Reflectorites
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 02:24:31 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[...]
SJ>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).
>
>For examples, in Micah 5:2, the prophet, living in QQ BC predicted that
>the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem:
Sorry about the "QQ" placemark. This should have been "~ 720 BC".
>PR>Only Christians think this.
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!
But historically it is untrue. the Apostle Matthew who wrote this 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>Only Christians think Isiah predicts a Virgin
>Birth. It is very simple to do.
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.
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>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".
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>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.
I am not sure what Paul means here.
PR>The "Bethlehem" is a classic example of this. Bethlehem is bunged
>in *because* of this reference.
No. If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, the early Christians' Jewish
opponents would have known this and would pointed it out. 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, Saudia Arabia,
the heart of Islam to get the idea of how evidentially rock-solid Christianity
had to be to even get started.
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.
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.
>SJ>In Daniel 9:25-27 there is a prediction that works out to the very year 27
>AD when Jesus began his public ministry:
>PR>Really. I am amazed you don't know the history of this one.
I don't claim to know *everything* about it! But I will be interested to see
if Paul knows anything more about it than I do.
PR>Or perhaps you do and didn't want to mention it.
There is *nothing* I know about the Bible that I don't "want to mention"! I
have nothing to hide.
But in this case: 1) I was and am very busy and it was a hurried post
(witness the unfinished "QQ": in it); and 2) I didn't want to swamp
Reflectorites with a great mass of detail, since it would probably turn them
off. That is why I said at the end of it: "I would be happy to work through
this with anyone who does not dismiss it out of hand as "impossible" but is
open-minded enough to consider it."
PR>Notwithstanding the minor details that there are about 4 or 5 decrees,
>3-4 ways of counting the years,
I agree that there alternative "ways of counting the years". That is why I
said from the outset 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 (apart from outright
`head-in-the-sand' denial)."
But the assumption that Daniel 9's 'sevens' are seven year periods and the
year is 360 days is a reasonable one since Daniel himself uses it (compare
Dan 7:25's "time, times and half a time" = 3 1/2 years with the same term in
Rev 12:14 "time, times and half a time", which by parallel passages in Rev
13:5 "forty-two months" and Rev 12:6 "1,260 days" 360 day "prophetic
years" are intended 1260/3.5 = 360 and 42/12 = 3.5.
PR>and several target points. This one,
>I believe, uses the 360 day years to hit its target.
Agreed. The calculation is:
444BC - 69 x 7 x 360/365.25 -1 = ~ 31
Where:
445BC = "the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem"
(Neh. 2:1-8). Some take this as 444BC.
69 = the number of weeks (Lit. "sevens") "From the issuing of the
decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,
the ruler, comes" (Dan 9:25)
7 = the number of years in each "seven"
360/365 the conversion factor of 360 day prophetic years
1 = adjustment for there being no year between 1 BC and 1 AD.
There is in fact one calculation that works out right to the very *day*:
"The terminal event of the 69 weeks is the presentation of Christ
Himself to Israel as the Messiah as predicted in Zechariah 9:9. H.
Hoehner, who has thoroughly researched this prophecy in Daniel
and the corresponding dates, calculates the date of this event:
"Multiplying the sixty-nine weeks by seamen years for each week
by 360 days gives a total of 173,880 days. The difference between
444 B.C. and A.D. 33 then is 476 solar years. By multiplying 476
by 365.24219879 or by 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45.975
seconds [there are 365 1/4 days in a year], one comes to 173,855
days, 6 hours, 52 minutes, 44 seconds, or 173,855 days. this leaves
only 25 days to be accounted for between 444 B.C. and A.D. 33.
By adding the 25 days to March 5 (of 444 B.C.), one comes to
March 30 (or A.D. 33) which was Nisan 10 in A.D. 33. This is the
triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem." (Hoehner, Harold.
Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ," 1977, p.138, in
McDowell J., "Evidence That Demands a Verdict," 1988, Vol. I,
p.173).
Note that I personally don't claim it that it *has* to be to the exact day.
Anytime in the 69th `week' 7-year period would do.
PR>Christians are when making this claim for some reason unwilling to
>mention these minor details.
See above my reasons for not mentioning all "these minor details" in my
first hurried and brief post. As I said "I would be happy to work through
this" (i.e. the "minor details") "with anyone who does not dismiss it out of
hand as "impossible" but is open-minded enough to consider it."
PR>It is difficult to say for sure because Christian apologists have been
>so staggeringly dishonest over his particular passage it's difficult to
>know which you copied.
Which "Christian apologists" in particular does Paul claim to "have been so
staggeringly dishonest"?
>SJ>Here is what theologian Robert C. Newman (who is also an astrophysicist
>and a leader of the ID movement) writes about this:
>
>[snip]
>
>There has been considerable argument about the interpretation of this
>passage. 30 A very reasonable interpretation, however, notes the
>significance of a decree issued by the Persian king Artaxerxes I during his
>twentieth year (445 B.C.). This edict officially approved Nehemiah's return
>to Jerusalem to rebuild its walls (Neh 2:1-9)
>PR>This is not true. This is in Nehemiah 2:1-6 and refers to giving Nehemiah
>letters of safe conduct. The decree to rebuild is in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23
>and Ezra 1:1-4, but is in 538BC.
This is indeed one of the interpretations that Newman mentions. But it is
only a decree to "build a temple ... at Jerusalem" (2Chr 36:23; Ezr 1:2).
The only passage AFAIK that speaks of a "the issuing of the decree to
restore and rebuild Jerusalem" (Dan 9:25) is Neh 2:5:
"There are several commandments or decrees in Israel's history
which have been suggested as the terminus a quo (beginning) of the
70 weeks. These are:
1. The decree of Cyrus, 539 B.C. (Ezra 1:14).
2. The decree of Darius, 519 B.C. (Ezra 5:3-7).
3. The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra, 457 B.C. (Ezra 7:11-16).
4. The decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah, 444 B.C. (Nehemiah 2:
1-8). 17/131ff.
However, the only one that appears to fit the data accurately is
number four, the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah.
"J. D. Wilson comments on the starting point of the prophecy: "The
...decree is referred to in Neh. ii. It was in the twentieth year of
Artaxerxes. The words of the decree are not given, but its subject
matter can easily be determined. Nehemiah hears of the desolate
condition of Jerusalem. He is deeply grieved. The King asks the
reason. Nehemiah replies, 'the city, the place of my fathers'
sepulchres lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed with
fire.' The King bids him make request. He does so promptly, asking
an order from the King that 'I be sent to the city that I may build it.
And, as we read, he was sent, and he rebuilt Jerusalem." ... "This
decree then is the 'commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.'
There is no other decree authorizing the restoration of the city. This
decree authorizes the restoration and the book of Nehemiah tells
how the work was carried on. The exigencies of their various
theories have led men to take some other decree for the terminus a
quo of their calculations, but it is not apparent how any could have
done so without misgivings. This decree of Neh. ii is the
commandment to restore and rebuild Jerusalem; no other decree
gives any permission to restore the city. All other decrees refer to
the building of the temple and the temple only." (Wilson J.D., "Did
Daniel Write Daniel?" n.d., p.142, in McDowell J., 1988, p.172).
PR>Using 445BC comes out at 39AD anyway, which is why the cheat of
>360 day years is used, and here it comes.
There is no "cheat of 360 day years". There is good evidence from
Daniel himself that 360 day years were used in Hebrew prophecy.
And remember again my quote that the Jewish historian Josephus
mentioned that the Jews were expecting the Messiah at about this time:
"But what more than all else incited them [the Jews] to the war
[revolt against Rome, A.D. 66-73] was an ambiguous oracle,
likewise found in their sacred scriptures, to the effect that at that
time one from their country would become ruler of the world. "
(Josephus, Jewish War 6.5.4., in Newman R.C, in Geivett R.D. &
Habermas G.R., eds., "In Defense of Miracles," 1997, p.223).
If the Jews were expecting the Messiah by around 66AD in fulfilment of
prophecy then this one in Daniel 9 is the only one AFAIK they could have
meant that was in the ballpark. And by using 444 BC, 70 `weeks' and 360
day years they would have got to AD38. This is not good enough (because
in fact they were wrong-the Messiah had already come!), but no other
combination of dates and years is as close.
It is my contention that the 445BC x 69 x 7 x 360/365.25 -1 = ~ 31
calculation is the one that best fits all the facts.
>SJ>The "sevens" of Daniel 9 (open translated "weeks") most likely refer to
>the recurring seven-year sabbatical cycle for land use, 31 since
>sixty-nine weeks of days would have run out before Daniel's prophecy
>could even have been circulated, and these weeks of years were an
>established institution in Israel. Using these cycles as units of
>measurement, the sixty-ninth such cycle (7 + 62),
>measured from the starting point of 445 B.C., spans the years A.D. 28-35.
>PR>Nope, he hasn't mentioned it. Surprise.
I am not sure what Paul means here. Perhaps he can clarify it?
>SJ>One cannot help but note with interest that on this analysis the "Anointed
>One" is "cut off" precisely when Jesus is crucified!
>PR>Well, I thought Jesus Ministry lasted four years, and most crucifixion
>dates are 32-33AD (though every date between 20 and 60 seems to
>have been pushed at some time).
I have always thought of it as being ~ 3 years. But really one year doesn't
matter.
>SJ>So the only Jew claiming to be Messiah
>PR>Really ?
Paul cuts my sentence in two in order to make a cheap point! I clearly
don't mean that Jesus is "the only Jew" who ever claimed "to be Messiah".
The New Testament itself mentions a couple of false Messiah's and
Jesus predicted there will be more.
But Jesus is the only person claiming to be the Messiah who founded
a world religion.
>SJ>who has inaugurated a world
>religion of predominantly Gentile adherents was cut off precisely when
>Daniel predicted!
>PR>Odd definition of precise.
This is quibbling. There is one reasonable interpretation that works out to
the *day*. But anytime within the seven years of Daniel's 69th `week'
would be "precise".
PR>Well, actually it's a fib, given that as any
>fule kno we don't know when Jesus was crucified.
According to Encyclopaedia Britannica it was about 30AD:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/3/0,5716,119713+12+110574,00.html
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA biblical literature ... Adaptation of the
Christian message to the Hellenistic religious situation The duration of
Jesus' ministry can be an average of the one year, as indicated in the
Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) or about three years as
indicated in John, based on various cycles of harvests and festivals. This
would be about two years. Because Jesus was crucified before 36 and his
ministry started about 27/28, he then was crucified about AD 30 (see also
Jesus). ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>SJ>And the significance Christians ascribe to Jesus' death is
>given by Daniel-"to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for
>wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness." As it happens, Jesus
>Christ is also one of the most significant figures in world history, as even
>secular historians acknowledge.
>PR>Not really. It depends what you mean. Christians are significant, but
>Christ himself is not as a person.
Is Paul here saying that the person Jesus never existed?:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PR>It is only his effects that are significant.
Indeed! So here we have a prophecy hundreds of years before that on a
reasonable set of assumptions predicts the period of Jesus public ministry
and death, and in a nutshell what Jesus did: "to finish transgression, to put
an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting
righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy"
(Dan 9:24).
Non-Christians are free to reject this but if Jesus in fact was who He
claimed to be, then they will be held accountable for that rejection. And
they certainly can't claim they didn't have *any* evidence!
As Pascal wisely observed in the tagline (paraphrasing), there is enough
evidence for Christians to know that their faith is reasonable, but not
enough for them to avoid being mocked by unbelievers. And there is not
enough evidence to force those unwilling to believe, but there is enough
evidence to leave them without excuse. That is IMHO *exactly* as it should
be!
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"There is enough light to enlighten the elect and enough obscurity to
humiliate them. There is enough obscurity to blind the reprobate and
enough light to condemn them and deprive them of excuse."
(Pascal B., "Pensees," [1670], Krailsheimer A.J., Transl., Penguin: London,
Revised edition, 1966, p.73)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 08 2000 - 20:52:24 EST