descriptions of reality.
Augustine said any text that is interpreted in anyway that contradicts the known science & philosophy must be re-interpreted in harmony. That having been said the Bible gives a realistic phenomenological description of the world. That is it correctly describes the world as seen by an Earth bound human being.
But that is not the same as a scientific description of the world. In my college Physics text Book PERSPECTIVES IN PHYSICS by Eugene Hecht there is a footnote on Galileo pointing out that ironically with the rise of Special Relativity motion is dependent on the view point of the observer.
Taken to the logical extreme Galileo could from that perspective be said to be wrong since from the relative viewpoint of an Earth bound observer the Earth appears to stand still while the Universe revolves around it.
It still seems clear to me Jesus foretold he would establish the Kingdom of God/Heaven during the lifetime of the Apostles but he clearly didn't tell them he would come again during their lifetimes.
Otherwise "Nobody knows the day or the hour not even the Son" has any meaning. Any literal exegesis would reveal this.
"Even if God doesn't exist it is clear to me the concept of the establishing the Kingdom of God/Heaven is clearly not the same as the concept of the parousia in the NT."
While this is true, it also serves as a distraction enabling the pretend-atheists to wiggle off the hook. The real issue is that atheism is false; it is, in fact, worse than false, for it is absurd. The real issue is that even if the distinctive claims of Christianity are false -- even if God never became a man and lived among us and allowed us to murder him as the means to reconcile us to himself -- atheism is not, and cannot be, true.
These pretend-atheists need to face up to that truth, and we must not allow them to evade that truth by raising objections about other issues. Once that have *admitted* that God is, and that God is personal (that he is not a "force" or a "principle"), and that he is the Creator of all-that-is-not-God, once they have acknowledged what logically follows from those truths, then they may have standing to raise objections to Christianity. Until then, they are just fools and their objections, *any* they raise, are but intellectually dishonest bloviation.
I can selectively re-interpret the Koran to affirm the Deity of Christ and downplay and re-interpret Sura's that deny the Deity of Christ.
I don't for a second believe the Koran is of divine origin but I think an objective literal exegesis will show the writer didn't intend at all to teach the Deity of Christ. The same goes for NT & the meme that it allegedly teaches the second coming will happen in the Apostles lifetime.
Ben: " The burden of proof is on the Atheist who needs to provide the exegesis to back up his novel assertion."
From a general perspective I disagree. The discussion is about the argument from biblical prophecies, so I think the burden of proof should be for the Christian (advocating this argument) to show that there are (correct) biblical prophecies.
But you are correct that I am arguing that failed predictions need to be taken into account, and so if my proposed requirement is to have any meaning I should, you know, offer a failed prediction.
The first one I looked into is this prediction from Jesus, in Mark:
"24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven. 28 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that it is near—at the doors! 30 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."
So, I think that sounds like a prediction that the son of man will come from the clouds with great power, send his angels, and gather the elect within 25 or so years of those words being uttered. This looks like a failed prediction to me, not so dissimilar to Camping's. And I think it puts an argument from prophecy in a hole it should have trouble getting out of.
Telling all Atheists they are fools and idiots is really no better than when Gnu's (like Paps or Loftus) telling all Theists they are fools, idiots and or deluded.
Now the fact there are both anti-intellectual Theists(fundies) and Atheists(Gnus') should be pointed out and all persons should be encouraged to follow reason.
Granted Atheism is false and philosophically irrational an Atheist can never come to that conclusion unless you encourage him to think rationally. A good place to start is to encourage him to give a rational critique of religion rather then the brain dead apologetics Gnu's like Dawkins & Co spew out there. Reason is it's own reward. As Aquinas said reason proceeds faith.
As for God being personal. Of course He is Personal in that He is more than a Person just as a Person is more than an animal.
But God is not the Mormon Deity 2.0. God is not a disembodied untra-human Mind. He is Being Itself! He is Existence Itself & He is His own Essence.
The God of the Philosophers is God as we can know Him using reason alone. Since there is only one God by definition the God of the Philosophers and the God of the Bible must be the same God.
I hope one day that bug up your arse will die a quick death.
>The discussion is about the argument from biblical prophecies, so I think the burden of proof should be for the Christian (advocating this argument) to show that there are (correct) biblical prophecies.
No you have to give an exegesis of the passage to show Jesus understood the coming of the Kingdom of God as being the same as the Second Coming.
Proof-texting doesn't work you have to do exegesis. You are not doing that.
>So, I think that sounds like a prediction that the son of man will come from the clouds with great power, send his angels, and gather the elect within 25 or so years of those words being uttered.
With a name like Hoffman did you learn nothing having been born a Jew? You know or should know the Torah is one long word without Chapter or verse divisions. The Chapter & verse divisions where put in the Bible (including the NT) in the 12th Century. You are reading this text as if those modern text divisions mattered?
A first century Jew would read this and notice verses 28 to 30 are a reference to Jesus killing the fig tree which was a prophecy of the coming destruction of the Temple. He would conclude Jesus is telling us within the Apostle lifetime the temple would be destroyed.
He would not connect this verse with the Second Coming since Jesus already said nobody knownes not even the Son when the Second Coming will go down.
You are reading the Bible in a Fundamentalist way like Camping. He actually sometimes treats the chapter & verse divisions like they mean anything.
Further more Mark already said the Second Coming would come after the destruction of the Temple. So when he brings up the fig tree he is referring back to that specific event in time. He's not giving a chronology of the end. Otherwise the Temple would be destroyed twice.
(Which would fit an end times scenario the Temple would be rebuilt which even Catholic have a version of but you can't get the second coming out of verses 28 -30.
To repeat the Chapter verse divisions came 1150 give or take years after the darn thing was written! Stop reading the text with them in mind.
We have Jesus telling the High priest that he would see "the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Sounds like a clear prediction that the parousia would occur during the High Priest's lifetime and be witnessed by him.
>But you are correct that I am arguing that failed predictions need to be taken into account, and so if my proposed requirement is to have any meaning I should, you know, offer a failed prediction.
You showed me the Temple was destroyed in the lifetime of the Apostles. You connected that with the Second Coming but you did so while falsely assuming Chapter 13 of Mark is a real unit in the text. It's an arbitrary 12th century division made by the Archbishop of Cantaberry back when England was still Catholic. If I re-chaptered and versed Mark and made verses 28-30 Chapter 14 verse 1 etc that would disappear.
You need to read Mark as a first century Jewish document threw first century Jewish eyes. Taking Jesus' unique teachings into account.
Verses 28-30 are about the fall of the Temple not the Second Coming.
What Walter is your exegetical justification for that meaning?
Prots think "Call no man Father..no man teacher" means Jesus bans the term Father for clergy. They then turn around and condemn Catholics for calling their clergy "Father".
Yet Paul calls himself a Father to believers? James calls religious leaders in his community "Teacher"?
Maybe the High Priest will see that at the resurrection to judgement. Nothing in the text indicates it will occur in his lifetime.
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."
As I dig into my commentaries it is noted the Greek word for "generation" could be translated "race". So even if you wanted to connect it to the second coming Jesus is saying the human race or the Jewish race will not die out before any of these things happen.
The case for Jesus predicting his second coming during the lifetime of his Apostles gets weaker by the minute.
Atheists IMHO should simple forget about attacking the Bible. They should concentrate on Philosophy & Natural Theology and philosophical polemics against Theism.
Maybe the High Priest will see that at the resurrection to judgement. Nothing in the text indicates it will occur in his lifetime.
Nothing in the text indicates that Jesus meant the Priest would view the parousia only after the resurrection to judgment. The only reason to read the passage as you recommend is when one is committed to a strong prior assumption that Jesus could not be mistaken about anything he ever said. I don't share that presupposition. Of course, it is also entirely possible that Jesus never uttered those words at all.
>Nothing in the text indicates that Jesus meant the Priest would view the parousia only after the resurrection to judgment.
Nothing in the text says this will happen to the Priest in his lifetime.
>The only reason to read the passage as you recommend is when one is committed to a strong prior assumption that Jesus could not be mistaken about anything he ever said.
Right back at you. The only reason you would come up with this novel reading of text is a strong prior assumption that Jesus did foretell his second coming during the lifetime of the Apostles.
I can deny the existence of God and still say you are wrong here on exegetical grounds.
>I don't share that presupposition. Of course, it is also entirely possible that Jesus never uttered those words at all.
Even if the whole exchange is fiction you still haven't shown the author of the Gospels intended to have Jesus tell the High Priest he would return in his lifetime.
>The discussion is about the argument from biblical prophecies, so I think the burden of proof should be for the Christian (advocating this argument) to show that there are (correct) biblical prophecies.
Sorry if I misunderstood you from before.
This by itself is a good argument in that it puts the burden of proof on the Christian but then again both the Christian and Atheist have to work out between them what constitutes prophecy in the text. How to identify it and then show it came true or not.
I don't know. The essay on proof from Prophesy is a Protestant one & Catholics have a different mentality in regards to Scripture. We also have a different standard of proof for the truths of the Faith.
But I am convinced the "Jesus foretold His Second Coming during the Apostles lifetime" meme is a total bust.
Now you will excuse me. My daughter is a little under the weather poor thing. I must help her & bail.
Right back at you. The only reason you would come up with this novel reading of text is a strong prior assumption that Jesus did foretell his second coming during the lifetime of the Apostles.
I would consider my interpretation to be the "plain" reading of the text. Jesus did not *explicitly* state that Caiaphas would only see the Son of Man coming in the clouds after his own resurrection to judgment. You, and many others, are adding a qualifier to Jesus' statement in an attempt to mitigate the embarrassment the passage causes for those who believe in an infallible Jesus being quoted in an inerrant document.
Maybe Jesus never made those claims? Maybe Mark had a strong apocalyptic streak, and he simply claimed that Jesus uttered those words because he (mark) strongly believed that Jesus was very soon coming to right the wrongs in the world. Mark may not have considered himself to be lying since it might have been his fervent belief that the end was coming very soon.
The apocalypticism seems to be toned down by the later-written gospel of Luke, and seems almost entirely absent by the even-later gospel of John.
>I would consider my interpretation to be the "plain" reading of the text. \
Since Jesus would come riding on the Clouds at the End of Days & everybody would be there because of the resurrection. It would still happen in the future. But when in the future is not specified.
Again there is nothing in the text to indicate this will all happen during the High Priest's lifetime.
>Jesus did not *explicitly* state that Caiaphas would only see the Son of Man coming in the clouds after his own resurrection to judgment.
Jesus didn't *explicitly* state that Caiaphas would see this happen during his lifetime either.
Your the one giving the novel interpretation of this verse no Church Father or Christian held for 2,000 years. The burden of proof is on you.
Your the one making the extra ordinary claim here. Not I.
>You, and many others, are adding a qualifier to Jesus' statement in an attempt to mitigate the embarrassment the passage causes
Rather you can't seem to comprehend even if God doesn't exist and the NT isn't the word of God this meaning you are reading into it with your own qualifiers could be wrong.
I don't believe in the Koran. But trying to read into it the doctrine of the Deity of Christ is not a correct interpretation of that text and is not the author's intent.
Live with it. My argument stands regardless of the Divine or merely human origin of the NT.
>Maybe Jesus never made those claims? Maybe Mark had a strong apocalyptic streak, and he simply claimed that Jesus uttered those words because he (mark) strongly believed that Jesus was very soon coming to right the wrongs in the world.
Very interesting speculations. Call me when you have some historical or exegetical proof.
Till then I could in theory be an Atheist who rejects your claim.
Belief in God or the NT(I know you are a Deist) is not needed to see you are wrong.
Regarding the passage I cited, I don't think that chapter divisions matter. The English translation using the plural demonstrative pronoun "these things," (sometimes translated "all these things") while the fig tree is a singular antecedent. It seems that the plural demonstrative pronoun must refer to more than the fig tree, and the logical interpretation would be the end-of-the-world, second-coming events listed prior, and the summation that follows regarding the destruction of the world also support this interpretation. I understand that in order to maintain the belief that this passage from Mark is not a failed prediction one must interpret it to mean otherwise, but at the very least the passage certainly appears, from a plain reading, to be a failed prediction.
And that is partly my point. Everyone knows that the world did not end in the generation of those who witnessed Jesus' resurrection. If one believes as Christian does, one must interpret Jesus's words to mean other than they are understood as written. One must view them through an allegorical lens, similar to what Camping has done for his prediction of earthly demise on May 21.
As a Christian, I suppose it's too much to ask that you consider that Jesus's words could be a failed prophecy, else you would not be a Christian. So I don't suppose there's much point in each providing our own interpretations of various passages.
Ben: " With a name like Hoffman did you learn nothing having been born a Jew? You know or should know the Torah is one long word without Chapter or verse divisions. The Chapter & verse divisions where put in the Bible (including the NT) in the 12th Century."
Aren't the Gospels written in Greek? And, as mentioned above, I don't think that Chapter divisions matter in the interpretation of this passage.
Ben: "A first century Jew would read this and notice verses 28 to 30 are a reference to Jesus killing the fig tree which was a prophecy of the coming destruction of the Temple. He would conclude Jesus is telling us within the Apostle lifetime the temple would be destroyed."
Or, he could read the passage in front of him and conclude that the temple, along with everything else on earth, would be destroyed within his lifetime.
Ben: "[A first century Jew] would not connect this verse with the Second Coming since Jesus already said nobody knows not even the Son when the Second Coming will go down."
Already said? Where in Mark does he already say this? And if not in Mark, why would you assume that a Jew reading Mark would know about another Gospel account, especially when Mark is widely considered to be the earliest Gospel?
Ben: " You are reading the Bible in a Fundamentalist way like Camping."
Hmm. It seems to me that you are re-interpreting a plain prediction to mean something allegorical. This is what Camping has recently done. And I'm sure he is scolding his skeptics now for mis-interpreting his words to mean that the real world would be destroyed on May 21.
Ben: " To repeat the Chapter verse divisions came 1150 give or take years after the darn thing was written! Stop reading the text with them in mind."
You haven't shown how the chapter / verse insertions make any difference to the translation and interpretation of a Greek text. Honestly, I just don’t get your point.
>Regarding the passage I cited, I don't think that chapter divisions matter.
Clearly they do since you treat Chapter 13 as a unit and the verses as units. That colors your interpretation.
>The English translation using the plural demonstrative pronoun "these things," (sometimes translated "all these things") while the fig tree is a singular antecedent.
But the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple are many so I don't see how the plurals vidicate the Novel interpretation.
>It seems that the plural demonstrative pronoun must refer to more than the fig tree, and the logical interpretation would be the end-of-the-world, >second-coming events listed prior,etc...
Rather it refers to the many signs leading up to the destruction of the Temple. Which is why ancient Jewish Christians as testafied historically by Esubius and Rabbin sources fled Jerusalem during the first Roman attack which lead to the destruction of the Temple.
>I understand that in order to maintain the belief that this passage from Mark is not a failed prediction one must interpret it to mean otherwise, but at the very least the passage certainly appears, from a plain reading, to be a failed prediction.
Rather the plain reading is it is refering to the destruction of the Temple. Jesus makes rather specific predictions on the destruction of the Temple but later professes not to be able to reveal the time of the Last Judgement. So how can he know and not know his second coming?
>And that is partly my point. Everyone knows that the world did not end in the generation of those who witnessed Jesus' resurrection. If one believes as Christian does, one must interpret Jesus's words to mean other than they are understood as written. One must view them through an allegorical lens, similar to what Camping has done for his prediction of earthly demise on May 21.
Yet historically early Jewish Christians fled Jerusalem during the first Roman attack. Why? Jesus told them too. You have not shown verses 28-30 refer to the second coming.
>As a Christian, I suppose it's too much to ask that you consider that Jesus's words could be a failed prophecy, else you would not be a Christian. So I don't suppose there's much point in each providing our own interpretations of various passages.
As an Atheist who has been slightly tanted by Gnu aplogetics I suppose it's too much to ask to consider this is not really a prophesy of the second coming.
>Aren't the Gospels written in Greek? And, as mentioned above, I don't think that Chapter divisions matter in the interpretation of this passage.
They are written in the Jewish Greek of the Spetuagent. You need to read a first century document with the mind of a First century Jew. There is no reason to believe it was written with modern conventions in mind.
>Or, he could read the passage in front of him and conclude that the temple, along with everything else on earth, would be destroyed within his lifetime.
Hardly since the letters to Peter would have said otherwise and Peter was the Apostle to the Jews. He would have concluded this refered to the Temple. OTOH this all turns on the Greek word meaning generations and not race.
So even if I granted your isogesis I have reason to doubt this is a failed prophesy. Granted I might if I was an Atheist write it off as a lucky guess. But the early Second Coming meme looks weak.
>Already said? Where in Mark does he already say this? And if not in Mark, why would you assume that a Jew reading Mark would know about another Gospel account, especially when Mark is widely considered to be the earliest Gospel?
Go study Jewish biblical interpretation. Learn the meaning of the terms Pishat, Gimetria, Drash and Midrash.
It's common for 1st & second writers to go off on tangents out of nowhere. Irenaeus and the writers of the Talmud did it all the Time.
Additonally I reject sola scriptura. I believe an early Jew would have the early church to explain the meaning to him which would have been handed down to them.
>Hmm. It seems to me that you are re-interpreting a plain prediction to mean something allegorical.
No I am taking the allegorical prediction (i.e. killing the fig tree =destroying Jerusalem and the Temple) and concluding the passage is predicting it will happen during the Apostle's lifetime. There is no reason to take this to include the Second Coming.
>This is what Camping has recently done. And I'm sure he is scolding his skeptics now for mis-interpreting his words to mean that the real world would be destroyed on May 21.
The Bible plainly says nobody knows the day & the hour of the End. The unanimous understanding of The Church confirmes this meaning. In the 1000's the Pope got up and cited this verse to silence those who claimed the End of Days where coming at Midnight on Christmas 1000AD.
>You haven't shown how the chapter / verse insertions make any difference to the translation and interpretation of a Greek text. Honestly, I just don’t get your point.
So when you read a modern book you don't consider chapters in a book a division of distinct units of information?
You don't read Chapter 13 of Mark and conclude it contains separate subject matters from Chapters 12 & 14?
Seriously?
Verses 28-30 clearly are a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Not the second coming. The Fig tree is never used as a metaphor for the Second Coming.
Beside the Greek word for "generations" can also be translated "race". So if I grant your isogesis it is not clear Jesus was saying he would return during the Apostles lifetime. He might have been saying either humanity or the Jews would not die out till these things come to pass.
So really it's a buster.
I don't know why you are fighting so hard for this. If I am convince God doesn't exist tomorrow I still will reject the Second coming meme on purely rational grounds.
additionally Mark 13:30 "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." also appears to be a reiteration of Mark 9:1
""And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
Again as the article in the Catholic Encylopedia I cited earlier shows the phrase "Kingdom of God" was for Jesus often a spiritual internal thing or Heavenly thing not a literal political Kingdom.
An exegesis and word study of the phrase will show this to be the case.
Remember the establishment of the Kingdom of God is not the same as the second coming.
Chapter 13 should not be read as a unit but as four units. (1) Verses 1 -23 foretell the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple.
(2)But at Verse 24 he changes the topic 24But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light...
So He says the Second coming will come after the fall of Jerusalem and gives the particulars threw verse 27.
(3)He then flips back to the Temple in verse 28 by referring to the Fig Tree which we know from elsewhere is a reference to the Destruction of Jerusalem/Temple. He goes on threw verse 30 and foretells the Temple will fall within the Apostles lifetime.
(4)Verse 31 he flips back to the End Times and threw on to verse 37 states plainly nobody knows when the End will come not even Jesus but the Father alone. Since we don't know the end we must watch till it comes.
Thus based on a plain reading I fail to see how Jesus foretells the second coming during the apostles lifetime.
This assuming verse 28 should read "generations" and not "race" the later would invalidate the whole Atheist argument in one swoop since it would have Jesus saying either the human race or the Jewish race will not pass away till we see the end.
I have laboriously read through all your comments on this thread. The thoughts contained in them are all over the shop. Piecemeal. A stream of consciousness straight off the top of your head like dandruff with as much explanatory power as flaked skin.
I know it is very difficult at the best of times to put together a cogent argument on the interpretative-based christian mythos, but you must diligently work at it if you are going to stem the tide away from theism in the community.
The argument from prophecy is a flat tyre, just as Victor has suggested. If one accepts prophecy as a function of reality, then every 'successful prophecy from all religions must be accepted as having occurred. If you are reluctant to concede that point then you are simply acquiescing to special pleading, which is most unhelpful.
The thrust and tenor of your arguments has not progressed beyond the walls of Apologetics. And the business of Apologetics is harmonization, synthesis, syncretism, with the express purpose of mitigating if not expunging the innumerable contradictions, misperceptions, disagreements,, inconsistencies, and mismatches. Indeed Apologetics attempts to weave a unidimensional path through these great impediments embedded in the disjointed narrative. And every day more and more people are waking up and rightly questioning and challenging the 'historical' claims made by theists, and found them wanting. It is a process of attrition but the trend is palpable.
Ben: "You don't read Chapter 13 of Mark and conclude it contains separate subject matters from Chapters 12 & 14? Seriously?"
No. I have long known what you may believe is news to me. I studied Latin for 2 years in college -- I am very familiar with the dislocation and non-punctuation of dead languages, and I am accustomed to making sense of them. You do not seem to have undertaken rigorous study of Greek or Latin, because I find your assertions on how this Greek text is to be translated and interpreted to be bizarre.
For instance, I think it's bizarre that you would contend that a writer might flit and fly about from one topic to another as you do for Mark 13, without any linear progression tying one thought to another. Seriously, have you ever translated any Greek or Latin texts under the instruction of a classicist?
@Tony >No. I have long known what you may believe is news to me. I studied Latin for 2 years in college -- I am very familiar with the dislocation and non-punctuation of dead languages, and I am accustomed to making sense of them.
You originally touted "The English translation" & an interpretation based on that and now you are saying you studied Latin? Lovely, but do you read NT Greek? Do you know NTGreek? If you did you would have said so & not even brought Latin up.
>For instance, I think it's bizarre that you would contend that a writer might flit and fly about from one topic to another as you do for Mark 13.
It would be for a Catechism or a Theological Treatise or some other document that was suppose to give an orderly dissertation on doctrine. But this is Scripture that is biographical. Taslking about a real person. In my experience in ordinary natural conversation flit and fly about from one topic to another is merely natural speech the Gospel reproduces here.
>Seriously, have you ever translated any Greek or Latin texts under the instruction of a classicist?
Did you ever do an exegetic study of an ancient text? Cause if you haven't your knowledge of English and Latin doesn't really mean anything here.
>the plural demonstrative pronoun "these things," (sometimes translated "all these things") while the fig tree is a singular antecedent.
Lovely but the text says . 28 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that it is near—at the doors! 30 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."
So logically should we not go back to Mark 11:12 which talks about the parable from the fig tree? Indeed if we do that and real all the way threw to Mark 12:12 it talks solely about the destruction of Jerusalem & the Temple and not once about the second coming.
Not once!
Thus logically should not the plural demonstrative pronoun refer to the contents of the Parable of the Fig tree?
Or do you wish to make up an arbitrary rule that says I must interpret Mark 13 in isolation to the rest of the Gospel of Mark?
>I am very familiar with the dislocation and non-punctuation of dead languages, and I am accustomed to making sense of them.
Then explain how Mark 11:12 threw Mark 12:12 fits into your deliberations? Or did you not read it before interpreting Mark 13:28-30 and decreeing it refers to the Second Coming and not the destruction of the Temple?
My guess is you didn't read Mark 11:11 to Mark 12:11. You can't rationally claim it is not relevant to understanding & correctly interpreting Mark 13:28-30.
Here is the break down. Mark 11:12-14 JESUS CURSES THE FIG TREE. ver 15-19 JESUS CLEANSES THE TEMPLE ver 20-26 THE FIG TREE COMPLETELY WITHERS. ver 27-33 Cohen and Scribes question the Authority of Jesus while in the Temple. Chapter 12:1-12 PARABLE OF THE TENENTS which is an even more blatant allegorical parable about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
Thus given all this build up how can anyone who is not merely proof-texting not see in context Mark 13:28-30 is solely about the destruction of the Temple and not the Second Coming?
BTW I majored in Psychology in College but my minor was in Religious Studies and I leaned for two years how to do Greek word studies and exegesis of Biblical Texts.
George's critique is simplicity itself. Dawkins wrote the weasel program! It did not write itself.
God created the universe and "wrote" the physical, chemical and biological laws of nature (metaphorically speaking) that make natural selection possible.
I could go through point by point but it seems like the discussion is wending toward a discussion comparing people instead of arguments. I originally intended to ask you to consider the basis for your exegetical understanding, but I can seen now that this was a mistake -- it was stupid of me to engage in that.
If you're content with the defense of your argument for their being no cases of mistaken prophecy in the Bible, I am content with my questions the support for your claim.
>If you're content with the defense of your argument for their being no cases of mistaken prophecy in the Bible.
Here I was a little less ambitious. I was merely content to show Jesus merely foretold the destruction of the Temple & Jerusalem during the lifetimes of his disciples in the Gospel of Mark.
Maybe there are errors in the Bible but this IMHO doesn't appear to be one of them. At best it is a possible interpretation but IMHO by no means a probable, likely or definitive one.
102 comments:
This is rather lengthy article for me to offer an adequate response. I do believe there's a problem with his idiosyncratic interpretations of the Old Testament. So my simple reply is:
How does he explain the fervent rise of Messianic expectations in the intertestamental period, if the Old Testament was not understood by the Israelites to indicate a coming Messiah?
Secondly, how does he explain the fact that Jesus was identified as "Christ" among pious Jews, Rabbi's and pagans of the first Century? **see my first point above.
Thirdly, how does he account for the eyewitness record of the New Testament which claim that Christ was, not only Messiah, but raised from among the dead....and that the phrase "Will not let your Holy One see corruption", of which David spoke (Psalm 16:10), could not have been referring to David? Why? St. Peter's response is:
"Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the Patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day." (Acts 2:29)
But the article disputes the meaning of this passage. My question is this: why should I think this articles interpretation
of Psalm 16:10 is correct, especially since the author is tainted with skeptical prejudices and bias against the Old and New Testament, instead of the opinion of the Apostle Peter?
So, to make my point, allow me to rephrase Hume:
"When anyone tells me that he disbelieves that a dead man was restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more probable that that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the skeptical point he raises should actually turn out false. I weigh the one skeptical point against the other (i.e. skepticism of miralces vs. being skeptical of skepticism); and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater skepticism. If the truth of his skepticism should turn out less disastrous for human understanding than belief in miracles, which he rejects; then, and not til then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."
I highly recommend Paul Barnett's excellent and informative book, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity and Pinchas Lapides The Resurrection of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective.
The article affirms my observation that skeptics are very poor Bible expositors. This one is far too much of a literalist for even my most fundy friends. He does violence to the clear meaning of specific passages. He only "dis-proof texting" without any attempt to understand the biblical authors and their context.
Mike: Do you think that fulfilled prophecy is evidence for God?
Victor, what do you mean by "evidence for God"? God's existence, or evidence supporting a claim about God?
Neither side in these articles seems to be talking about the former, so I'll put that aside. Only the latter comes into play, and in that case it certainly seems to be evidence. At the very least successful prophecy is easily taken to indicate an agent potent enough to either see, or even set the future, depending on the nature of the claim.
The original article could have approached this in 2 ways.
1) He could have argued for the impossibility of miracles...in which case, he needn't raise questions about the epistemic propriety of fulfilled prophecy.
2) He could have cast doubt on the meaning of the prophetic passages in question. Of course, that is the route the article took.
There is a way of looking at this issue of reputed prophetic fulfillment that meshes very nicely with Victor's "moderate" rationalism, and also happens to give some insight into how we respond to "facts". Jesus, in John 2:19-23, predicted his death and resurrection to the Jewish authorities and to his own followers. But the common interpretation, made by both the Jewish authorities and Jesus' disciples, was that the "temple" meant "Solomon's Temple". It's an almost understandable mistake, considering the significance that the Temple played in worship; but also, because concepts of resurrection were restricted to the "general" resurrection, which was believed to occur at the end of the ages. Therefore, the interpretation that Jesus' audience took was "reasonable".
So, I think this passage illustrates the fact that God does not overwhelm people with "evidence". And there are many reasons why this might be the case. For one thing, God is not coercive. He wants people to freely seek Him, rather than come to Him by epistemic force and submission. That is one way to look at it. Another way of looking at this is that the "evidence" will have no effect on people who are unwilling to accept it. But surely, you might say, a person will "believe" in God if they are simply shown a miracle or two. I don't think that's the case at all.
Let me illustrate. How many people have felt blind-sided by a "break up" or divorce that they couldn't possibly have imagined happening at the time it did, even when the "evidence" of unfaithfulness was there all along? How many friends and family member had been warning them that the signs were there, but that they refused to believe it? So, even though the "evidence" was sufficient enough to consider the truth claims of the friends and family members, yet the truth did avail itself in the mind of the doubting spouse/mate. They simply did not want to believe it. Yet, it's also possible that they could change their mind about the whole situation. Perhaps they will concede that "it's over" when the divorce papers are finally served, or when the locks on the house have been changed and their personal belongings are left in a heap on the front porch?!? In other words, unless a person is willing to face the truth, the "facts" will be irrelevant to them.
So, why should it be any different with our response to miracles or fulfilled prophecy?
Victor,
I don't think that proving the existence of God is the intent of fulfilled prophecy. For those who believe in God, fulfilled prophecy is the means to verify who is speaking for God. This is how true and false prophets were differentiated. It was also important for validating Jesus as Messiah to the Jews. If you are trying to prove the existence of God, fulfilled prophecy is likely the wrong tool. It is based on historical verification. History is a tenuous epistemological foundation these days.
Though if God does not exist, we should expect to find no fulfilled prophecy.
Vic,
Your post encouraged me to look at this question for the first time in many years. Some of my conclusions are here in The fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy. There is considerable doubt about the historical fulfilment of Ezekiel's oracle in the literal sense required to mount this argument, although Ezekiel got it broadly right.
Whatever the merits of the argument, it's not going to convince many non-believers because of these historical problems.
Hmmm ... so "evolutionary predictions" (which seem, always, to be retrodictions) are proof that Darwin Lives (and Rulez!), but Biblical predictions are not only not proof that God Lives, but aren't even evidence that he is? Is that how it works?
@ Gregory
You say, "So, I think this passage illustrates the fact that God does not overwhelm people with "evidence". And there are many reasons why this might be the case."
Could one of the reasons be is that there is no evidence? Every prophecy ever told in the NT, all of them retrojected backwards into the OT when the writers of the NT sought to 'establish' some form of link to 'substantiate' their claims.
@ Crude
You say, "At the very least successful prophecy is easily taken to indicate an agent potent enough to either see, or even set the future, depending on the nature of the claim."
These days, they call it 'forecasting' or 'predicting' and is much used in economics. And it has about the same rate of success as a 'successful prophecy', about 50/50.
Additionally, you say, "Thirdly, how does he account for the eyewitness record of the New Testament which claim that Christ was, not only Messiah ....?"
I note, the NT is not an account of the eyewitness record. The NT books were all written long after the event, indeed two-three plus generations after. They are at best hearsay accounts of the story. Matthew and Luke are both additional embellishments of Marks story [therefore constitutes one account] and the other, John, was written even more generations past, and is a story of a man who is completely different to that portrayed ion the synoptics. Indeed John's jesus is all human, Matthew and Luke's jesus is either an adoptionist ideation or a man-god, and John's jesus is all god in the form of a man.
So I am not sure where you get the idea that the NT is an account of the eyewitness record. Theye are acounts of accounts of accounts before the synoptics and John got to them.
Papa writes "I note,..."
Where do you note from?
Jake
@ Mike Darus
You say, "t was also important for validating Jesus as Messiah to the Jews."
This is plain wrong as a blank statement. No Jew today, validates jesus as the messiah to the jews. It may have been partly true 2,000 years ago when christians attempted to lure wavering Jews to christianity. But it seems the vast majority of jews at the time, did not, would not and never will accept jesus as the messiah.
Such a blanket statement is pure apologetics.
Jake Elwood XVI
I make note .....
Papa writes "I make note ....."
Do you support note as well?
Jake
PS Happy Queen's Australian Birthday.
Ilion said: "Hmmm ... so "evolutionary predictions" (which seem, always, to be retrodictions) are proof that Darwin Lives (and Rulez!), but Biblical predictions are not only not proof that God Lives, but aren't even evidence that he is? Is that how it works?"
A very foolish statement. Evolutionary predictions are testable, verifiable and have been confirmed. There has been much work in evolutionary biology with organisms having very short life spans such as various insects and fish etc and bacteria, through which genetic and evolutionary changes have been observed as they occurred. Ilion, these are not figments of the imagination. Evolution in the lab is predictive. With that wealth of information it is without doubt that evolution works and has well earned its position as the single greatest maxim that drives all the life sciences. The explanatory power of prophecy is simply a candle in the wind in comparison to that of Darwinian evolution through natural selection.
The jury has delivered a verdict on this one. End of story.
Papalinton is following some very discredited New Testament scholarship in his statements that the Gospels were written generations after the event. That idea might have passed for "common knowledge" a century ago, but has since been blown to bits by more contemporary scholars who had no naturalist axes to grind when dating the Gospels. Indeed, the best estimates nowadays place the composition of (at the very least) the Synoptic Gospels as prior to the Destruction of the Temple, i.e., before 70 AD at the absolute latest. John "might" be later, but there is zero evidence of any sort whatsoever that compels us to think so.
Indeed, the best estimates nowadays place the composition of (at the very least) the Synoptic Gospels as prior to the Destruction of the Temple, i.e., before 70 AD at the absolute latest. John "might" be later, but there is zero evidence of any sort whatsoever that compels us to think so.
Is that the majority consensus of NT scholars? I know Bart Ehrman does not believe in pre-70 CE dates for the gospels--with the possible exception of Mark. I think most conservative believers have simply latched on to J.A.T. Robinson's thesis that the gospels *might* be pre-70 CE, while most skeptics favor a later date, but can anyone say definitively which is correct?
Walter,
You may have hit the nail on the head with your use of "believers" and "skeptics", vis a vis dating the New Testament. A skeptic will (ironically) accept anything that justifies his scepticism, no matter how convoluted - whereas the believer requires at least some modicum of proof before rejecting what common sense tells him.
For example, The Gospel according to John is riddled with phrases such as "He who saw it has borne witness", or "this is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things", yet the skeptic will insist that John is not an eyewitness account. Incredible!
A skeptic will (ironically) accept anything that justifies his scepticism, no matter how convoluted - whereas the believer requires at least some modicum of proof before rejecting what common sense tells him.
Riiight.
For example, The Gospel according to John is riddled with phrases such as "He who saw it has borne witness", or "this is the disciple who is bearing witness to these things", yet the skeptic will insist that John is not an eyewitness account. Incredible!
First, there are several reasons that scholars date the fourth gospel late. Secondly, the author(s) never name John as the beloved disciple.
My last comment was made on the run.
Bob, the scholars who push for late dating of the gospels are mostly comprised of Christians, although admittedly these scholars tend towards the liberal end of the spectrum in their religious faith. There is simply not that many agnostics or atheists who are interested in devoting a career torwards studying the NT. There are two famous Catholic Christian NT scholars who believed the gospels dated to post-70 CE: Joseph Fitzmyer and Raymond E. Brown. So it isn't just the agnostic "Bart Ehrmans" who are skeptical of extremely early dates for the gospels.
>There are two famous Catholic Christian NT scholars who believed the gospels dated to post-70 CE: Joseph Fitzmyer and Raymond E. Brown.
Two liberal Catholics both hyper enthusiastic promoters of the historical-critical (i.e. Higher Criticism)method. Yes we have them too.
Liberal Bible Scholars can be sort of reverse Fundamentalists and just as dogmatic.
@ Bob Prokop
This a quick pointer from Wiki:
"Dating
Estimates for the dates when the canonical gospel accounts were written vary significantly; and the evidence for any of the dates is scanty. Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs.
Scholars variously assess the majority (though not the consensus) view as follows:
Mark: c. 68–73, c 65-70
Matthew: c. 70–100. c 80-85.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85, c 80-85
John: c 90-100, c. 90–110, The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.
Traditional Christian scholarship has generally preferred to assign earlier dates. Here are the dates given in the modern NIV Study Bible (for a fuller discussion see Augustinian hypothesis):
Matthew: c. 50 to 70s
Mark: c. 50s to early 60s, or late 60s
Luke: c. 59 to 63, or 70s to 80s
John: c. 85 to near 100, or 50s to 70"
You will note, Bob, apologists invariably go for the early dates, due of their great desire to fudge the boundaries to bolster their investment in the mythos. But the majority of genuine scholars err on the side of caution and opt for the later dates. You will also recall that the very earliest recorded gospel we have was written in Greek AND a product of the 4thC CE. It is a copy of a copy of a copy of the original autographs. That is why HigherTtextual Criticism is the only method by which the proposed dates of the original autographs are posited. There is no other evidence extant.
Assuming a generation is about 20-25 years, [given today's life expectancy and cultural mores] and probably a good deal shorter during that time when life expectancy was around 40 years old and girls were married around 12/13, shortly after puberty. Mark would have been written at least two and even into the third generation after jesus' purported death. The other gospels would have been written 3>4 generations after the mid-30s.CE
Bob, your statement, "That idea might have passed for "common knowledge" a century ago, but has since been blown to bits by more contemporary scholars who had no naturalist axes to grind when dating the Gospel", really is an egregious furphy. Try not to 'lie for jesus'. It is a bit unbecoming.
Papalinton,
I don't understand how writing down what I actually believe to be true can be considered a "lie". Now if I believed one thing, and wrote another, you might just have a case. But as regards my original posting, I believe every word to be true. No "lying for Jesus" there.
In fact, because I was referring to scholarship and not to my own personal opinion, I also decided to "err on the side of caution", as you put it, and go for dates approaching 70 AD. My actual belief is that the Gospels were set down (in at least rough draft form) within months of the Resurrection. I even suspect that large segments of the Synoptics existed in written form prior to the Crucifixion.
By the way, thanks for teaching me a new word - furphy. Just looked it up, and it promises to be a useful addition to my vocabulary.
Cheers, Bob
Don't you mean "G'day" ???
>But the majority of genuine scholars err on the side of caution and opt for the later dates.
Paps how would you know what constitutes a "genuine" scholar? Someone who agrees with your Atheist's presuppositions?
Also Paps since when do you care about what the majority of scholars think?
When I first encountered you over at Biologos you where spouting Jesus Mytherism. Is the idea Jesus never existed a view held by the majority of scholars including Atheists (excluding Richard Carrier)?
As I recall you cited an ex-piano teacher turned amateur archeologist as you authority the town of Nazareth never existed in the first century.
You are just giving us mere Atheist apologetics. Straight from either Dawkins, Loftus or the 19th century.
I see no reason why God could not exist and the Gospels could still be early.
BTW I thought Paps was an American?
So University of Canberra is in Australia?
That clears up a lot.
Examples of Gospel passages I believe to have been written down prior to the Crucifixion:
The Temptation in the desert in Matthew
The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew
Most of the parables in all three Synoptics
The visit by night to Nicodemus in John
The "Woman taken in adultery" scene in John
A high percentage of the 12 Apostles appear to have been literate. It would frankly astonish me to learn that they were not taking down every word of Christ that they could shortly after they were spoken.
>You will also recall that the very earliest recorded gospel we have was written in Greek AND a product of the 4thC CE.
I could have told you 15 years ago the oldest intact and complete manuscripts of the Gospels comes from the 4th century. But citations and incomplete fragments of the Gospels are a wee bit older which is why even those scholars who give a "late" date still put them in the 1st century.
>Mark would have been written at least two and even into the third generation after jesus' purported death.
Of course you are assuming there where no 70 or 80 year olds living in the first century. You are also assuming they didn't write notes from the beginning.
If we live in your Fundie Atheist fantasy land(even given later dates) the Apostles didn't write a word for decades and Gospels are not based on any earlier unpublished work?
Wouldn't the "Q" source by definition be older than the Gospels and thus earlier?
Examples of Gospel passages I believe to have been written down prior to the Crucifixion:
The Temptation in the desert in Matthew
The Sermon on the Mount in Matthew
Most of the parables in all three Synoptics
The visit by night to Nicodemus in John
The "Woman taken in adultery" scene in John
Any actual evidence for your theory, Bob? Or are you simply speculating out loud?
So, according to the selectively hyper-skeptical "skeptics," the authors of the Gospels were either devilishly clever or incredibly stupid? On the other hand, knowing how these "skeptics" "think," I think we can safely count on them to assert both. Simultaneously.
For, according to these selectively hyper-skeptical "skeptics," since the Gospels appear to prophesy the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, they *had* to have been written post-70 AD. For, were they written before the 1st Roman-Jewish War, that would mean that they contain a real before-the-event prophesy which came to pass, and that would be *gasp* a miracle *gasp*. And, as we know, following the Great Hume-bug, miracles are known to be "logically" impossible ... by the mere device of denying that they are possible.
Yet, the Gospel writers -- who, according to the "skeptics," put a false, after-the-fact pseudo-prophesy in their works, pretending that it was made decades before the event -- were, apparently, too stupid to tell their readers that the prophesy had been fulfilled, as one would have expected normal human beings to have done when trying to pull off such a scheme.
At the same time, they were so devilishly clever that they had anticipated the thought-processes (such as they are) of selectively hyper-skeptical "skeptics" many hundreds of years in their future, and, rather than saying something like, "And it came to pass as Jesus had foretold," said instead, "We, along the rulers (of the Jews), thought that he was referring to the Temple, but it was only after the fact (of the Crucifixion and Resurrection) that we understood that he was referring to himself."
Speculating out loud.
I have reasons that convince me, but I could never "prove" them.
For instance, there are only two passages in all four Gospels, in which Jesus is utterly alone (and therefore, we have to wonder, how did these events get recorded?). The first is the temptation in the desert, and the second is His praying in Gethsemane while the apostles are asleep.
The second is the easiest to explain. The enigmatic mention in Mark of the "young man who fled naked" from the arrest scene is likely the source of the prayer narratives. The temptation narratives, on the other hand, can only have been obtained by Jesus Himself telling the apostles about the incident. In my humble opinion, they would have written such an amazing story down word for word, realizing its significance. I know that's what I would have done.
Bob
"The second is the easiest to explain. The enigmatic mention in Mark of the "young man who fled naked" from the arrest scene is likely the source of the prayer narratives."
Clutching at any straw wherever possible. 'Enigmatic' is the operative word here, and totally counter-factual.
Victor
Are these 'supporting' comments, such as Bob's note of Mark's gospel's 'young man who fled naked', really what Apologetics scholarship has boiled down to, in the final analysis?
And Bob is no fool. But is seems the dearth of evidence and deep uncertainty about the level of historical veridicality in the Gospels is as problematic as it was 2,000 years ago.
Indeed recent biblical scholarship is putting even greater pressure on those traditional and conventionally accepted apologetical 'truths' as never before.
Conventional wisdom built on the foundations of apologetics, seems to be eroding away at each and every peek into the christian narrative, through science, anthropology, sociology, psychology, neuro-physiology etc.
The 'flat tyre' analogy is apt.
Actually, I wasn't engaging in apologetics. Recall that in an earlier posting, I said I had reasons that convinced me, but that I in no way regarded them as proof for anyone else. The passage from Mark falls within that category. Decades later, I still clearly remember how that single line struck me, once I realized its significance.
Till writes:
"Furthermore, if such a god as this were going to choose men to serve as prophets of his word, surely he would have selected men of high integrity. Integrity, however, was a quality that was often lacking in the Old Testament prophets. The prophet Jeremiah, for example, deliberately lied in order to gain his release from a prison dungeon."
If God had to select a person of "high integrity" as a criterion for accomplishing some task, then He wouldn't have anybody left to select.
Till again:
If the Judean prophet was truly in touch with Yahweh, why wouldn't he have known that the old prophet was lying to him about the angel's visit?
A "prophet" is someone who foretells, or tells forth, something....not that they "know" all things; certainly, they may not "know" many things.
"Other than this, they have been educated to believe in Bible prophecy in the same way that Moslems have been educated to believe in the prophetic talents of Mohammed. Once they have been brainwashed from childhood through adulthood to believe this, they are going to believe it come what may."
Really?!? Try telling that to a seminary trained ex-Christian.
About Tyre:
Was Ezekiel's prophecy concerning "Tyre" true? Yes, and Till lists some Encyclopedia's as evidence that Nebuchadnezzar did lay siege to Tyre. What becomes murky is how he understands this verse:
"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it. Therefore thus says Yahweh God: `Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army'" (29:18-19).
Here's Till's commentary:
"Strangely enough, Ezekiel was admitting in this statement that his prophecy against Tyre had failed, for if Nebuchadnezzar had taken the island part of the city, he surely would have carried off its multitude, taken its plunder, and taken its prey, and these would have been his 'wages.'"
....unless, of course, Nebuchadnezzar had destroyed everything that could have been considered a "wage".
Bob
Your notion is just one of many explanations [perhaps no more than an assertion] that has been attached to this little snippet in Mark.
The one that seems to capture the varying interpretations of this scene in a nutshell seems best represented by the following statement from Chris Masterton:
"If you listened to ten different traditional scholars, you would get ten different possibilities to what the mysterious text in Mark may or may not mean. The naked represents this … the man represents that … the linen cloth means this … the struggle means that … and so on and so forth until nothing makes much sense. So far, it all boils down to speculation because this incident is not mentioned in any of the other gospels; nor is it elaborated on in Mark. The guy in question just pops-in and pops-out in a flash. Nothing more is said about him. So, whatever their religious background, traditional scholars build speculation around these two verses within the confines of their respective belief systems."
I have also read that the grasped young man escaping by leaving behind his linen clothing behind is a gesture of prophecy symbolic of jesus' ensuing death and resurrection [escape] from eternal darkness.
I guess 'horses for courses', whatever tickles your fancy, is about as strong as this 'evidence' can take us.
The New Testament witnesses did not rely on "biblical prophesies", alone, to establish their belief that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ. Many, like St. Peter, were not even literate men. Instead, they saw and heard things by Jesus that, over the course of Jesus' ministry, convinced them that He was the Son of God. And many did not even "believe" Jesus until after He rose from the dead and appeared to them. But it became clear to those that knew the O.T. that the O.T. offered a prefiguring of the Christ, to whom they eventually saw as Jesus. But their primary "data" was their having bore witness to the person and work of Jesus.
For instance, having witnessed the crucifixion and resurrection first-hand, a logical connection was made that Psalm 22 was about Jesus and not David. What David wrote as a poetic vision/metaphor of his own struggles was, for them and us, actually a literal description of Jesus' death and His victory over it [death].
Why did they think it was about Jesus, rather than David? First and foremost, because Jesus uttered the first line of that Psalm on the Cross, drawing everyone's attention to it's coming fulfillment.....which some of His followers had witnessed first hand. Secondly, because none of the accounts of David's life relay anything about being "pierced in the hands" or having "lots being cast for his clothing"....or even mentioning anything about having been put up for execution at the hands of his enemies.
Papalinton arguments to date can be neatly summed up as this.
God doesn't exist science has proven it so. The Bible is false because scholars or fringe people I agree with say so & any rational response to my ambiguous assertions and nay-saying I will demolish with the magic word "Apologetics!".
Really guy get a new act!
Gregory,
"For instance, having witnessed the crucifixion and resurrection first-hand, a logical connection was made that Psalm 22 was about Jesus and not David. What David wrote as a poetic vision/metaphor of his own struggles was, for them and us, actually a literal description of Jesus' death and His victory over it [death]."
How was the connection made apart from assertion and relief?
Following my reading of the recount of Appollonius of Tyana, I too gasped, and said, OMG, OMG, this is truly the story of jesus. The story was so alike as to be amazing.
Gregory if the words jesus said on the cross that relate to Psalm 22 were so prophetic and astounding why was it not recounted in all of the gosples? Why are the words that jesus said on the cross be completely different in all the gospels.
A quick check around sites such as Wiki come up with a range of explanations; " ...the first saying from (Mark and Matthew) is a quotation from Psalm 22, and is therefore occasionally seen as a theological and literary device employed by the writers."
A theological and literary device. Nuff said.
BY: "Papalinton arguments to date can be neatly summed up as this. …"
Well, sure. But is that substantively different from your strange “classical theism” rants against “fundamentalists” (i.e. non-Catholics)?
>Well, sure. But is that substantively different from your strange “classical theism” rants against “fundamentalists” (i.e. non-Catholics)?
Don't be silly.
I don't believe all non-Catholics are fundamentalists. Plus some Protestants are Classic Theists which makes them awesome.
Plus Gnu'Atheist polemics against Natural Theology are almost always aimed at a Theistic Personalist "god". It's their one size fits all mentality.
@ Ben Yachov
The only polemics on this thread so have have been yours.
"Natural Theology", now there's an apologetical concept on its way for bright and sparkly packaging at the oxymoron factory.
"I don't believe all non-Catholics are fundamentalists." Such a lowly patronizing statement against his own ilk. A real Benedict Arnold.
>The only polemics on this thread so have have been yours.
No Seriously?
QUOTE"Could one of the reasons be is that there is no evidence? Every prophecy ever told in the NT, all of them retrojected backwards into the OT when the writers of the NTetc"
You are simply not living in reality buddy.
>"I don't believe all non-Catholics are fundamentalists." Such a lowly patronizing statement against his own ilk. A real Benedict Arnold.
Anybody who is a Theist in some remote sense is my "ilk"?
We that proves my thesis Gnu'Atheists have a simplistic one size fits all approach to religion.
Paps if you are going to blatantly lie to me at least don't do it where the evidence against you is on the same thread.
I mean you unjustly accused poor Bob of lying for Jesus for merely expressing his opinion yet you post a blatant falsehood?
Are you drunk or something? Go sober up buddy then post. We will forget this ever happened.
Oh and lay off the sauce. Your liver will thank you.
Anyway somebody call me if anything interesting is posted here.
I believe that Christian claims of fulfilled prophecies are not persuasive for two reasons:
1) Testimony that a prophecy had been fulfilled inevitably appears less credible than that the witnesses have deceived themselves and/or others. (This includes intentional deception, of course, but also mistakes, the Texas sharpshooter fallacy, the lottery fallacy, etc.)
2) Christian prophecy appears to have only been successful from Biblical accounts, and not outside those accounts. This starts with the failed prophecy for Jesus's second coming in the generation of his death all the way to the present day predictions of Camping. More importantly, it also ignores the many, many examples in which the biblical accounts of creation, life, etc. all fail to accurately predict what later, more reliable investigation reveals. To deny this second phenomenon seems similar to the Camping followers who deny that Camping's prediction failed on May 21.
Tom:
Christian claims of fulfilled prophecy are not intended to be persuasive to those who do not include biblical revelation as authoritative. It was intended to be persuasive to those who believed the promises in the Jewish Scriptures. Even then, only those willing to listen were persuaded. Those with too much power to lose were not persuaded.
@ Mike Darus
"Tom:
Christian claims of fulfilled prophecy are not intended to be persuasive to those who do not include biblical revelation as authoritative. It was intended to be persuasive to those who believed the promises in the Jewish Scriptures. Even then, only those willing to listen were persuaded. Those with too much power to lose were not persuaded."
Mike, your statement is the antithesis of reason and logic and confirms my contention that prophecy as recounted through biblical text can only be considered through those texts. It is limited and constrained, and confined within theology and is solely a wholly-owned derivative of theospeak which has no basis whatever in fact or proofs. Indeed it is my contention that the judeo-christian writings are a collection of allegories, parables, metaphors and similes interwoven by the writers into their daily lives and prevailing social mores. The christianizing process sought to characterize humans engaged in a monumental battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil, with these forces inextricably all motivated from outside the natural world through supernatural [and putatively] live active entities over which we have no control, except by way of attaching ourselves to one of these supernatural beings, either god and his team of justice fighters or satan and his cronies.
And the two points Tony Hoffman raises are particularly relevant in correctly placing prophecies in a category of ideas that can only appeal to those who wish it to be so, who wish to posit biblical revelation as 'authoritative', for no other reason than personal proclivity.
And that is fine. But we must all continually remind ourselves that there is no basis in fact or evidence or proofs that can advance these ideas any further than the perimeter of our particular theology. And this applies to all other religious theologies that you would gladly concede.
Is the "argument" from 'Science!' a busted axle?-- "once in a very great while, your car will spontaneously ooze through the brick wall of your garage and be found the next morning on the street."
Isn't it amazing, the stuff that these selectively hyper-skeptical and thoroughly intellectually dishonest persons will believe?
a silly person who is as intellectually dishonest as the fool he recently called a liar: "I don't believe all non-Catholics are fundamentalists."
Your "definition" of 'fundamentalist' merely means "those people I look down my nose at as being ignorant rubes." You know, the same "definition" that Paps applies to you.
Meanwhile, I -- who am a "fundie" -- and more intelligent (and possibly better educated) than both of you put together, just laugh at you.
a silly person: "Plus some Protestants are Classic Theists which makes them awesome."
To properly be called a 'Protestant,' does not one need to be a Christian? Since this "classical theism" you (and Feser) are always banging on about is *not* Christianity, it impresses me not in the least that some non-Christians are advocating for "classical theism," any more than that some other non-Christians are advocating for "open theism."
a silly, intellectually dishonest, person: "Plus Gnu'Atheist polemics against Natural Theology are almost always aimed at a Theistic Personalist "god"."
So-called atheists argue against Zeus, and then pretend they've argued against the Living God, the Creator-of-all-that-is-not-God. This mirrors your (and Feser's) silly attempt to paint so-called "personalistic theists" as advocating a conception of God that equates to Zeus.
God *is* personal. The pseudo-god of so-called "classical theism" is just the impersonal non-god of the philosophers.
So basically Ilíon you are pissed at me because I am a convinced believing Catholic Christian in communion with the Bishop of Rome and successor of Peter?
You are upset because I actually believe the Catholic Christian Faith is The Truth and I speak and act and assume it to be The Truth? Also I don't pretend to think otherwise.
I judge the doctrines of other religions and Christian denominations by Her teachings as the standard of truth.
You would be happy if I was a hypocrite and treated all Christian denominations equally & say they are all true? Well how is that any different from saying all religions are true?
I can't do that and I won't do that. I won't pretend the particulars of Calvinism, Wesleyianism, Dispensationalism. that contradict the Council of Trent or the Holy Church are true.
I don't apologize for it either.
>To properly be called a 'Protestant,' does not one need to be a Christian?
The council of Trent says the Trinitarian baptisms of the Heretics are valid and it is heresy for a Catholic to say otherwise.
That goes for Classic Theistic Calvinists like Paul Helm or self professed Fundamentalist Theisitic Personalists like yourself.
So I don't get what the bug is up your arse?
BTW Tony,
>More importantly, it also ignores the many, many examples in which the biblical accounts of creation, life, etc. all fail to accurately predict what later, more reliable investigation reveals.
Here you are conflating Biblical Prophesy with Biblical Concordism(i.e. the Belief the Bible explicitly and specifically teaches scientific truths). I like Augustine can believe the Bible gives true Prophesy without believing it's giving a scientific description of the world.
So this is apples and oranges.
>This starts with the failed prophecy for Jesus's second coming in the generation of his death all the way to the present day predictions of Camping.
Tony you have absorbed the irrational one size fits all weirdness of the Gnu's. You are better than that. I reject the above claim because I am a Catholic not a Reformed Dispensationalist Christian.
The whole nonsense that Jesus foretold he would come again during the Apostles lifetimes is false because the proponents of that claim conflate the establishment of the Kingdom of God with the Second Coming. They are not the same either in the NT or the OT or the Book of Wisdom or Patristic literature.
Jesus clearly foretold the Apostles would see the establishment of the Kingdom of God/Kingdom of Heaven during their lifetimes but that is not the same as the Second Coming.
See the Catholic Enyclopedia for details.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm
He told them to watch and be ready for the second coming but that is not the same as teling them he would return during their lifetimes.
@Tony
Here is an alleged "troublesome" verse and a simple solution.
"Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom" -Matt 16:28
So that's a slam dunk right? But what about what comes after.
"After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And he was transfigured before them; his face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light.
And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him.
It seems the Son of man had been glorified? That didn't take long.
The footnote in my Catholic Bible says "since the kingdom of the Son of Man has been described as "the world" and Jesus' sovereignty precedes his final coming in glory (Matthew 13:38, 41), the coming in this verse is not the parousia as in the preceding but the manifestation of Jesus' rule after his resurrection".
One doesn't have to believe in God to see the "Jesus foretold his Second Coming in the lifetime of the Apostles" meme is merely read into the text by hopeful Atheists looking for a cheap gotcha.
But as far as I am concerned. If I deny God tomorrow. I see no reason to believe Jesus was talking about the parousia when he foretold the Kingdom of God being established during the Apostles lifetime.
@Tony
Now you may still be skeptical and maybe your other arguments have some merit. I don't know & I don't care since I am bored now and will go watch some Netflix or play my new MMORPG.
But I see no reason to believe Jesus foretold his parousia vs foretelling the establishment of the Kingdom of God.
that is foretold his Second coming during the lifetime of the Apostle.
Hi Ben,
Regarding Concordism and Augustine, I see your point, but I think this could also be criticized as a kind of "heads I win, tails you lose" position. My question would be, Why are descriptions of reality (concordism) to be distinguished from predictions of reality (prophecy) in the Bible? And doesn't it seem like prophecies in the Bible must be re-interpreted in the same way that descriptions of reality must be re-interpreted, i.e, classified as allegorical, in order to maintain the premise that the Bible is the word of God? Another way of saying this is, what good is a Biblical prediction if it's not clear how it will track with reality?
Ben: " Tony you have absorbed the irrational one size fits all weirdness of the Gnu's. You are better than that. I reject the above claim [that Jesus and Paul taught that the second coming would occur within the lifetime of those who witnessed Jesus's resurrection) because I am a Catholic not a Reformed Dispensationalist Christian."
Okay, but I believe that this requires applying a similar standard to this prophecy that Augustine suggested with Biblical descriptions of reality.
Ben: "One doesn't have to believe in God to see the "Jesus foretold his Second Coming in the lifetime of the Apostles" meme is merely read into the text by hopeful Atheists looking for a cheap gotcha."
Well, there are other prophecies than the one you mentioned -- Jesus says pretty much the same thing in Luke, for instance. And Paul makes similar statements.
Me: "This starts with the failed prophecy for Jesus's second coming in the generation of his death all the way to the present day predictions of Camping."
Ben: "The whole nonsense that Jesus foretold he would come again during the Apostles lifetimes is false because the proponents of that claim conflate the establishment of the Kingdom of God with the Second Coming."
I understand that you distinguish between Catholic interpretation of what appears to be a prediction for the second coming with Camping's prediction for May 21, but both could be accused of sharing a similar post-hoc rationalization. In the case of the Catholic, the prediction is interpreted to be about the Kingdom of God (a kind of spiritual understanding, as I have come to understand it), and with Camping the prediction of the world ending on May 21 was re-explained by time in this way: "We have to be looking at all of this a little bit more spiritual, but it won't be spiritual on Oct. 21."
In both cases above, words that (if taken literally) predict the end of the world are re-interpreted to be about a spiritual transformation. If a prediction can be re-interpreted so that it cannot be seen to fail, then it appears worthless as a prediction.
>In both cases above, words that (if taken literally) predict the end of the world are re-interpreted to be about a spiritual transformation.
Here is your problem I don't think you understand my rebuttal so I will refocus my objection.
Even if God doesn't exist it is clear to me the concept of the establishing the Kingdom of God/Heaven is clearly not the same as the concept of the parousia in the NT.
"The Kingdom of God is within you" "Preach the Gospel of the Kingdom"etc...It is a concurrent theme threw out the NT that Jesus spurned an Earthly natural political Kingdom. It is clear every single so called verse where Jesus allegedly said he would come again during the Apostle lifetime in fact doesn't teach that at all.
The burden of proof is on the Atheist who needs to provide the exegesis to back up his novel assertion.
Like I said I can become an Atheist tomorrow & my contempt for anti-intellectual Jesus Mythers & person who read this meme into the NT will continue.
>but both could be accused of sharing a similar post-hoc rationalization.
In order to show it is post-hoc the burden of proof is on you to provide the exegeses of the passages to prove your contention they where always understood to be about the parousia.
I may address your other points later.
It's good to talk to an intellegent Atheist who is interested in dialog. Gnu's so bore me at this point.
Let me put it more simply taken literally it is clear Jesus did not foretell his second coming during the apostle's lifetime.
The burden of proof is on you to show otherwise. The Catholic Encyclopedia shows clearly the Kingdom of God is not the same as the Second Coming.
>Okay, but I believe that this requires applying a similar standard to this prophecy that Augustine suggested with Biblical descriptions of reality.
Augustine said any text that is interpreted in anyway that contradicts the known science & philosophy must be re-interpreted in harmony. That having been said the Bible gives a realistic phenomenological description of the world. That is it correctly describes the world as seen by an Earth bound human being.
But that is not the same as a scientific description of the world. In my college Physics text Book PERSPECTIVES IN PHYSICS by Eugene Hecht there is a footnote on Galileo pointing out that ironically with the rise of Special Relativity motion is dependent on the view point of the observer.
Taken to the logical extreme Galileo could from that perspective be said to be wrong since from the relative viewpoint of an Earth bound observer the Earth appears to stand still while the Universe revolves around it.
It still seems clear to me Jesus foretold he would establish the Kingdom of God/Heaven during the lifetime of the Apostles but he clearly didn't tell them he would come again during their lifetimes.
Otherwise "Nobody knows the day or the hour not even the Son" has any meaning. Any literal exegesis would reveal this.
"Even if God doesn't exist it is clear to me the concept of the establishing the Kingdom of God/Heaven is clearly not the same as the concept of the parousia in the NT."
While this is true, it also serves as a distraction enabling the pretend-atheists to wiggle off the hook. The real issue is that atheism is false; it is, in fact, worse than false, for it is absurd. The real issue is that even if the distinctive claims of Christianity are false -- even if God never became a man and lived among us and allowed us to murder him as the means to reconcile us to himself -- atheism is not, and cannot be, true.
These pretend-atheists need to face up to that truth, and we must not allow them to evade that truth by raising objections about other issues. Once that have *admitted* that God is, and that God is personal (that he is not a "force" or a "principle"), and that he is the Creator of all-that-is-not-God, once they have acknowledged what logically follows from those truths, then they may have standing to raise objections to Christianity. Until then, they are just fools and their objections, *any* they raise, are but intellectually dishonest bloviation.
I can selectively re-interpret the Koran to affirm the Deity of Christ and downplay and re-interpret Sura's that deny the Deity of Christ.
I don't for a second believe the Koran is of divine origin but I think an objective literal exegesis will show the writer didn't intend at all to teach the Deity of Christ.
The same goes for NT & the meme that it allegedly teaches the second coming will happen in the Apostles lifetime.
Ben: " The burden of proof is on the Atheist who needs to provide the exegesis to back up his novel assertion."
From a general perspective I disagree. The discussion is about the argument from biblical prophecies, so I think the burden of proof should be for the Christian (advocating this argument) to show that there are (correct) biblical prophecies.
But you are correct that I am arguing that failed predictions need to be taken into account, and so if my proposed requirement is to have any meaning I should, you know, offer a failed prediction.
The first one I looked into is this prediction from Jesus, in Mark:
"24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven. 28 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that it is near—at the doors! 30 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."
So, I think that sounds like a prediction that the son of man will come from the clouds with great power, send his angels, and gather the elect within 25 or so years of those words being uttered. This looks like a failed prediction to me, not so dissimilar to Camping's. And I think it puts an argument from prophecy in a hole it should have trouble getting out of.
Ilíon,
Telling all Atheists they are fools and idiots is really no better than when Gnu's (like Paps or Loftus) telling all Theists they are fools, idiots and or deluded.
Now the fact there are both anti-intellectual Theists(fundies) and Atheists(Gnus') should be pointed out and all persons should be encouraged to follow reason.
Granted Atheism is false and philosophically irrational an Atheist can never come to that conclusion unless you encourage him to think rationally. A good place to start is to encourage him to give a rational critique of religion rather then the brain dead apologetics Gnu's like Dawkins & Co spew out there. Reason is it's own reward. As Aquinas said reason proceeds faith.
As for God being personal. Of course He is Personal in that He is more than a Person just as a Person is more than an animal.
But God is not the Mormon Deity 2.0. God is not a disembodied untra-human Mind. He is Being Itself! He is Existence Itself & He is His own Essence.
The God of the Philosophers is God as we can know Him using reason alone. Since there is only one God by definition the God of the Philosophers and the God of the Bible must be the same God.
I hope one day that bug up your arse will die a quick death.
>The discussion is about the argument from biblical prophecies, so I think the burden of proof should be for the Christian (advocating this argument) to show that there are (correct) biblical prophecies.
No you have to give an exegesis of the passage to show Jesus understood the coming of the Kingdom of God as being the same as the Second Coming.
Proof-texting doesn't work you have to do exegesis. You are not doing that.
>So, I think that sounds like a prediction that the son of man will come from the clouds with great power, send his angels, and gather the elect within 25 or so years of those words being uttered.
With a name like Hoffman did you learn nothing having been born a Jew? You know or should know the Torah is one long word without Chapter or verse divisions. The Chapter & verse divisions where put in the Bible (including the NT) in the 12th Century. You are reading this text as if those modern text divisions mattered?
A first century Jew would read this and notice verses 28 to 30 are a reference to Jesus killing the fig tree which was a prophecy of the coming destruction of the Temple. He would conclude Jesus is telling us within the Apostle lifetime the temple would be destroyed.
He would not connect this verse with the Second Coming since Jesus already said nobody knownes not even the Son when the Second Coming will go down.
You are reading the Bible in a Fundamentalist way like Camping. He actually sometimes treats the chapter & verse divisions like they mean anything.
I don't & neither would a responsible exegete.
Further more Mark already said the Second Coming would come after the destruction of the Temple. So when he brings up the fig tree he is referring back to that specific event in time. He's not giving a chronology of the end. Otherwise the Temple would be destroyed twice.
(Which would fit an end times scenario the Temple would be rebuilt which even Catholic have a version of but you can't get the second coming out of verses 28 -30.
To repeat the Chapter verse divisions came 1150 give or take years after the darn thing was written! Stop reading the text with them in mind.
Ben,
How about Mark 14:61,62?
We have Jesus telling the High priest that he would see "the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Sounds like a clear prediction that the parousia would occur during the High Priest's lifetime and be witnessed by him.
>But you are correct that I am arguing that failed predictions need to be taken into account, and so if my proposed requirement is to have any meaning I should, you know, offer a failed prediction.
You showed me the Temple was destroyed in the lifetime of the Apostles. You connected that with the Second Coming but you did so while falsely assuming Chapter 13 of Mark is a real unit in the text. It's an arbitrary 12th century division made by the Archbishop of Cantaberry back when England was still Catholic. If I re-chaptered and versed Mark and made verses 28-30 Chapter 14 verse 1 etc that would disappear.
You need to read Mark as a first century Jewish document threw first century Jewish eyes. Taking Jesus' unique teachings into account.
Verses 28-30 are about the fall of the Temple not the Second Coming.
>How about Mark 14:61,62?
What Walter is your exegetical justification for that meaning?
Prots think "Call no man Father..no man teacher" means Jesus bans the term Father for clergy. They then turn around and condemn Catholics for calling their clergy "Father".
Yet Paul calls himself a Father to believers? James calls religious leaders in his community "Teacher"?
Maybe the High Priest will see that at the resurrection to judgement. Nothing in the text indicates it will occur in his lifetime.
"Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."
As I dig into my commentaries it is noted the Greek word for "generation" could be translated "race". So even if you wanted to connect it to the second coming Jesus is saying the human race or the Jewish race will not die out before any of these things happen.
The case for Jesus predicting his second coming during the lifetime of his Apostles gets weaker by the minute.
Atheists IMHO should simple forget about attacking the Bible. They should concentrate on Philosophy & Natural Theology and philosophical polemics against Theism.
Maybe the High Priest will see that at the resurrection to judgement. Nothing in the text indicates it will occur in his lifetime.
Nothing in the text indicates that Jesus meant the Priest would view the parousia only after the resurrection to judgment. The only reason to read the passage as you recommend is when one is committed to a strong prior assumption that Jesus could not be mistaken about anything he ever said. I don't share that presupposition. Of course, it is also entirely possible that Jesus never uttered those words at all.
>Nothing in the text indicates that Jesus meant the Priest would view the parousia only after the resurrection to judgment.
Nothing in the text says this will happen to the Priest in his lifetime.
>The only reason to read the passage as you recommend is when one is committed to a strong prior assumption that Jesus could not be mistaken about anything he ever said.
Right back at you. The only reason you would come up with this novel reading of text is a strong prior assumption that Jesus did foretell his second coming during the lifetime of the Apostles.
I can deny the existence of God and still say you are wrong here on exegetical grounds.
>I don't share that presupposition. Of course, it is also entirely possible that Jesus never uttered those words at all.
Even if the whole exchange is fiction you still haven't shown the author of the Gospels intended to have Jesus tell the High Priest he would return in his lifetime.
You can't save this dead horse.
Tony wrote:
>The discussion is about the argument from biblical prophecies, so I think the burden of proof should be for the Christian (advocating this argument) to show that there are (correct) biblical prophecies.
Sorry if I misunderstood you from before.
This by itself is a good argument in that it puts the burden of proof on the Christian but then again both the Christian and Atheist have to work out between them what constitutes prophecy in the text. How to identify it and then show it came true or not.
I don't know. The essay on proof from Prophesy is a Protestant one & Catholics have a different mentality in regards to Scripture. We also have a different standard of proof for the truths of the Faith.
But I am convinced the "Jesus foretold His Second Coming during the Apostles lifetime" meme is a total bust.
Now you will excuse me. My daughter is a little under the weather poor thing. I must help her & bail.
Maybe Ilíon because he is so smart can take over?
Kidding:-)
Right back at you. The only reason you would come up with this novel reading of text is a strong prior assumption that Jesus did foretell his second coming during the lifetime of the Apostles.
I would consider my interpretation to be the "plain" reading of the text. Jesus did not *explicitly* state that Caiaphas would only see the Son of Man coming in the clouds after his own resurrection to judgment. You, and many others, are adding a qualifier to Jesus' statement in an attempt to mitigate the embarrassment the passage causes for those who believe in an infallible Jesus being quoted in an inerrant document.
Maybe Jesus never made those claims? Maybe Mark had a strong apocalyptic streak, and he simply claimed that Jesus uttered those words because he (mark) strongly believed that Jesus was very soon coming to right the wrongs in the world. Mark may not have considered himself to be lying since it might have been his fervent belief that the end was coming very soon.
The apocalypticism seems to be toned down by the later-written gospel of Luke, and seems almost entirely absent by the even-later gospel of John.
>I would consider my interpretation to be the "plain" reading of the text. \
Since Jesus would come riding on the Clouds at the End of Days & everybody would be there because of the resurrection.
It would still happen in the future. But when in the future is not specified.
Again there is nothing in the text to indicate this will all happen during the High Priest's lifetime.
>Jesus did not *explicitly* state that Caiaphas would only see the Son of Man coming in the clouds after his own resurrection to judgment.
Jesus didn't *explicitly* state that Caiaphas would see this happen during his lifetime either.
Your the one giving the novel interpretation of this verse no Church Father or Christian held for 2,000 years. The burden of proof is on you.
Your the one making the extra ordinary claim here. Not I.
>You, and many others, are adding a qualifier to Jesus' statement in an attempt to mitigate the embarrassment the passage causes
Rather you can't seem to comprehend even if God doesn't exist and the NT isn't the word of God this meaning you are reading into it with your own qualifiers could be wrong.
I don't believe in the Koran. But trying to read into it the doctrine of the Deity of Christ is not a correct interpretation of that text and is not the author's intent.
Live with it. My argument stands regardless of the Divine or merely human origin of the NT.
>Maybe Jesus never made those claims? Maybe Mark had a strong apocalyptic streak, and he simply claimed that Jesus uttered those words because he (mark) strongly believed that Jesus was very soon coming to right the wrongs in the world.
Very interesting speculations. Call me when you have some historical or exegetical proof.
Till then I could in theory be an Atheist who rejects your claim.
Belief in God or the NT(I know you are a Deist) is not needed to see you are wrong.
Ben,
Regarding the passage I cited, I don't think that chapter divisions matter. The English translation using the plural demonstrative pronoun "these things," (sometimes translated "all these things") while the fig tree is a singular antecedent. It seems that the plural demonstrative pronoun must refer to more than the fig tree, and the logical interpretation would be the end-of-the-world, second-coming events listed prior, and the summation that follows regarding the destruction of the world also support this interpretation. I understand that in order to maintain the belief that this passage from Mark is not a failed prediction one must interpret it to mean otherwise, but at the very least the passage certainly appears, from a plain reading, to be a failed prediction.
And that is partly my point. Everyone knows that the world did not end in the generation of those who witnessed Jesus' resurrection. If one believes as Christian does, one must interpret Jesus's words to mean other than they are understood as written. One must view them through an allegorical lens, similar to what Camping has done for his prediction of earthly demise on May 21.
As a Christian, I suppose it's too much to ask that you consider that Jesus's words could be a failed prophecy, else you would not be a Christian. So I don't suppose there's much point in each providing our own interpretations of various passages.
Ben: " With a name like Hoffman did you learn nothing having been born a Jew? You know or should know the Torah is one long word without Chapter or verse divisions. The Chapter & verse divisions where put in the Bible (including the NT) in the 12th Century."
Aren't the Gospels written in Greek? And, as mentioned above, I don't think that Chapter divisions matter in the interpretation of this passage.
Ben: "A first century Jew would read this and notice verses 28 to 30 are a reference to Jesus killing the fig tree which was a prophecy of the coming destruction of the Temple. He would conclude Jesus is telling us within the Apostle lifetime the temple would be destroyed."
Or, he could read the passage in front of him and conclude that the temple, along with everything else on earth, would be destroyed within his lifetime.
Ben: "[A first century Jew] would not connect this verse with the Second Coming since Jesus already said nobody knows not even the Son when the Second Coming will go down."
Already said? Where in Mark does he already say this? And if not in Mark, why would you assume that a Jew reading Mark would know about another Gospel account, especially when Mark is widely considered to be the earliest Gospel?
Ben: " You are reading the Bible in a Fundamentalist way like Camping."
Hmm. It seems to me that you are re-interpreting a plain prediction to mean something allegorical. This is what Camping has recently done. And I'm sure he is scolding his skeptics now for mis-interpreting his words to mean that the real world would be destroyed on May 21.
Ben: " To repeat the Chapter verse divisions came 1150 give or take years after the darn thing was written! Stop reading the text with them in mind."
You haven't shown how the chapter / verse insertions make any difference to the translation and interpretation of a Greek text. Honestly, I just don’t get your point.
>Regarding the passage I cited, I don't think that chapter divisions matter.
Clearly they do since you treat Chapter 13 as a unit and the verses as units. That colors your interpretation.
>The English translation using the plural demonstrative pronoun "these things," (sometimes translated "all these things") while the fig tree is a singular antecedent.
But the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple are many so I don't see how the plurals vidicate the Novel interpretation.
>It seems that the plural demonstrative pronoun must refer to more than the fig tree, and the logical interpretation would be the end-of-the-world,
>second-coming events listed prior,etc...
Rather it refers to the many signs leading up to the destruction of the Temple. Which is why ancient Jewish Christians as testafied historically by Esubius and Rabbin sources fled Jerusalem during the first Roman attack which lead to the destruction of the Temple.
>I understand that in order to maintain the belief that this passage from Mark is not a failed prediction one must interpret it to mean otherwise, but at the very least the passage certainly appears, from a plain reading, to be a failed prediction.
Rather the plain reading is it is refering to the destruction of the Temple. Jesus makes rather specific predictions on the destruction of the Temple but later professes not to be able to reveal the time of the Last Judgement. So how can he know and not know his second coming?
>And that is partly my point. Everyone knows that the world did not end in the generation of those who witnessed Jesus' resurrection. If one believes as Christian does, one must interpret Jesus's words to mean other than they are understood as written. One must view them through an allegorical lens, similar to what Camping has done for his prediction of earthly demise on May 21.
Yet historically early Jewish Christians fled Jerusalem during the first Roman attack. Why? Jesus told them too. You have not shown verses 28-30 refer to the second coming.
>As a Christian, I suppose it's too much to ask that you consider that Jesus's words could be a failed prophecy, else you would not be a Christian. So I don't suppose there's much point in each providing our own interpretations of various passages.
As an Atheist who has been slightly tanted by Gnu aplogetics I suppose it's
too much to ask to consider this is not really a prophesy of the second coming.
>Aren't the Gospels written in Greek? And, as mentioned above, I don't think that Chapter divisions matter in the interpretation of this passage.
They are written in the Jewish Greek of the Spetuagent. You need to read a first century document with the mind of a First century Jew. There is no reason to believe it was written with modern conventions in mind.
>Or, he could read the passage in front of him and conclude that the temple, along with everything else on earth, would be destroyed within his lifetime.
Hardly since the letters to Peter would have said otherwise and Peter was the Apostle to the Jews. He would have concluded this refered to the Temple. OTOH this all turns on the Greek word meaning generations and not race.
So even if I granted your isogesis I have reason to doubt this is a failed prophesy. Granted I might if I was an Atheist write it off as a lucky guess. But the early Second Coming meme looks weak.
>Already said? Where in Mark does he already say this? And if not in Mark, why would you assume that a Jew reading Mark would know about another Gospel account, especially when Mark is widely considered to be the earliest Gospel?
Go study Jewish biblical interpretation. Learn the meaning of the terms Pishat, Gimetria, Drash and Midrash.
It's common for 1st & second writers to go off on tangents out of nowhere. Irenaeus and the writers of the Talmud did it all the Time.
Additonally I reject sola scriptura. I believe an early Jew would have the early church to explain the meaning to him which would have been handed down to them.
>Hmm. It seems to me that you are re-interpreting a plain prediction to mean something allegorical.
No I am taking the allegorical prediction (i.e. killing the fig tree =destroying Jerusalem and the Temple) and concluding the passage is predicting it will happen during the Apostle's lifetime. There is no reason to take this to include the Second Coming.
>This is what Camping has recently done. And I'm sure he is scolding his skeptics now for mis-interpreting his words to mean that the real world would be destroyed on May 21.
The Bible plainly says nobody knows the day & the hour of the End. The unanimous understanding of The Church confirmes this meaning. In the 1000's the Pope got up and cited this verse to silence those who claimed the End of Days where coming at Midnight on Christmas 1000AD.
So Camping is ignoring the Bible. Not my problem.
>You haven't shown how the chapter / verse insertions make any difference to the translation and interpretation of a Greek text. Honestly, I just don’t get your point.
So when you read a modern book you don't consider chapters in a book a division of distinct units of information?
You don't read Chapter 13 of Mark and conclude it contains separate subject matters from Chapters 12 & 14?
Seriously?
Verses 28-30 clearly are a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Not the second coming. The Fig tree is never used as a metaphor for the Second Coming.
Beside the Greek word for "generations" can also be translated "race". So if I grant your isogesis it is not clear Jesus was saying he would return during the Apostles lifetime. He might have been saying either humanity or the Jews would not die out till these things come to pass.
So really it's a buster.
I don't know why you are fighting so hard for this. If I am convince God doesn't exist tomorrow I still will reject the Second coming meme on purely rational grounds.
additionally Mark 13:30 "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." also appears to be a reiteration of Mark 9:1
""And Jesus was saying to them, "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God after it has come with power."
Again as the article in the Catholic Encylopedia I cited earlier shows the phrase "Kingdom of God" was for Jesus often a spiritual internal thing or Heavenly thing not a literal political Kingdom.
An exegesis and word study of the phrase will show this to be the case.
Remember the establishment of the Kingdom of God is not the same as the second coming.
Summery of the plain reading.
Chapter 13 should not be read as a unit but as four units. (1) Verses 1 -23 foretell the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple.
(2)But at Verse 24 he changes the topic 24But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light...
So He says the Second coming will come after the fall of Jerusalem and gives the particulars threw verse 27.
(3)He then flips back to the Temple in verse 28 by referring to the Fig Tree which we know from elsewhere is a reference to the Destruction of Jerusalem/Temple. He goes on threw verse 30 and foretells the Temple will fall within the Apostles lifetime.
(4)Verse 31 he flips back to the End Times and threw on to verse 37 states plainly nobody knows when the End will come not even Jesus but the Father alone. Since we don't know the end we must watch till it comes.
Thus based on a plain reading I fail to see how Jesus foretells the second coming during the apostles lifetime.
This assuming verse 28 should read "generations" and not "race" the later would invalidate the whole Atheist argument in one swoop since it would have Jesus saying either the human race or the Jewish race will not pass away till we see the end.
@ Ben Yachov
I have laboriously read through all your comments on this thread. The thoughts contained in them are all over the shop. Piecemeal. A stream of consciousness straight off the top of your head like dandruff with as much explanatory power as flaked skin.
I know it is very difficult at the best of times to put together a cogent argument on the interpretative-based christian mythos, but you must diligently work at it if you are going to stem the tide away from theism in the community.
The argument from prophecy is a flat tyre, just as Victor has suggested. If one accepts prophecy as a function of reality, then every 'successful prophecy from all religions must be accepted as having occurred. If you are reluctant to concede that point then you are simply acquiescing to special pleading, which is most unhelpful.
The thrust and tenor of your arguments has not progressed beyond the walls of Apologetics. And the business of Apologetics is harmonization, synthesis, syncretism, with the express purpose of mitigating if not expunging the innumerable contradictions, misperceptions, disagreements,, inconsistencies, and mismatches. Indeed Apologetics attempts to weave a unidimensional path through these great impediments embedded in the disjointed narrative.
And every day more and more people are waking up and rightly questioning and challenging the 'historical' claims made by theists, and found them wanting. It is a process of attrition but the trend is palpable.
Ben: "You don't read Chapter 13 of Mark and conclude it contains separate subject matters from Chapters 12 & 14? Seriously?"
No. I have long known what you may believe is news to me. I studied Latin for 2 years in college -- I am very familiar with the dislocation and non-punctuation of dead languages, and I am accustomed to making sense of them. You do not seem to have undertaken rigorous study of Greek or Latin, because I find your assertions on how this Greek text is to be translated and interpreted to be bizarre.
For instance, I think it's bizarre that you would contend that a writer might flit and fly about from one topic to another as you do for Mark 13, without any linear progression tying one thought to another. Seriously, have you ever translated any Greek or Latin texts under the instruction of a classicist?
@Tony
>No. I have long known what you may believe is news to me. I studied Latin for 2 years in college -- I am very familiar with the dislocation and non-punctuation of dead languages, and I am accustomed to making sense of them.
You originally touted "The English translation" & an interpretation based on that and now you are saying you studied Latin? Lovely, but do you read NT Greek? Do you know NTGreek? If you did you would have said so & not even brought Latin up.
>For instance, I think it's bizarre that you would contend that a writer might flit and fly about from one topic to another as you do for Mark 13.
It would be for a Catechism or a Theological Treatise or some other document that was suppose to give an orderly dissertation on doctrine. But this is Scripture that is biographical. Taslking about a real person. In my experience in ordinary natural conversation flit and fly about from one topic to another is merely natural speech the Gospel reproduces here.
>Seriously, have you ever translated any Greek or Latin texts under the instruction of a classicist?
Did you ever do an exegetic study of an ancient text? Cause if you haven't your knowledge of English and Latin doesn't really mean anything here.
>the plural demonstrative pronoun "these things," (sometimes translated "all these things") while the fig tree is a singular antecedent.
Lovely but the text says . 28 “Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender, and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So you also, when you see these things happening, know that it is near—at the doors! 30 Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place."
So logically should we not go back to Mark 11:12 which talks about the parable from the fig tree? Indeed if we do that and real all the way threw to Mark 12:12 it talks solely about the destruction of Jerusalem & the Temple and not once about the second coming.
Not once!
Thus logically should not the plural demonstrative pronoun refer to the contents of the Parable of the Fig tree?
Or do you wish to make up an arbitrary rule that says I must interpret Mark 13 in isolation to the rest of the Gospel of Mark?
I think that would be truly bizarre.
>I am very familiar with the dislocation and non-punctuation of dead languages, and I am accustomed to making sense of them.
Then explain how Mark 11:12 threw Mark 12:12 fits into your deliberations? Or did you not read it before interpreting Mark 13:28-30 and decreeing it refers to the Second Coming and not the destruction of the Temple?
My guess is you didn't read Mark 11:11 to Mark 12:11. You can't rationally claim it is not relevant to understanding & correctly interpreting Mark 13:28-30.
Here is the break down. Mark 11:12-14 JESUS CURSES THE FIG TREE. ver 15-19 JESUS CLEANSES THE TEMPLE ver 20-26 THE FIG TREE COMPLETELY WITHERS. ver 27-33 Cohen and Scribes question the Authority of Jesus while in the Temple. Chapter 12:1-12 PARABLE OF THE TENENTS which is an even more blatant allegorical parable about the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple.
Thus given all this build up how can anyone who is not merely proof-texting not see in context Mark 13:28-30 is solely about the destruction of the Temple and not the Second Coming?
This is a buster. It can't be anything else.
>without any linear progression tying one thought to another.
Theological Manuals, Physics Text books & Philosophical treatise are linear. Scripture as a whole is not linear. Ancient texts aren't always linear.
Such a concept is alien to a Catholic.
BTW I majored in Psychology in College but my minor was in Religious Studies and I leaned for two years how to do Greek word studies and exegesis of Biblical Texts.
james,
George's critique is simplicity itself. Dawkins wrote the weasel program! It did not write itself.
God created the universe and "wrote" the physical, chemical and biological laws of nature (metaphorically speaking) that make natural selection possible.
I don't see her rejecting natural selection here.
Cheers man.
ignore that last it was meant for Feser's blog.
Ben,
I could go through point by point but it seems like the discussion is wending toward a discussion comparing people instead of arguments. I originally intended to ask you to consider the basis for your exegetical understanding, but I can seen now that this was a mistake -- it was stupid of me to engage in that.
If you're content with the defense of your argument for their being no cases of mistaken prophecy in the Bible, I am content with my questions the support for your claim.
Peace to you Tony & Cheers.
It was a good discussion.
One clarification:
>If you're content with the defense of your argument for their being no cases of mistaken prophecy in the Bible.
Here I was a little less ambitious. I was merely content to show Jesus merely foretold the destruction of the Temple & Jerusalem during the lifetimes of his disciples in the Gospel of Mark.
Maybe there are errors in the Bible but this IMHO doesn't appear to be one of them. At best it is a possible interpretation but IMHO by no means a probable, likely or definitive one.
Cheers again.
Post a Comment