Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson 24Nov:
I will do it like this to assist you. If you have a better idea (I can't
abide >>>>>>>>) I'll use that.
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson 24Nov:
No problem.
Steve Jones:
>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.
Steve Jones:
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...":
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
Your original post, and indeed this ones suggest at best that they are
strongly indicative of the truth of Christianity. By "obviously true" I
meant that someone would look at them neutrally and conclude that
your prophecies are sufficient to become a Christian.
Steve Jones:
>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 Earlier:
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.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
I don't think these are clear. They certainly become less so when one
looks at the construction of the Gospels and the complete story of
the 70 weeks.
>SJ>But historically it is untrue. the Apostle Matthew who wrote this
PR earlier:
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".
Steve Jones:
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).
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
Precisely. It is tradition. That is all. The idea that it is true because
no other name has been suggested is a bit of a nonsense because
any other name would just be made up. There is, however, a lot of
scholarship pointing out that the Gospel authors are unknown.
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.
SJ:
What's the "either" relate to? Paul seems to have converted a "we ... don't
know" into a "it isn't true"!
PR 24 Nov:
No, what I meant was that Jews were not expecting a Messiah in
Bethlehem.
SJ:
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).
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
It is highly debatable whether Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of the birthplace
of the Messiah. There are other alternatives. It is also very easy to say
that such evidence exists without stating what it is.
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.
Paul Robson:
But it isn't actually convincing to anyone who is neutral, let alone an
atheist is it ? And Isiah doesn't predict a Virgin Birth.
SJ:
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)
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
I would be very wary of accepting what Zacharias says as factual,
especially as (typically of an apologist) the actual supporting
statement is not produced.
The Qu'ran has Jesus as a major prophet, but not the Son of God.
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,
Steve Jones:
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!
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
Sorry, are you really questioning this one. The word "almah" does not
mean virgin. It means young girl. Virgin is a different word. What happens
is that parthenos is an enlargement in translation. Matthew saw this,
assumed that it meant virgin in the original which he couldn't read, then
invented the virgin birth myth.
Steve Jones:
And moreover that first century Greek-speaking Jewish Christians like
Matthew continued the mistranslation!
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
No, he didn't KNOW it was a mistranslation. Look at some of the
rather inaccurate Bible translations that are about. People who use
those don't know that they are inaccurate.
Steve Jones:
I think it is far more likely that radical liberal critics and unbelievers
have
been lead astray by their anti-supernaturalistic bias.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
No. Almah doesn't mean virgin. It just doesn't exclude it. It is exactly
the same as saying "young girl" in English. It *might* be a virgin.
PR>aand he thought it would
>make a good prophecy, so he wrote it in.
Steve Jones:
He didn't just think it-it *is* "a good prophecy"!
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
Not really. Notwithstanding the questionable virginity, it refers to
something around that time.
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* of 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.
Steve Jones:
The numbers I have seen range from 191 to 333. But I would be happy to
start with "50 or so"!
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
Actually, it depends. You may be right in the claims. I have seen all
the genealogies claimed as individual prophecy (McDowell does this
to an extent in EDTAV)
PR
And most of them are equally tortured out of the OT,
Steve Jones:
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.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
Well, actually you have no idea whether that is true or not, Steve. All you
can say is that the earliest Christians would have an expectation that
the Messiah would be predicted 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.
Steve Jones:
It is Paul who thinks this is "absurd". Clearly the 1st century gospel
writers
and their readers didn't think it was.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
You assume that the function of the "reporting" of the Gospels is not
theological here ; this I don't believe to be the case : see how Matthew
and Luke tweak things to fit their own "theological agendas".
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.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
What I mean is that Matthew and Luke took their source materials and
changed it, or added to it, to "push" their own theological viewpoint.
PR
Really ? Really ? This is what "Matthew" did Steve.
SJ
Another assertion without any evidence.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
Oh really, Steve. You have presumably read the NT. Do a side by side
comparison of Mark and Matthew ; see how he has rewritten things
changed things he doesn't like.
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.
SJ:
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:
Paul Robson:
Yes, I do know about Tacitus. What is interesting about this piece of
information is that Tacitus, in the next paragraph you haven't quoted,
needs to explain to his readers what Christianity is. (incorrectly).
[snip Tacitus]
PR
Just like Christians don't refute every wierdo cult claim, Jews didn't
argue with Christians because they weren't worth it.
Steve Jones (I think)
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.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
This is a request to prove a negative. The main supporting evidence is the
total paucity of such information in Jewish writings. There are a few
vaguely dated allusions to Jesus (Ben Pantera ?).
Christians always claim persecution in my experience :)
PR
That's why there
is virtually no anti-Christian arguments at all, or anything, from around
that time.
Steve Jones:
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:
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
This has been snipped a bit, but Steve is quoting the EB again here.
Steve Jones [EB]:
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.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
I'll let this one go. This might be connected with such doubt being fatal
of course. We don't actually know this due to the Christian habit of
burning books they didn't like, fragments of which survive in early
apolgetics.
Steve Jones [EB]:
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.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
Okay. Josephus was born in 37AD, did you know that Steve ? What use
is this in the "why didn't they refute the claims then ?" argument. If you
look above, I said no-one took any notice till 100AD or so !
This is kind, to be kind to the TF. Virtually everyone, even Fundamentalists
don't view it as particularly useful, and the Christian teaching is almost
entirely covered by the insertions. Most reconstructions delete the
"proof" often touted.
Steve [EB]:
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.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
They are late 1st and 2nd century. What I'm saying is no-one refuted
early Christian claims because they didn't care "Why did no one say so
at the time ?". I would like you to explain to me how someone would be
able to tell 100 years after the event where Jesus had been born, which
they would need to do to refute the claim. Perhaps they had Birth
Certificates.
PR
[Many of the later anti arguments were destroyed by
Christians, of course, remnants only appearing in Christian books.]
Steve: (this is Steve again)
Paul has produced no evidence of this either.
Paul Robson:
Err.... the Christian books, that still exist, refer to anti works that
don't ! Like "Contra Celsus".
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
Steve:
First, from eyewitnesses or from those who knew eyewitnesses.
Paul Robson:
Wouldn't the eyewitnesses be dead ?
You don't get the point. In the intervening years (say 33-70 AD) noone
cared. Your above lists all come from after that date, Steve. Now, if
Jesus had been thought to be of any importance, there may be people
interested enough to be "eyewitnesses".
Steve:
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.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
But no-one heard them. None of your statements come from this 40 year
period. The Tacitean events are right at the end of that time period (64AD)
and at that point Tacitus needs to explain what Christianity is.
Steve:
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.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
Really. You think you can produce a witness to some birth not happening
somewhere ? All you could do is to produce evidence he was born
somewhere else. Why would anyone keep such information about yet
another Messiah claimant.
I've never heard anyone claim that genealogical records wrere kept before.
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.
SJ
Christianity is not a cult. It is the world's largest religion:
PR: 24 Nov
This is debatable. However, what is the difference between
a cult and a religion, other than size ?
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.
SJ
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.
Paul Robson 24 Nov
That's absurd. You got killed for making skeptical attacks for most of
that time.
SJ
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.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
Ah, projection. Doncha luv it.
SJ
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*.
Paul Robson 24 Nov
Sorry.
Do I have to repeat this endlessly ?
At the time they could be checked, NOBODY CARED ABOUT CHRISTIANITY.
IT WAS A FEW PEOPLE MAKING RELIGIOUS CLAIMS. THIS HAPPENS
TODAY.
All your "evidence" above is timeline consistent with the arrival of the
earliest Gospel (Mark).
You just CONTINUALLY CLAIM that the Jews had noticed them (no evidence
provided) AT A POINT WHERE THEY COULD HAVE REFUTED IT.
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:
Okay, how simple can I go.
Do you believe that all small religion/cult claims that are not actively
refuted
are not so refuted because they are true ?
Steve Jones:
[snip]
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
Where does that come from ? It should be noted that Paul knows nothing
of the life of his Messiah beyond the bare outlines ; there is apparently no
knowledge of the actions in the Gospels.
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.
Steve Jones:
More unsubstantiated assertions.
Paul Robson 24 Nov:
It is typical Christian apologetics that, faced with two seemingly different
stories, they glue them together to make one wierd history, rather than
assuming any errors.
Steve Jones:
Note that Paul ignores my point about
"the Jewish theologians would have made mincemeat of Matthew's claims".
Paul Robson:
Maybe they didn't care. If in 114AD it was felt necessary to explain what
a Christian was, it wasn't much of a threat.
I can only presume that you believe, that because Christian Theologians
have not "made mincemeat" of the numerous claims of modern cults
and religions, that you believe they are true as well.
Or is this just a double standard ? No apparent rebuttal for insignificant
cult groups is only relevant before 70 AD.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 24 2000 - 05:52:36 EST