Bible prophecies

[Vicki Q]

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.

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

Sweetheart, is that really necessary?

---

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.”

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.