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!
Paul Robson:
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. Your post was a claim that these are clear fulfilled prophecies. They
are nothing of the sort.
SJ:
But historically it is untrue. the Apostle Matthew who wrote this
Paul Robson:
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".
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.
Paul Robson:
And this isn't true either.
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.
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."
Paul Robson:
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, and he thought it would
make a good prophecy, so he wrote it in.
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".
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
No there aren't. Even the dopiest apologists think there are only about 50
or so. And most of them are equally tortured out of the OT, or just fulfilled
in absurd ways (like 2 donkeys) in the Gospels.
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.
Steve Jones:
I am not sure what Paul means here.
Paul Robson:
Really ? Really ? This is what "Matthew" did Steve.
PR
The "Bethlehem" is a classic example of this. Bethlehem is bunged
in *because* of this reference.
Steve:
No. If Jesus was not born in Bethlehem, the early Christians' Jewish
opponents would have known this and would pointed it out.
Paul Robson:
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 sect.
Just like Christians don't refute every wierdo cult claim, Jews didn't
argue with Christians because they weren't worth it. That's why there
is virtually no anti-Christian arguments at all, or anything, from around
that time. [Many of the later anti arguments were destroyed by
Christians, of course, remnants only appearing in Christian books.]
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 ?
Steve:
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.
Paul Robson:
New cults start all the time. 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.
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.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
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.
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.
SJ:
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.
SJ:
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,
SJ:
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)."
Paul Robson:
Odd that you didn't mention your years have 360 days in them.
SJ:
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.
Paul Robson:
I would agree that weeks for years is okay. 360 days isn't. There is no reson
that this is a "parallel passage" other than it makes it "work" and there is
equally no reason to take this passage as being a 360 day year (other than
it makes it "work").
It is like the cubit argument that makes Pi 3. It is not true, because there
is no claim of exact values.
Let me ask you this. Suppose that it had worked exactly with 365.25 days
to a year.
Do you really believe apologists would say "Oh this doesn't work, because
it should be using prophectic years ?"
PR>and several target points. This one,
>I believe, uses the 360 day years to hit its target.
SJ:
[snipped a bit]
360/365 the conversion factor of 360 day prophetic years
Paul Robson:
You see, to me this just looks like cheating. A fiddle factor ! Figure out
how
to get the "right" answer, torture it out of the Bible and hope nobody
notices.
SJ:
There is in fact one calculation that works out right to the very *day*:
(quoting someone else to support this).
Paul Robson:
Again, this is simply cheating to get the answer you want. I am
aware of these idiotic calculations.
[snip nonsense]
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.
Steve Jones:
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."
Paul Robson:
We shall see. It is odd that Christians invariably present this particular
prophecy without mentioning all the minor details. Why this is I can't
imagine.
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.
Steve Jones:
Which "Christian apologists" in particular does Paul claim to "have been so
staggeringly dishonest"?
Paul Robson:
Well, as you appear to have a copy of EDTAV I suggest you turn to the
section where he calculates the probability of the prophecies being
fulfilled or not and see if you can spot the glaring errors and mathematical
illiteracy.
Steve Jones:
>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.
Steve Jones:
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:
Paul Robson:
Nehemiah 2:1-9 is about two things
[1] letters of safe passage 2:7
[2] timber to rebuild the walls 2:8.
Steve Jones:
"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:
[snip]
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.
Paul Robson:
It doesn't say that !
PR>Using 445BC comes out at 39AD anyway, which is why the cheat of
>360 day years is used, and here it comes.
Steve Jones:
There is no "cheat of 360 day years". There is good evidence from
Daniel himself that 360 day years were used in Hebrew prophecy.
Paul Robson:
Which you haven't mentioned......
Steve Jones:
And remember again my quote that the Jewish historian Josephus
mentioned that the Jews were expecting the Messiah at about this time:
Paul Robson:
They were expecting Messiah's every five minutes.
Steve Jones:
"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.
Paul Robson:
Nonsense. The 445BC is a starting date chosen because it works, not because
what it says. The 360 days is a fudge factor tortured out of another part of
the
Bible, because it works.
>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.
Steve Jones:
I am not sure what Paul means here. Perhaps he can clarify it?
Paul Robson:
You've for some reason not mentioned the other decrees or the 360 day
year yet (in your original post).
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).
SJ:
I have always thought of it as being ~ 3 years. But really one year doesn't
matter.
Paul Robson:
It does if you are claiming "precisely".
SJ>
So the only Jew claiming to be Messiah
PR>Really ?
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson:
Yes, sorry :)
Steve Jones:
But Jesus is the only person claiming to be the Messiah who founded
a world religion.
Paul Robson:
Pot luck. Unless you include LRH I suppose ;-)
SJ>who has inaugurated a world
religion of predominantly Gentile adherents was cut off precisely when
Daniel predicted!
PR>
Odd definition of precise.
Steve Jones:
This is quibbling. There is one reasonable interpretation that works out to
the *day*.
Paul Robson:
Given that we don't know when Jesus was crucified, this is absurd. The
interpretation is, to be kind, tortuous.
You don't really believe Steve, that someone sat down , took the facts,
worked it out and said "Wow ! It comes out to 33 AD".
I'll tell you what happened. Apologists have looked at the passage and
said "How can we convert this to a prophecy ?". Well, we can't use
that and that, because it doesn't quite work out, but let's use this and
add this factor in, and hey it works.
This is how the Gospel "prophecies" were put together.
SJ:
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.
Steve Jones:
According to Encyclopaedia Britannica it was about 30AD:
[snip quote EB]
Paul Robson:
And according to umpteen other calculations its everything from
about 16AD to about 45AD. The truth is we don't know. But by
*far* the most common quoted dates are 32/33AD.
PR>Not really. It depends what you mean. Christians are significant, but
>Christ himself is not as a person.
Steve Jones:
Is Paul here saying that the person Jesus never existed?:
Paul Robson:
No. Read it again. Of course, a cynic would suggest this is a diversion
tactic.
Steve Jones: (quoting)
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
Paul Robson:
No. Christianity was insignificant for a long time that's why there is no
response, or no commentary on dead people walking around in Jerusalem,
and nothing on Jesus despite the Gospel claims of his fame spreading far
and wide.
Please note: there is a vast difference between the "existence of Jesus"
which almost everyone accepts, and the existence of the persion described
in the NT.
Steve Jones:
, 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.
...
Paul Robson:
You also should be aware that Enc. entries on this are written by Christians.
That's why the "opponents never doubted...." argument appears, no doubt.
Christians have a hard time grasping the insignificance of Christianity in
the first 100 years or so.
PR>
It is only his effects that are significant.
Steve Jones:
Indeed! So here we have a prophecy hundreds of years before that on a
reasonable set of assumptions
Paul Robson:
A reasonable set of assumptions ? Hundreds of years ? Surely you don't
believe Daniel is 6th century BC ?
Steve Jones:
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).
Paul Robson:
Does it ever occur to you that this might be why they tortured this passage ?
It's working backwards !
Steve Jones:
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!
Paul Robson:
Ah, we're stuck so we're onto threats of hell again.
Steve Jones:
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!
Paul Robson:
So, are you a Catholic ?
Of course, one of the reasons people are "unwilling" to believe these
"prophecies"
is because the apologist always presents this kind of calculation as the
only one
that works ; they never mention the multiple starting points, ending points
(birth
of Jesus, ministry start, crucifixion), the flexibility in the ending
points, the (at least)
3 different counting methods and so on.
It's just presented as a single accurate calculation. And it's a
misdirection at best,
a lie at worst.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 09 2000 - 05:59:35 EST