Bible prophecies

[Minimalist]

I don't think you've tuned in to apocalyptic language yet.

I think you hallucinate what you want to see. Since your 'god's' predictions didn't work out so well you ignore the plain language and start insisting that there must be some 'hidden meaning.'

You are delusional. Either words have a meaning or they don't. Why do you follow a god who is such a piss-poor communicator?

[The Grand Nudger]

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.”

I was already clear on what it was. Now I'll just turn this back and ask you to finish reading that link for an explanation of why it's a longstanding, but insufficient criterion. The most embarrassing thing about the criterion of embarrassment, is the criterion itself. Amusingly, the link you just asked me to follow goes on to explain - that when something sets up an opportunity to establish theology..........it might not be a very useful criterion (not that this is the only reason, of course)......................

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').

Similarly, there's so much core theology wrapped up in that statement that it hardly matters whether or not it's true. We see this in other, less mundane, and arguably less believable parts of the narrative as well. Loaves and fishes, in actuality - are irrelevant, whereas theologically, it's a gold mine. I just don't see the significance that you see here even if we ignore the hurdle of whether or not any such character ever made any such "prediction", in reality. Being such a profound statement, with regards to theology, we run afoul of the above in any case.

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.

What was riding on it?

[Minimalist]

Criteria of embarrassment

The problem with that is that it tends to be defined in modern terms. "Why would the jews pretend to be slaves in Egypt if it weren't true....slavery is so ICKY."

But it was common in antiquity and completely misses the message that the priests were trying to sell, which was:

"You fucked up by not listening to us tell you what yahweh wanted and you ended up as fucking slaves. You're lucky he rescued your sorry asses. Now this time LISTEN TO US."

Voila. Embarrassment gone.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and then, what better way to claim those priests authority for your own than to "purify" their temples, and predict their subsequent destruction.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

If Jesus was alive today he would be a wingnut in the ISIS movement, which makes the other crazies seem sane by comparison.

[Vicki Q]

I was already clear on what it was. Now I'll just turn this back and ask you to finish reading that link for an explanation of why it's a longstanding, but insufficient criterion. The most embarrassing thing about the criterion of embarrassment, is the criterion itself. Amusingly, the link you just asked me to follow goes on to explain - that when something sets up an opportunity to establish theology..........it might not be a very useful criterion (not that this is the only reason, of course)......................

Much as I admire your disagreement with the academic world on the criterion of embarrassment, you might want to rethink. I had read the whole passage, am fully aware of the limitations of that and every other of the normally used criteria, and indeed JPM has a section devoted to the uses and limitations. But it still remains a long-standing tool of academic research for very good reasons. The professionals use it, because carefully used it is an effective argument. JPM is doing with it precisely what the academic world does with it -of all shades of belief and none.

(JPM is a master of careful usage of criteria. Read his work on declaring the loaves and fishes probably unhistorical for an example.)

Similarly, there's so much core theology wrapped up in that statement that it hardly matters whether or not it's true. We see this in other, less mundane, and arguably less believable parts of the narrative as well. Loaves and fishes, in actuality - are irrelevant, whereas theologically, it's a gold mine. I just don't see the significance that you see here even if we ignore the hurdle of whether or not any such character ever made any such "prediction", in reality. Being such a profound statement, with regards to theology, we run afoul of the above in any case.

What was riding on it?

If you declare judgement on Israel, state that destruction of the Temple within a generation is an essential part of that judgement, and the Temple survives, your whole program is shot. Best to not make those sorts of predictions. Unless you're sure.

---

-and then, what better way to claim those priests authority for your own than to "purify" their temples, and predict their subsequent destruction.

Actually, this is spot on. That's exactly what Jesus was doing. Although I might want to add that it didn't take any prophetic gift to work out that by attacking the Pax Romana, the national authorities and the religious beliefs of a large section of the population, you were going to have Health and Safety issues. It was, in short, a really stupid thing to do.

But like the other stupid idea of Jesus under discussion, sometimes these things have to be done.

[The Grand Nudger]

Much as I admire your disagreement with the academic world on the criterion of embarrassment, you might want to rethink. I had read the whole passage, am fully aware of the limitations of that and every other of the normally used criteria, and indeed JPM has a section devoted to the uses and limitations.

Good, we're on the same page. Since you brought up theology, and since you declared the message to be full of it - then that's that, by the standards of the criteria. I'm not sure why we're still talking about it?

If you declare judgement on Israel, state that destruction of the Temple within a generation is an essential part of that judgement, and the Temple survives, your whole program is shot. Best to not make those sorts of predictions. Unless you're sure.

Meh, hardly. The "prophets" in the OT got things wrong and yet judaism not only survived, it spawned two more faiths. There is value in simply making a statement, something that clearly wasn't lost on the "prophets" as they variously chimed in on the fates of the northern or southern kingdoms (whichever was fashionable to rail against at any given moment) in much the same way as the jesus character does in his own narrative. As min is fond of saying, Tyre is still here - and I would add, so are the jews.

Actually, this is spot on. That's exactly what Jesus was doing. Although I might want to add that it didn't take any prophetic gift to work out that by attacking the Pax Romana, the national authorities and the religious beliefs of a large section of the population, you were going to have Health and Safety issues. It was, in short, a really stupid thing to do.

There goes that criteria of embarrassment again. It's like you're intentionally trying to tank it or something.

[Brian37]

I don't think you've tuned in to apocalyptic language yet.

I think you hallucinate what you want to see. Since your 'god's' predictions didn't work out so well you ignore the plain language and start insisting that there must be some 'hidden meaning.'

You are delusional. Either words have a meaning or they don't. Why do you follow a god who is such a piss-poor communicator?

This is what you can do when you pull shit out of your ass.