Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clouseau · 09-15-2007, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

If Paul is to be be believed, they noticed it very much just about everywhere he went, which was not often in Palestine.

Quote:

Paul wrote to house churches - a small group of people who met privately in a house - in seven cities. That's all.

Paul made a habit of visiting and preaching first to Jews in synagogues, and in many more cities than seven, and frequently he met an adverse reaction. Jews must have wondered, even briefly, whether the sack of the temple was not a divine response to their reaction. Many Temple priests had become Christians, and this fact cannot have been lost on the diaspora either.

Quote:

It's not a matter of whether the supernatural is scientifically observable. It's a matter of whether it is statistically significant, which it is very unlikely to be. It's not even very appropriate to talk about science in this connexion. The question is, what did unconverted Jews think? Whether the sack of the Jerusalem Temple, just a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus, is effect from cause, nobody can categorically affirm. But to Jews, whose very existence used to be intimately bound up with both the Temple and the Promised Land, the permanent loss of both, shortly after the coming of one who claimed to be the Messiah, who had had a very significant following among ethnic Jews, must have at least given food for thought.

Quote:

How do you figure that the Temple was destroyed "just a few years after the crucifixion of Jesus?"

From the perspective of the whole history of Israel, the removal of both Temple and Jews themselves from Israel came soon after the mission of Jesus.

Quote:

And Jesus was not the only claimant to be the Messiah.

He's the only one that we are discussing, though.

Quote:

This doesn't add up. Josephus is our source for what Jews thought, and he does not attribute the destruction of the Temple to the death of Jesus.

He wouldn't, would he. They wouldn't, would they.

Huon · 09-15-2007, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

<snip>
Here is a rather famous historical example of an empowered psycho:

Quote:

from The Book of Days:

A letter written by the celebrated philosopher Kant, in 1764, and which is published in his Works, gives the following curious details regarding Swedenborg, of whose possession of an extraordinary gift he considers it an indubitable proof.

'In the year 1756,' says he [the true date, however, was 1759], 'when M. de Swedenborg, towards the end of February, on Saturday, at 4 o'clock p.m., arrived at Gottenburg from England, Mr. William Costel invited him to his house, together with a party of fifteen persons. About 6 o'clock, M. de Swedenborg went out, and after a short interval returned to the company quite pale and alarmed. He said that a dangerous fire had broken out in Stockholm at the Suderhalm (Stockholm is about 300 miles from Gottenburg), and that it was spreading very fast. He was restless and went out often: he said that the house of one of his friends, whom he named, was already in ashes, and that his own was in danger. At 8 o'clock, after he had been out again, he joyfully exclaimed, "Thank God! the fire is extinguished the third door from my house." This news occasioned great commotion through the whole city, and particularly amongst the company in which he was. It was announced to the Governor the same evening. On the Sunday morning, Swedenborg was sent for by the Governor, who questioned him concerning the disaster. Swedenborg described the fire precisely, how it had begun, in what manner it had ceased, and how long it had continued. . . On the Monday evening, a messenger arrived at Gottenburg, who was dispatched during the time of the fire. In the letters brought by him, the fire was described precisely in the manner stated by Swedenborg. On Tuesday morning, the royal courier arrived at the Governor's with the melancholy intelligence of the fire, of the loss it had occasioned, and of the houses it had damaged and ruined, not in the least differing from that which Swedenborg had given immediately after it had ceased, for the fire was extinguished at 8 o'clock.'

Kant adds:

'What can be brought forward against the authenticity of this occurrence? My friend, who wrote this to me, has not only examined the circumstances of this extraordinary case at Stockholm, but also about two months ago, at Gottenburg, where he is acquainted with the most respectable houses, and where he could obtain the most complete and authentic information.'

Jiri

Swedenborg made a prediction of something which was happening immediately and could be verified the next day. We do not know whether Jesus-Christ predicted around 30 CE the destruction of the temple in 70 CE, because we have no "Immanuel Kant" (well known by his writings and some independent testimonies) listening to JC and giving an account of this prophecy around, say, 40 CE.

Moreover, we do not know all the whereabouts of this fire in Stockholm. Was it an accident ? was it a criminal fire ? The description of the fire by Swedendenborg (who was not here) is valueless, at best a second hand description, enhanced post facto. The witness was not Kant, but William Costel. The date was not 1756, but 1759. And, if the prediction by Swedenborg had been mistaken, nobody would have said anything about this blunder of Swedenborg.

Ray Moscow · 09-15-2007, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

It's not so much "convenient" as favoring an explanation that doesn't invoke magic.

Let's re-write that, perhaps a little more objectively.

It's not so much convenient as favoring an explanation that doesn't invoke the supernatural.

Just as convincing?

In this context, "magic" and the "supernatural" mean the same thing -- fortune telling. And by definition, it's the least likely scenario to be real.

Clouseau · 09-15-2007, 04:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Let's re-write that, perhaps a little more objectively.

It's not so much convenient as favoring an explanation that doesn't invoke the supernatural.

Just as convincing?

Quote:

In this context, "magic" and the "supernatural" mean the same thing -- fortune telling.

Another pejorative!

Quote:

And by definition, it's the least likely scenario to be real.

Petitio principii comes round again. The supernatural cannot occur, therefore it did not.

Johnny Skeptic · 09-15-2007, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Petitio principii comes round again. The supernatural cannot occur, therefore it did not.

I do not claim that the supernatural cannot occur, but do you have any evidence that supernatural events have occured? I am defining a supernatural event as an event that is impossible for humans to perform at this time.

Johnny Skeptic · 09-15-2007, 06:59 AM

Here is what a fundie prophecy buff has to say regarding this matter:

http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2007...did-come-true/

To historically show that these predictions existed before 70 AD, look first to where these predictions are found in good detail in the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of Luke was written before Luke’s other work “Acts of the Apostles”, and this is key in knowing if Jesus’ predictions as found in Luke 19:41-44 and 21:5-24 are real. The Gospel of Luke is presented in the first sentence of Acts, which presents a review of Luke’s Gospel (Acts 1:1-4). Acts is significant because it concludes with the Apostle Paul under house arrest (Acts 28:30-31) in about 60-62 AD before his death in AD 67. If Acts was written after 70, then why did Luke not reveal what happened to Paul in trial and even his death? If Acts ended with Paul’s death and even Peter’s, then the dating of Acts could have been after the desolation of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, but this is not the case though James’ and Stephen’s deaths are recorded. It is very evident that Acts was written before AD 70. Acts ends with mentioning Paul’s house arrest lasting two years implying knowledge of Paul’s release and nothing further (28:30). Luke does not tell what happened in Paul’s trials in Rome when the rest of the book has covered Paul’s trials in detail. The fact that Acts ends without resolution concerning Paul’s trials and his death is very important in showing that Acts was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, so the predictions in Luke’s earlier writing of the Gospel of Luke would have been before the event. Along with all of this, Acts presents an optimistic view of the government of Rome, which would have changed by the Neronian persecution to come in AD 64-65. This affirms the existence of these predictions prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Knowing Luke’s Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, see how with what detail Jesus predicted these events. Look at two passages of Jesus’ predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Luke 19:41-44 and in 21:5-24.

In Luke 19:41-44, Jesus predicted:
*The enemies of Jerusalem would build an embankment around it (19:43).
*Jerusalem would be closed in on every side (19:43).
*Jerusalem would be leveled to the ground with not one stone upon another (19:44).

In Luke 21:5-24, Jesus predicted:
*The buildings of the temple would be thrown down (21:5-6).
*Hearing of wars along with nation actually rising against nation, and kingdom against kingdom (21:9-10).
*There would be earthquakes, famines, and pestilences. (21:11)
*Apostles and disciples would be around at the beginning of the signs of these things, and they would even be persecuted in the persecution to come before these signs (21:12).
*Some of these disciples would die before these signs came to pass (21:16).
*Some of the disciples would see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then desolation is near (21:20).
*Many would die by sword or be taken captive unto all the nations (21:24).
*Jerusalem would be trampled under foot by Gentiles (21:24).

These events are confirmed mostly in Roman record written by the Jewish historian, Josephus, who was at the capture of Jerusalem. The predictions were fulfilled that the enemies of Jerusalem would build an embankment around it (19:43), and Jerusalem would be closed in on every side (19:43). The Jewish historian, Josephus, confirmed this truth in his history (War of the Jews, VI, 8.1). The Temple being thrown down and made desolate is confirmed by Josephus too (War of the Jews, VI, 4:7, 5:1-2, 6:1; VII, 1:1). Jerusalem would be leveled to the ground with not one stone upon another (19:44). The buildings of the temple would be thrown down (21:5-6). This was the greatest desolation that the world had known until this time (War of the Jews, VI 10:1, VII). Josephus presents clearly that the only parts of the city left were three towers while the rest of the city and the Temple were completely leveled.

Amaleq13 · 09-15-2007, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

From the perspective of the whole history of Israel, the removal of both Temple and Jews themselves from Israel came soon after the mission of Jesus.

Thirty years is "soon"?

Quote:

He wouldn't, would he. They wouldn't, would they.

Josephus blames the destruction of Jerusalem on rebels starting with Judas in 6CE, doesn't he?

Doesn't Origen tells us that Josephus, Christians, and Jews attributed the fall of Jerusalem to the murder of James? That he was apparently wrong about Josephus does not entail that he was wrong about the general views of Christians and Jews regarding the destruction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Petitio principii comes round again. The supernatural cannot occur, therefore it did not.

How about "Supernatural events are, by definition, so unlikely that only when substantial evidence exists suggesting such a thing actually did happen, it is entirely rational to disregard it as a viable possibility."

Johnny Skeptic · 09-15-2007, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Petitio principii comes round again. The supernatural cannot occur, therefore it did not.

I do not claim that the supernatural cannot occur, but do you have any evidence that supernatural events have occured? I am defining a supernatural event as an event that is impossible for humans to achieve at this time.

Roger Pearse · 09-15-2007, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

From the perspective of the whole history of Israel, the removal of both Temple and Jews themselves from Israel came soon after the mission of Jesus.

Thirty years is "soon"?

Well, yes, to everyone except a teenager it is soon.

I remember 1977 like it was yesterday. Subjectively it *was* yesterday. I just don't quite know what happened. One day I turned around and I was 40.

Apparently everyone has that experience. "And then one day you find/Ten years have got behind you/No-one told you when to run/You missed the starting gun".

Apparently the next 30 go even more quickly.

Sorry but I'm feeling old today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Petitio principii comes round again. The supernatural cannot occur, therefore it did not.

How about "Supernatural events are, by definition, so unlikely that only when substantial evidence exists suggesting such a thing actually did happen, it is entirely rational to disregard it as a viable possibility."

But is there any practical difference between these two statements, tho?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Johnny Skeptic · 09-15-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clouseau

Petitio principii comes round again. The supernatural cannot occur, therefore it did not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

How about "Supernatural events are, by definition, so unlikely that only when substantial evidence exists suggesting such a thing actually did happen, it is entirely rational to disregard it as a viable possibility."?

How about "If God really wanted people to believe that he could do things that humans cannot do, he would have showed up in person, in front of people all over the world in all generations, and demonstrated that he is able to do things that humans cannot do."?

I know from past experience that it is beneath your scholarly dignity to reply to my posts. You sit upon your lofty scholarly perch looking down scornfully on skeptic laymen like me. You conveniently never choose to discuss philosophical issues because of the difficulties that they present to conservative and moderate Christians. If a twelve year old asked you why you are a Christian, would you ask him to read some scholarly books? If you wouldn't, I would sure like to know what your approach would be.

The quote above was not written by Roger Pearse but by me.

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-15-2007, 06:59 AM	#26
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Here is what a fundie prophecy buff has to say regarding this matter: http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2007...did-come-true/ To historically show that these predictions existed before 70 AD, look first to where these predictions are found in good detail in the Gospel of Luke. The Gospel of Luke was written before Luke’s other work “Acts of the Apostles”, and this is key in knowing if Jesus’ predictions as found in Luke 19:41-44 and 21:5-24 are real. The Gospel of Luke is presented in the first sentence of Acts, which presents a review of Luke’s Gospel (Acts 1:1-4). Acts is significant because it concludes with the Apostle Paul under house arrest (Acts 28:30-31) in about 60-62 AD before his death in AD 67. If Acts was written after 70, then why did Luke not reveal what happened to Paul in trial and even his death? If Acts ended with Paul’s death and even Peter’s, then the dating of Acts could have been after the desolation of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, but this is not the case though James’ and Stephen’s deaths are recorded. It is very evident that Acts was written before AD 70. Acts ends with mentioning Paul’s house arrest lasting two years implying knowledge of Paul’s release and nothing further (28:30). Luke does not tell what happened in Paul’s trials in Rome when the rest of the book has covered Paul’s trials in detail. The fact that Acts ends without resolution concerning Paul’s trials and his death is very important in showing that Acts was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, so the predictions in Luke’s earlier writing of the Gospel of Luke would have been before the event. Along with all of this, Acts presents an optimistic view of the government of Rome, which would have changed by the Neronian persecution to come in AD 64-65. This affirms the existence of these predictions prior to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. Knowing Luke’s Gospel was written before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, see how with what detail Jesus predicted these events. Look at two passages of Jesus’ predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in Luke 19:41-44 and in 21:5-24. In Luke 19:41-44, Jesus predicted: The enemies of Jerusalem would build an embankment around it (19:43). Jerusalem would be closed in on every side (19:43). Jerusalem would be leveled to the ground with not one stone upon another (19:44). In Luke 21:5-24, Jesus predicted: The buildings of the temple would be thrown down (21:5-6). Hearing of wars along with nation actually rising against nation, and kingdom against kingdom (21:9-10). There would be earthquakes, famines, and pestilences. (21:11) Apostles and disciples would be around at the beginning of the signs of these things, and they would even be persecuted in the persecution to come before these signs (21:12). Some of these disciples would die before these signs came to pass (21:16). Some of the disciples would see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then desolation is near (21:20). Many would die by sword or be taken captive unto all the nations (21:24). *Jerusalem would be trampled under foot by Gentiles (21:24). These events are confirmed mostly in Roman record written by the Jewish historian, Josephus, who was at the capture of Jerusalem. The predictions were fulfilled that the enemies of Jerusalem would build an embankment around it (19:43), and Jerusalem would be closed in on every side (19:43). The Jewish historian, Josephus, confirmed this truth in his history (War of the Jews, VI, 8.1). The Temple being thrown down and made desolate is confirmed by Josephus too (War of the Jews, VI, 4:7, 5:1-2, 6:1; VII, 1:1). Jerusalem would be leveled to the ground with not one stone upon another (19:44). The buildings of the temple would be thrown down (21:5-6). This was the greatest desolation that the world had known until this time (War of the Jews, VI 10:1, VII). Josephus presents clearly that the only parts of the city left were three towers while the rest of the city and the Temple were completely leveled.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.