Freethought & Rationalism Archive

SeekingKnowledge · 12-31-2008, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeekingKnowledge

I freely admit that Johnny has a much more intellectual and fact based argument for you.. But my first thought is:

If my "gospel of Knowledge" or any other modern prophetic doctrine merely requires followers and books written about it for you to believe it, then why aren't you a Mormon?

Or are you?

There is no modern prophetic doctrine. God spoke to us through Christ and that was the end of it. The apostles then wrote of what Christ told them as did Paul.

The Mormons and Muslims both claim that Christ is not God and each sets out to establish a sect opposed to Christ and those who follow Christ.

If it were true that God has actually given you some new revelation, then he would have provided you the ability to do miracles to validate the things that you are saying.

If however, you set yourself up as God, or a spokesman for God, apart from Christ, then you should have power, or be given power, to validate what you say. Let others testify that the miracles you do validate your claim to be spokesman for God and then let people choose whether to follow Christ or to follow you.

Well I am talking to you using sheer will power and the power of my mind. God gave me this power first. (I do not own a computer)

I came here in anticipation of your reply to the OP.. It happened just as god said it would..

Say what you will, but you can't disprove it.. The arguement you present is the same argument the Wise men gave Jesus as a boy. He came to them seeking knowledge, and he found them lacking as well..

I don't think you are going to hell for believing.. I just don't understand how anyone can subjectively look at the STORIES AND LETTERS and find them to be anything more than (mostly) decent messages...

Clivedurdle · 01-01-2009, 05:39 AM

One of my Xmas prezzies is John Barrow Cosmic Imagery (or via: amazon.co.uk).

He writes:

Quote:

Maps symbolise a human desire to understand and be in control of our surroundings. To map a territory was tantamount to possessing it. Maps of the heavens offered an ultimate reassurance that all is well with the Universe, that we were at a focal controlling point within it and had a special part to play in its unfolding story.

He discusses the Farnese Atlas which is dated to 129BCE (variance 50 years) from the effects of precession.

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/farnese/

As a city dweller, I rarely see the stars so do not have a feel for the dome shape of the heavens.

What is so interesting about the Farnese Atlas is that Atlas has on his shoulders the heavens as a sphere. We are looking at the heavens from outside, not our normal position inside. This is an impressive imaginative leap.

And the relationship to Rapture?

Look at a typical Italian Cathedral - Pisa, Florence etc. We have a Baptistry marking the beginning, the main Church marking the middle and the tower marking the journey to heaven - a physical three dimensional map of life's journey.

The Xian Bible also has this shape - the Genesis Story, some tales of daring do, the coming of the Christ as a human to save us all, the chess end game with the Rapture.

Xianity as an attempt to map the journey of life, other religions being other attempts to map this, to take control of it.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-01-2009, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

[The claim that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus] seems consistent with that which we are told about Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Obviously not. It is not difficult to make claims after the fact. For instance, in the NASB, Isaiah 53:9 says "His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth." It is a reasonable possibility that the story of the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, who was a rich man, was made up to accommodate Isaiah 53:9.

It is also are a reasonable possibility that Matthew dreamed up the story of the Magi to accommodate Micah 5:2, which says "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Much speculation does nothing.

Are you saying that your uncorroborated claim that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus is much speculation about nothing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Matthew need only state the truth about the Magi.......

How could Matthew have know the truth about the Magi?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

.......and speculation about "reasonable possibilities" that oppose Matthew's account does nothing but show the imaginative powers of the mind. Speculation proves nothing and never will.

What evidence do you have that Matthew's claims are not speculative? At best, Matthew's account is hearsay evidence. Why don't you consider hearsay evidence to be speculative? Do you know of any eyewitness accounts in Matthew, Mark, or Luke? I am referring to Scriptures where Matthew, Mark, or Luke claimed that they saw Jesus perform miracles. I predict that you will be evasive and refuse to answer the question.

How is Isaiah 53 consistent with that which we are told about Jesus?

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...liolaters.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Delos McKown, Ph.D.

In Isaiah 53 there is a famous passage taken to be a prediction of Jesus. Too bad, the whole chapter is in the past tense. It has to do with somebody who has already died, not with somebody in the distant future.

http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZVI

The Jews for Judaism analysis of Isaiah 53 makes these additional points about translation: in verse five, rather than "he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities," the prefix "mem" means "from," not "for", i.e. the speakers of the verse hurt the servant, not that he was punished by G-d as a substitute for them. In verse 11, the Hebrew "yatsdeek" means "will make just" (by bringing the Torah), not "will justify (someone's sins by taking their punishment)."

If you incorporate these different translations into the text, you get a markedly different impression. "He hurt a lot and knew what sickness was" just does not sound like"A man of sorrow and acquainted with grief." "We despised him as someone who hid his face" does not mean the same as "we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised." In short, the almost reflex identification of the chapter with Jesus depends on the translation of the text -- not on the text itself. And to see that in fact the text does not refer to Jesus, we need only to examine the ...

The second problem is that Jesus doesn't fit several of the details in the chapter. a) As mentioned above, Jesus was never sick. Some say that he was sick during the crucifixion, but physical trauma (e.g. execution) is not considered sickness in the normal sense of the word. b) Jesus had no children. Some say this refers to disciples or spiritual children, but the word "zera" is common in the Tanach and, when applied to people, always means linear descendants, not someone's disciples or followers. c) Jesus was not buried with the wicked. One cannot even say he died with the wicked since the Hebrew "rashaeem" is plural and, according to the crucifixion story, one of the thieves next to him ended up in heaven and so was not wicked. d) Jesus did not have long life. Missionaries say he had long life in heaven, but that, again, is stretching the meaning of the word. e) verse 9 "Nor was there deceit in his mouth." doesn't apply because, according to the gospel accounts, Jesus lied to his family about going to Jerusalem. (John 7:8-10), and lied in saying that he never taught in secret (see John 18:20, vs. Matt. 16:20, Mark 8:30 and others).

The article provides lots of other evidence that reasonably proves that Isaiah does not refer to Jesus. Regarding "The Jews for Judaism analysis of Isaiah 53.......," a Jews for Judaism website at http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/index....=48&Itemid=373 has lots of articles about Isaiah 53.

Your opionions regarding Isaiah 53 are based upon faith and inerrancy, not upon history and correct interpretations of Isaiah 53. It is typical for inerrantists to rubber stamp everything that the Bible says and try to force history to agree. No rational person would be an inerrantist. For instance, there is excellent evidence that a global flood did not occur. The global flood violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of gravity, and the well-established science of hydrodynamic sorting. If God is not obligated to save anyone, then he certainly is not obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts, which means that there are not any good reasons for anyone to believe that the Bible is inerrant.

From a historical and scientific perspective, it is very difficult for fundamentalist Christians to reasonably prove any supernatural claim that the Bible makes. The following claims are not even debatable from a scientific and historical perspective:

1 - The God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

2 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

3 - Jesus was born of a virgin.

4 - Jesus never sinned.

5 - Jesus' shed blood and death atoned for the sins of manking.

Will you please tell us why those claims are not speculative?

Even if Jesus rose from the dead, that does not tell us what he probably said, and why he rose from the dead.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I know what you are up to. You want to discuss the Bible in the hopes that it will influence some skeptics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

That would be nice. However, the intent is that skeptics correctly understand that which they read.

And it would be nice if you understood what you read, but you obviously don't. During the coming months I will provide many other examples that show that you do not know how to correctly interpret the Bible. Get ready to do a lot of homework regarding hundreds of issues, including the contradictory accounts of the events at the tomb of Jesus.

Your intent also ought to be to provide skeptics with ways to verify the Bible's speculative, uncorroborted claims.

If you try to be evasive and claim that my post it too long for you to reply to, a tactic that you have used before, I will tell you that I will be happy to discuss one part of my post at a time with you. The simple truth is that you have replied to long posts before when you believed that you have the advantage. I have debated you for years, and I know that you are evasive. For example, you are an inerrantist, but you always refuse to discuss inerrancy. In addition, I once defeated you in a debate on homosexuality, but you withdrew from the debate and refused to admit that you were wrong. After making a number of false claims, you finally basically said that more research needed to be done, and then you left the thread.

rhutchin · 01-01-2009, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

[The claim that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus] seems consistent with that which we are told about Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Obviously not. It is not difficult to make claims after the fact. For instance, in the NASB, Isaiah 53:9 says "His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth." It is a reasonable possibility that the story of the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, who was a rich man, was made up to accommodate Isaiah 53:9.

It is also are a reasonable possibility that Matthew dreamed up the story of the Magi to accommodate Micah 5:2, which says "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Too little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity."

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Much speculation does nothing.

Are you saying that your uncorroborated claim that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus is much speculation about nothing?

No. We are told, And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] expounded unto [the two disciples] in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27) Jesus would be the source of the claim that Isaiah 53 and other OT passages applied to Him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Matthew need only state the truth about the Magi.......

How could Matthew have know the truth about the Magi?

He could have talked to people who were there or perhaps someone wrote about those events and he read it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

.......and speculation about "reasonable possibilities" that oppose Matthew's account does nothing but show the imaginative powers of the mind. Speculation proves nothing and never will.

What evidence do you have that Matthew's claims are not speculative? At best, Matthew's account is hearsay evidence.

Fine, but that does not resolve the issue of whether it is false (or true, from your perspective). You decide what you will believe as I do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

How is Isaiah 53 consistent with that which we are told about Jesus?

See here:

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/isaiah-53-faq.htm

rhutchin · 01-01-2009, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeekingKnowledge

Well I am talking to you using sheer will power and the power of my mind. God gave me this power first. (I do not own a computer)

I am sure that God will corroborate your claims through the reputation that He gives you (if what you say is true). Until then, continue doing what God has given you to do and God will use you to accomplish His purposes.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-01-2009, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

How is Isaiah 53 consistent with that which we are told about Jesus?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

See here:

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/isaiah-53-faq.htm

Your source says:

Quote:

Originally Posted by allaboutjesuschrist.org

Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus Christ because that's the only meaning the most ancient Jewish scholars saw in the passage. They unfailingly understood its reference to the person of God's Anointed, who suffered on behalf of God's people and, through suffering, exalted himself and them.

What ancient Jewish scholars is your source referring to from what time period?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-01-2009, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Matthew need only state the truth about the Magi.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

How could Matthew have know the truth about the Magi?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew

He could have talked to people who were there or perhaps someone wrote about those events and he read it.

It is not likely that God would have sent the Magi to Herod instead of directly sending them to Bethlehem since doing so needlessly resulted in the deaths of a lot of children, and created a lot of confusion for 30 years regarding whether or not Herod had been able to kill the Messiah. It is much more likely that Matthew dreamed up the story of the Magi in order to "fulfill" Micah 5:2, which of course is fraudulent since it says that the person would become ruler in Israel. Obviously, Jesus did not become ruler in Israel in this life, and Old Testament Jews were falsely led to believe that the Messiah would become ruler in Israel in this life.

Do you believe that the Bible teaches that a global flood occured? If so, do you believe that a global flood occured?

Johnny Skeptic · 01-01-2009, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

.......and speculation about "reasonable possibilities" that oppose Matthew's account does nothing but show the imaginative powers of the mind. Speculation proves nothing and never will.

Why aren't the Gospels speculative? Are you aware and any Scriptures in Matthew, Mark, or Luke where the authors claim to be eyewitnessess? In addition, who were the Gospel writers' primarily second hand or third hand sources, decades after the supposed facts of course?

You reject common sense, logic, reason, science, and history in favor of faith, emotions, inerrancy, and Biblical predispositionalism, and yet you have the audacity to claim that anything that disagrees with the Bible is speculative and proves nothing. If that don't beat all. Your buddy Pascal believed that only Roman Catholics will go to heaven. Was that speculative?

The claim that a global flood occured is speculative, and does not have any basis in science whatsoever, and yet you believe the claim. No rational person would believe that a global flood occured. It violates the second law of thermodynamics, the law of gravity, and the well-established science of hydrodynamic sorting. You certainly know better than to embarrass yourself by going to the Evolution/Creation Forum and discussing the global flood.

Consider the following claims:

1 - The God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

2 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

3 - Jesus was born of a virgin.

4 - Jesus never sinned.

5 - Jesus' shed blood and death atoned for the sins of manking.

Those claims are most certainly speculative, and do not have any basis in history or science whatsoever. Oh, I forgot, history and science do not mean anything to you, only faith, emotions, inerrancy, and Biblical predispositionalism. Inerrancy is nothing more than an appeal to emotions. Inerrantists wanted God to act like they want him to act, so they dreamed up inerrancy, and yet they accuse skeptics of wanting God to act like they want him to act. If, as many Christians claim, God is not obligated to save anyone, he certainly is not obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts. Such being the case, why do inerrantists believe that the Bible is inerrant? The correct answer is, because inerrancy satisfies their emotional need to have God act like they want him to act.

Chili · 01-01-2009, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Matthew need only state the truth about the Magi.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew

He could have talked to people who were there or perhaps someone wrote about those events and he read it.

It is not likely that God would have sent the Magi to Herod instead of directly sending them to Bethlehem since doing so needlessly resulted in the deaths of a lot of children, and created a lot of confusion for 30 years regarding whether or not Herod had been able to kill the Messiah.

They really had no choice because they only saw the star in its rising, much like a born again who saw the light and has been squaking ever since like a chicken with its head chopped off in evidence that the christ-child died in the mind of the believer.

Quote:

It is much more likely that Matthew dreamed up the story of the Magi in order to "fulfill" Micah 5:2, which of course is fraudulent since it says that the person would become ruler in Israel. Obviously, Jesus did not become ruler in Israel in this life, and Old Testament Jews were falsely led to believe that the Messiah would become ruler in Israel in this life.

And so back to Galilee he went for more purification-without-end.

Quote:

Do you believe that the Bible teaches that a global flood occured? If so, do you believe that a global flood occured?

It doesn't exactly say global but it was big enough to drown the world that Noah lived in, which of course was his world and not mine. We replaced that metaphor with Advent knowing that a second hand metaphor will have lost its sting and so while you guys continue to look for a piece of the ark we haul ass in heaven.

rhutchin · 01-01-2009, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Matthew need only state the truth about the Magi.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

How could Matthew have know the truth about the Magi?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

He could have talked to people who were there or perhaps someone wrote about those events and he read it.

It is not likely that God would...

How is it that you know that which you claim no one else can know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Do you believe that the Bible teaches that a global flood occurred? If so, do you believe that a global flood occurred?

Yes and yes.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.