Reflectorites
I have had to split this post into two posts because of its size. I will answer
all Paul's (and anyone else's) posts in sequential order, so I will not respond
to subsequent replies until I deal with his original posts.
Due to the format of Paul's posts, I had difficulty working out which of his
points were new ones, so apologies if I answer the same point twice.
Also, I would like to explain that when I use the word "Jews" I do not
mean anything anti-Semitic by it. By it I mean those of a Jewish religion
rather than those of a Jewish race. I have nothing against Jews as a people
and in fact I am supportive (although not uncritically) of the State of Israel.
I deplore the persecution of the Jews by the Christian church in the past
and by the Nazis and Communists.
I apologise for the delay, which, because of a number of reasons at my end,
is unavoidable.
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000 05:59:24 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
>SJ>That is almost self-evidently true! If one was a non-Christian and then came
>to believe that: 1) the Old Testament predicted 700 years before that
>someone would be born in Bethlehem "who will be ruler over Israel, whose
>origins are from of old, from ancient times" and 2) that Jesus was in fact
>born in Bethlehem, who claimed to be the King of the Jews and that he
>was God, then one would almost certainly become a Christian!
>PR>This is self evidently not the point. Your original claim is that these
>prophecies are obviously true to non-Christians and that people are deliberately
>ignoring them.
Where did I claim that "these prophecies are obviously true to non-
Christians"? I actually said that "Such prophecy is, of course, not absolute
proof, and those who deny outright the very possibility of the supernatural
no doubt have some ingenious ways of getting around it...":
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 06:43:13 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:
[...]
>Although this has generally been off-topic, since Chris has raised it, I will
>post some of the clearest evidence of the existence of the supernatural in
>the Bible involving predictive prophecy. Such prophecy is, of course, not
>absolute proof, and those who deny outright the very possibility of the
>supernatural no doubt have some ingenious ways of getting around it
>(apart from outright `head-in-the-sand' denial). [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR>Your post was a claim that these are clear fulfilled prophecies. They
>are nothing of the sort.
My claim indeed is that "these" (i.e. Micah 5:2 and to a lesser extent,
Daniel 9:25-27 "are clear fulfilled prophecies" to an unbiased truth-seeker,
and that those who deny them do so because of a prior philosophical
commitment to naturalism and anti-theism.
But I do not claim that all prophecy in general (and Messianic prophecy in
particular) is as clear. There are several good reasons for this, one being
that prophecy is primarily intended for the people of God.
>SJ>But historically it is untrue. the Apostle Matthew who wrote this
>PR>You see, this isn't "historically true" either, as you really should know.
>The authors of the gospels aren't "known" and we certainly don't know it is the
>"Apostle Matthew".
It is true that none of the four gospel writers appended their name to the
gospels that bear their name. But there is good evidence that the gospels
were written by the authors whose names they bear. If all four gospels
were named after apostles, it could be argued that this was an attempt to
give them credibility. But two out of the four gospels (Mark and Luke) are
not named after an apostle. It the case the first gospel no other author has
ever been suggested except that of Matthew:
"Patristic tradition is unanimous that the author was Matthew and
no other 'Matthew' is suggested than the disciple of that name
whose call is described in 9:9." (France R.T., "Matthew: An
Introduction and Commentary," 1985, p.30).
>SJ>was a Jew to his fellow Jews and he was reflecting their common Jewish
>expectation at the time that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
>
>PR>>And this isn't true either.
What's the "either" relate to? Paul seems to have converted a "we ... don't
know" into a "it isn't true"!
But again, the evidence is that it was. It was prophesied in the Old
Testament (Micah 5:2) for starters, and it appears there is reference to this
in Jewish writings, as the Jewish Christian Edersheim states:
"To Bethlehem as the birthplace of Messiah, not only Old
Testament prediction (Micah v.2), but the testimony of Rabbinic
teaching, unhesitatingly pointed." (Edersheim A., "The Life and
Times of Jesus the Messiah," 1886, p.181).
>PR>Only Christians think Isiah predicts a Virgin
>>Birth. It is very simple to do.
>SJ>Same as above. Of *course* only Christians think Isaiah predicts a Virgin
>Birth. If one believed it, one would almost certainly become a Christian,
>if one wasn't already.
Actually I might be wrong on this. According to Zacharias, Moslems also
accept the Virgin Birth of Christ:
"But even beyond the Hebrew disposition and the family's claim,
possibly the most astounding affirmation of the virgin birth comes
from one religion that for centuries has attempted to stand against
the Christian gospel, Islam. Even the Koran, written six hundred
years after Jesus, affirmed His virgin birth (see Surah 19.19-21).."
(Zacharias R.K., "Jesus Among Other Gods, 2000, p.39)
SJ>But Matthew was a Jew writing to Jews and he knew what Isaiah
>7:14 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will
>call him Immanuel" meant to Jews. The Heb. word "virgin" here is the Heb.
>'almah which, according to my Parsons online Hebrew-English dictionary
>means "a lass ... damsel, maid, virgin." The Greek translation of the Old
>Testament, the Septuagint, ~ 200 BC, translated it Gk parthenos, which
>means "a maiden; by impl. an unmarried daughter:--virgin". This is the same
>Gk word Matthew uses in Mt 1:23 "The virgin will be with child and will
>give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God
>with us."
>PR>This isn't true either. Almah does *not* imply virginity though it doesn't
>discount it. The word bethulah (sic) means virgin.
>
>Almah means "young woman" (who may or may not be a virgin). The
>only reason the Gospel author used it was because it is mistranslated
>as virgin (parthenos) in the Septuagint,
It is Paul's unsubstantiated *claim* that the third century BC Greek-
speaking Jewish scholars who translated the Old Testament into Greek did
not know the meaning of the Hebrew word 'almah and "mistranslated" it!
And moreover that first century Greek-speaking Jewish Christians like
Matthew continued the mistranslation!
I think it is far more likely that radical liberal critics and unbelievers have
been lead astray by their anti-supernaturalistic bias.
PR>aand he thought it would
>make a good prophecy, so he wrote it in.
He didn't just think it-it *is* "a good prophecy"!
>PR>>You have an old book, and someone you think is a Messiah. So when
>>you write his life story, you go through the "old book" looking for
>>paragraphs which can be made to look like "prophecies".
>SJ>Of course one can always say this, even if it is false (i.e. if Jesus really
>was predicted and fulfilled those predictions). The fact is there are *hundreds*
>pf prophecies that Jesus fulfilled, some of them quite specific, like Mic
>5:2.
>PR>No there aren't. Even the dopiest apologists think there are only about 50
>or so.
The numbers I have seen range from 191 to 333. But I would be happy to
start with "50 or so"!
PR>And most of them are equally tortured out of the OT,
It is Paul's *assumption* that those prophecies that contain indirect
allusions to the Messiah are "tortured out of the OT". But the fact is that
the earliest Christians were Jews and this was the way they understood the
Messiah was prophesied in the OT.
PR>And most of them are equally tortured out of the OT, or just fulfilled
>in absurd ways (like 2 donkeys) in the Gospels.
It is Paul who thinks this is "absurd". Clearly the 1st century gospel writers
and their readers didn't think it was.
>PR>Of course, you don't always get it right, so people who write later
>>versions will amend your work to add corrections and push their own
>>theological viewpoint.
>SJ>I am not sure what Paul means here.
>
>PR>>Really ? Really ? This is what "Matthew" did Steve.
Another assertion without any evidence.
>PR>The "Bethlehem" is a classic example of this. Bethlehem is bunged
>in *because* of this reference
>SJ>No. If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, the early Christians' Jewish
>opponents would have known this and would pointed it out.
>PR>This isn't true. Firstly, no-one gave a *stuff* about Christianity
>until at least (let's say 100 AD but that's generous) except as some
>unimportant minority sec.
This is certainly not true of the Jews, and it is not even true of the Romans.
As I point out in another post, even by AD64 Christianity had made such
an impact in Rome that Nero blamed its burning on Christians:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,109559+2+106456,00.html
[...]
The mention of Jesus' execution in the Annals of the Roman historian
Tacitus (XV, 44), written about AD 110, is, nevertheless, worthy of note.
In his account of the persecution of Christians under the emperor Nero,
which was occasioned by the burning of Rome (AD 64), the Emperor, in
order to rid himself of suspicion, blamed the fire on the so-called Christian
but false in respect of the Jews. The New Testament records that many
Jews were won over to Christianity and the Jews retaliated by persecuting
the early Christians.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR>Just like Christians don't refute every wierdo cult claim, Jews didn't
>argue with Christians because they weren't worth it.
This is on the face of it implausible.
But the New Testament makes it plain that the Jews did argue with the
Christians, and in fact persecute them.
Paul will probably dismiss out of hand the NT as evidence. But I would be
interested in any evidence he has for his claim above.
PR>That's why there
>is virtually no anti-Christian arguments at all, or anything, from around
>that time.
Note that Paul says "virtually"! The fact is that there *are* "anti-Christian
arguments". The NT itself is a reliable source of some of these and there
are others:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/9/0,5716,109559+2+106456,00.html
[...]
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
Jesus Christ
Non-Christian sources
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents
of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed
for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during
the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.
[...]
Josephus, the Jewish historian at the court of Domitian who has depicted
the history of his people and the events of the Jewish-Roman war (66-70),
only incidentally remarks about the stoning in AD 62 of "James, the brother
of Jesus, who was called Christ . . ." (Antiquities XX, 200). He
understandably uses the proper name "Jesus" first (for as a Jew he knows
that "Christ" is a translation of "Messiah"), but he adds, though qualified by
a derogatory "so-called," the second name that was familiar in Rome.
(Some scholars have suggested, however, that this reference was a later
Christian insertion.) Scholars also have questioned the authenticity of a
second passage in the same work, known as the "Testimony of Flavius"
(XVIII, 63ff.), which is generally thought to contain at least some
statements, apparently later insertions, that summarize Christian teaching
about Jesus.
In the Talmud, a compendium of Jewish law, lore, and commentary, only a
few statements of the rabbis (Jewish religious teachers) of the 1st and 2nd
centuries come into consideration. Containing mostly polemics or Jewish
apologetics, they reveal an acquaintance with the Christian tradition but
include several divergent legendary motifs as well. The picture of Jesus
offered in these writings may be summarized as follows: born the
(according to some interpretations, illegitimate) son of a man called
Panther, Jesus (Hebrew: Yeshu) worked magic, ridiculed the wise, seduced
and stirred up the people, gathered five disciples about him, and was
hanged (crucified) on the eve of the Passover. The Toledot Yeshu ("Life of
Jesus"), an embellished collection of such assertions, circulated among
Jews during the Middle Ages in several versions.
These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents
of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed
for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during
the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.
[...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR>[Many of the later anti arguments were destroyed by
>Christians, of course, remnants only appearing in Christian books.]
Paul has produced no evidence of this either.
PR>Tell me, Steve, how precisely would Jews be able to find out in 70AD
>where Jesus was or wasn't born, or even for that matter if he existed ?
>or even 33 AD
First, from eyewitnesses or from those who knew eyewitnesses.
Second, from genealogical and other records. There were 40 crucial years
between AD30 and AD70 when Jerusalem and the Temple (with all its
records) was destroyed by the Romans. In those 40 years Christians were
claiming that Jesus was the Messiah. If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem
(for example), the Jewish religious leaders could have easily produced
witnesses, genealogical or other evidence to that effect.
>SJ>Christianity would never have got off the ground in that case. Remember that
>Christianity got started in the very heart of Judaism. To imagine how hard
>this was, think of a new religion starting today in Mecca, Saudi Arabia,
>the heart of Islam to get the idea of how evidentially rock-solid
>Christianity had to be to even get started.
>PR>New cults start all the time.
Christianity is not a cult. It is the world's largest religion:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/4/0,5716,108294+1+105945,00.html
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
Christianity
major religion, stemming from the life, teachings, and death of Jesus of
Nazareth (the Christ, or the Anointed One of God) in the 1st century AD.
It has become the largest of the world's religions. Geographically the most
widely diffused of all faiths, it has a constituency of some 2 billion
believers. Its largest groups are the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern
Orthodox churches, and the Protestant churches; in addition to these
churches there are several independent churches of Eastern Christianity as
well as numerous sects throughout the world. See also Eastern Orthodoxy;
Roman Catholicism; and Protestantism.
[...]
(c) 1999-2000 Britannica.com Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR>I suggest you read something of the history of
>Scientology. "Bare Faced Messiah" is a very good book if you want to know
>how gullible the believers can be.
It is *irrelevant* how gullible believers in Scientology are, and in fact how
gullible some believers in Christianity are. The fact is that Christianity is
based on *evidence* that has stood the test of time against centuries of
sceptical attack.
Indeed, it is the so-called sceptics who are the really gullible ones because
they just follow each other uncritically making the same unsubstantiated
claims.
Note that Paul ignores my main point about the fact that "Christianity got
started in the very heart of Judaism". And unlike other religions Christianity
made highly specific real-world claims that could easily be checked and if
wrong would be *fatal*.
The Apostle Paul, in his defence before Herod Agrippa in Acts 26:19-26,
pointed out that all this "was not done in a corner", i.e. was shared public
knowledge:
"So then, King Agrippa, I was not disobedient to the vision from
heaven. First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and
in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should
repent and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds.
That is why the Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill
me. But I have had God's help to this very day, and so I stand here
and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond
what the prophets and Moses said would happen-that the Christ
would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would proclaim
light to his own people and to the Gentiles." At this point Festus
interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he
shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane." "I am not
insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is
true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can
speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped
his notice, because it was not done in a corner."
>PR>That's why the two nativity stories send
>>everyone off in different directions "Out of Egypt...." "He shall be called
>>a Nazarene...." etc etc.
>SJ>There are not "two nativity stories". There is one complex history. Again,
>if the facts were false, the Jewish theologians would have made mincemeat of
>Matthew's claims. They didn't, so they weren't.
>PR>>Yes there are two nativity stories. And they aren't a "complex history". They
>are a mess that apologists have wired together to make one composite.
More unsubstantiated assertions. Note that Paul ignores my point about
"the Jewish theologians would have made mincemeat of Matthew's claims".
[continued]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from
Design with a grim determination that their churches shall not again be
made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed
first Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on
science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has demonstrated that
Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has
demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers
believe to be created by God, does look, greatly though this may dismay
them, very much as if created by God." (Leslie J., "Universes", [1989],
Routledge: London, 1996, reprint, p.22)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 22 2000 - 17:56:02 EST