"Standard historical criteria" hardly leave us with a "jesus" to have said anything at all, but clearly - somebody said something, at some point. I'm really not comfortable invoking divinity or prophecy until it is necessary. Diminishes the idea of both, to me.

(July 6, 2014 at 10:52 am)Vicki Q Wrote:

---

I wonder if I might reply to the OP by referring to the Matt 24 parr passages mentioned earlier in the thread; by examining them in their C1 Jewish context.

The question (1-3) translates as, “When is the Temple to be destroyed, and this (2nd Temple) age to end?”

The answer doesn't finish until 26:1 “When Jesus finished what he had to say”. The passages between jumped on by the 'Left Behind' folk are taken to refer to the Second Coming, but that would be a really weird answer to the question put by the disciples. They all refer to AD70.

They are actually a mixture of OT quotation and Jewish Apocalyptic style commentary which relate to the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. E.g. Luke 21:20-24 describes the famous Siege of Jerusalem (Emperor Titus' 3 armies) and the taking of slaves to make the operation self-financing. Once you get your head around Jesus use of symbolic language, which was common at the time, you realise that the relevant passages do refer to AD70.

---

The NT writers made a big deal of Jesus' prophecy, because the destruction of the Temple was massive and recent. The generation Jesus said would see these things happen, did. Jesus got that prophecy spot on.

So far Jesus is batting 0.0000 on his his prophecy concerning the stars falling to Earth.

(July 2, 2014 at 6:22 pm)Cato Wrote: This is what prophecy looks like:

RaptureReady.com
http://www.raptureready.com/

Fucking lunatics.

Astonishing stupidity of an order of magnitude I never thought possible.

(July 7, 2014 at 7:08 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: So far Jesus is batting 0.0000 on his his prophecy concerning the stars falling to Earth.

An excellent example of how OT quotation is used as Jewish apocalyptic language. In Mark 13 parr, they are referencing Isaiah ch13 and ch34, which describe the action of God to bring about His kingdom. They/Jesus is not setting these as flat and literal prose, but are using them as typical Jewish imagery for events to happen that are perceived as earth-shattering. That is to say, the days of Jerusalem's destruction would be looked upon as days of catastrophe. From that point of view, 100% accurate.

That's how this apocalyptic language functions. Thank you for bringing this example up.

---

(July 7, 2014 at 5:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "Standard historical criteria" hardly leave us with a "jesus" to have said anything at all, but clearly - somebody said something, at some point. I'm really not comfortable invoking divinity or prophecy until it is necessary. Diminishes the idea of both, to me.

If you have a spare 0.5 year, get into the “A Marginal Jew” series. He does the question of where standard historical criteria takes us extremely well. Not one for the Rapture Ready people, though.

Given the Synoptics all quote Jesus as using apocalyptic language, but with different content, it seems very likely he used this form when talking about the destruction of the Temple.

Now Jesus had no reason to say the Temple had a big wrecking ball headed its way. He could have declared it redundant, like he did ritual Torah. But he said it was to be destroyed giving detail, and used apocalyptic language to indicate that this was central to his program (see reply above).

He repeated the point with the symbolic cleansing of the Temple/ cursing of the fig tree incident. In other words, he wrote very theological big cheques which, at the time reality looked unlikely to honour (things were relatively peaceful).

(Why?)

However he got it right. Now if you don't believe there is prophecy at all, because there is no God, then this won't change your mind. But on the basis of what solid history can be got from this, it fits rather more comfortably with a Christian worldview than with an alternative worldview.

(July 8, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: However he got it right. Now if you don't believe there is prophecy at all, because there is no God, then this won't change your mind. But on the basis of what solid history can be got from this, it fits rather more comfortably with a Christian worldview than with an alternative worldview.

Actually, I'm quite comfortable with an alternative to the Christian view of Jesus' prophetic prowess. Why couldn't Jesus miss? It's because his alleged prophesies are placed in his mouth by authors and editors working decades after the alleged events and supplying him with privileged knowledge, i.e., their knowledge of how events unfolded.

An excellent example of how OT quotation is used as Jewish apocalyptic language. In Mark 13 parr, they are referencing Isaiah ch13 and ch34, which describe the action of God to bring about His kingdom.


Um....Is. 13 is about the "Prophecy Against Babylon" ( which your god fucked up too) and 34 blathers on about 'god' destroying "Edom."

History tells us that Babylon and Edom did just fine and Judah was overrun repeatedly.

You seem to have enough trouble with xtian bullshit. Please leave the jews alone.

(July 8, 2014 at 3:56 pm)Vicki Q Wrote: If you have a spare 0.5 year, get into the “A Marginal Jew” series. He does the question of where standard historical criteria takes us extremely well. Not one for the Rapture Ready people, though.

This "A Marginal Jew" that begins laying out it's case by an invocation of the embarrassing "embarrassment" argument? Tell me it gets better from there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Meier

Quote:Now Jesus had no reason to say the Temple had a big wrecking ball headed its way. He could have declared it redundant, like he did ritual Torah. But he said it was to be destroyed giving detail, and used apocalyptic language to indicate that this was central to his program (see reply above).

Regardless of whether or not we want to put this in the mouth of jesus or some later author the writing would have been on the wall. The first Roman-Jewish war either loomed or had already occurred- and it didn't come out of nowhere. It would happen twice again. To the romans, these folks were a perennial pain in the ass.

I'd like to see what you mean with regards to detail. What detail?

Quote:He repeated the point with the symbolic cleansing of the Temple/ cursing of the fig tree incident. In other words, he wrote very theological big cheques which, at the time reality looked unlikely to honour (things were relatively peaceful).

Hehehehe, Darth Jesus, tk pushing tables and force choking plants. Relatively peaceful? During what time? 7-23CE we see roman pacification...but that's a deceptive word isn't it? I doubt the romans were pacifying the area with smiles and handouts. By somewhere around 40ce we're talking rioting in the streets. Caligulas death bought, maybe, another 5 years before insurgents started to operate within the borders of the empire. I can;t stand back and look at all of this and decide that the time period was relatively peaceful - or even remotely peaceful. Clearly, these folks had grievances which would manifest themselves sporadically as revolts, rebellions, and insurrections. I only mention all of this because it's as generous as I can be with regards to the claim. Had there been a jesus, and had he made such a prediction - it would be like me "prophesying" that our adventures in the middle east would fail - back in 2003. We've no shortage of that sort of "prophesy" today - and they probably didn't have any shortage of it then. All of this becomes moot point if the narrative was written or took it's final form after the events took place, of course.

Quote:However he got it right. Now if you don't believe there is prophecy at all, because there is no God, then this won't change your mind. But on the basis of what solid history can be got from this, it fits rather more comfortably with a Christian worldview than with an alternative worldview.

Whomever "he" was...whenever "he" was writing, sure. The subjects of "prophecy" and "god" are in no way inextricably bound to each other. I don't believe in "prophecy" because we have no examples of it. We have plenty of examples of claimed prophecy from all around the world. All are fatuous, none meet the bar I set for evidence - and most are fairly easy to conceptualize as passable guesses - at most - of an entirely unremarkable sort (as the "prophecy" above would appear to be no matter how we approach it). It wouldn't matter to me if someone claimed prophesy handed down from god or a toaster. I'd call bs on the "prophecy" bit all by itself.

I'm left wondering what a "christian worldview" is, and how it has any relationship with history at all. What's the alternative? A factual worldview?

Quote:During what time? 7-23CE we see roman pacification...but that's a deceptive word isn't it?

No, not really. Josephus - never a totally reliable source but all we've got - passes over the terms of office of the prefects, Coponius, Marcus Ambivius, Annius Rufus, and Valerius Gratus (6-26 AD) in a single paragraph and the big news was that Augustus dies during the term of Annius and Tiberius becomes emperor. There were some small scale disturbances when Archelaus was deposed but these were suppressed by what amounted to local police forces without bringing in the legions and even that assumes that Josephus wasn't talking out of his ass as he was prone to do.

Radio silence eh? So I suppose that we have ourselves a window in which people weren't throwing rocks - even if they might have been piling them up in the back lot. No anti-occupation sentiment from the locals (that we know of, of course)? Seems odd - especially for the region. Even more-so seeing as how it all went down immediately afterwards.

(July 8, 2014 at 5:17 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Um....Is. 13 is about the "Prophecy Against Babylon" ( which your god fucked up too) and 34 blathers on about 'god' destroying "Edom."

History tells us that Babylon and Edom did just fine and Judah was overrun repeatedly.

I don't think you've tuned in to apocalyptic language yet. It's not to be read literally. Isaiah 13 references the Day of the Lord, when things that oppose God will be destroyed. And ch 34 covers similar ground. So it matters not what happened to those places. I'm not a fundie; we're on different ground here.

It's about the meta-narrative of God, humanity and Israel. Jesus in referencing those chapters was saying that God will be destroying what opposes Him.

Quote:
You seem to have enough trouble with xtian bullshit. Please leave the jews alone.

Sweetheart, is that really necessary?

---

(July 9, 2014 at 4:07 am)Rhythm Wrote: This "A Marginal Jew" that begins laying out it's case by an invocation of the embarrassing "embarrassment" argument? Tell me it gets better from there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Meier

Criteria of embarrassment- if it embarrassed the early church they probably wouldn't want to put it in. So if they did, chances are because it happened, everyone knew it happened, and they couldn't leave it out. Makes sense to the professionals. If you follow the Wiki link, “The criterion of embarrassment is a long-standing tool of New Testament research.”

Quote:Regardless of whether or not we want to put this in the mouth of jesus or some later author the writing would have been on the wall. <snip>

I'm left wondering what a "christian worldview" is, and how it has any relationship with history at all. What's the alternative? A factual worldview?

See Minimalist post above on 30s Israel, which says what I would. But anyway, you're missing the point here. I'm not arguing that the fact Jesus got it right proves he's God and everyone reading should bow their knees in repentance. I'm not saying that a column writer for the Jerusalem Times couldn't have said the same thing in trying to be controversial.

I am saying that in linking the less-than-predictable destruction of the Temple within a generation so intimately within his eschatalogical message, without any need to do so, giving it such prominence that it would be embarrassing if it failed, he was taking a big risk (why?). Remember the huge significance of the Temple within Judaism- there was so much core theology wrapped up in this statement that it's not a lucky throwaway comment ('I think Brazil are going to get beaten big time by Germany').

There was a lot riding on things happening as Jesus said. He had no need to take the risk. But he got it right. Perhaps an unwise prediction got lucky. Or perhaps the message was right.