Jack the Bodiless

A word of wisdom: elsewhere, you admitted that you were not an expert. Spin, however, actually IS an expert. This is his field, and his knowledge of it greatly exceeds yours.
On the contrary: it is nowhere to be found.

There is no mention of the Book of Daniel prior to the 2nd century BC: that is a simple fact, regardless of the opinion of apologists such as Geisler. There is certainly no evidence of the existence of the Book of Daniel, much less its "canonization", by "at least 400 BC" or even "by 200 BC" as claimed. And I note that you are continuing to ignore the fact that Daniel contains historical errors: why are you maintaining the pretense that a rejection of miraculous prophecy is the ONLY reason for assuming a late authorship?

Basically, all of your claims regarding supposed "prophectic accuracy" between the 6th and the 2nd century BC are refuted by the late authorship of Daniel.

And everything since then is refuted by a total lack of any sort of verifiable fulfillment. In particular, the "Kingdom of God" was supposed to be established by the Messiah on his FIRST coming (the Jewish Messiah is not supposed to come twice). The notion of a "Second Coming" is the First Excuse for the failure of Jesus to fulfil Messianic prophecy. And his followers assumed that this would unequivocally establish the "Kingdom of God", within one generation. But this never happened either, so we're left with the doctrine of a still-to-occur "Second Coming" combined with a sort of metaphorical "Kingdom of God" that is strangely invisible and unevidenced. In what sense has the "Kingdom of God" arrived? Yes, Chrisianity is currently the world's biggest religion, but only a third of humanity is even nominally Christian, and even this is a recent development stemming from European colonialism in the Renaissance: certainly not within one generation!

A combination of after-the-event writings and unverifiable claims is not "proof" of any sort.

mdd344

Jack,

You stated,
Well for the record, Spin misused several key, and simple, Bible verses and words. That leads me to question his conclusions, as it should. Those aren't obscure things either. They are very, very basic.


You also said, And now you have demonstrated two things. One, you didn't read or pay attention to all that I wrote. Two, you don't understand the kingdom concept any better than Spin did. I say the first because I proved (with actual arguments btw) that the kingdom did come (Remember Mark 9:1?). I say the second because in that description above you do not demonstrate any knowledge of the kingdom or what it is as the Bible teaches it.

And lastly, I think you started with, 'the book is late dated for sure' and then went from there. Isn't that called begging the question? You cannot mishandle basic Bible truths and yet use such to disprove what I said. I used them correctly, in context. If you do that, you will see the difference.

Jack the Bodiless

By the way, this looks rather odd:
Why are you trying here to refute imagined attacks on the prophecy (including the notion that people might have consciously tried to make the prophecy come true), without even mentioning the date-of-authorship issue? From your later posts, it is apparent that you were aware of this controversy, but nowhere in your original post is the possibility of late-authorship addressed, or even mentioned!

Did you imagine we would be unaware of this issue? Or did you imagine that we'd simply accept early-authorship because you asserted several times that this was so?

mdd344

Jack,
Perhaps you missed my second post on it, on this thread?

mdd344

Gamera,
I don't want to take this thread off track. But, please read Acts 26, and note what Paul asks of King Agrippa in trying to persuade him to be a Christian in verse 27.
And actually, I do believe because of the proof given in Acts 2 from the OT that Jesus is the Christ. That is evidence I cannot deny.

Jack the Bodiless

Another mystery presents itself: as you are aware of the logical fallacy of "begging the question", why do you keep perpetrating it?

You cannot quote the Bible to "prove" the claims therein: that is begging the question. Nor should you assume that you are dealing with "basic Bible truths", that is begging the question. Nor have you used them "correctly, in context": that is begging the question.

BTW, in addition to your failure to refute the points raised thus far, I will also point out that there is no "Gospel of Jesus" in the Bible (not that we could prove that any such book was actually written by him, of course). Any assertions regarding what "Jesus said" is begging the question. Especially as the canonical gospels were (according to scholars) written decades later, at a time when the no-show of Jesus had become rather obvious.

And the book of Daniel is dated late by Biblical scholars, based upon evidence that I have become somewhat familiar with (but you still choose to ignore).

Gamera

So you accepted the gospel because of "evidence" of prophesies mentioned in the OT? Is that really what happened?

And your faith is based on "evidence"? How does this square with what Jesus said to Thomas:

John 20: Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." 30

More to the point, what are you "believing" in exactly? Paul says the gospel saves, not belief in OT prophesis about Alexander the Great.

If your faith is based on evidence, can't you brag that you're smarter than those who don't believe, since they obviously lack the cognitive skills you do in decerning this evidence. And isn't this contrary to what Paul teaches about faith, which is pure acceptance, not a work? Aren't you privileging your reason?

Jack the Bodiless

...A reply made only after the issue was pointed out to you.

Again, the mystery. You thought I wouldn't notice that?

Gamera

mdd:

This doesn't fly

Act 26:27: "King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know that you believe."

Paul is not asking Agrippa to beleive in OT prophesy as evidence of Jesus's claims, but the prophets, who according to Paul (preaching to an ostensible Jew) proclaimed the coming of a messiah.

Paul doesn't preach anything about messiahood when preaching to gentiles, since it would be meaningless to them.

So again, prophesy seems not to be something Paul or James or Peter cared about. It's not something God seem eager to promulgate by making sure that dated OT mss exist prior to the things predicted.

So why are you convinced that prophesy is so important? Seems like it's part of the narrative of Hebrew scriptures, and we are supposed to focus on the role of prophesy in the narratives, not as evidence of anything.

Gamera

Is a scholarly understanding of the "kingdom concept" necessary for accepting the gospel? Meaning the erudite and well read can be saved, but not simple unschooled souls?

I for one am pretty well read and pretty educated (got a Ph.D in mediaeval studues and have two books published) and consider myself a mature Christian, yet I find the "kingdom concept" obscure and tangential to the gospel, which is rather simple and available to everyone.