Originally posted by @dj2beckerAs Hume said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
If God (as depicted in the Bible, for arguments sake) were to exist, what evidence do you think would be sufficient to to warrant belief in His existence?
Given the way science works, it would have to be some phenomenon we can examine and test here and now and repeatedly, not a ragtag collection of hearsay and anecdotes from 2,000 years ago written by people of unknown credibility, in a dead language, transcribed and redacted umpteen times, and translated 1300 years later. It would have to be some repeatable phenomenon which defied any natural scientific explanation. Like, for example, Jesus returning in the flesh in different places on Earth, preaching some recognizably similar doctrine, getting himself killed, his body being interred and disappearing, re-appearing in the next three days, over and over again in every generation, the evidence documented and recorded with unbroken chain of custody. That would be convincing proof of divinity. Not such a tall order, for a God.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @moonbusDo you have any compelling reason to believe that the current translations have been altered and that the historical claims of the Bible are false?
As Hume said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Given the way science works, it would have to be some phenomenon we can examine and test here and now and repeatedly, not a ragtag collection of hearsay and anecdotes from 2,000 years ago written by people of unknown credibility, in a dead language, transcribed and redacted umpteen times, an ...[text shortened]... of custody. That would be convincing proof of divinity. Not such a tall order, for a God.
1 edit
Originally posted by @moonbusI concur.
Moreover, there are spiritual paths which do not require belief in deities. Buddhism, for example. This could be called non-theistic religion. There are many paths to spiritual growth and maturity.
I think as humans ~ whether we be theists or non-theists, religious or non-religious, monotheists or polytheists, explicit or explicit atheists ~ we are endowed with a capacity for comprehending and projecting ourselves in abstract ways and also we are affected and influenced and shaped by the abstract projections of other people.
This is the nature of the human spirit and is therefore ~ to my way of thinking ~ the domain of the “spirit” and "spirituality" [i.e. concerned with or affecting or being affected by the human “spirit” or "soul"]. I think it is clear that both theists and atheists exist and live out their lives in this domain.
For theists, their human spirit ~ and all the metaphysical facilities and capacities attendant thereto (which I observe non-theists to also possess) ~ has taken them into the philosophical realm of religious belief. I see this as an inevitable and very common upshot of the human condition.
For theists, their "spirituality" is intricately bound to a supernatural being with whom they perceive themselves to be in a relationship of some kind, which may be as simple as one between the creator and the created, with no further trappings.
For an atheist or non-believer or non-theist or whatever terminology is used, the same ability and inclination ~ their spirit in action ~ to contemplate themselves [and what it is that they seem to be part of here in this world as they live their lives] has not resulted in them perceiving themselves to be in a relationship with a supernatural being, but it is the spiritual nature of both theists and atheists have in common that has led to these two different outcomes.
I think letting religionists commandeer the term "spirituality" disguises what is really going on with the human spirit and the human condition.
Originally posted by @fmf"Christianity" too covers a great diversity. If any single interpretation of Christ's mission had ever been settled upon, it would have died out, as did countless other early variants of Christianity, such as Arianism, Pelagianism, the Essenes, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, etc. etc.
There are some contributors to this discussion, which is taking place across several concurrent threads, who are very keen to ignore or dismiss the reality and diversity of 'not being a theist'.
Originally posted by @moonbusI think you’re under the impression that God answers to us and should jump through hoops for us. Not how it works.
As Hume said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Given the way science works, it would have to be some phenomenon we can examine and test here and now and repeatedly, not a ragtag collection of hearsay and anecdotes from 2,000 years ago written by people of unknown credibility, in a dead language, transcribed and redacted umpteen times, an ...[text shortened]... of custody. That would be convincing proof of divinity. Not such a tall order, for a God.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThere are compelling reasons to believe that the Bible is not evidence for what happened; it is evidence of what certain people wanted people to believe.
Do you have any compelling reason to believe that the current translations have been altered and that the historical claims of the Bible are false?
There is compelling evidence that some of the translations are wrong, and that some of these mistranslations materially affect the doctrines of the past 2,000 years or so. I will give you one example: the virgin birth. The original Hebrew word for Mary's status was "almah" (sorry, Hebrew letters are not on my keyboard, so I transliterate here). The original meaning in its historical context is best rendered by the modern English word "maiden"; it meant a young woman who had not yet been married. The original Hebrew word denoted a legal status, not a physiological one. It was mistranslated very early on into Greek as "parthenos", from which we derive "parthenogenesis" (meaning a physiological process of a-sexual reproduction), and from then on the myth of the virgin birth of Jesus was propagated. I refer you to Elinor Gadon, "The Once and Future Goddess", Harber Collins, 1989, ISBN 0-06-250354-5, page 191. According to Jewish tradition at that time, a Jewish man might take a prospective bride and, if she proved barren, return her to her family with no commitment to make the marriage permanent. Such a prospective bride was called "almah"—-legally available, no reference to whether she had had sex before. It's bloody obvious that she had had sex, and not with Josef. "Is this not the illegitimate son of a carpenter?"—the townsfolk knew very well who he was. There's a compelling reason, all right.
Contrary to what rajk999 claims in another thread here, it matters that people know something about ancient languages; it matters that scholars examine these things in light of secular non-biased literary analysis; it matters that the "virgin" birth is a mistranslation. No virgin birth, no anecdotal evidence of the divine nature of Jesus. But it mattered very much to the bishops at the Council of Nicea in the 4th c AD that people should come to believe in the divinity of Jesus, so this particular mistranslation suited their purpose very well.
Originally posted by @moonbusThis is an interesting discourse on whether “virgin” or “young woman” is the correct translation of the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of Jesus Christ’s earthly birth.
There are compelling reasons to believe that the Bible is not evidence for what happened; it is evidence of what certain people wanted people to believe.
There is compelling evidence that some of the translations are wrong, and that some of these mistranslations materially affect the doctrines of the past 2,000 years or so. I will give you ...[text shortened]... [/i] in the divinity of Jesus, so this particular mistranslation suited their purpose very well.
“Question: "Is 'virgin' or 'young woman' the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14?"
Answer: Isaiah 7:14 reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." Quoting Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:23 reads, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel - which means, 'God with us.'" Christians point to this "virgin birth" as evidence of Messianic prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. Is this a valid example of fulfilled prophecy? Is Isaiah 7:14 predicting the virgin birth of Jesus? Is "virgin" even the proper translation of the Hebrew word used in Isaiah 7:14?
The Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14 is "almah," and its inherent meaning is "young woman." "Almah" can mean "virgin," as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins. Again, though, the word does not necessarily imply virginity. "Almah" occurs seven times in the Hebrew Scriptures (Genesis 24:43; Exodus 2:8; Psalm 68:25; Proverbs 30:19; Song of Solomon 1:3; 6:8; Isaiah 7:14). None of these instances demands the meaning "virgin," but neither do they deny the possible meaning of "virgin." There is no conclusive argument for "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 being either "young woman" or "virgin." However, it is interesting to note, that in the 3rd century B.C., when a panel of Hebrew scholars and Jewish rabbis began the process of translating the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, they used the specific Greek word for virgin, "parthenos," not the more generic Greek word for "young woman." The Septuagint translators, 200+ years before the birth of Christ, and with no inherent belief in a "virgin birth," translated "almah" in Isaiah 7:14 as "virgin," not "young woman." This gives evidence that "virgin" is a possible, even likely, meaning of the term.
With all that said, even if the meaning "virgin" is ascribed to "almah" in Isaiah 7:14, does that make Isaiah 7:14 a Messianic prophecy about Jesus, as Matthew 1:23 claims? In the context of Isaiah chapter 7, the Aramites and Israelites were seeking to conquer Jerusalem, and King Ahaz was fearful. The Prophet Isaiah approaches King Ahaz and declares that Aram and Israel would not be successful in conquering Jerusalem (verses 7-9). The Lord offers Ahaz the opportunity to receive a sign (verse 10), but Ahaz refuses to put God to the test (verse 11). God responds by giving the sign Ahaz should look for, "the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son...but before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." In this prophecy, God is essentially saying that within a few years' time, Israel and Aram will be destroyed. At first glace, Isaiah 7:14 has no connection with a promised virgin birth of the Messiah. However, the Apostle Matthew, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, connects the virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:23) with the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, Isaiah 7:14 should be understood as being a "double prophecy," referring primarily to the situation King Ahaz was facing, but secondarily to the coming Messiah who would be the ultimate deliverer.”
https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html
Originally posted by @moonbusNo amount of debating the language of Isaiah 7:14 accomplishes for the skeptic ground to insist that it means NOT a virgin.
There are compelling reasons to believe that the Bible is not evidence for what happened; it is evidence of what certain people wanted people to believe.
There is compelling evidence that some of the translations are wrong, and that some of these mistranslations materially affect the doctrines of the past 2,000 years or so. I will give you ...[text shortened]... [/i] in the divinity of Jesus, so this particular mistranslation suited their purpose very well.
Originally posted by @romans1009I am quite willing to believe that some real Jewish man with a name like "Jeshua" preached in the synagogues, got into trouble with the local authorities, and was crucified. But why should anyone believe he actually rose from the dead? Several other ancient myths have a similar motif. The myth of Jesus's resurrection is a re-hash of Osiris. Come on, a ragtag bundle of anecdotes from 2,000 years ago is no more credible than Homer's Illiad.
I think you’re under the impression that God answers to us and should jump through hoops for us. Not how it works.
Originally posted by @romans1009Which simply goes to show that the Christian interpretation of the Jewish OT is to read it as one long prophecy of the coming of Jesus. Every reference to a piece of wood in the OT, Christians interpret as a prophecy of the cross, etc. That is not the Jewish reading of the OT. They should know; after all, it's their book.
This is an interesting discourse on whether “virgin” or “young woman” is the correct translation of the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of Jesus Christ’s earthly birth.
“Question: "Is 'virgin' or 'young woman' the correct translation of Isaiah 7:14?"
Answer: Isaiah 7:14 reads, "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and ...[text shortened]... who would be the ultimate deliverer.”
https://www.gotquestions.org/virgin-or-young-woman.html
I recommend to anyone interested in the historical context of the coming of a messiah, what the Jews at that time believed and expected, to read the following: "The Jesus Dynasty" by James D. Tabor, Simon and Shuster, 2000, ISBN 13: 978-0-7432-8723-4
Originally posted by @sonshipYou are entitled to take it on faith that a virgin birth really happened. Evidence is lacking.
No amount of debating the language of [b]Isaiah 7:14 accomplishes for the skeptic ground to insist that it means NOT a virgin.[/b]
Originally posted by @moonbusYou want the refutation for that claim as well?
I am quite willing to believe that some real Jewish man with a name like "Jeshua" preached in the synagogues, got into trouble with the local authorities, and was crucified. But why should anyone believe he actually rose from the dead? Several other ancient myths have a similar motif. The myth of Jesus's resurrection is a re-hash of Osiris. Come on, a ragtag bundle of anecdotes from 2,000 years ago is no more credible than Homer's Illiad.
Originally posted by @moonbus<<Which simply goes to show that the Christian interpretation of the Jewish OT is to read it as one long prophecy of the coming of Jesus. Every reference to a piece of wood in the OT, Christians interpret as a prophecy of the cross, etc.>>
Which simply goes to show that the Christian interpretation of the Jewish OT is to read it as one long prophecy of the coming of Jesus. Every reference to a piece of wood in the OT, Christians interpret as a prophecy of the cross, etc. That is not the Jewish reading of the OT. They should know; after all, it's their book.
I recommend to any ...[text shortened]... wing: "The Jesus Dynasty" by James D. Tabor, Simon and Shuster, 2000, ISBN 13: 978-0-7432-8723-4
This statement is obviously false.
Originally posted by @romans1009Something better than somebody's say-so x,000 years ago. It's a lot easier to propagate stories about miracles in a time when there is widespread ignorance about basic physical and physiological processes. People then did not have microscopes, they did not know enough about fertilization to realize that a man born of a woman only, with no male chromosomes, would either have been a clone of the mother (i.e., female) or not physiologically viable. We're not planaria.
We were talking about whether “virgin” or “young woman” was the proper translation of Isaiah 7:14. I don’t know what evidence you expect there to be for a virgin birth.