I met a reasonable agnostic/atheist monday. He goes to mass with his believing wife and children (being raised Catholic) every Sunday and even reads the Scripture passages beforehand and listens to the seromon attentively. He says when he asks himself if he believes this, the answer he comes up with is no. He also pointed out he does not think his wife is a fool for believing it--he just doesn't.
This is a sharp contrast to the gobs of atheists with an axe to grind. The not-so-veiled hostility is indicative of something else going on rather than mere disbelief.
Hey Dave,
I think you're assuming a lot of Christian things in order to get around some of these problems. Take Daniel for instance. Daniel does refer to the last days. But he also thinks the last days are in his own day. When he talks about the 70 weeks prophecy, he's talking about Antiochus Ephiphanes, who is responsible for the "abomination of desolation" committed (which is the sacrifice of the swine on the altar, recorded in Maccabees as well, right?). He then tracks what he thinks is the desctruction of this prince (Antiochus) in chapter 11, which he thinks will happen soon. For him the last days is here within a couple of years (the 70th week of years, divided into to 3.5 year periods).
I'm kind of working from memory here, so I apologize if I'm off on some details.
You make the same assumption with regards to 2 Peter. You assume it's an early document written by Peter. But you should be well aware that this is a highly disputed view. Critical scholars universally date 2 Pet to the 2nd century as a pseudonymous work. With that in mind take a look at the text you've cited. Apparently scoffers are making fun of Christians because they predicted an early coming. Now we're in the 2nd century and it hasn't happened. What do do?
Start with lame excuses. "Well, God is waiting for more people to come to repentance, and for God a day is like a thousand years." Well, why didn't you say that when you made the claims of Mt 16:28, or Mt 24? This is Christian excuse making, and Christians have now been buying off on it for 2000 years. That's not for me any more. I don't accept this type of nonsense from JW's so there's no reason to accept it from Catholics (or Protestants).
The other question is, where are these scoffers getting this notion that an end times prophecy has failed? Probably the same place the gospel authors got their notion that Christ would return before some standing their die, or that Christ would return before "this" generation passes away.
You know Dave, we should do lunch some time. I guess I live near you now.
Hi Jon,
Sure, we could do lunch.
This is all well and good, but you need to respond point-by-point to my arguments if you are willing to take on my case in its totality.
I notice how you entirely skipped over some 90-95% of my argument and now make generalizations about "nonsense." That don't cut it in my book, my friend. And watch Ed do the same thing. In the past he simply ignored my line of reasoning and launched into endless irrelevancies and his notorious mile-long quotes to insult Christians.
Skeptics also always have the out of questioning the text or positing a late date whenever they run into problems. It's quite a slippery fish, ain't it? Run into exegetical problems, and just whip out the disputed text / Jesus / Paul didn't really say that / Jesus didn't even exist anyway / late dates of books card, etc., etc., and presto!!! - the Christian is "refuted." Pretty hard to nail a constantly moving target or catch a fish with your bare hands . . .
Skeptics also always have the out of questioning the text or positing a late date whenever they run into problems. It's quite a slippery fish, ain't it? Run into exegetical problems, and just whip out the disputed text / Jesus / Paul didn't really say that / Jesus didn't even exist anyway / late dates of books card, etc., etc., and presto!!! - the Christian is "refuted." Pretty hard to nail a constantly moving target or catch a fish with your bare hands . . .
I notice similar things in discussions with muslims. They quote freely from Bible passages that supposedly embarrass the Christian position, and then turn around and talk about how the Bible is corrupt. Well, which is it? Ohh, I get it, when a muslim thinks a passage makes Christian's look bad, it's accurate. When it helps the Christian's case, it's corrupted.
So I gotta go point by point or I get no response? Tough rules around here.
I kind of viewed my response as responding to the real meat of the argument. You need a good example of a text referring to the last days which in fact has in mind many generations away. Daniel is your example. But in point of fact Daniel is written around 164 BC (though it is purported to be written in the 6th century BC), so when he says last days he seems to think it's going to happen near the time of writing. In 2 Peter (written in the 2nd century) he casts himself as if he's writing at a later date when "scoffers" are making fun of Christians for the failed prophecy. This probably wouldn't occur while Peter was alive, but might occur after the initial generation had passed. So if my description is accurate, then again this writer thinks the end will be near the time of his writing. The author of Mt thinks the end will be near the time of his writing. Same for Hebrews. And it's a constant theme throughout church history, one that continues to this day. My parents are sure the end will come before they die. Jack Van Impe and the JW's continue with this proven motivational technique.
So without a clear example of a "last days" reference that means many generations from the time of writing, I don't see how your other speculations of how some of the texts MIGHT refer to a later date carry a lot of weight.
And I'll tell you, these claims about dates are not simply a matter of invoking convenient dates to avoid conservative Christian conclusions. There are powerful arguments for this claim which were instrumental in causing me to abandon my faith. I didn't do this lightly, so it's not as if surface level arguments would have moved me.
Lunch would be great. I'll send you an email. I can tell you all about this stuff.
"Critical scholars universally date 2 Pet to the 2nd century as a pseudonymous work."
Wrong. Those criticial scholars who date 2 Peter to the 2nd century as a pseudonymous work universally date 2 Peter to the 2nd century as a pseudonymous work. Those who don't, however, universally do not.
Anyway there's not a shred of good evidence that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous 2nd century work (nor that any New Testament book was written after 100 A.D.), nor is it possible to date Daniel to the 160s B.C. After all, the Hebrew text of Sirach quotes passages from Daniel, and Sirach was written circa 200-180 B.C., a whole generation before Antiochus Epiphanes.
> So I gotta go point by point or I get no response? Tough rules around here.
That's not "my" rules; it is how serious dialogues work. I saw this kind of demand the most when I was on an atheist list. It's rigorous philosophical method.
I generally demand this of my opponents because I see that it is very easy to ignore wholesale portions of an opposing argument and simply construct one's counter-argument with scant reference to that which one opposes. Nothing is accomplished that way; it is mutual monologue. My convictions here stem from Socrates. That is where my method comes from, and he was not a Christian, last time I checked. 
>You need a good example of a text referring to the last days which in fact has in mind many generations away.
If you don't like that one, I'll give you some more that Dr. Rayburn provided:
--------------------------
In its use in the Old Testament, the phrase “the last days” may mean different things. For example, in Genesis 49:1, as Jacob gathers his sons to give them his final blessing, we read him say to them: “Gather around so I can tell you what will happen to you in days to come.” The NIV’s “days to come” is a translation of the Hebrew phrase that literally means “the end of days.” The KJV rendered it “the last days.” Now, included in Jacob’s prophesies about his sons is the messianic reign of Jesus Christ – in the blessing of Judah in vv. 8-12, including its account of the consummation of that reign when the obedience of the nations will be his and when unprecedented blessing and prosperity is granted to the world on account of him – but, along the way are a good many more pedestrian prophecies concerning the life of the Israelite tribes in times future to Jacob and his sons. For example we read of Gad’s military prowess in v. 19, a prowess confirmed later in 1 Chronicles 5:18 and 12:8. So, taking the chapter as a whole, the NIV is probably correct in rendering “the end of days” or “the last days” in 49:1 with “in days to come.” In such a context “the last days” means simply “the future.” The particular time in the future is indeterminate.
In Deuteronomy, the phrase is used conventionally in several places to refer to experiences that Israel will have in the future. For example, we read in Deut. 4:30:
“When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the Lord your God and obey him.”
That “in later days” is our “end of days” or “last days.” Or, in Deut. 31:29 we read:
“For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall upon you because you will do evil in the sight of the Lord…”
That “in days to come” is also our “end of days” or “last days.” The NASB, a very literal translation, gives the rendering, “evil will befall you in the latter days.” Obviously, the context is, to some important degree, determinin
(cont.)
. . . determining the reference of the phrase. And that is important to note.
--------------------------------------
Also, in Matthew 24: Jesus discourse about "the close of the age" (24:3; RSV), there are other strong indications of lengths of time besides the ones I mentioned (wars and preaching the gospel to the whole world).
In His parable of the "faithful and wise servant" (24:45-51) in the same context, we see the phrase, "My master [Jesus] is delayed" (24:4
. In the parable of the bridegroom that continues the discourse in the next chapter, Jesus mentions "As the bridegroom [again, He Himself] was delayed, they all slumbered and slept" (25:5). And again, in the eschatological parable of the talents, the same thing occurs: "Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them" (25:19).
How much plainer can it be? What more does one need to see that this phrase has multiple meanings and is ambiguous (which is typical of prophetic biblical language, which often has a double application or meaning)?
>>There are powerful arguments for this claim which were instrumental in causing me to abandon my faith.
Well, if this particular line of thoroughly incoherent reasoning was "instrumental" in your loss of faith, then I must say that you were severely mistaken, and this cause was not one that has any compelling basis in logic or sound biblical hermeneutics.
If this (particular argument) was a major reason for you, then perhaps you were mistaken in your other rationales for changing your mind, also, and have been unnecessarily led astray by sincere, sharp, for the most part intellectually-honest, but usually (in dealing with the Bible and Christian doctrine) dead-wrong atheists and agnostics you somehow fell in with.
The last smiley above is Matthew 24:48; it does that when you have an 8 followed by a parenthesis.
Jon,
Do you think people in the second century were stupid? I see this with your posts here, and also with alot of the posts at Crowhill. I don't think they were as naive as you seem to imply.
Also, Do you have any second century evidence that would lead you to conclude that 2Peter was written for the reasons you've described, other than speculation?
So the question becomes, Dave, when was Genesis written and when was Deutoronomy written. What a pseduonymous writer will often do is he'll present himself as if he's writing in the past, but in fact he's writing at the present time. So the question I'm asking is, does the "Last Days" terminology refer to the time of writing, not the purported time of speaking.
Take Jesus words from Mt that you quoted. Certainly this would refer to the future if the date we consider is the date of Jesus actually speaking. But the date I'm considering is the date of writing. Mt is not written in 30 AD. For the author, "last days" looks to be soon after the destruction of the temple. Low and behold this is exactly when the book is being written.
The arguments I'm referring to that were instrumental were the dates of authorship of books like Daniel. I haven't presented them, so I don't see how you can know they are incoherent. But it is true that the last days prophecies were instrumental as well. If those arguments are incoherent, then I guess I must be a stupid person.
To Richard:
I'm not saying people were stupid, but without the tools we have today it is difficult for them to refute a false claim or a pseudonymous work. And certainly there were widespread forgeries at the time.
There are good reasons to think 2 Pet is pseudonymous. You could start at earlychristianwritings.com and look at the 2 Pet section.
Jon
Of course: the instant recourse to textual skepticism, as predicted.
Okay, Jon. Let's get down to brass tacks: did Jesus exist? Did He say anything attributed to Him in the Gospels during His lifetime? If so, then I gave you plenty right from Him indicating that there would be a long span of time before He returned.
I'm not gonna ride the merry-go-round of textual questioning. I have neither the time nor the desire to do that. Either you critique what the Bible itself teaches or we have no conversation.
When the skeptic wants to make a point against the Christian / biblical teaching, all of a sudden the text is what it is, and no one need question anything. It's only when we Christians defend our belief that this is the out.
I ain't buying it. Besides, the Bible as a theological work is what it is, regardless of when certain parts of it may have been written. It teaches certain things. It doesn't teach others. Jesus said what He said. He existed. If you deny that, then there is no discussion whatsoever. So why bother? It's just playing games.
In fact, if the Bible is nonsense, and Chriostianity, too, why are all of you guys all worked up and spending your time being concerned about it? It won't matter. There wouldn't be any hell (or heaven) to save people from. Live and let live. If I were an atheist, I wouldn't spend one minute wrangling about the Bible and Christianity. It would be a complete irrelevancy.
Also, it is irrelevant to my argument whether 2 Peter is pseudonymous or not (just as the denial of Pauline authorship of Hebrews doesn't affect its message).
It still teaches what it teaches, and it has been accepted as a biblical book, so that if the point of dispute is the meaning of "last days", my use of that book is still relevant, and is contrary to your take.
In other words, Ed's argument was to look at certain texts, take the literal meaning of "last days" and apply it across the board, to make out that false prophecy occurred. I have shown from now 15-20 or so passages that the latitude of meaning is much wider IN THE BIBLE ITSELF. That completely bypasses textual dating and authorship considerations, because the question is "what does the Bible teach on this matter?"
"There are good reasons to think 2 Pet is pseudonymous. You could start at earlychristianwritings.com and look at the 2 Pet section."
I've read it -- there's a lot of rubbish there.
There are good reasons to think 2 Peter may possibly be pseudonymous. There is insufficient evidence to affirm it as established (or even establishable) fact, and you're really going out on a limb to say it "probably" is pseudonymous. There's really no good reason why it can't be genuine. Sure the style of 1 and 2 Peter are very different, and sure 2 Peter is based on Jude or Jude is based on 2 Peter, but that's nothing that can't be explained by the use of amanuenses. Even today Popes rely on others to write part or all of their encyclicals, so why couldn't St. Peter have done that in the case of 2 Peter?
Dear Dave,
Your blog truncates reponses, so I had to break this one down into two parts. Here is part 1.
You recently emailed me with the statement, "I refuted [this that Ed said about Hebrews and the end times]," and again, "I refuted [that]." Then you said that I was “preaching to the choir,” and proceeded to cite a sermon by “Dr. Robert Rayburn,” as the source of your “refutations,” a minister who probably has a choir where he preaches at Faith Presbyterian Church. He also has a commentary on Hebrews that was published as part of [please note] The Evangelical Commentary of the Bible. Hmmm, you cite a sermon by a conservative evangelical minister preaching to his conservative Evangelical Christian choir.
Why not cite something a bit more mainstream and prestigious like an Oxford biblical commentary or Cambridge biblical commentary or Princeton biblical commentary, or Anchor Bible commentary?
And instead of citing a minister preaching to his choir such as Rayburn, why not cite Dr. James D. G. Dunn, who was for many years the Lightfoot Professor of Divinity in the Department of Theology at the University of Durham? Since his retirement Dunn has been made Emeritus Lightfoot Professor. He is a leading British New Testament scholar broadly in the Anglican tradition. Dunn is especially associated with the New Perspective on Paul, along with N.T. Wright and E. P. Sanders. I mention Dunn because after his lifetime of study (during which he began as a relatively conservative Evangelical) he admitted in one of his most recent works, JESUS REMEMBERED, that Jesus believed in an imminent eschatological climax that did not happen. "Putting it bluntly, Jesus was proved wrong by the course of events."
Or why not cite the Jewish scholar, E. P. Sanders and his books on Jesus that mention the false end times prophecies/expectations in the N.T.?
Or why not cite Dr. Craig C. Hill's book, In GOD'S TIME. Hill is an Evangelical who admits like Dunn that Jesus might not have known everything, and that Jesus and the early church might indeed have been wrong about prophecies and expectations of the soon arriving Son of Man and final judgment.
Or why not cite the well known N.T. scholar, textbook writer, and former conservative Christian, Bart Ehrman, from his lectures at "The Learning Company" on the historical Jesus, or cite his books and textbooks on the New Testament, especially his statements regarding why many scholars believe Jesus and the N.T. reflect first century apocalyptic and contain false prophecies/expectations?
END OF PART 1, PLEASE CONTINUE TO PART 2
PART 2 of 2
Or why not cite BIBLE REVIEW magazine since it featured a discussion of the historical Jesus a few months ago that pointed out that many scholars are returning to the view of Jesus as an end times eschatological prophet (including Crossan, who attempted to deny it, but who is moving back toward the eschatological prophet view along with other scholars, per the BIBLE REVIEW article).
You might also consider joining or at least reading the threads of moderated discussions of Jesus and history at the yahoo group Crosstalk2, which consists of academics from across a host of biblical and historical disciplines all joining in, and which has a lower level of noise-to-information ratio than most such discussions on the web.
Lastly, I have an article on the web titled, "The Lowdown on God's Showdown," that lists far more verses pertinent to this discussion than just the ones in the Book of Hebrews. And as I said, you ought to consider Dunn, Ehrman, Sanders, and Hill’s admissions concerning this topic, not just “Rev. Rayburn’s.” And consider once again whether you have “refuted” anything or not. It certainly does not seem so to me. But then, if not the bluster of holding the secrets of heaven and hell, then I suppose the bluster of infallible knowledge is what Christians are best at claiming for themselves. Also, some may wish to read my summing up of the previous conversations you and I have had, especially here.
Dave,
Besides Dunn, Ehrman, Sanders, and Hill’s admissions concerning this topic, I forgot to mention those of Dr. Howard Clark Kee, who edited THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO THE BIBLE; and whose book, UNDERSTANDING THE NEW TESTAMENT, has gone through 5 editions. Kee's latest work published in 2005 is BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT. Though having begun his own scholarly journey at conservative colleges like Dallas Theological Seminary, Dr. Kee, has not sought to get involved in controversies like Bart Ehrman; neither have I found where Kee explains explicitly what he believes or finds most puzzling after all of his years studying the Bible. He seems a sort of person who sees value in avoiding conflict, looking for the best in everyone, and simply pursuing scholarship for its own sake. Yet he writes the following when it comes to "imminent expectations":
"Jesus appeared on the Palestinian scene as an itinerant teacher, probably self-taught, so there was deep resentment of his authoritative manner among the official religious leadership of Palestine. He held his central mission to be the announcement of the imminent coming of God's Kingdom, and he regarded his extraordinary powers of healing and exorcism as evidence that the powers of the Kingdom were already breaking into the present situation... [I]t was through the false charge that he was a revolutionary that he was put to death by the Romans--a charge brought by the religious leaders whose authority his pronouncements seemed to threaten." [Howard Clark Kee, Jesus in History, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1970) p. 268-269.]
Dave,
Besides Dunn, Ehrman, Sanders, Hill’s, and Kee's admissions concerning this topic, there is also
that of Dr. James D. Tabor, Chair of Religion at the Univ. of N.C., whose view--like the rest I mentioned--reflects mainstream scholarship. See Tabor's "Jewish Roman World of Jesus" webpage, and click on the "Christian Origins and the New Testament" and see the list of verses (many of which are also found in my online article, "The Lowdown on God's Showdown") in Tabor's "New Testament Texts on the Imminence of the End," as Tabor puts it, "There is absolutely clear evidence running through the New Testament documents that the early followers of Jesus (Nazarenes) were convinced that they were living very close to the end of the Age. They expected the "Parousia" (arrival) of the Messiah within the span of their generation. This apocalyptic hope was largely based on the preaching of Jesus himself that the "Kingdom of God was at hand," as well as a general understanding of the prophecies of the book of Daniel, especially chapters 9 and 11. It is only in some of the latest texts of the New Testament that this hope begins to wane (e.g., 2 Timothy 4:6-8; 2 Peter 3:8-10)."
On the subject of the BOOK OF DANIEL, I would also heartily suggest that you catch up with the works of mainstream scholar, Dr. J. J. Collins, one of its foremost authorites, also an authority on intertestamental literature and apocalyptic literature in general. See for instance, THE BOOK OF DANIEL, VOL. 2, COMPOSITION AND RECEPTION, ed., John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint, "More than thirty leading scholars from Europe, North America and Israel examine the Composition and Reception of Daniel in eight sections." It is the second vol. to appear in the collection THE FORMATION AND INTERPRETATION OF OLD TESTAMENT LITERATURE.
And, Dave, I would like to add that since you think you have "refuted" what I wrote, and since I have pointed out how mainstream the idea is of Jesus having been an apocalyptic end times prophet, I'd like to add one more thing, namely that even the folks who believe in the inerrant inspiration of Scripture have yet to agree concerning what Scripture teaches concerning the following eschatological matters--The following titles are published by Christian publishers:
Three Views on the Rapture
Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond
Four Theologians Debate the Major Millennial Views
Four Views on the Book of Revelation
Four Views on Hell
I guess you have a lot of "refuting" left to do. Good luck.
Ed the agnostic
LOVED YOUR WEBSITE!PLEASE VISIT MINE IF YOU HAVE THE TIME THANKS!HAVE A NICE DAY fosamax plus d viagra side effects vision zoloft lamictal
Commenting by HaloScan
