Magdlyn

Not time for the census yet? OK, sleep in heavenly peace, awaiting the chieftain's return.

Clivedurdle

I'm fascinated by the strategy in this thread!

Chief594 wanders in, much like a lamb amongst wolves, and it feels like the first world war heavy guns open up!!

I'm loving it, but wonder if heavy bombardment will achieve the strategic aim of getting someone to think, or just make them hunker down in their air raid shelter of xianity?

By the way, welcome chief594!

Is this an example of the internet sport of troll hunting?

Vorkosigan

Looks like Chief is just another one of them drive-by Christians. I don't really expect him to have any great change of mind; people who believe Isaiah 53 contains Jesus prophecies aren't working with the actual text, nor do they care about its history and background, and what it is really talking about. If they did, they would read what the scholars say, just as they would if they interesting in the Civil War or industrialization in Europe or plant varieties in Hawaii. Really, those people are simply injecting their own understanding, which is unbiblical and derived from doctrine, back into the text. They can't be convinced at one sitting, but I believe that eventually all of them can be reached.

And like I said, it is good practice to get familiar with the actual arguments and texts. It's simply incredible that, when you read Isaiah against the NT, you could ever imagine that Isaiah 53 is talking about Jesus.

Vorkosigan

Magdlyn

Yes. But what amazes me even more, of course, is the Lucifer/King of Babylon gig. Equating Satan with the historical king nicknamed "day star", then with a snake, a god of Ekron, a fallen angel, a Zoroastrian deity, and a district attorney!

Whew. Er, creative, I guess...

Vorkosigan

<shrug> That's why I only asked for five prophecies, to reduce the extent of the discussion to a manageable figure. But Chief gave me a dozen. This presents a problem -- if I show how 5 are not applicable to Jesus even as written, I'll be accused of ignoring the other ones because I couldn't disprove them. If I do all 12, it gets too big for Chief to handle, especially given that his knowledge of the topic appears to be limited to what he's been told by others. Hopefully he'll run out and do a little research on his own, but he'll probably do what Psalm 13:5 did, and retreat into the standard defenses of "that's just liberal anti-Christian scholars" and "you all hate God" and so on. The believer in these doctrines is well-prepared with defenses against cognitive dissonance. How do you propose we get around them?

Anyway, I am pained that you didn't notice I took a new approach (new for me, anyway) to the subjective and incoherent ones, showing first how they are subjective/incoherent, and second, how the NT won't support them anyway. I decided to stay at that level, rather than discuss the history and cultural background and scholarly judments, because that surface level doesn't require particular expertise or a commitment serious reading or thinking, but can be experienced by anyone with the text in front of them. Like the one about Jesus being "rejected".....

Finally, as the gospels show, it is plain nonsense. Looking only at Mark, we can see that people immediately followed him (calling of disciples in Mark 1:16-20 adn 2:14), his fame spread everywhere (1:28), the whole city came to see him (1:33), so many they couldn't get in the door (2:2), crowds gathered when he taught (2:13), a great multitude followed him (3:7) and so forth. Clearly Jesus was far from being rejected -- unless, of course, you have your own very special meaning of "rejected" which you read back into Isaiah, but isn't there to begin with.

You're right though. I need to make progress in presentation. <sigh> Really, though, a lifelong atheist is the wrong guy to make the presentation. What we need is an enlightened Christian or deconvert who can speak to these guys in their own language. I became an atheist at 11; I can't even imagine what it is like to be a believer and really believe that there is some prophetic connection between Isaiah and Jesus.

Vorkosigan

Garnet

Vorkosigan.... :notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

Chief594

Wow, quite a response... I am impressed with your erroneous, yet thorough view of the Bible. In fact one of the areas I was so intrigued with was why would one who didn't believe in God, put forth so much energy in attempting to disprove him? It would seem more consistent with a naturalistic viewpoint to simply live and let live (even if those Christians are in error). But that’s a different topic.... As for your responses, I apologize for the lateness of my response...I have many different things going in my life that prevents me from consistently being near the computer... You have taken quite a bit of time in refuting the prophecies I mentioned and unfortunately I have not the time to specifically refute each one. Especially as I don't see how it would do much good as both of us seem to be confident in our own position.

However, I would like to make a few comments on a few certain statements you made. You see I believe that not only were the manuscript rebuttals you made inaccurate, but your philosophy towards them is inconsistent. You can't have your cake in eat it too. For example in point 12 I stated that Jesus prayed for others. You said "Just plain stupid. Who hasn't prayed for others in one sense or the other?" Yet I would challenge any atheist to explain to me to just whom are they praying to? In a naturalistic world there would be no higher power to pray too. Also, the very definition of prayer requires communication to a higher power. So you couldn't pray in any other sense.

Another example is that on many times you state “The subjectivity is inherent…� and go on to state your case. However, your statement is falling victim to the same thing is seeks to disprove. What your definition of life of suffering (for example) may be different from mine, and may be different from the Bible’s. Therefore, we must use what the Bible is stating to be the measure. Simply because you or I feel it is subjective doesn’t mean much, we must consider the source. For example, I may say “I feel ill� Further conversation would say that I have a fever and my nose is running. You may feel “Ill??? I can easily go to work in that condition� That may be true, however, you can’t discount my illness based on your definition of what illness is.

In regards to the first twelve prophecies. Yes, I admit they can be vague and I admit that more people than just the Messiah could have qualified. However, having said that, that does NOT mean that it is wrong and untrue. In other words, being vague is NOT correlated to the truthfulness of the statement. You did claim that Jesus was far from being rejected and didn't suffer prior to his death. I would disagree and cite the very fact he was recognized as a Rabbi and yet executed at the command of his people in and of itself is suffering. However, remember on many occasions when he claimed to be God the Jews of the area picked up stones to stone him. To me, that would definitely be a sign of rejection.

In most other cases you offered a differing viewpoint which I admit is admirable, most other atheists I talk to simply write it off without an explanation. However, in no case was the evidence presented PROVEN to be anything more than an interpretation by yourself or somebody else. In fact, under point 19 – The Virgin Birth -- you claim that “Raymond Brown…speaks for the vast majority of modern critical scholarship.� Where did this information come from? Most every literary analyst I’ve ever read (Christian and non-Christian) would never consider him anything more than a spokesman for unorthodox liberal viewpoints. (I do however find it interesting that there are zero documents from time of Christ’s birth, refuting the Virgin Birth). However, I'm sure we could each quote an equal amount of "reputable scholars" that would state our viewpoint is the correct one. In other words, I feel you offered no more proof for your claims in quoting your scholarly sources, than I did in using the Bible as my source. Simply stating that Mark copied a Psalm has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the event actually happened. So where does one go when this roadblock is reached? I choose to follow what has been dubbed the "archeological rule of thumb." That essentially is, unless something is directly proven to be untrue, you must assume that it is true. The Bible has never archeologically been proven to be untrue on any circumstance with 100% certainty (even most secular scholars acknowledge this) therefore we must assume what it states is true.

Magdlyn

So, you have chosen to simply ignore my post#16, wherein I "prove" the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 to be the Hebrew people as a whole, by simply looking at the context of the preceding and following chapters.

Chief594

Magdlyn, perhaps you missed the part in my previous post where I referred to my available time limiting me to respond to each and every point raised... but just to assure you that you were not "ignored" as you state, I will respond.... I went back and not only re-read ALL of chapters 52, 53 and 54 but I also researched it in a few of the commentaries I have come to respect. In no case do I, nor any of the scholars writing in commentaries of the passage, see these particular prophecies as relating to Israel as a whole, or the diaspora. In fact, which Diaspora would it be pertaining to? The first exile? The second exile? The Jews of the diaspora that James writes to?

This argument sounds like one that is commonly used by Jews. I agree that in many places "servant" IS used to refer to Israel (49:3 for example) however, basic hermeneutics shows that this is NOT the case in every circumstance. We must remember that Israel was the name of a country as well as the name for Jacob. Verse 49:6 helps shed some light on this, it says it is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob... I will also make you a light for the Gentiles that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth." Not only does this passage tie in with 42:1-6 (which is generally admitted by Jewish interpreters to refer to the Messiah) but it shows that Israel cannot bring redemption on itself (or the world) but that God would need to intervene with a servant. Now compare 53:9, 11, these verses show us the "servant" in this passage is innocent and righteous. Compare that with with Israel as God's servant who is called spiritually deaf and blind in its sins (cf 42:18-25, 43:22-24, 48:17-19). How can this be? It can't be unless we are talking about two different kinds of servants. It is the only explanation.

Next compare the particular verses in chapter 52:13-53:12. This is clearly talking about an individual Israelite and the same servant as talked about in chapters 42 and 49. How can a country have "no beauty or nothing to attract one in its appearance"? How can a country have the "iniquity of the Lord laid on all of them"? How can a country "not open it's mouth"? How can a country "be assigned a grave with the wicked and with the rich"? How can one make the claim that Israel had done no violence as verse 9 claims? A quick look at the book of Judges would refute that.

Even with a very liberal dose of metaphorical interpretation (of which even the Jews, whom would apparently have the most to gain from denying it, have not adhered to) one cannot make unabashadly claim that the servant refered to in Isaiah 53 is the same servant refered to as Israel or the diaspora.

It seems to me that your personal understanding of the passage is due to your own interpretation instead of actual factual information.

Vorkosigan

Thanks for returning. We get a lot of drive-by Christians in these parts.

Chief594, even if I demonstrated that the Bible was completely nonsense, it wouldn't mean that God didn't exist. Only in your mind and those like you are the two linked. It's quite possible there be god(s), who don't give a damn about this collection of tales from Jewish history.

What does naturalism have to do with live and let live? Some who subscribe to metaphysical naturalism are evangelistic or militant, some are relaxed. Metaphysical naturalism says nothing about how we should interact with our fellow humans. In any case, it is you who have come here. I have not gone anywhere. So I am living and let live -- have you seen me in any of your forums?

Pick the two weakest refutations, then. I observe we are well in here and your "rebuttal" consists of attacking me for being a hypocrite. No problem -- I confess, I am a complete hypocrite, as my ten year old will cheerfully aver ("Dad, how come you can play computer games every day, but I can only play on Saturdays?"). Now address the issues as written.

The very definition of pray the way you think about it requires a higher power. Some of us are not so restricted. And not all of us are atheists for our whole lives In any case, the point stands. It's not much of a prophecy to predict that someone will pray for someone else. This isn't much of a rebuttal you've got going here.

Unfortunately, the Bible gives us no definition of suffering, nor the conditions under which we might expect this prophecy to be fulfilled. Thus we are limited to our own subjectivity. I will be happy to agree to any reasonable definition of "suffering" or "rejecting" or "smiting." Can you tell me when and how God "smote" Jesus as your prophecies said?

No problem, then. Give the Biblical definition of suffering, and refute me.

No, just pointless and stupid. It is like predicting "Today there will be an automobile accident in New York" or "Today a ship will dock in Shanghai."

I totally agree. However, it is highly correlated to usefulness. And Isaiah 53 does not contain any clear, useful prophecies.

Your interpretation of the prophecy said : 3. lived a life of suffering;

According to the stories Mark wrote, crowds followed Jesus everywhere. Multitudes overflowed on the shore, so he had to go out in a boat. Cheers greeted him upon entry into Jerusalem. The Bible records neither rejection nor suffering prior to his crucifixion. Get whacked at the end of one's life is hardly grounds for concluding that Jesus lived a life of suffering. Please illustrate, with numerous examples from the New Testament, how Jesus lived a life of suffering -- not merely suffered for a few hours at the end of his life.

If fulfilling "rejection" means that somebody threw stones at him, then your prophecy ain't worth much, is it? Moreover, the "stoning incident" occurs only in John 8, as I recall. Meanwhile, the author of Mark writes:

______
1
17: And Jesus said to them, "Follow me and I will make you become fishers of men."
18: And immediately they left their nets and followed him.
28: And at once his fame spread everywhere throughout all the surrounding region of Galilee.

2
2: And many were gathered together, so that there was no longer room for them, not even about the door; and he was preaching
the word to them.
13: He went out again beside the sea; and all the crowd gathered about him, and he taught them.
14: And as he passed on, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the tax office, and he said to him, "Follow me." And he rose
and followed him.

3
7: Jesus withdrew with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed; also from Judea
8: and Jerusalem and Idume'a and from beyond the Jordan and from about Tyre and Sidon a great multitude, hearing all that he
did, came to him.
20: and the crowd came together again, so that they could not even eat.
32: And a crowd was sitting about him; and they said to him, "Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for you."

4
1: Again he began to teach beside the sea. And a very large crowd gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat in it on
the sea; and the whole crowd was beside the sea on the land.

5
21: And when Jesus had crossed again in the boat to the other side, a great crowd gathered about him; and he was beside the
sea.
___________

So we're stuck, see. Either your prophecy is too mundane to be worth anything, or you interpretation is so narrow "he was rejected because somebody wanted to throw stones at him" as to be worthless. It seems that any moment of rejection can satisfy your definition. What you don't have is any definition from the text of the OT that we can use to determine what, if any, rejection occurred. Also, I need to understand why you think incidents of stone-throwing outweigh vast multitudes following Jesus all over the place.

No problem, Chief. I am in complete agreement with you that subjective interpretation plays a strong role in this. In fact, that was my point against most of your alleged prophecies -- they represent simply your subjectivity, and that of those who believe with you.

Chief, you have no idea what an explosion of laughter this will cause from those reading this. I will confine my remarks to pointing you to this statement on Raymond Brown's death from the archdiocease of Los Angeles.

Incidentally, I cited Brown on Matthew's famous confusion of Isaiah 7:14, not on the Virgin Birth. The fact that Matthew is confused does not mean Jesus was not born of a Virgin. The reality is that Brown believed in the Virgin Birth, near as I can make out. That's why I picked him. And also because The Birth of the Messiah is a massive and widely admired work on the topic, perhaps the best book ever written on it.

But yes, Brown's position on Matthew is the scholarly reading of the issue.

Perhaps because there are only two affirming it, both in portions of the Gospels widely considered fictional by serious scholars. The claim of Christ's Virgin Birth was not made until the second half of the first century (or later), so it is hard to see why anyone would be attempting to refute it 100 years before anyone announced it.

I seriously doubt that. But go ahead and bring on some scholars. I am always happy to interact with scholarship. Bring on the scholars who claim that Matthew didn't misunderstand Isa. 7:14 because of the LXX text he was using.

The difference is that I cited their actual arguments. You did not cite any arguments from the Bible in support of your claim. For example, can you tell me where the Bible defines "rejected" and "suffering" and also where Isa 53 says he is making a prophecy of the Messiah? I am happy to argue from the Bible.

And we are now deep into this and still you have NOT dealt concretely with any point I have made.

I agree! But you see, Chief, that's a problem for you, because you are the one claiming the events happened. Since we have now agreed that Mark was copying a Psalm, perhaps you'd like to show me how you know it happened. Believe me, many scholars are waiting breathlessly for a method of extracting historical truth from the gospel fictions.

Can you show me what archaeological institute or journal or school of thought uses this? What is "directly proven?" And further, do you believe in everything you can't disprove? Are all unsupported claims true? What happens if they contradict? No one has ever proven that the Rig Veda is not true. It has not been directly proven that the Kalevala does not tell a true story, and I hear that Tolkien really believed somehow in the reality of Middle Earth. Since no one has disproved those claims, are they all true? Can you "directly prove" Narnia doesn't exist?

Most people, when judging claims, require the burden of proof to be on the claimant. It is you who claimed that these were prophecies of Jesus. I have now submitted a prima facie case that in fact, you have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted Isaiah and the New Testament. It is now up to you to support that claim.

Since you don't have much time, just pick any two of my refutations and show that they are wrong.


I think your logic is a bit backward here. No one has ever disproven the Book of Mormon either. Is it true then? Most people, when looking at claims, require the claimant to support his case.

Vorkosigan