Gamera

Unless of course the Hebrew Scriptures are not about miracles and magic, but the spiritual relationship between God and humans, in which case we are to look at the narrative's meaning and not worry about the literal details. Indeed to get distracted by the literal details and not the purpose of the narrative would then be to miss the meaning of the text entirely.

In my walk of faith, the bible is about spiritual matters, not astrology.

If it were shown to me that Daniel's prophesies never came true, it wouldn't affect my faith in the slightest, since it isn't based on the efficacy of prediction. But it sounds like you would disbelieve in God if that were the case. Sounds like your faith is pretty precarious.

David B

On the other hand, Gamera, if prophesies which would be incompatable with a naturalistic world view were demonstrated, then my metaphysics would need re-examining.

David B (has yet to see any, in Nostradamus, the Bible, Edgar Cayce or loads of other people/things who have followers who have faith in them)

Gamera

Of course, but surely if God wanted to prove his existence that way, he could have done so without any ambiguity, producing a body of prophesies witnessed by historical figures, let's say, and easy to date by modern methods, all predicting future events. He could make it real certain -- by naming Lincoln or Hitler or the collapse of the Mayan empire.

But there's none of that. So either God is inept at proving his existence with prophesies (and he needs mdd's help), or he didn't intend to prove his existence with those prophesies.

Since I believe in God, I have to go with option number 2. Option number 1 makes no sense. Any God worth beleiving could unambiguously prove his existence without mdd's help if that's what he wanted to do. And I assert that's not what the God of the scriptures wanted to do. Or to state it more rigorously, that's not what the Hebrew and Christian scriptures are trying to do with the prophesies that are embedded in their narratives. The narratives have meaning, and the prophesies play a role in that. The prophesies have no independent meaning outside the narratives in which they are embedded.

By the way, mdd is writing in the larger "I can prove the existence of God" genre, which has no basis in historical Christianity. The idea, once dissected is, that God wasn't competent enough to prove his existence by himself, so he needs some really good attorney to put the case to the public. If only God had had a good attorney in Iron Age Israel, we could have avoided all this nonsense of history and gone directly to the millenium.

In short, the idea that you can prove the existence of God is contrary to the entire concept of God in the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. Which is why I find it so offensive when so-called Christians attempt to do so.

David B

Hmm.

I can't fault your post. A much more sensible, position, I think than that of biblical inerrantists.

At the same time, if I were to believe the extraordinary claim that there is a god in general, a god consistent with a christian view in particular, I would want some sort of extraordinary good reason to so believe.

David B (wonders if you could point him to threads in which you explain why you believe)

Gamera

I suppose belief is the wrong word. I accept the gospel message. So I can only direct you to the gospel message. I have no intention of arguing with anybody about the existence of God. As Paul so wonderfully put it.

Romans 1:16 - For I am not ashamed of the gospel: it is the power of God for salvation to every one who has faith.

I'm not being coy; I just don't think apodictic truth about God is what the Christian scriptures is about. Christianity is about the kerygma -- the proclamation -- of the gospel. Which one accepts or rejects. It is an existential quesiton, not an empirical one. The gospel asks who you are, not what you believe as factual.

hatsoff

That hasn't been our response. First of all, the evidence that Daniel was written in the sixth century B.C. is based entirely on the testimony and alleged testimony of ancient religious zealots, who are notorious for confabulation, credulity and intentional deception. Even if there were no alleged predictions in Daniel, there would still be plenty of reason to doubt it was written so early.

Imagine if I were to tell you that I had predicted 9/11. "It's true," I might say. "I wrote a paper all about it in July of 2001!" And then suppose I showed you an htm file which had a digital signature from--you guessed it--July of 2001, which detailed the attacks. And further suppose that you were able to find a few anonymous post-9/11 blogs hailing my uncanny prediction as the most remarkable wonder of the century. Now, you believe prophecy exists. But would you believe that my prophecy was real without further corroboration from trustworthy sources?

To tell you the truth, I hate analogies like the above. I gave it only because you seem to be overly biased to the facts in question, and maybe comparing it to a less-intimate situation would open your eyes. Honestly, though, this should not be an issue in the first place. Even most Christians should be able to understand that prophecy is not proof or even evidence for the alleged divinity of the Bible. And they certainly should not tout it as such.

You're right: they did use prophecies to elicit wonderment. And they succeeded, too! But only because their audience included gullible fools and careless intellectuals.

David B

So what is the gospel message?

Matthew 10, 34-37?

The message of cult leaders and demagogues across the ages.

David B (Sees the ideas that the meek will inherit the earth, and the lion lie down with the lamb, as somewhat naive)

Gamera

I think you can garner it from reading the 4 gospels, though I could probably sum it up in a paragraph. But let's not get off topic. How about we open another thread on that. Where does it belong?

David B

Good idea.

GRD, I suppose.


David B (is off to bed imminently, so will let you have first go)

mdd344

Spin,
I would suggest you explain how you use the terms and what they mean because I believe you do not understand them based on the way you used them. Now if you don't want to go there, that is your choice.

Just for the record, here is what I stated for you:

In your last post to me you did not touch one of the above. Not one. If you would like to do so, I would certainly like to hear it.