mg01

There are many who would argue against that statement by pointing out that YHWH/Elohim's promise to Abraham is an invention of the Iron age authors of the Bible. Land that historically served as a buffer area and vassal providences between the larger empires of the NE and was left up for grabs following the end of the bronze age and the withdraw of Egypt from solid control. A promise which became the basis by which the Jews claimed their own rights to the land which Josiah planned to use as reason for conquest of Samaria by blocking the Egyptians from making a treaty with the Assyrians to counter the Babylonians. In doing so his "nation" would have been swept up in the process. Josiah attempted to continue the "reformations" of his grandfather who was faced with having to reconcile two different groups from the same cultural background with different beliefs over the same thing. He used the idea of a past great kingdom lead by figures based on what were originally trial chieftains around which legends had grown. As such the concept of an idyllic glorious kingdom was born which followed an amazing conquest of the land which never happened.

The point being that none of this has anything to do with the modern state of Israel. The only historical Israel that ever existed was a small city-state centered around Samaria that ceased to do so in 722.

.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: If a powerful being came to earth, and claimed to be the one true God, but not the God of the Bible, and created a new planet in order to demonstrate that he is powerful, and made some indisputable predictions that came true, would you believe him, especially since no Bible prophecy is indisputable in the opinions of ever 40% of the people in the world?

If a powerful being accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, wouldn't that be much better evidence than any Bible prophecy? If a powerful being accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, there is not doubt that the vast majority of the people in the world would consider that to be much better evidence than any Bible prophecy.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Arnoldo: God's favoritism towards Jews is reason enough for people to reject him. Why would God be so interested in Jews and turn his back on everyone else in the world, and then all of of sudden become interested in the rest of the world when Jesus started preaching?

It is obvious that the Jews appointed themselves as God's chosen people. Typical of many humans, Old Testament Jews placed great emphasis on genetics and ethnicity, which are forms of pride and bigotry. A loving God would not care anything at all about genetics. All that he would care about was a person's character. Since Old Testament Jews placed great emphasis on genetics, they invented a messiah who would be a genetic descendant of David. To their embarrassment, if Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, he was not a genetic descendant of David. It will not do Christians any good to mention the geneaology of Joseph or Mary since supposed messianic prophecies do not say that the messiah's parents would be genetic descendants of David. They say that the messiah himself would be a genetic descendant of David.

It is no wonder that the vast majority of Jews have never become Christians.

arnoldo

DId a powerful being predict that the State of Israel would exist after two thousand years of it's destruction by the Romans?

Sheshonq

Did you prove that happened in the bible yet?

If not, then your question is pointless.

makerowner

Not to my knowledge. Do you have evidence otherwise?

arnoldo

Well, for one thing, I keep hearing that the creation of the State of Israel is a bona-fide self fulfilled prophecy, ie, we are in agreement that there is such prophecy is in the bible. We are in disagreement on how this prophecy came to pass, right?
It's not worthless, this is called dialogue. Do you agree that there IS a prophecy that the State of Israel will come into existence after being scattered into all the nations? Or was this "prophecy" already fulfilled in the past? I'm just trying to understand opposing viewpoints here, thanks.

Johnny Skeptic

If so, the Partition of Palestine did not fulfill the requirement in Genesis 17:8 that says that God would give Abraham and his descendants ALL of the land of Canaan. Today, Jews do not occupy nearly ALL of the land of Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, that would be a fulfillment of prophecy.

If not, the Partition of Palestine would have happened anyway. Whether or not a prophecy is true or not does not make any difference. All that makes a difference is whether or not people who have enough military power BELIEVE that it is true.

If the Jews occupied parts of Palestine, but not Jerusalem, would you call that a fulfullment of prophecy? I have asked you this question on a number of occasions, but you have always refused to answer it? Why is that?

Of course, 2 Samuel 7:10 contradicts Genesis 17:8. In the NASB, 2 Samuel 7:10 says "I will fix a place for my people Israel; I will plant them so that they may dwell in their place without further disturbance. Neither shall the wicked continue to afflict them as they did of old." The Partition of Palestine most certainly did not fulfill that prophecy, and it never will since the Jews are surrounded by hostile neighbors, not to mention terrorists who live in Israel, and some Muslim countries that are developing nuclear weapons. That prophecy alone discredits all of your arguments about the Partition of Palestine being a fulfilled prophecy. Israeli will never be able to "dwell in their place without further disturbance." Now please do not claim that 2 Samuel 7:10 refers to the next life. If you do, I doubt that you will find one single Bible scholar who agrees with you. Old Testaments Jews had to have believed that 2 Samuel 7:10 promised that eventually, IN THIS LIFE, Jews would be able to "dwell in their place without further disturbance."

I will be happy to instruct you further in Bible hermeneutics if you wish.

At any rate, you did not answer my question. Please do so. Hypothetical arguments are frequently useful tools for revealing bad arguments. Christians frequently use hypothetical arguments when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' 'Lord, Liar, or Lunatic' is a good example. In addition, since hypothetical arguments are frequently useful, they are sometimes of great value in court trials.

Any man who is afraid to discuss a hypothetical argument has revealed that he is not confident of his arguments, and, if he has ever used hypothetical arguments himself, that he is a hypocrite.

I am not afraid to discuss hypothetical arguments. Why are you afraid to discuss them? Haven't you ever used hypothetical arguments?

Last but not least, no rational God would inspire disputable prophecies when he could easily inspire indisputable prophecies.

Johnny Skeptic

But if the God of the Bible does not exist, that is exactly what we would expect to find. If he does not exist, we would expect that no one would ever hear about the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, which is exactly what the case is. If God exists, since he refuses to tell anyone about the Gospel message himself, this means that he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT people hear the Gospel message. That does not make any sense. No rational God would go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby inviting dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

We would also expect to find that the primary factors, if not the only factors that determine what people believe would be geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age, to which I have added time period. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. If the God of the Bible exists, no one would be able to reasonably predict what his success rates would be by sex. In addition, if the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against men by convincing a smaller percentage of them to become Christians.

We would also expect to find the following:

1 - Elderly skeptics would be much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against elderly skeptics, and mimics the way that things would be if he did not exist.

2 - Elderly Christians would much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians would, which is the case.

3 - Younger skeptics would be much more likely to become Christians than elderly skeptics would, which is the case.

4 - Younger Christians would be much more likely to become skeptics than elderly Christians would, which is the case.

We would also expect to find the following:

Food would be distributed entirely by humans. If God does not exist, that explains why all distribution of food is done by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

The New Testament says that on one occasion, Jesus fed hungry people out of compassion. There is no way that that happened. A truly compassionate person who wanted some people to have enough food to eat would certainly not limit his compassion to people who lived in Palestine.

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist.

If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and had been raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in had been predominantly Buddhist, the very same secular factors would cause you to choose your worldview.

It is much too convienient that geography has played such an important role regarding the spread of the Gospel message, which is exactly the way the way that things would be if the God of the Bible does not exist. If the God of the Bible does exist, then his frequent use of geography invites dissent instead of discouraging dissent, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists by mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist. The odds against a loving, rational God acting like that are astronomical.

Sheshonq

1. Not from me, you don't. I never made that argument.

2. The person making that argument (Johnny) is offering it as a possibility, since you asked for an alternative explanation. That does not get you off the hook to prove your original claim.

No, we aren't.

No, we are in disagreement about all of it:

1. was there a prophecy?
2. if so, for what time period is it intended?
3. What criteria should be used to judge if a prophecy is true, or false?
4. What exactly would the alleged prophecy predict? What is the nature and characteristics of a fulfilment? (i.e., how would you recognize it, if it happened)?


Wonderful. So glad. Now please look at the four questions above and start dialoguing.