Reflectorites
I thought I had already sent this, but I cannot see that I had. So
my posts on this thread have become a bit out of order. My apologies!
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000 05:39:05 EST, AutismUK@aol.com wrote:
[...]
>RW>There are two other possibilities:
>>1. Jesus was aware of the prophecies and matched his actions to the
>>prophecies.
>SJ>This may in fact be true of some prophecies. The New Testament indicates
>that Jesus grew up like a normal child and that he only gradually became
>aware of who He was. A legitimate part of this becoming aware of who He
>was and what was to do, may have been His reading of what the Old Testament
>prophecies said the Messiah would do.
>
>But as Geisler points out above there were some prophecies (like Mic 5:2 and
>Dan 9:24-27) that were outside the power of Jesus or His followers to
>fulfill, unless Jesus was who He said He was.
>PR>Or unless the Gospel authors fashioned the story to fit the prophecy.
See previous post on this. It is easy for amateur critics like Paul to blithely
say this, because they never have to work through the details and
implications of their `the Gospel authors were frauds' theory. My
understanding is that few (if any) of even the radical critical theologians
have maintained this. It is just too psychologically absurd that a group of
Jews would author some of the highest ethical teaching the world has ever
seen, and then be prepared to die for those teachings, when all along they
were just frauds who made the whole thing up.
But in the case of Dan 9:24-27 the gospel authors never even used this
prophecy! Moreover, it is a prophecy that was beyond the power of Jesus
or the disciples to manipulate its fulfilment because some of the key events
were before Jesus was born and after He died (see also below).
But I am not going to repeat myself and I will start to wind down this
thread. I plan to do an FAQ of this prophecy to show how it: 1) establishes
the reality of the supernatural (and hence shows that materialism and
naturalism are false philosophies); and 2) how it verifies the truth of
Christianity. Part of this FAQ will examine naturalistic objections like
Paul's `fraud theory' and show how they are inadequate.
>RW>2. Out of many claimed messiahs, Jesus was the one widely accepted
>>because the events of his life happened to roughly fit the prophecies.
>SJ>Even if Jesus did only "roughly fit the prophecies" this would be
>sufficient, because there are *hundreds* of them:
>
>"Biblical Predictions. Messianic Predictions. There are two broad
>categories of biblical prophecy: messianic and nonmessianic. Payne
>(ibid., 665-70) lists 191 prophecies concerning the anticipated
>Jewish Messiah and Savior. Each was literally fulfilled in the life,
>death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth ..." (Geisler
>N.L., "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics," 1999, p.610)
>PR>Why do people abuse the word "literally" so ? Presumably one of these is
>Isiah 7:14 !
Because Jesus did in fact fulfill these prophecies. Although the prophecies
were sometimes veiled, when Jesus fulfilled them they were clearly seen to
be fulfilled in Him.
The Gk. word rendered "fulfill" is pleroo, meaning "to fill" or "to
complete".
In the case of Isa 7:14, the prophet foretold that one who would be God-
with-us would be born of a virgin. The NT claims Jesus was God with us
and that He was born of a virgin.
Note that it is possible for a prophecy to have a dual fulfilment. It is
possible that Isa 7:14 had a limited more immediate fulfilment and a final
distant fulfilment.
>SJ>The probability of them all being fulfilled even "roughly" in one person
>would presumably be *astronomical*:
>
>"It is unlikely that all these events would have converged in the life
>of one man. Mathematicians (Stoner, 108) have calculated the
>probability of sixteen predictions being fulfilled in one man (e.g.,
>Jesus) at 1 in 10^45. That forty-eight predictions might meet in one
>person, the probability is 1 in 10^157. It is almost impossible to
>conceive of a number that large." (Geisler N.L., 1999, p.613).
>PR>Somebody with the mathematic knowledge to get a Biology degree
One doesn't need much "mathematic knowledge to get a Biology degree"!
PR>should be aware that this is bolloxmath, as beloved of Creationists
>everywhere.
One can disagree with the specific number, or the specific methodology,
but the probability of one person fulfilling a large number of prophecies
must be astronomical. As I said in a previous post, this is tacitly accepted
by critics who (like Paul) claim that either: 1) Jesus manipulated his life;
and/or 2) the gospel writers manipulated their stories, to make it appear
that Jesus was the Messiah.
They know that if in fact Jesus *did* fulfill all these prophecies, and then
went on to be the founder of a world religion, that shrugging it off as a
series of chance coincidences would not wash.
I might add that the standard of fulfilment must be that of 1st century Jews,
not 20th century Gentiles. If the 1st century Jews were expecting a
prophecy to apply to the Messiah, even if it is only an allusion or a
figurative fulfilment, and Jesus did in fact fulfill that prophecy, then that
must count as a fulfilled prophecy.
However, there are some prophecies that Jesus did fulfill, even by 20th
century standards. For example Mic 5:2 predicting that the Messiah would
be born in Bethlehem, and Dan 9:24-27 which, by the most reasonable set
of assumptions (confirmed by actual Jewish expectation at the time),
predicts the date of the coming of the Messiah ~ 28AD.
It is possible to deny these of course, but the denial is less reasonable than
their acceptance. Of course if one holds the philosophy of absolute anti-
supernaturalism (i.e. metaphysical naturalism) then one will reject these
prophecies. But then one's show of reasoning is just a sham-at all times it is
under the absolute control of that anti-supernaturalist philosophy.
PR>In the case of the Daniel prophecy, however, it just sounds like post-hoc
>reinterpretation of the prophecy to fit the alleged facts.
See above and previously. To summarise, this fails on several grounds:
1) This can always be said, even if in fact Jesus did fulfill this prophecy in
Dan 9:24-27;
2) The NT does not even use this prophecy, so it cannot be argued that
they wrote the story to fit the prophecy;
3) Jesus could not manipulate events so He fulfilled this prophecy because
some of the events were before He was born and after He died.
>SJ>No. I produced non-Christian (i.e. Jewish and Roman) historical evidence
>that the Jews were expecting the Messiah at that very time, and the only
>prophecy there is in the Old Testament that predicts the time of the
>Messiah is Dan 9:24-27.
>PR>And it doesn't fit !
Disagree. At least two of the interpretations fit *perfectly* (i.e. a terminus
ad quem within a seven year time span that overlaps the 30-33AD time
span of Jesus public ministry). These are the 360-day year and the Sabbath-
year cycles, with a terminus ad quo of 445BC, and a terminus ad quem of
30-31AD and 28-35AD respectively. Even one 365 day year interpretation
with a terminus ad quo of 457BC fits also, but not as well, with a terminus
ad quem of 25AD.
>SJ>See attached paper by physicist-theologian Robert Newman who improves
>on the 360 day-year calculation by using the Jewish 7-year Sabbath year
>cycles. This was actually mentioned in his the quote from him I originally
>posted but I did not then understand its significance.
>
>The combination of: 1) a reasonable terminus ad quo and method of
>calculation;
>PR>It is nothing of the sort. It is a fiddle, based around factual errors.
Disagree. There is no "fiddle" nor "factual errors". The terminus ad quo of
445BC is the only decree to "rebuild" Jerusalem (Neh 2:5) in fulfilment of
Dan 9:25), and the 7-year sabbath cycles is a religious calendar system in
the Bible (Ex 23:10-11; Lev 25:3-7, 18-22) that a Jewish scholar has
confirmed the Jews actually used. Indeed Daniel's "sevens" could literally
have meant those seven-year Sabbath cycles.
Note that Paul does not provide any alternative explanation himself. His
whole argument (if one could call it that) involves unsubstantiated
assertions.
Also Paul continues to ignores the fact that, according to the Jewish
historian Josephus, and the Roman historians Suetonius and Tacitus, the
Jews were expecting the Messiah around this time, based on a prophecy in
their Scripture. There is no other prophecy in the OT which predicts the
date of the Messiah, so this is independent confirming evidence that the
terminus ad quo and method of calculation were in accord with 1st century
Jewish interpretation.
>SJ>2) confirmed by the historical evidence that the Jews were expecting the
>Messiah at this time;
>PR>And were afterwards.....
The point is they were at this time, based on Scriptural prophecy. And after
Jerusalem was destroyed the hope faded.
>SJ>and 3) the fact that Jesus came at that very time
>PR>Well, actually he *left* at that very time.
If He "left", then he also "came"! The prophecy refers *both* to Messiah's
coming ("...until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes... -Dan 9:25),and his
leaving ("After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off... -
Dan 9:26).
The fact is, as I have pointed out, that Jesus began his public ministry after
28AD and ended it no later than 33AD.
This fits either the 360-day year theory: 445BC-(69*7-1)*360/365.25 =
30AD; or Newman's Sabbath year cycle theory (28-35AD). Both theories
are based on exegetically sound starting points and on calendar bases found
in the Bible (both OT and NT).
In addition, another method based on 365-day calendar years, using
another possible starting date (457BC), comes out to a few years before
Jesus started His public ministry: 445BC-(69*7-1) = 25AD.
PR>Rather odd that a prophecy of the
>coming Messiah should prophecy his death rather than his arrival, isn't it ?
The prophecy prophesies *both* Messiah's arrival:
Dan 9:25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the
decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the
ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It
will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble."
and His death:
Dan 9:26 "After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be
cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will
come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like
a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been
decreed."
It BTW also predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by a
Roman prince, Titus Vespasian, which was fulfiled in AD70, only 40 years
after Jesus was cut off.
Neither Jesus nor His disciples could have engineered that! And if it hadn't
happened then Jesus would not have fulfilled this prophecy. But it did, and
He did!
>SJ>and founded a world religion
>PR>It is questionable whether this was Jesus' aim.
On what basis does Paul say this? Jesus spoke of building "my "church"
(Mt 16:18). He sent His disciples into "all the world" to preach His gospel
(Mk 16:15), and that the gospel of His kingdom would be "preached in the
whole world as a testimony to all nations" (Mt 24:14). Which BTW is a
2000 year-old prophecy being fulfilled today before Paul's very eyes!
It is interesting to note Paul's `pick and choose' approach, which is typical
of the so-called `skeptics'. Their inconsistent methodology (if one can call it
that) rejects the NT documents as evidence when they say things the
sceptic doesn't like, but appeals to them as evidence when they appear to
say things that the sceptic does like.
But in any event this is a red-herring. The fact is that Jesus *is* the only
claimed Messiah who *did* found a world religion.
>SJ>; is *overwhelming* evidence that
>Jesus is who He said He was - the Messiah!
>PR>All hail Appollonius !
I am afraid I don't know what this means.
[...]
>PR>It amuses me that you quote a passage which brings up the same objections I
>made, to things which you think is reasonable. For example, the 360 day year.
The paper by Newman does not so much object to "the 360 day year" as
Anderson's overly specific interpretation of it.
IMHO the "360 day year" interpretation is still possible, but Newman's
Sabbath-year cycles are probably better.
PR>Then,
SJ>"The command instituting the sabbatical year is found in Ex 23:10-11 and
>Lev 25:3-7, 18-22. The Exodus passage reads: "For six years you are to
>sow your fields and harvest your crops, but during the seventh year let the
>l and lie unplowed and unused."
>One has to wonder whether an open mind really sees this as a statement that
>prophecies should only use 6 years out of every 7.
Newman was just using "the usual Jewish inclusive method of counting" of
these sabbath cycles:
"Using Wacholder's list of sabbatical years, 28 our calculation is
very simple. Our starting point, the month Nisan in 445 BC, falls in
the seven-year cycle 449-442 BC, of which the last year, from
September 443 to September 442, is the seventh or sabbatical
year. 29 Using the usual Jewish inclusive method of counting, 449-
442 is the first "week" of Daniel's prophecy. The second is 442-435
BC, and so on, down to the transition from BC to AD, where we
need to remember that 1 BC is immediately followed by AD 1, with
no year zero in between..." (http://www.ibri.org/09timeofmessiah.htm)
The reference Newman cites is:
"Ben Zion Wacholder, `The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During
the Second Temple and the Early Rabbinic Period,' Hebrew Union
College Annual 44 (1973): 153-196"
which sounds sufficiently Jewish for me!
PR>Here's how it works.
>
>We think that Jesus was crucified about 32AD.
No, we *know*, as much as anything we know that is history, that Jesus
"was crucified about 32AD", in fact most likely 33AD. I have already given
reasons for this previously.
PR>We want to convince people of
>the truth of our belief, partially to internally validate our own belief.
No. My belief that Jesus was the Messiah was already validated long before
I heard of this prophecy. This is just the cream on the cake.
And I don't want to "convince people of the truth of" my "belief". First, my
"belief" is nothing unless it is *true*. Because my "belief" inextricably
includes and is based on objective historical facts in the real world, either it
is true or it is false. There is no in-between. If it is true, then it is true for
*everybody*, whether they believe it or not.
Second, I don't want to "convince" but *persuade* people, by rational
arguments based on the *evidence*. The arguments that Jesus fulfilled OT
prophecy like Mic 5:2 and Dan 9:24-27 is based on objective historical
evidence available to all, and has never been refuted, but only rejected on
naturalistic philosophical grounds. I believe that it is very important that
people be free to reject this truth in this life, but then they be held
accountable for that rejection in the next.
PR>We
>aren't particularly bothered about how honest we are in doing this.
It is Paul's *assumption* that Christians are not being "honest". He
provides no non-circular evidence for his claim. Because Paul takes his
philosophy of anti-supernaturalism (i.e. naturalism) to be absolutely true, it
follows to Paul that Christian evidence for the supernatural, like fulfilled
prophecy, just *cannot* be true and therefore the evidence itself, and those
who present it, cannot be "honest".
But in fact Christian supernaturalists *are* being honest. They believe on
overwhelming evidential grounds that Jesus is the Messiah and therefore
they expect that there might be a means of reconciling Daniel's prophecy in
Dan 9:24-27 with Jesus' appearance as Messiah.
And there expectation has been justified, because there is at least two such
means of reconciliation that are quite reasonably based on Scripture and are
confirmed by 1st century Jewish expectations.
PR>Oh, look, Daniel predicts the coming of the anointed one.
Correct!
PR>Lets see 62+7 weeks ; yes , we can make that years.
It doesn't say "weeks" in the original. It says "sevens":
Dan 9:24-27 (NIV) "Seventy 'sevens' are decreed ... From the
issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the
Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and
sixty-two 'sevens.' ... After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One
will be cut off ...".
Interpreting this as seven-year periods is reasonable, as that is the way the
Jews understood them (since they were expecting the Messiah in the 1st
century based on this prophecy).
Even Paul in an earlier post accepted this, so this shows the non-rational
`spoiling' nature of Paul's argument (if one can call it that). For Paul it
seems that, *any* negative argument will do, even if he forgot he had
accepted the point earlier!
PR>(Rattle of calculator keys). Damn, it doesn't work.
This is a caricature of how Christian theologians test various alternative
interpretative theories. As I have pointed out in a previous post, this is
similar (if not identical) to the hypothetico-deductive way that scientists
(especially evolutionary biologists) reason, taking something as fact, and
then working backwards proposing various alternative hypotheses to see
which one best fits the fact. If Paul wants to reject this way of reasoning,
he would have to reject much of modern science in general and
evolutionary biology in particular.
And since Jesus public ministry was from ~ 30-33AD, and since these
`sevens' are not stated as exactly 365-day calendar years (there is no
evidence that the Jews of Daniel's day and even in Jesus' day used
exclusively a 365-day calendar), it is reasonable for Christians to look at
alternative ways of calculating these `sevens' to yield a closer fit with the
time of Jesus' appearing.
In any event, as I have shown previously, at least three calculations do in
fact "work", even one that uses straight 365 day years.
PR>Let's see if we can find a way of making it work.
Note that Paul admits there *is* " a way of making it work". So what we
have is at least one combination of terminus ad quo and method of
calculation, which are in the Bible, which comes out to the time of Jesus.
And Jesus is the only Messiah who ever founded a world religion.
So what more evidence does Paul want?
PR>Oh look, there's this
>statement miles away that suggests that 6 out of every 7 years can be used.
No. What is used is *Jewish* Sabbath-year cycles which are in the Bible
(Ex 23:10-11; Lev 25:3-7, 18-22; 26:32-35) and which a modern *Jewish*
scholar has documented were in use at the time. In fact there is a clear
connection between the warning of exile in Lev 26:32-35 if these Sabbath-
year cycles are not kept and Daniel's meditation in Dan 9:2 on the prophecy
of Jeremiah (Jer 25:11-12; 29:10) about Judah's 70 year exile in Babylon
and its ending. This is added confirmation that Newman's interpretation is
correct.
Also, Josephus indicates the Jews were expecting the Messiah at about this
time based on an "ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred
writings...". The only candidate is Dan 9:24-27 and the only combination of
terminus ad quo and calculation that would yield a result of about this time
would be either: 1) 445BC or 457BC and straight calendar years; or 2)
445BC and either 360-day years or Jewish Sabbath cycles.
To date Paul has completely ignored this crucial point. Yet if his critique is
to have any merit he needs to have an viable alternative explanation of this.
PR>And if we
>couple it with this decree, which actually isn't a decree to rebuild
>Jerusalem
It is. In the original of Dan 9:25 the Heb. word rendered "decree" is just
dabar meaning "word". That is the same word, rendered "words" in Neh
2:18, where Nehemiah is speaking about the king's approval for him to go
and rebuild Jerusalem:
Neh 2:18 (AV) "Then I told them of the hand of my God which
was good upon me; as also the king's words [Heb. dabar] that he
had spoken unto me. And they said, Let us rise up and build. So
they strengthened their hands for this good work."
In the ancient world, a king's words *were* decrees!
Permission to rebuild a fortified capital city was not a light thing, because
they can become centres of attack and defence again. That is why their
walls are broken down and gates burned in the first place.
Artaxerxes did not just passively let Nehemiah go-he positively *sent* him
to rebuild Jerusalem:
Neh 2:5-6 "and I answered the king, "If it pleases the king and if
your servant has found favor in his sight, let him send me to the city
in Judah where my fathers are buried so that I can rebuild it. "Then
the king, with the queen sitting beside him, asked me, "How long
will your journey take, and when will you get back?" It pleased the
king to send me; so I set a time.
Also, Artaxerxes gave Nehemiah escort troops and official letters of safe
conduct as well as permission to cut timber from the king's forest:
Neh 2:7-8 I also said to him, "If it pleases the king, may I have
letters to the governors of Trans-Euphrates, so that they will
provide me safe-conduct until I arrive in Judah? And may I have a
letter to Asaph, keeper of the king's forest, so he will give me
timber to make beams for the gates of the citadel by the temple and
for the city wall and for the residence I will occupy?" And because
the gracious hand of my God was upon me, the king granted my
requests. So I went to the governors of Trans-Euphrates and gave
them the king's letters. The king had also sent army officers and
cavalry with me."
PR>(but that doesn't matter, the faithful won't bother to look it up)
I don't know who Paul imagines these "faithful" to be, but Christian
apologists (e.g. McDowell and Newman) set out their arguments in detail
so the "faithful" (and anyone else) can make up their own minds based on
the *evidence*.
PR>we can present an argument that looks good to the gullible.
Paul (like other self-styled `skeptics') seems to be living in a stereotypical
world where he sees himself as the fearless rationalist, unflinchingly staring
reality in the face, and Christians are all just a bunch of "gullible" fools.
The funny thing is that in this thread the roles are reversed-in it I am
making all the evidence-based arguments and Paul is just making
unsubstantiated assertions!
>SJ>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>"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)
[...]
>PR>101 Signs that a Christian is losing a debate
>
>1] Resorts to threats of hell
There is nothing about "hell" in this quote. This quote from Pascal is about
the evidence for God. He is saying there is enough evidence for *support*
a rational belief in God, but not enough evidence to *compel* such a belief
for those who don't want to believe. It is this heart-attitude of not wanting
to believe that unbelievers will be held accountable for.
Dan 9:24-27 is a classic example of this. The evidence is so strong that
Jesus is the Messiah, but there is just enough obscurity to give unbelievers
a loophole to continue in their heart attitude of unbelief.
PR>2] Accuses everyone else but himself of being closed minded
The above quote by Pascal does not accuse anyone of "being closed
minded". It is talking about the *evidence*: 1) being enough to rationally
support Christian's belief but not enough to allow then to escape mocking
by unbelievers like Paul; and 2) being not enough for those who don't want
to believe but enough to deprive them of rational excuse.
PR>3] Accuses everyone else of intellectual blindness.
See above. It is not so much "intellectual blindness" but *spiritual*
blindness:
1Cor 2:14 (AV) "But the natural man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he
know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
Mind you, Paul in this very post accuses Christians of being "gullible" and
dishonest. So he himself is in effect accusing Christians as a whole of
"intellectual blindness".
I do not claim that Paul (and other unbelievers) are being dishonest. I
assume that on an intellectual level they honestly and sincerely believe that
they are right that Jesus was not the Messiah.
But if Jesus *is* the Messiah, and Dan 9:24-27 is strong evidence that he
is, then as Billy Graham used to say, Paul and his fellow unbelievers are
sincerely *wrong*!
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Contemporary religious thinkers often approach the Argument from
Design with a grim determination that their churches shall not again be
made to look foolish. Recalling what happened when churchmen opposed
first Galileo and then Darwin, they insist that religion must be based not on
science but on faith. Philosophy, they announce, has demonstrated that
Design Arguments lack all force. I hope to have shown that philosophy has
demonstrated no such thing. Our universe, which these religious thinkers
believe to be created by God, does look, greatly though this may dismay
them, very much as if created by God." (Leslie J., "Universes", [1989],
Routledge: London, 1996, reprint, p.22)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 05 2000 - 17:48:01 EST