Apologetics Lane: Floyd Fp

Showing posts with label Floyd Fp. Show all posts

Monday, October 18, 2021

Did the New Testament's Prophecies and Predictions Regarding Jesus' Soon Return Fail?

I recently interacted again with an old time debate partner I used to dialogue with in the early 2000s. The last time we regularly chatted on Internet Chat Relay was probably in the early 2010s. Yesterday on Facebook, he briefly posted what he thinks is his strongest argument against Christianity. The following blog will presuppose a knowledge of the basics of partial preterism which I won't bother explaining to casual readers of this blog. For example, the assumption that in addition to Jesus' final return at the end of the world in what is popularly called His "Second Coming", Jesus also "Came" in judgment in a lesser sense in the 1st century in the destruction of Jerusalem through the means of the Romans.

Obviously in his brief summary comment Floyd Fp couldn't explicate all of the reasons why he thinks that this issue is the basis for his strongest argument. So, I invite others to visit his YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC31HOdg-B5X1T7hB_aFGP1A

Floyd Fp wrote on Facebook:
My strongest argument against Christianity is the failed prediction of Jesus and the New Testament writers that Jesus would return in the lifetime of the New Testament writers. I have a formal debate on my YouTube channel where I present this.
Now, just don't handwave it away by invoking "partial preterism". You need to show how each verse that describes Jesus returning "soon" in the lifetime of the NT writers is SPECIFICALLY about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and not about his return.
Here are just a few of verses you must address...
1 John 2:18 “Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. “
1 John 4:3 “and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.”
James 5:8-9 You also be patient. Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not grumble, brethren, against one another, that you may not be judged; behold, the Judge is standing at the doors.
Revelation 1:3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.
Revelation 22:6-7, 10, 20 And he said to me, "These words are trustworthy and true. And the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, has sent his angel to show his servants what must soon take place. And behold, I am coming soon."... And he said to me, "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. ... "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. ... He who testifies to these things says, "Surely I am coming soon." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZMvmhnXZ8A

Here's my response:

I could approach this in various ways, but my time constraints are forcing me to take it in the following direction. I'll sometimes use PP for partial preterist/preterism.

1. First off, it should be recognized by all who know the Bible that predictions of "comings of Yahweh" and of "Day of the LORD/Yahweh" in judgment are common in the OT and were [allegedly] fulfilled multiple times on various Gentile nations at different times and locations. Even using the exact same & similar cosmic figures of speech of stars falling, and other astronomical perturbations, et cetera. For example, the past destruction of Babylon in Isa. 13; or of the capital of Edom, Bozrah in Isa. 34. Whether such OT comings actually happened doesn't matter for our purposes. That they were predicted to happen and that the OT claims that they were fulfilled in the past is all we need right now. Given that literary fact regarding the OT, it should not at all be unexpected [or shouldn't be to anyone who knows the OT] that Jesus would come multiple times if He were Yahweh incarnate [I argue that very thing in many of my articles on my Blog dedicated to the Trinity, TrinityNotes.blogspot.com].

In which case, it shouldn't be strange to think that Jesus could come in judgment on Jerusalem in the 1st century, and then later at the end of history to judge the World. Or that the former is a type or emblematic of the latter, just as the literal destruction of Babylon in Isa. 13 is a type of the destruction of mystical Babylon in Revelation. If Kim Riddlebarger's Amillennial interpretation of Revelation is true, then Revelation should be interpreted in both a partial preterist way, and in a fuller secondary sense. He think's there's some truth to PP, but that it's not the whole picture/story. Because I'm more familiar with Gentry's defense of PP I tend to side with it than with Riddlebarger's Amillennial understanding. But maybe Riddlebarger is more correct. See his mp3s on the topic here:

https://www.monergism.com/legacy/mt/mp3/amillennialism-101-mp3-series-kim-riddlebarger

http://christreformedinfo.squarespace.com/mp3s-and-real-audio-of-academy/

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Kim_Riddlebarger

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/reformed-amillennialism/

2. Another problem I see is you're interpreting the prophecies as an unbeliever as if they were straight mathematically logical prose. Like a puzzle we're ALL supposed to be able to easily solve. When, in fact, they were originally given to believers to give them hope and foster perseverance etc. Not to unbelievers who are looking for proof of the divine origin of the Jewish/Christian God and Scriptures. Though, that's not to say that the destruction of Jerusalem isn't a fulfilled prophecy that to some degree (more or less) attests to the divine source of the Bible. See for example the now public domain 19th century book "The Destruction of Jerusalem: An Absolute and Irresistible Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity" by George Peter Holford

here: https://archive.org/details/destructionofjer00holf

OR here: https://www.bible.ca/pre-destruction70AD-george-holford-1805AD.htm.

3. This issue is a hermeneutical one regarding NT prophecies, propositional & didactic teachings. One of the most common objections to Christianity is that it takes OT passages and prophecies out of context and forces/squeezes them to fit the NT context of Jesus and the early church. I think much of this can be easily explained by the NT use of the Jewish hermeneutics that were in practice even before the time of Christ, and would later be called Pardes/PaRDeS.

See for example: How the New Testament Quotes the Old Testament by Messianic Jew Arnold Fruchtenbaum

http://arielb.org/archives/794

Fruchtenbaum elaborates on this explanation in lecture #4 at 26 minutes and 45 seconds in his [freely available] lecture series:

Jewish Life of the Messiah

https://www.deanbibleministries.org/bible-class-listing/messages/series/the-jewish-life-of-christ

Pardes (Jewish exegesis) [wikipedia article]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)

I bring this up because if skeptical unbelievers can claim that the NT twists OT passages and prophecies in a way that's non-literal, then aren't they being inconsistent in requiring the NT's teachings and prophecies to be fulfilled literally? Whether legitimately literal and/or woodenly literal. It seems convenient that they want the NT to be literal when it would support their rejection of the Bible, even though consistency would imply that the NT teachers and hearers could/would generally understand that teachings and prophecies regarding the return of Jesus could be less than literal, or be veiled, or have multiple meaning and fulfillments GIVEN THAT THAT'S HOW THEY ALLEGEDLY INTERPRET THE OT. If the NT church could sometimes interpret the OT in non-literal ways, why assume it's illegitimate or inconsistent for them to do the same thing when interpreting Jesus' teaching and prophecies and those of the apostles?

4. You are also assuming that the early Christians fully understood Jesus' teaching and prophecies. They didn't even fully understand or know that Jesus would be crucified, or would rise from the dead, or that the Gospel was meant to go the Gentiles, or that He was claiming to be the Messiah and fully God until much later on (!!!). They had to grow in their understanding both before and after Jesus' crucifixion.

Yet, you assume they perfectly understood Jesus' teaching regarding His Coming(s). When Jewish apocalyptic literature and pronouncements are CHARACTERISTICALLY and intentionally cryptic. Whether the prophecies of Daniel, or Isaiah, or even intertestamental and 2nd Temple literature. The descriptions of Jesus in the Gospels clearly have Him mimicking the style and language of OT prophets in their use of figurative and climatic language.

Yet, you [Floyd Fp] hinge your "strongest argument" against Christianity on these portions of the Bible? That's so ridiculous that I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that. We're supposed to believe that unbelievers like yourself, separated from the original context by nearly 2000 years, know better how to interpret cryptic passages which even believers admit, at the very least, didn't exhaustively explain what they meant or how they were to be exactly fulfilled? Paul himself said, "For we know in part and we prophesy in part...For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known" (1 Cor. 13:9, 12). Even if one think's 2 Peter is a forgery, it's an early Christian document which testifies to the fact that Christians understood that the teachings of the Apostles aren't always clear. The writer says:

2 Pet 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,
16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THEM THAT ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND, WHICH THE IGNORANT AND UNSTABLE TWIST TO THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION, AS THEY DO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES.

Christianity doesn't hinge on the early church's infallible and exhaustive understanding of all doctrines, including [a fortiori] all prophecies and their fulfillments. There's room for them to have had some uncertainty. Paul admitting he prophesied in part leads me to the next point.

5. The NT authors were hopeful that the return of Jesus would be in their lifetimes, but they never stated dogmatically that Jesus' final eschatological Coming at the end of (ordinary) World History actually would be in their lifetimes or generation. That the NT authors expressed their hope it would be, is not the same thing as them stating dogmatically by Divine inspiration that it actually would. The Apostles humbly deferred and submitted to the authoritative OT Scriptures more than to their own teachings. Yes, they could pull rank, and could provide inspired Revelation, but only in so far as they were in keeping with the established and prioritized OT Scriptures [e.g. Acts 17:11]. Paul's statement "we prophesy in part" would mean that even HIS OWN prophecies were imperfect in the sense of being incomplete. If that was the case when he believed he was being divinely inspired when speaking a prophetic word, HOW MUCH MORE would he think that was the case when he was writing didactic occasional letters He didn't consciously think were all inspired? [Though, I believe those that made it into the canon actually were without his necessarily knowing it, and that's why they are now included in the canon]

It's not like the Apostles thought (within themselves) and taught (others) that every word they ever verbally spoke, as well as every word of every letter they ever wrote was inspired and infallible Revelation. Some of them may not have even considered their writings would eventually be included into a NT canon, because they hoped [maybe even personally expected as a private fallible opinion] that Jesus would return so soon that a NT canon wouldn't even be necessary.

// You need to show how each verse that describes Jesus returning "soon" in the lifetime of the NT writers is SPECIFICALLY about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE and not about his return.//

I believe that the early Christians believed Jesus would return in some sense in their generation as per His promise/prediction. But it's not clear that they adamantly believed that His final eschatological return would be in their lifetimes. Remember, they knew of many OT comings of Yahweh that were NOT eschatological. So, they would [or at least "ought to"] be prepared if Jesus' coming weren't the final one or the one they were hoping for. The NT authors and believers admitted their limited knowledge [cf. 1 Cor. 13:9, 12; 1 John 3:2; Phil. 3:15-16; 1 Cor. 2:9-10 [and no, v. 10 doesn't contradict my citation of v.9]]. Given that fact, the original readers [as well as us now] ought to understand that the writers sometimes blurred the lines between 1. their expectation/hope and 2. emphatic statements about Christ's final return. But never did they dogmatically state Jesus would bodily return in their lifetime to end ordinary world history. Passages like Luke 19:11 and John 21:21-25 show that early Christians understood that Christ's return wasn't a clear-cut doctrinal teaching. That there were ambiguities about it. Though, you'd probably dismiss them as late ad hoc rationalizations because of the Parousia's delay. But I'll quote Luke 19:11 anyway.

Luke 19:11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they SUPPOSED that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately.

Mark 13:32 "But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Critics often interpret Mark 13:32 as teaching Jesus literally (in some sense) didn't know when His return was. This saying passes the historical criteria of authenticity called the criterion of embarrassment. That's why most scholars think it's a genuine Jesus tradition. Because it would be unlikely that Christians would invent a Jesus saying that was embarrassing to Him. Namely, that He didn't know the day or hour of His return. If that verse is interpreted in that common way, then even Jesus didn't know when He would return. In which case, how can one say that Jesus falsely predicted His return would be in their lifetime? At most one could argue that the prediction that He would return in their lifetime was PUT INTO the mouth of Jesus by the writers of the Gospels. Yet, most skeptics think the Gospels were written after 70 AD, when prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem were added as postdictions [vaticinium ex eventu] rather than predictions. In which case, DID they or DIDN'T they think Jesus' final eschatological return would coincide with the destruction of Jerusalem? Or soon after it? If they were to coincide, why didn't it happen at the same time and why did they include in their Gospels prophecies that would suggest they would coincide, when in fact they didn't coincide? Why did they include failed prophecies in their Gospels? If they expected His return soon after 70 AD, how soon? If it was really soon, there wouldn't have been the need to write their lengthy Gospels anyway since [in their minds] few would have the opportunity to read it or have it read to them before Jesus returned. Or maybe the historical Jesus flip flopped on claiming to know the day and hour. But then why record Jesus giving contradictory statements about His knowing or not knowing the day and hour of His return? If they were unscrupulous, they would have erased evidence of His seemingly contradictory statements. Again, if the prophecies and promises of Jesus about the timing of His coming are as clear and easy to interpret as you [Floyd Fp] and other critics claim then why would the Gospel writers record them after 70 AD [when critics think all of the Gospels were written] when they would have obviously failed [since they are supposedly clear and easy to interpret]? On the other hand, if Jesus' predictions aren't absolutely clear such that the Gospel writers couldn't immediately see that they were possibly failed prophecies, then that leaves room for a later fuller fulfillment as in versions of partial preterism. So, critics seem to have various dilemmas on their hands. Another possibility that makes sense of the data is that Jesus' cryptic predictions intentionally conflated both a near and a distant return. Dual fulfillments and types are found throughout the Bible.

It's likely that rabbis at the time, including Jesus Himself, knew that Antiochus IV Epiphanes already fulfilled the Danielic prophecy of the abomination of desolation. Remember, secular and ATHEIST scholars think that that Danielic prophecy was actually a vaticinium ex eventu [that is, a POSTdiction, not prediction] intended to be recognized as being fulfilled in Antiochus Epiphanes [or "Epimanes" ("The Insane One")] . YET Jesus was willing to use the same passage to refer to a FUTURE secondary fulfillment of the prophecy. If Jesus used dual fulfillment in that passage, why couldn't He have used dual fulfillment [or the Holy Spirit have inspired Jesus to, if you want to say that Jesus' human mind wasn't omniscient] regarding His own Coming [i.e. a near fulfillment and a distant fulfillment]? According to Jewish rabbinic sources, the destruction of both the first and second Jewish temples occurred on the same date, the 9th of Av. If God could orchestrate that in His all controlling providence, then that also aligns with repetitions and recapitulations that would also align with dual fulfillments or multiple fulfillments [i.e. two or more]. The Bible has a lot of this type of doublings and doublets. So much so that atheists point to them as alleged proof of poor redaction of the Biblical books. But from a believing point of view that believes God is a God of providence, then that could be a feature of God's providential planning to repeat history for His various reasons. For example, 1. to reiterate a lesson; 2. to expose how humans don't learn lessons well and/or are prone to repeat the same sins and mistakes; 3. to trip up skeptics and those hostile to God's truth; et cetera. God is not above the use of deception and distraction as part of the judicial hardening of sinners so long as it doesn't involve propositional lying on His part [vide Job 12:16; 2 Thes. 2:11; 1 Ki 22 parallel of 2 Chron. 18; etc.]. See these quote by Blaise Pascal HERE. Parallels actually happen in history. See for example this VERY INTERESTING ONE already cued up in this video by Mike Licona HERE.

BTW, as a Trinitarian I believe Jesus was/is omniscient in His divine nature and divine mind, and I'm open to multiple interpretations of Mark 13:32, but that's another discussion. See my blog:
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2021/05/does-mark-1332-disprove-jesus.html

You then list a number of passages. But you're presupposing they claimed to exactly know the nature of Christ's soon return. I disagree.

Regarding James 5:8-9:

I think James was probably written before 70 AD because it's very Semitic, when the Church wasn't overrun by Gentiles. I don't see how it poses a problem for partial preterism.

Regarding Rev. 1:3; 22:6-7, 10, 20:

For the sake of Simplicity, I'll assume the book was written by John son of Zebedee. The question now is whether Revelation was written before or after 70 AD. See Kenneth Gentry's books in defense of an earlier date. IF the book was written before 70 AD, then I don't see how these passages are problematic for partial preterism. In fact, partial preterists cite them all the time and interpret them literally against futurists. They hammer these passages over and over upon the heads of futurists. See for example the debate book "The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?" between futurist Thomas Ice and preterist Ken Gentry. In that book, Gentry presses those passages over and over again against Ice. However, they would be problematic if Revelation was written after 70 AD. In which case, I'd interpret them in the way Kim Riddlebarger does, in an Idealist and Amillennialist way that thinks there's some truth to partial preterism even if it's not the whole truth.

Here's a video debate between preterist Gary DeMar and futurist Thomas Ice:

The Great Tribulation: Past or Future?
https://youtu.be/jT5OJ1znjmY

Regarding 1 John 2:18; & 1 John 4:3:

Of the verses you gave, these are the closest thing to being [IMO] possibly problematic for PP. Because I suspect First John was written after the fall of Jerusalem. Probably near the end of the 1st century. Therefore, around 25 years afterwards [give or take a few years]. So, some of what I say here would also apply to the book of Revelation if it was written after the fall of Jerusalem. It's not clear (and I doubt) that "the antichrist" mentioned is meant to be the same person as Paul's "man of lawlessness." The many lesser antichrists and the main Antichrist seem to be folks who teach doctrines that contradict the core teaching of the Gospel [e.g. that Christ has come in the flesh]. The writer of 1 John (who may or may not be the son of Zebedee) might have not known or understood that Christ returned in some sense at the destruction of Jerusalem. This wouldn't be problematic even if it were John Zebedee, since it's not uncommon for prophets not to fully understand their own divinely inspired prophecies or the revelations given to them [cf. Dan. 8:15-16, 26; 12:4, 9].

Nothing in these passages in 1 John dogmatically teach Jesus would return in their lifetimes. However, to be fair, they do give the impression that some dramatic occurrence and climatic event would soon happen at the time of the writing of the letter. That's why it does pose some degree of a problem.

One way to get around it is to just say the writer was right in what he said, but mistaken in his meaning in what he said. I'm of the opinion that Scripture is inspired such that the intended meaning of the author doesn't always line up with the sensus plenior [i.e. "fuller meaning/sense"] that God intended for future generations. There can be multiple deeper meanings of Scripture. That's why I reject the historical-grammatical method of interpretation WHEN it is defined in such a way as to exclude other fuller meanings. I think interpretations based on the historical-grammatical method are the primary meanings of Scripture to which all other secondary and tertiary meanings are to be grounded. But I deny that interpretations based *Only* on the historical-grammatical method are the only ones which are legitimate. The NT authors themselves didn't limit themselves to what we would call later call the historical-grammatical method in their interpretation of the OT.

Given those qualifications, I think an idealist interpretation similar to Amillennialists' interpretation can resolve the problem. The writer knows, based on previous prophecies, that Jesus' return was imminent, he just didn't know that the initial phase already happened. So, the Holy Spirit used his mistaken notions to inspire a passage of Scripture (that isn't technically wrong by its exact literal wording) to keep future generation always vigilant regarding either Jesus' return or their inevitable death [whichever takes place first] in whichever generation they might live in prior to Christ's eschatological return.

Though it's doubtful in my opinion, another possibility is that 1 John was written before 70 AD. That would dissipate the problem. A minority of scholars think every (or virtually all) NT book was written prior to 70 AD. For example, John A.T. Robinson. See his book "Redating the New Testament" HERE. While logically possible, it's too facile an answer that it would be a sign of desperation to appeal to it having been written before 70 AD as a first option.

I'm no expert on partial preterism, but with my limited knowledge, I don't see any of the above passages you listed as seriously problematic for PP. By just citing or quoting them, the problem or discrepancy/contradiction hasn't been made explicit to me. I would need some kind of argument. So, I don't see any direct discrepancy between PP and the above passages. Maybe you're not fully aware what PP teaches that you think they would be problematic. Though, for all I know, you know more about PP than I do.

It seems to me that before you can say that your "strongest argument against Christianity" succeeds, you need to:
1. refute Amillennial interpretations like that found among folks like Kim Riddlebarger;
2. refute full preterism,
3. refute partial preterism in its normative forms as found in folks like Ken Gentry and Gary DeMar;
4. refute aspects of non-normative preterists views like Ernest Hampden-Cook who believed Jesus returned in a kind of secret 2nd Advent yet also believed in a future judgment of Christ and so isn't a full preterist. EHC argues for a kind of secret rapture for a select worthy group based on Jesus' statement that He would come "like a thief" (Rev. 16:15; cf. Matt. 24:43; Luke 12:39; 1 Thes. 5:2-4; 2 Pet. 3:10].
5. numbers 2-4 coupled with Postmillennialism

There are more options that you'd also have to refute [e.g. Dispensational Premillennial options; Historic Premillennial options, etc.]. But the ones I've listed and numbered above are the ones I think most plausible. Until you've refuted all those options I've listed and their various permutations, I can't see how your "strongest argument against Christianity" even gets off the ground. Your argument seems to me to be a case of trying to build a house of cards using paper thin colorful coupons rather than numbered stiff playing cards. You're premises aren't strong enough to support your case because you treat the relevant Biblical statements like mathematical formulas when they are actually closer to poetry.

Finally, while I believe in Biblical inerrancy, the truth of Christianity doesn't hinge on the truth of inerrancy. In which case, there can be inaccurate or imprecise [or even erroneous] statements and prophecies in the Bible and yet Christianity could still be true. Nor does the truth of Christianity hinge on knowing/having the correct OT and/or NT canon. Maybe some books that are in the canon shouldn't be among those included. Including books that might appear to have false prophecies. Even famous atheist skeptic John Loftus who has written many books arguing for the falsity of Christianity admits [on multiple occasions] that Christianity could still be true despite all he [thinks he] knows in various fields. And despite all his degrees. Including his knowledge of the alleged errors in the Bible. Though, he thinks that that possibility of Christianity being true is very, very, very unlikely.

My general responses above will apply to any further passages that Floyd Fp would bring up, so I'm not sure there would be any point in my continuing to address any more problematic passages. I'm no expert in partial preterism, so I've pretty much shot my best shot. My defense for other passages isn't going to be very different. Either people [including Floyd Pf] accepts my resolutions or not. Even if they don't work, it shouldn't automatically weaken the faith of other Christians because other better apologists will have better and different responses. I'm just an amateur apologist. My comments above are my preferred [though not only] responses based on my limited understanding of the Bible and scholarship.