Originally posted by Jorge BorgesHave you studied the prophecies in the OT concerning Christ?
I don't mean to be impolite, but this does not seem like much of an argument. Your argument basically boils down to: some people don't believe the evidence, therefore the evidence is negligible. Have you studied the prophecies in the OT concerning Christ?
[b]Even in a universe without God, a tree would still be a tree. If you think it could be ot ...[text shortened]... or false. Thus the statement "A statement is either true or false" is either true or false.
Have you read about the different interpretations of the prophecies in the OT concerning the messiah (not necessarily "Christ"😉?
Have you ever read hebrew? Are you aware of how annoyingly hard it is to read? - especially ancient hebrew.
The passage you specifically mentioned about the "piercings" can be interpreted in a few ways. Jewish scholars interpret it differently than christian scholars, that's why they don't believe he was the messiah.
Christ also didn't fulfil all the prophecies.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnPerhaps you may know more about the OT prophecies than I do. I'm familiar with some Hebrew, but admittedly I have much to learn.
Have you studied the prophecies in the OT concerning Christ?
Have you read about the different interpretations of the prophecies in the OT concerning the messiah (not necessarily "Christ"😉?
Have you ever read hebrew? Are you aware of how annoyingly hard it is to read? - especially ancient hebrew.
The passage you specifically mentioned abo ...[text shortened]... y they don't believe he was the messiah.
Christ also didn't fulfil all the prophecies.
What are the alternate interpretations for the OT prophecies concerning Christ? Are they convincing? Are you aware of the prophecy concerning Israel, that Israel will be blind to Jesus as Messiah "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25) ? Can you back up your claim that Christ didn't fulfill all the prophecies? Here are a few more to consider:
* Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
* A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
* Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
* Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
* Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
* Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
* Herod´s killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
* Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
* Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
* Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
* Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
* Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16) Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
* Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
* Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
* Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
* Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
1. rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
2. betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
3. sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
4. silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
5. being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
6. beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
7. spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
8. piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
9. being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
10. praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
11. piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
12. given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
13. no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
14. buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
15. casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
* Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
* Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
* Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesWhat are the alternate interpretations for the OT prophecies concerning Christ? Are they convincing?
Perhaps you may know more about the OT prophecies than I do. I'm familiar with some Hebrew, but admittedly I have much to learn.
What are the alternate interpretations for the OT prophecies concerning Christ? Are they convincing? Are you aware of the prophecy concerning Israel, that Israel will be blind to Jesus as Messiah "until the fullness of t ...[text shortened]... Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
* Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)
I'm sure you wouldn't find them convincing. They'd contradict the christian version.
My point is that Hebrew is a very contextual language when written. There are NO vowels written in the hebrew and one word can have multiple meanings. Jews interpret the whole "hands pierced" thing to be something very different.
From what I remember the prophecy from the OT is that the messiah will rebuild the temple and return the jews to israel - two things that Jesus never did.
Are you aware of the prophecy concerning Israel, that Israel will be blind to Jesus as Messiah "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25) ?
What's your point? I don't really see any prophecies as being somehow truthful or legitimate as evidence of anything. I would give them the same credence as I would Nostradamus' prophecies - and I don't give his much.
A lot of the prophecies you mention appear to be from the new testament. That reaks of circular reasoning. The new testament pretty much was dedicated to Jesus, so why would it publish prophecies that contradict his divinity?
I would also like evidence that he was born of a virgin mother (i.e. that she was a virgin after she got pregnant). I mean ACTUAL evidence outside of the bible.
Originally posted by SwissGambitNo, the argument is that the evidence can be interpreted in different ways. The Jews certainly don't disbelieve the "evidence" - the prophecies of the Messiah. They just don't think that it was Jesus. They're still waiting for Messiah to come.
[b]I don't mean to be impolite, but this does not seem like much of an argument. Your argument basically boils down to: some people don't believe the evidence, therefore the evidence is negligible. Have you studied the prophecies in the OT concerning Christ?
No, the argument is that the evidence can be interpreted in different ways. The Jews cer ...[text shortened]... eally say that we are dealing with the same time from one reality to the other?][/b]
Are you aware of the prophecy concerning Israel, that Israel will be blind to Jesus as Messiah "until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25) ?
The point I was trying to make is that I do not see why God is required to give us laws of logic, or how he could have even 'created' laws of logic. I have trouble imagining a universe in which a tree can also be a not-tree at the same time.
That which exists has attributes and a nature. For example, a dog has fur, bright eyes, a wagging tail, a carnivorous appetite, a playful and aggressive nature, etc. A dog cannot be both itself and not itself at the same time, i.e., it would not be true to state that a dog is not a dog. This is a logical absolute.
Also, a dog could not have brought itself into existence. That is, in order for something to bring itself into existence it must have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it already has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions, therefore something cannot bring itself into existence. This is a logical absolute.
Further, truth is not self-contradictory. It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is either true or false that you are reading this. This is a logical absolute.
These logical absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false depending on preference, or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.
Logical absolutes aren't dependent on time or space; they are true at any location in space and any period of time, past, present or future. Further, they are not dependent on people; that is, logical absolutes are not a product of human thinking.
Logical absolutes are not dependent on the material world; they cannot be found in atoms, under rocks, cannot be photographed, weighed, measured, etc.
Even if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true, i.e. if the universe did not exist, it would still be true that something cannot bring itself into existence, that anything that did exist would have an identity, and that whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time.
Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, i.e. logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, logical absolutes are conceptual by nature. If they are conceptual by nature, then they aren't dependent on the material universe for their existence.
A. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
B. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
C. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
D. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind, God.
______________________________
Objections?
Originally posted by PsychoPawnWell, that is the point: did Christian writers (e.g., the author of the Gospel of Matthew) mine the Hebrew scriptures to find “prophecies” they could use? From the perspective of Jewish midrash, that would not have been considered “out of line”, and Jewish readers, at least, would likely have been aware of what was going on. (Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner considered the author of Matthew to be an accomplished and creative midrashist, who could mine his knowledge of Hebrew scriptures to create a “midrash of prophecy”.)
What are the alternate interpretations for the OT prophecies concerning Christ? Are they convincing?
I'm sure you wouldn't find them convincing. They'd contradict the christian version.
My point is that Hebrew is a very contextual language when written. There are NO vowels written in the hebrew and one word can have multiple meanings. Jews i ...[text shortened]... he was a virgin after she got pregnant). I mean ACTUAL evidence outside of the bible.
On the point of the virgin birth, I will merely note that the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 (almah) means no more than a young woman, and has nothing to do with biological virginity.
The Jewish view of “messiah” is neither univocal, nor restricted to specific criteria. Most Jews, however, would likely argue that being any kind of divine (or divine-human) being is not, at the very least, a prominent idea among the varied messianisms (outside the one that developed into Christianity, that is). Saul was a moshiach, David was a moshiach, Isaiah even called King Cyrus moshiach (Isaiah 45:1). Messianism, of whatever kind, has simply not been as central to Judaism as Christian apologetics sometimes seems to presume; at various times in Jewish history, there have different views that have carried different weight. No particular understanding of messiah is doctrinally central to Judaism.
Small side note: Although Matthew quotes Isaiah’s statement (again, from 7:14) that “he shall be named Immanuel,” in fact, he (the Christian messiah) was not named Immanuel: he was named Jesus (Yeshua or Yeshu). There is no other reference to that name in the NT (outside of the direct quote at Matt. 1:23) at all. As one wag on here once put it, maybe the Jews are waiting for the guy with the right name...
Now, none of this argues that Christians might not be right; it merely points out—or, rather, affirms you’re pointing out—that some notion of “clear proof from prophecy” just doesn’t get off the ground. And, in the end, it has to assume that the Jews either do/did not know their own scriptures (a ludicrous assumption), or that they are simply perverse ( which has been amply shown to be a dangerous assumption—at least for Jews). Otherwise, one has to admit that the prophecies are, at the very least, arguable; and that Jewish arguments are not inconsistent, even if one disagrees with them.
However, if one doesn’t have any understanding of midrash (and the rest of the “Oral Torah” ), one will not really have any understanding of how Jews read their scriptures—and have since before the time of Christ.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI'm sure you wouldn't find them convincing. They'd contradict the christian version.
What are the alternate interpretations for the OT prophecies concerning Christ? Are they convincing?
I'm sure you wouldn't find them convincing. They'd contradict the christian version.
My point is that Hebrew is a very contextual language when written. There are NO vowels written in the hebrew and one word can have multiple meanings. Jews i ...[text shortened]... he was a virgin after she got pregnant). I mean ACTUAL evidence outside of the bible.
You don't know that I wouldn't find them convincing, and neither do I since I haven't heard them before.
My point is that Hebrew is a very contextual language when written. There are NO vowels written in the hebrew and one word can have multiple meanings. Jews interpret the whole "hands pierced" thing to be something very different.
Fair enough.
From what I remember the prophecy from the OT is that the messiah will rebuild the temple and return the jews to israel - two things that Jesus never did.
I think it is true to say that there are certain as yet unfulfilled prophecies concerning Christ. Do these discount the prophecies which he has fulfilled? I would argue, no. But, like I said, you are free to do what you will with the evidence.
What's your point? I don't really see any prophecies as being somehow truthful or legitimate as evidence of anything. I would give them the same credence as I would Nostradamus' prophecies - and I don't give his much.
Sorry, I meant this as a response to the other gentleman, SwissGambit. All the same, I think it is relevant to the argument that these prophecies are somehow negligible simply because the Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah. I'm not presently concerned about what Jewish rabbis think, I'm curious what you think.
A lot of the prophecies you mention appear to be from the new testament. That reaks of circular reasoning.
If you look closer you will notice that the portions in the NT are there for comparative purposes.
I would also like evidence that he was born of a virgin mother (i.e. that she was a virgin after she got pregnant). I mean ACTUAL evidence outside of the bible.
Have you ever heard of parthenogenesis? That is, the spontaneous fertilization of an egg without a sperm? It is not unheard of in nature. The only problem is, it is impossible for parthenogenesis to produce males. Other than that, the scriptural evidence is the best I can offer. Is that insufficient? And if so, may I ask why?
3 edits
Originally posted by Jorge Borges~(A & ~A) is a logical truth. I recognize it as such. Does that mean that I have a perfect mind?
[b]No, the argument is that the evidence can be interpreted in different ways. The Jews certainly don't disbelieve the "evidence" - the prophecies of the Messiah. They just don't think that it was Jesus. They're still waiting for Messiah to come.
Are you aware of the prophecy concerning Israel, that Israel will be blind to Jesus as Messiah "until , perfect, and independent mind, God.
______________________________
Objections?[/b]
If there were a clear and indefeasible logical proof of a supernatural being (“God” ), then all logicians would have accepted it a long time ago.
What do you mean by the word “transcendent”? I have never argued that the “grammar of our consciousness” is exhaustive of the “syntax of the cosmos”, so I am quite willing to admit a “domain of mystery” that transcends our cognitive capabilities.* Once that is said, then anything that I—or anyone else—has to say further about such mystery is either inductively inferential or purely speculative, or speculation from inductive inference. Or, there is simply metaphorical, symbolical, mythological, allegorical, or other poetic language aimed at eliciting a non-conceptual experience of the ineffable mystery—none of which should be taken as propositional or really descriptive.
The mystery is ineffable because it is pre- and non-conceptual. It can only be “touched”, as it were, in the state of being aware with a clear-mind that is not making any concepts, thoughts-about, words, etc. All conceptualization that comes after is back in the domain of—and limited by—the “grammar of our consciousness”. Hence, one has already retreated from the domain of the mystery.
__________________________________________
* The domain of mystery may grow smaller as human knowledge of the cosmos expands (e.g., science), but I personally do not assume that we are the singular species capable of eventually understanding everything; hence, I suspect that we will always be confronted by existential mystery. But I also do not leap from that to a “supernatural (extra-natural) category” for the sake of finding explanations that are not otherwise forthcoming; if one does so, I think they need to justify that leap on the basis of something other than just being able to generate explanations willy-nilly (which I am not at all charging you with).
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesAnd for nothing more advanced that a reptile.
Have you ever heard of parthenogenesis? That is, the spontaneous fertilization of an egg without a sperm? It is not unheard of in nature. The only problem is, it is impossible for parthenogenesis to produce males. Other than that, the scriptural evidence is the best I can offer. Is that insufficient? And if so, may I ask why?
And anyway, the whole virgin birth thing has been thoroughly discredited. It is a mistranslation of "young woman".
Originally posted by vistesdI need to give your post more thought, vistesd. Thanks.
~(A & ~A) is a logical truth. I recognize it as such. Does that mean that I have a perfect mind?
If there were a clear and indefeasible logical proof of a supernatural being (“God” ), then all logicians would have accepted it a long time ago.
What do you mean by the word “transcendent”? I have never argued that the “grammar of our consciousness” is ...[text shortened]... just being able to generate explanations willy-nilly (which I am not at all charging you with).
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd for nothing more advanced that a reptile.
And for nothing more advanced that a reptile.
And anyway, the whole virgin birth thing has been thoroughly discredited. It is a mistranslation of "young woman".
Good point.
And anyway, the whole virgin birth thing has been thoroughly discredited. It is a mistranslation of "young woman".
I would beg to differ. Notice the context:
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly" (Matthew 1:18-19).
Also:
"Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:34-35).
Are you still sure that the virgin birth has been discredited, at least doctrinally?
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesAnd the authors of the gospels go to great pains to make up a story which fits all those prophesies. Much of the story has been discredited as being inconsistent with other historical sources.
* Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
* A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
* Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
* Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
How do you explain the contradictions between:
1. A virgin birth.
2. Decendancy from anyone - Note that the gospels list Josephs ancestors.
3. The contradictions between the different family trees listed in the different Gospels.
Originally posted by webbinatorI have never in my life seen something that is so badly researched! "1400 years ago, peoples understanding of astronomy was primitive...", umm, not it was not!!! Civilisations as far back as 5000 years ago had incredible knowledge of astronomy! The Egyptians, Mayans, to name but a few.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=282105001717383226
The big bang was told of in the Koran, simply because it says God created the Universe? This isn't even an argument! The bible says God created the Universe and that was written a while before, neither says ANYTHING about a bang but following this idiots reasoning, if God appears in the sentence it's a valid argument!
Absolute rubbish! This guy could most probably explain the creation of the Universe using old Cereal box's if you asked him. That'd be an hour and a half long too i'm sure...
Originally posted by Jorge BorgesMy main objection is to this point. The existence of absolute logical rules does not necessarily indicate the presence of a perfect mind. Perhaps this is simply how a physical universe like ours must be.
C. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
If absolute logical rules can be created, that implies that there could have been a time before their creation in which they did not apply. So, before God created the rules of logic, could he have been God and not-God at the same time?! Of course not. Absurd, right?
Originally posted by vistesdI hope I am reading you correctly, because what you refer to by, "grammar of our consciousness," or, "syntax of the cosmos," I admit, eludes me. Are you saying, basically, that so-called absolute logical truths aren't really absolute?
~(A & ~A) is a logical truth. I recognize it as such. Does that mean that I have a perfect mind?
If there were a clear and indefeasible logical proof of a supernatural being (“God” ), then all logicians would have accepted it a long time ago.
What do you mean by the word “transcendent”? I have never argued that the “grammar of our consciousness” is ...[text shortened]... just being able to generate explanations willy-nilly (which I am not at all charging you with).
~(A & ~A) is a logical truth. I recognize it as such. Does that mean that I have a perfect mind?
No. But the recognition of ~(A & ~A) as truth is evidence that logical absolutes are conceptual by nature. The law of identity itself remains independent of the subjective mind. If it were not, if logical truths such as ~(A & ~A) were simply conventions, then the laws of logic could not be absolute. And if we were to start with the premise that the laws of logic are not absolute, then logic cannot be used to prove or disprove anything.
If there were a clear and indefeasible logical proof of a supernatural being (“God” ), then all logicians would have accepted it a long time ago.
I'm presenting logical absolutes not as proof but evidence that God exists. A non-theistic world-view cannot account for the absolute laws of logic, and therefore must either deny the absoluteness of the laws of logic (which is self-defeating) or borrow from the theistic world-view (i.e. the assertion that logical absolutes arise from a transcendent Source) in order to rationally argue.