CARR
Doesn’t Hebrews praise many of the people who took part in the armed Macabbean revolt?

Why didn’t the Jews face destruction when they pursued that way of violence?

Because God was on the side of the big batallions?

Predicting that the Romans would violently crush any Jewish revolt doesn’t really take special powers.

CARR
Depends if you believe or disbelieve that God would be on the side of the Jews (as he was in the Maccabean revolt)

Many Jews at that time had great faith that one revolt would be as successful as the other.

Oh, BTW, one more tangential thing. You said:

The Jews use an unblemished make lamb as an offering around this time. It’s rather sick IMO

Only if you’re a vegetarian (which maybe you are, I don’t know), otherwise it’s no different than any other time anyone slaughters an animal for food.

I am a vegetarian. I have been since I was 12 (seems like a lifetime since I was born in ‘66). Long story, but my life long friend Old Bossy was turned into jello and my bull calves, which I literally got into the pin and played with, were turned into veal (my bio-father made that decision, otherwise it never would have been done.) I had a pet runt pig named Wilber after Charlotte’s web. Pet chickens and thought it so funny when my mother beheaded one and she (the chicken) got away. My mother didn’t get chicken that night, but it puts new meaning into the saying “like a chicken running around without it’s head”. Too bad she died alone in the woods.

I was an only child, so I had unusual playmates, but my grandfather showed me what he called “God’s Country” when I was very little. He would tell me to stand perfectly still when we saw a beautiful awe inspiring creature. There is nothing more numinous then being close enough to reach out and pet a deer as the two of you gaze into each other’s eyes only to have the spell broken when it turned to continue on its way. (My grandfather had already told me not to touch) Or to stand so still, that a passing wolf walks past you several feet away, only to make brief eye contact with you as it glances your way and then continues down its path.

Now THAT was god to me as a child and still is in some respects in even though I understand the neuro-psychology behind it. Not the animals, but that numinous transendent feeling you get when you have that brief connection and feeling of oneness with the animal, the world, and the universe. There is some sort of electricity flowing between you and that individual, be it human or another animal.

One cannot do harm to anyone with that sort of concept of god. To do so would be to kill that awesome oneness with the source of life- the earth (ruach, so to speak). Thus why I can clearly understand Spong’s concept of god. (BTW, my grandfather never carried a gun during these jaunts with me. He always hunted without me and only killed what they needed, but was compassionate to my distaste of it and never preached when I refused to partake in his kill after my grandmother cooked it.)

Something else Spong said in the forward of Freeman’s book “God In Us: A Case for Christian Humanism” that I dearly love and is in my paper concerning C.S. Lewis not truly being an atheist (I made an “A” and it’s on my website currently):

“This God is rather beyond every concept, beyond theism, beyond supernaturalism, beyond the God of the Church and the gods of men and women. I experience this God, I do not explain this God.”

So, you see, even though I do not believe in the theistic God, but rather a non-theistic one, I have kept my spirituality. That special connection with nature that inspires awe and wonder. To kill, IMHO, would be to destroy that numinous transendental connection with “the Holy the Other” as Spong puts it. Such violence would violate this bond, so yes, I do take issue with the cannibalism, barbarism, blood sacrifices, and burnt offerings in the Bible and have great respect for those philosophies that have similar views to what I experience in life.

This is something that Hope Humanists also has respect for too, thus why I fell in with that group of Humanists. They see it as being a part of being human, part of the human experience and of the human.

As for your citations, I still don’t see them as prophisizing anything. Jews connected things to the past all the time, in an effort to make things relate to each other within their teachings. The authors of the Gospels did the same thing in an effort to attract the Jews, but it was not convincing enough to them. Predicting the apocalyps was an inevitable thing, much like being able to predict what will happen if the Shrub does not end this war with Iraq now. It is easy to surmise what will be hell on earth, when you know oppression and violence can only lead to one thing- more violence. History repeats itself under such conditions. Nothing new.

Earth, to me, is heaven and hell. It is the humans who make it either heaven or hell, even in Bambi, which my mother could not read to me without me screaming, “It was the humans who did it!” (killed Bambi’s mommy and caused the fire), the humans created hell on earth. Luckily, Bambi and Fauline survived to experience heaven again, along with Flower and Thumper. So, as much as I don’t like Disney, that story is a great example as to how earth can be heaven or hell. I prefer the Lorax though, which is another great example of humans creating hell on earth… UNLESS… we as humans do something to make it heaven. The Lorax “prophesies” came true- on earth, but again, the Lorax was just stating what should have become obvious much sooner than it did.

I see it the same way with the Bible. Stories that show similar things, but prolifically more graphic and for that time. It has nothing to do with now, except for the fact that history repeats itself and humans can be quite violent. Which is sad.

Of course, this is where “God in Us” plays a part too, with love, reason and compassion, but this is not a theistic God I speak of, but rather our inner drive and desire to make things better, which makes “God in Us” only a label for those who cannot comprehend that it is the human standing on their own two feet striving to make the world better. But I digress.

I don’t see your reply. I see what I posted and then Carr’s post and then this one. Did it get lost in the virtual hole?

Weird, I can see my own post but apparently you can’t. (Is this a problem just for Mriana or can no one see my post?) Let me copy and paste it again and see if it works this time (btw, I originally linked to all the scripture references for you, but I don’t have time to go back and put those all in again. Sorry, you’ll just have to look them up for yourselves. )

I said:

Well, I’m not entirely familiar with that connection, though it wouldn’t surprise me and I don’t see that it rules out the prophetic warning either. Both layers of meaning could be going on at the same time. The gospel writers were all very good at tying in Jesus’ message with Old Testament parallels. The overriding message for all of them seems to be that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Covenant of Israel. He is doing for them what Israel could not do for itself – i.e. truly honor the Covenant. This seems central to Jesus’ self-identity and his understanding of his mission.

But this is directly tied into his apocalyptic warnings about the coming destruction of Jerusalem. The OT Covenant was about Israel being a blessing to the nations (cf. Genesis 12:1-3) to bring God’s reign of justice and peace to the whole earth (cf. Isaiah 58 & 61). When Jesus comes along he declares that he himself will fulfill Israel’s role by establishing a kingdom of peace and justice that will include all of the nations (cf. Luke 4:16-27), but he also warns that if Israel continues to pursue a way that runs contrary to his kingdom of peace and blessing to the Gentiles they will face destruction (again, not as a threat, but simply as a warning of the natural consequence of pursuing the way of violence – “if you live by the sword you die by it”).

Interestingly, Jesus saw this event both as a great tragedy that he hoped to prevent (cf. Luke 19:41-44) and as the vindication of his ultimate message and the sign that would establish his reign of peace. The symbols of the Old Covenant had to pass away before the New Covenant could fully come.

Oh, and just a point of clarification. John, IMO, is probably the only one of the gospels that (IMO of course) was likely written after AD 70. As you pointed out, there is far less of the apocalyptic warnings about destruction in his gospel. That’s because when John wrote the apocalypse had already happened. There was no need to warn about it anymore. Instead he focuses on what comes next – i.e. what does it mean to live in the New Covenant, as a member of the New Israel? How does the New still connect with and fulfill the Old (hence all the Jewish festival parallels I suppose).

Anyhow, that’s just how I’ve come to understand the message of the gospels in light of a 1st century Jewish context.

Oh, BTW, one more tangential thing. You said:

The Jews use an unblemished make lamb as an offering around this time. It’s rather sick IMO

Only if you’re a vegetarian (which maybe you are, I don’t know), otherwise it’s no different than any other time anyone slaughters an animal for food. (They didn’t let the meat go to waste. It was part of the way the priests were supported. They got to eat the offerings. )

If you believe in prophecy. Otherwise the reference is an indication that they couldn’t have been written before 70 CE.

Not necessarily. Predicting that the Romans would violently crush any Jewish revolt doesn’t really take special powers. (Everyone was already pretty familiar with the Roman’s MO.) Jesus warnings can be read as simply a warning of what would likely happen if the Jews continued on their path towards armed rebellion, not as a definite prediction of the future (after all, Jesus admitted that he didn’t really know precisely when the destruction would happen).

Of course, since I do believe in predictive prophecy I think it is both a warning and a foreseeing of the future. Though, IMO, the question of whether or not predictive prophecy is possible is a prior philosophical assumption that shouldn’t enter into discussions about the dating and historicity of the text. It’s sort of a circular argument whichever way you go with it.

Mike C said,

May 25, 2007 at 1:11 am

BTW, my last comment was in response to Mriana. It looks like Carr and I cross posted.

I don’t see your reply. I see what I posted and then Carr’s post and then this one. Did it get lost in the virtual hole?

However, I think there is good evidence internal to the texts themselves (apart from any discussion of manuscripts, etc.) that suggest that most of the gospels (or at least the three synoptics) were likely written before AD 70-73.
…which were proved true by the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple at the hands of the Romans in AD 70.

If you believe in prophecy. Otherwise the reference is an indication that they couldn’t have been written before 70 CE.

But this is directly tied into his apocalyptic warnings about the coming destruction of Jerusalem. The OT Covenant was about Israel being a blessing to the nations (cf. Genesis 12:1-3) to bring God’s reign of justice and peace to the whole earth (cf. Isaiah 58 & 61). When Jesus comes along he declares that he himself will fulfill Israel’s role by establishing a kingdom of peace and justice that will include all of the nations (cf. Luke 4:16-27), but he also warns that if Israel continues to pursue a way that runs contrary to his kingdom of peace and blessing to the Gentiles they will face destruction (again, not as a threat, but simply as a warning of the natural consequence of pursuing the way of violence – “if you live by the sword you die by it”).

Interestingly, Jesus saw this event both as a great tragedy that he hoped to prevent (cf. Luke 19:41-44) and as the vindication of his ultimate message and the sign that would establish his reign of peace. The symbols of the Old Covenant had to pass away before the New Covenant could fully come.

Oh, and just a point of clarification. John, IMO, is probably the only one of the gospels that (IMO of course) was likely written after AD 70. As you pointed out, there is far less of the apocalyptic warnings about destruction in his gospel. That’s because when John wrote the apocalypse had already happened. There was no need to warn about it anymore. Instead he focuses on what comes next – i.e. what does it mean to live in the New Covenant, as a member of the New Israel? How does the New still connect with and fulfill the Old (hence all the Jewish festival parallels I suppose).

Anyhow, that’s just how I’ve come to understand the message of the gospels in light of a 1st century Jewish context.

Oh, BTW, one more tangential thing. You said:

The Jews use an unblemished make lamb as an offering around this time. It’s rather sick IMO

Only if you’re a vegetarian (which maybe you are, I don’t know), otherwise it’s no different than any other time anyone slaughters an animal for food. (They didn’t let the meat go to waste. It was part of the way the priests were supported. They got to eat the offerings. )

CARR
Not all of it. and Matthew has Jesus say this is ‘just the beginnings of the birth pangs’. Matthew also says that at about that time (immediately after), the elect would be gathered from the four winds.

There was no gathering of the ‘elect’.

For Matthew, the destruction of the Temple was just the start of the ‘birth pangs’.

Can Mike think of no reason why Gospel writers should not put such prophecies in the mouth of Jesus?

I wonder why God blessed the violent revolt of the Maccabees (which even made it into scripture in some Bibles)

Wright goes so far as to imply that some people involved in the violent armed revolt of the Maccabees (spelling?) were martyrs.

Of course, Rome was a rather more serious opponent.

This is why the armed Macabbean revolt was spurred on by devotion to God, while the armed revolt against Rome was spurred on by rebellion against God (at least , according to some apologists)

Perhaps God really is on the side of the big battalions!

Paul, of course, betrays no knowledge of any prophecy by Jesus of the impending destructiion of Jerusalem.

Not even in Galatians 4, where Paul talks about the 2 Jerusalems.

Surely if Wright is right about the destruction of Jerualem being a *central* part of the teaching of Jesus, Paul would have hinted at how his Lord and Saviour had spoken on the subject of the present Jerualem, the one that
wa not free and in slavery.

Not even 2 Peter can point to any prophecy by Jesus.

Scoffers were claiming that nothing had changed with the arrival of Jesus, and 2 Peter cannot produce one example of anything which *had* changed.

All he can say is that there will be changes in the distant future.

Surely if 2 Peter was written by a Peter in the 60s Ad , who knew Jesus had predicted calamity for just a few years hence, he would not start talking about ‘a thousand years’.

And if 2 Peter was written after 70 AD by a Christian who knew that Jesus had predicted the fall of Jerusalem, he would have pointed out that things had changed , so the scoffers whole argument was wrong when they said nothing had changed.

2 Peter could only have been written by a Christian who did not link the destruction of Jerusalem with Jesus.