PR 3 Dec:
Steve, I have snipped stuff, for brevity. Please feel free to re-insert
anything you think appropriate.
>SJ>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...":
>PR>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.
SJ:
I don't claim this is prophecies generally. But I do claim it of some
prophecies, like Mic 5:2 and Dn 9:24-27.
PR 3 Dec:
I don't think an open neutral view of Dn 9:24-27 would conclude what you
conclude of it, to be honest.
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). [...]
[snip]
>PR>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:
Disagree. This so called "construction of the Gospels" in the hands of
an anti-supernaturalist becomes a *re*-"construction of the Gospels"
or rather a *de*-"construction of the Gospels"!
PR 3 Dec:
Err... most of the work was done by Christians Steve.
SJ:
And the "complete story of the 70 weeks" would be OK, except a
philosophical naturalist would invent his/her own naturalistic "story" to
account for it.
PR:
I don't think that is necessary.
>>SJ>But historically it is untrue. the Apostle Matthew who wrote this
>PR>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:
See what I mean about *de*-"construction of the Gospels"!
PR 3 Dec:
I'm sorry Steve, but this is nonsense. It is a tradition that the author of
the
Gospel was called "Matthew". It is grossly inaccurate to call it
"historical". You say below it is tradition (quoting R.T. France)
SJ:
There is nothing inherently wrong with "tradition". One of the first
phases of liberal *de*-"construction of the Gospels" is for the critic to
try cast doubt on the reliability of tradition in order to substitute his
own tradition on how the gospels were constructed.
PR 3 Dec:
Tradition is unreliable, Steve, isn't it ? You can't call something
historical
just because it is "traditional".
PR>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.
SJ:
Note the unquestioned assumption that it just can't have been
Matthew!
PR 3 Dec:
It might have been. It might have been someone else. You don't know,
Steve, and if you are honest you'll admit this.
SJ:
The internal evidence of the gospel of Matthew fits the description of
Matthew the Jewish tax collector.
If he wasn't its author, there is no reason why the gospel should have
Matthew's name attached to it, since he was not a prominent apostle.
Indeed the only prominent apostle whose name is attached to a gospel
is John. Two of the names attached to gospels were not even apostles:
Mark and Luke.
PR 3 Dec:
Not really. It's a tradition. That's it. "Historical" it isn't.
PR>There is, however, a lot of
>scholarship pointing out that the Gospel authors are unknown.
SJ:
One doesn't need "a lot of scholarship" to point that out. It is conceded
by *everyone* that "the Gospel authors are unknown" in the sense that
they don't bear the authors' names. However, the early Church ascribed
them to the authors whose names they bear and the internal evidence of
each of them fits those ascriptions.
PR 3 Dec:
Err... not really. This is just an assertion.
>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>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).
>PR>It is highly debatable whether Micah 5:2 is a prophecy of the birthplace
>of the Messiah.
SJ:
It is not "debatable" *at all*.
PR 3 Dec:
Yes it is, we're debating it (this is a joke).
SJ:
There is no other place in the Scripture
where the birthplace of the Messiah is predicted. And the *uniform
testimony of both the NT and Jewish tradition is that Micah 5:2 is a
prophecy of the birthplace of the Messiah, in Bethlehem.
PR>There are other alternatives.
SJ
I note that Paul does not say what these "alternatives" are.
PR
Well, there is the "name" alternative.
PR>It is also very easy to say
>that such evidence exists without stating what it is.
SJ
I *have* produced evidence and Paul just presents unsubstantiated
assertions. Three gospel writers Matthew, Luke and John say that the
Messiah will be born in Bethlehem:
Mt 2:1 "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the
time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem"
Lk 2:4-7 "So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in
Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he
belonged to the house and line of David. He went there to register
with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was
expecting a child. While they were there, the time came for the baby
to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped
him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no
room for them in the inn.
Jn 7:42 "Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from
David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"
PR 3 Dec:
I know, you think quoting the Bible is "evidence". Don't you think Jn7
suggests a motive, incidentally ?
SJ
Edersheim was a Hebrew speaking Jewish Christian who was familiar
with the Jewish Talmudic writings. I cited his testimony as an expert
witness as itself evidence that "the testimony of Rabbinic teaching,
unhesitatingly pointed."
In addition, I have found a place where Edersheim gives a reference
from the Jewish Talmud to the Messiah being born in Bethlehem:
"As shown by the rendering of the Targum Jonathan, the prediction
in Micah v. 2 was at the time universally understood as pointing to
Bethlehem, as the birthplace of the Messiah. That such was the
general expectation, appears from the Talmud, (Jer. Ber. ii.4, p.5a)
where, in an imaginary conversation between an Arab and a Jew,
Bethlehem is authoritatively named as Messiah's birthplace."
(Edersheim A., "The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah," 1886,
Vol. I, p.206).
PR 3 Dec:
I can't comment on this other than to say the book doesn't sound a
particularly neutral one from it's title. I have learnt not to trust what
Christians say some document says.
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.
>PR>But it isn't actually convincing to anyone who is neutral, let alone an
>atheist is it ?
SJ
Note how Paul slips in the word "convincing", with all its connotations
of absolute proof. All I claimed is that it was "evidence" to someone
who is *genuinely* neutral.
It is certainly not *evidence* to an atheist who would rule out in
advance that there even *could* be evidence of predictive prophecy.
PR 3 Dec:
Really. Have you read it ?
PR>And Isiah doesn't predict a Virgin Birth.
SJ:
Here is what Isaiah 7:14 says:
Isa 7:14 (AV) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his
name Immanuel."
Paul Robson:
No, I meant the bits around it. You know, the context.
SJ
It's even better in the Septuagint:
Isa 7:14 (LXX) "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign;
behold a virgin shall conceive IN THE WOMB, and shall bring
forth a son and thou shalt call his name Emmanuel." (my emphasis)
Since the "in the womb" is redundant, and not in the original Hebrew,
the LXX translators presumably added it to emphasise that a virginal
conception was intended.
PR 3 Dec:
Or its an error in translation.
>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)
PR>I would be very wary of accepting what Zacharias says as factual,
especially as (typically of an apologist)
SJ:
Note Paul's "shoot the messenger" way of dealing with contrary
evidence, especially his words "typically of an apologist". Since
Christian apologists are automatically regarded by Paul (and his ilk) as
not "factual" they are *guaranteed* to always arrive at a conclusion
which just confirms their anti-supernaturalistic prejudice.
Paul Robson 3 Dec:
No. Not all apologists are as dishonest as Zacharias is.
PR>the actual supporting >statement is not produced.
SJ
But Paul needs to read his opponents words more carefully. Zacharias
states above the part of the Koran where it is: "Surah 19.19-21".
PR:
I wasn't clear. Apologists will often claim a text "says something" when
it says nothing of the kind. However, as I know little of the Qu'ran I can't
refute your claim.
PR>The Qu'ran has Jesus as a major prophet, but not the Son of God.
SJ:
Neither Zecharias or I said anything above about the Koran having
Jesus as "the Son of God'. Christian theology does not regard Jesus
being born of a virgin as synonymous with Him being the Son of God.
The Son of God existed before His incarnation via the virgin birth as
Jesus of Nazareth.
PR 3 Dec:
?????
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,
>SJ>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!
>PR>Sorry, are you really questioning this one.
SJ:
What I am questioning is Paul's unsubstantiated claim that the third
century BC Greek-speaking Jewish scholars who translated the
Septuagint did not know the meaning of the Hebrew word 'almah and
"mistranslated" it!
PR 3 Dec:
Well, the concept of virginity isn't in the original text, is it ?
PR>The word "almah" does not
>mean virgin. It means young girl. Virgin is a different word.
SJ
Paul contradicts himself. He said earlier that "Almah means "`young
woman' (who may or may not be a virgin)". Now he is saying "`almah'
does not mean virgin."
PR
No, this is not a contradicition, Steve. Almah *may* be a virgin. But it
does not mean "virgin". There is a different word for "virgin" Can't you
grasp this ?
SJ
The fact is that there are two Hebrew words: 1. bethulah - which
definitely does mean "virgin" (but could mean an old spinster); and 2.
almah - which means a young woman of marriageable age (and in that
culture was synonymous with virgin, because once a young woman
was married she was called issa - married woman. Almah only appears
seven times in the Bible and it is never used of a married woman:
Paul Robson 3 Dec:
Look , quoting apologists who agree with you doesn't really get you
anywhere. Almah doesn't mean virgin. All it means is it might be !
SJ
So the Heb. word "almah" is *exactly* the right word for Isaiah to use
because he is meaning a young woman of marriageable age who was a
virgin and then having a child as a sign:
word virgin, however stresses the supernatural character of the
birth, and hence is to be preferred."
PR 3 Dec:
I have isolated this because this is the apologist at work with rare
honesty. I want this because it gets me where I want to go.
PR
What happens
is that parthenos is an enlargement in translation.
SJ
Again Paul contradicts himself. Previously he claimed it was a
"mistranslation", now he is claiming it "an enlargement in translation"!
PR
Oh for crying out loud. Are you that stupid ? Do I HAVE to explain everything
in single syllable words ?
SJ
Paul got it right the first time when he said: "Almah means "`young
woman' (who may or may not be a virgin)". The Greek speaking 3rd
Century BC Jews who translated the Hebrew OT into Greek knew
from the Isaiah's choice of the less usual word almah, and from the
context, that the right word to translate almah into Greek was the word
parthenos - "virgin".
PR:
So why not use the word for "virgin" then if you wanted it to mean
virgin ? I mean, I'll take your word for it that it can mean "old woman"
but this is disqualified in this case presumably.
SJ
And that is the word that Matthew uses in Mt 1:23 and applies to
Jesus.
PR 3 Dec:
Besides all this, this applies to events around that time ANYWAY !
Presumably this is why you can quote Giesler in pages but when
quoting Isiah only give the one verse.
PR>Matthew saw this,
>assumed that it meant virgin in the original which he couldn't read,
SJ
This is one of the most amazing things I have ever read. How does
Paul, (who claimed in a previous post that the author of Matthew is
unknown), know that that author couldn't read the "original"?
PR
I agree this is an error. He was simply working from the Septuagint.
PR>then invented the virgin birth myth.
SJ
This is just the anti-supernaturalist liberal critics' "myth"!
PR
Oh, for crying out loud, do you have to drag out this CRAP everytime
you can't think of an answer.
Why the hell should I bother to reply to you ? What's the point ?
I think, if I was honest I decided you were irredeemebly stupid
when I read your first accusation of "contradiction" above.
You don't seem to be able to think, even at the most basic level.
But for some unknown reason I kept going, through a second
brainless contradiction accusation, until the crap about liberal
etc.
(I know all the stupid abuse words that fundies use to persuade
their donkeys not to read anything with a degree of intelligence)
Whenever you can't come up with a Bible you'll just use stupid
fundie buzzwords like "anti-supernaturalist liberal critics". Just
because you are so damn stupid you don't read any books other
than drivel by the Gieslers of this world.
What all that fatuous garbage means is "I can't think of an
answer, so I'll just accuse you of prior motives, so I don't
have to think about it".
The joke is that the person with the bias is you. That's why you
use words like "historical" to describe a traditional belief.
How can I have an intelligent discussion with someone who just
writes off 'Q' as an "invention". I try to talk about the patterns of
writing in Matthew ; how he adapts his material ; and you get
some crackhead who either ignores the point, won't even go and
look, posts pages of preachy drivel from stupid apologetics
tracts that ignore the point as well and use the same stupid
"Oh these are liberal blah blah lots of fundy code words for
don't read it" lines.
I mean if you think I'm anti-Bible, I cannot be any more insulting
about it than you are.
Here's something for you to do. Go and read ALL of the text around
Isaiah 7:14, not just this bloody line. Then see if it REALLY is a
"prediction" or if it's not just talking about that current time. But
you won't do this. You'll post another dozen volumes of rubbish
apologetics about "how it really isn't that because we don't like it".
Yes, I'm cross.
I've no doubt this will cause yet more preachy crap about how
"nice" Christians are. I find your idiotic approach far more
denigrating than just being called "stupid".
I've also no doubt you will view this as "victory". I really don't
care. I suggest you read your "contradiction" claims if you
think you've really "won" an argument.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 03 2000 - 18:01:36 EST