The_Unknown_Banana

Here's my response to your post in the "One question Xians tend to ignore" thread. (I figured I'd start a new thread just so we don't annoy the moderators too much :P) Though I'm sure all this has been discussed here before...

Anyway, here's what you posted:

The_Unknown_Banana

And here's my response:

If it came across as such, it was unintentional. Personally I don't think it unreasonable to want proof of fulfilled prophecy outside of the bible. Since the bible's validity would obviously be in question by an atheist such as myself, I don't think a prophecy fulfilled therein would count as proof of a fulfilled prophecy.

Nevertheless, they were attacked by many a foe, and faced many internal problems while still emerging victorious. They contributed this to Ra, the sun god.

lol, yes perhaps I shouldn't have generalised so much. I am frequently guilty of this I admit... how about if I say "Most religions don't deny this..."

While I cannot argue against you on how meagre the chances of Israel's existance today (Mainly because I'm just not qualified!), I am also adverse to thinking there must have been divine intervention purely because chances are slim. If the chance for their survival was there - no matter how slim - then it is probable in my opinion that this is what happened. There are many situations where it seems a good outcome seems almost impossible, yet it still occurs - no god required. If you can prove that Israel's survival is entirely impossible without divine intervention, then you would have a point.

Well, they said a large fireball in the sky provided them with stuff... at least I can see the fireball

I would be interested in hearing more about these, and how they go towards verifying biblical text.

And one also might argue that theists used lack of scientific knowledge to validate the bible's accuracy, and after discovery such knowledge only goes towards evidence against it. Depends on your interpretation of certain passages though of course.

I could be persuaded to read this book, though I think a case against it has been made here before.

Not to be rude, but I think if it was in the bible, you would.

Well, that's what's in question at the moment. Of course it would change the way one views life - in particular because it wouldn't just end when you die. I don't think such things impair my judgement of religion though - I think I'd kind of like to have an all powerful being who listens to my every whim, and who I could ask for guidance whenever in a scary situation. (As per the christian view, as I know it)

hmmm.... well, that depends entirely on what kind of proof you are talking about for alexander the great. I think the proof is much more compelling for his existance than Jesus. He travelled to many countries and influenced them, added to their history. Took over Egypt. Has his face on coins. Has many stories of his existance, and even a tomb(?). This is all what I remember from history lectures, but I think they're close enough to the truth. and for Jesus? We have only 4 stories written well after the events happened. Even they don't coincide exactly, though this is not a major problem unless you believe they were divinely inspired/written. The thing is, even if alexander the great had stories about him performing 'miracles', I still wouldn't just believe they ocurred. Otherwise, I'd be keen to see what evidence exists externally of Jesus's existance.


Ok, fair enough. Although it is somewhat trickier with the bible, depending on your belief of it being divinely inspired :P After all, how can we believe in a god that created everything yet can't even get one book perfect. (Hence, one piece of solid evidence against the bible would probably invalidate such a claim, for me) Anyway, I'd be happy to hear all the evidence that leads you to your belief.

Well, I have always been interested in other ancient religions. I don't know how proficient my skills are at objectively examining however...

I don't doubt this. However, there are many people from other religions who feel the same way. Not to mention atheists.

Jobar

Banana, I don't think this is properly an EoG topic. It might fit in BC&H, but I'm going to move it to GRD. Jobar.

PS- search through the Library for "Biblical prophecy". Turns out that not a single one is considered valid by skeptical scholars. (Big surprise, huh...)

Jobar

Breaking news on this subject- go to this thread in BC&H for a discussion of this involving Farrell Till, who is the author of several of the works the search I mentioned will lead you to. Till is an expert debunker of Biblical prophecy. J.

The_Unknown_Banana

Thanks Jobar! And GRD will do just fine.

Now, gotta try that search thing...

Gregg

Christ is not the "main object" of scripture. Christ is the main object of Christian writings that were later canonized as scripture. Christ appears nowhere in the Jewish scriptures.I think Robert Price wrote an excellent article demonstrating that the so-called "prophecies" of Christ in the Jewish scriptures are nothing of the kind. Could someone provide a link?

In any case, the gospels are not "biographies," they are faith documents. If Jesus had existed and done half the things attributed to him, we would expect to find attestation to him outside of the gospels and Christian writings, but thus far such independent attestation has not surfaced. (The Josephus passages are most likely later Christian interpolations.)

Personally I accept the view that Jesus began as a thoroughly divine, spiritual savior figure. The Gospel stories were written as allegories (with the writers naturally making their central figure fulfill what they saw as "prophecies" of him, even if they had to bend and twist scripture to do it) and only later began to be regarded as histories.Since there is no independent attestation to gospel events outside of Christian writings--and precious little attestion to those events even WITHIN Christian writings--I'm not sure how the gospels can be considered reliable.I think it's more likely that the Jews just hit upon a combination of faith and flexibility that enabled them to adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining their identity and integrity, at least as they saw it. Then they wrote their scriptures to attribute their survival to Yahweh.

As to the Jews' return to their homeland after almost 2,000 years, have you ever heard of "self-fulfilling" prophecies? If enough people believe something is supposed to happen, and work to make it happen, then it just might happen, God or no God.

I seem to recall an Israeli general being asked if he thought God had something to do with Israel repeatedly surviving attacks by coalitions of Arab nations. He replied that he thought the determination of the Israeli people and the Israeli military had more to do with it.So you're saying we DO have such corroborating evidence from every realm of study pointing to the existence of the Hebrew tribal god, Yahweh, who is actually the Creator of the Universe? Present it, please, and you will convert this entire board.How is any of this evidence of the existence of God? Finding that the Bible writers got a few historical facts correct (big surprise!) does not prove that the Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of God. It doesn't make the more fanciful parts of scripture any more credible. They discovered that Troy actually existed, does this mean all the events of the Iliad and the Odyssey can be taken as historical fact?(I try to stifle laughter and fail) Please,Strobel? His books have been thoroughly demolished on the IIBB and elsewhere.They aren't.This is a ridiculous claim. There is no evidence for the physical resurrection of Christ beyond the gospels. Even the Epistles are ambiguous as to whether the resurrection was a physical event.Archaeology can't really provide evidence that Christianity is true. It can only tell us that certain places or people mentioned in the Christian scriptures may have existed, or that certain events mentioned in the Christian scriptures might have happened. Thus far it has not provided any evidence that Jesus existed or did any of the things attributed to him. The emergence of Christianity is not itself evidence, especially if you accept the possibility that early Christians actually believed in a thoroughly spiritual savior being modeled after the Greek Logos, who was only "brought to Earth" much later. As to Alexander the Great, my understanding is that there is plenty of independent attestion of his existence.[quote] Not nearly as "enormous" as you seem to think.This is not approaching the "evidence" in an "objective" fashion. Can't you see that? "And you will find me when you seek me with all your heart." That's not an "objective" attitude. If you approach the scriptures in that frame of mind, well, yeah, there's a good chance that you will read it and intepret it such a way that it seems to provide evidence for God's existence.

You shouldn't have to be in a certain frame of mind in order to "see" evidence. Evidence is evidence. Actually, you're better off starting off with a highly skeptical attitude. That's how a good scientist works--he or she tries to DISPROVE his or her hypothesis.

You know, after scientific methodology was established, Christian scientists went out to study nature and seek evidence that the Biblical story of creation was true. But the evidence they uncovered compelled the vast majority of these men to accept that the Earth was far older than previously believed and that modern species had probably evolved from earlier, different organisms. They soon realized that they had to consign the Genesis story to the realm of myth and allegory.

fried beef sandwich

These examples are do not prove the historical veracity of Biblical narratives any more than accurate detailed descriptions of prominent buildings in Washington DC prove the historical veracity of a Tom Clancy novel.
And don't forget the millions upon millions of dollars worth of American military equipment and training; the old, outdated Russian military equipment used by arab nations; and the development of Israeli nuclear weaponry as a deterrent in the region. Praise God and pass the A-bomb!

Cross Examiner

New Zealand eh? Which Island? Which school is making you study the ancient Egyptians (blech!)?

No problem, you clarify with the best of 'em.

You mean like confirmation from someone more contemporaneous, more familiar with the culture and the times, and with the object the prophetic words supposedly applied to? So If Matthew and Luke were not included in the Bible, but were "outside" corroboration, you'd accept their testimony as confirmation that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem, as foretold by Micah the OT prophet?

Why not? You're heading towards CX's notions now, he's hopefully going to respond (here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...5&pagenumber=5) soon so you may want to just wait. Better yet, why are you, the Unknown Banana (is a Kiwi?) an atheist, or, why do you think you are an atheist?

Oooh, sorry. The correct response is: "what is Israel's/and the Jew's continued existance and continued excellence in the face of insurmountable opposition is not comparable to Egypt eventually beating back the Hyksos, Alex?" Yeah, I took that class too .

I'd be tickled also if Buddha, Ghandi or the Veddas said: "Drive the Jews into the sea!" Can't be good for Karma unless you want to come back as a fried beef sandwich. Now Muhammed (pbuh) on the other hand, he had reason aplenty to not like the Jews (they ran the media and the banks then too, he couldn't get a spot on Leno or a loan to promote his new thing ), not too surprising the stance in the Qur'an then eh? Man, I hope I don't get shot or blown up for that. I got a wife and kid on the way. Salman Rushdie can't even take his dog for a walk these days. I suppose I could just play Battlefield 1942 in my garage for the rest of my life...I'll just have my neighbor start my car for me when I gotta go to work.

Me too! Except for the fact that Bible/God incessantly blesses the line of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob (the Jews) and promises them protection (even in the NT, huh? What does the NT care about the Jews for?) no matter what, always keeping a "remnant" (another cool study). What odds, this all so random! Who'd a thunk it.?

Oh oh oh...I can think of another example. Like this extraordinary universe coming from nothing and life on earth existing against all probability--all balanced on a "razor's edge". Amazing, this chaotic force! You'd think it had a purpose. Nope, blind randommness! No God, no intellegence whatsoever need apply. So, when is that tornado in the junkyard going to put my 747 together? I've been waiting so patiently.

Prove? Like what goes up must come down kind of prove? Never was my intent. I think it adds a bit of corroboration to the testimony of the Bible though. You're on the jury, not in the lab (history, not chemistry), what's more plausible, chance after chance against overwhelming odds or God is keeping His word as foretold repeatedly? You tell me where there's a story any where close to this and I'll say you have a point. My point: Israel/the Jews are unique in all the world in all time. The Bible foretold they must be and they would be. Hmmm. What a co-inky-dink.

I say the earth was created by a turtle not some God I cannot see. Hey! At least I can see the turtle (who needs deductive reasoning and some dusty old book making crazy claims anway?).

Yeah, me too....oh wait, you're asking me to explain them? Maybe I'll do it when I answer the mighty Gregg who has some specific challenges. Sound good to you?

Quoi? Indiquez svp. (please specify).

Great! Pick it up (like 6-7 US$) and we can email/talk about it, just send me a personal note and we'll exchange email addresses or something. There's another in the same vein calld the Case for Christ--more intellectually oriented than Case for Faith but still a good read for the honest seeker. Respectfully, someone HAS to make a case against it, I'd expect no less. Whatever the objections, it is worthwhile to read the "opening arguments". Actually, to whoever reads this, I advise checking it out. Though Banana here has first dibs on chatting about it with me (only so much time). On an aside, anyone seen or heard from Just_An_Atheist lately? He probably thinks I don't like him, I just lost his number, that's all.

Not rude at all mate, too rich! I don't use LOL lightly but this...you...you're good you (my best DeNiro). You really think I'd believe the Gospel according to...Jesus Christ? Like an autobiography signed: yours truly, Jesus Christ? I love my Lord, no disrespect to Him, but I CANNOT stop smiling over this...very clever indeed. I gotta move on or I'll never finish this response.

God the Genie? God the Big Brother? Bro, it would be my pleasure to help you break some of those caricatures you've got. If you're more interested in finding out if the Gospels are credible or not, then maybe Case for Christ is better (both are structured as good material for the beginning seeker). Either way, let me know.

More compelling than the evidence for Christ? Courtesy of Plutarch and Arrian we have the biographies of Alexander, written 400 years after.

Well after? Like Alexander, Buddha, Muhammed, Zoroaster etc.? Are you sure about that? {Hint: generation}

You mean like how witnesses to a car accident all differ on minor points but coincide on the major points? Yet we still believe them? If the Book is not divinely inspired, if there's no reason to believe this then I'll do something, anything else.

Which brings up a good point: did the Resurrection of Christ happen or not? {Hint: there is no other plausible third possibility}

Right you are! The opposite is also true. What you believe, what you choose to believe, beforehand most certainly matters.

Is it not infallible in all it speaks with authority on? If it was without controversy, would there even be a choice in believing in it or not? Would God want humans, beings with free will, to choose Him because there was no other option or...?

Me too! I'd chuck it for such assurance that it was a bill of goods. All the evidence? Not here, not now. Shhh. There are spies everywhere! Seriously, the Case for Faith and the Case for Christ are good introductionary pieces on the rationality of the Christian position. Or, you could, ya know, actually read the New Testament--as opposed to searching out criticism of it to support your beliefs. What? None of you would do such a dishonest thing?

Your honesty and humility are unique here I find, sadly. I admit also, that I don't know as much about mythology as I'd like--I tend to rely upon other expert testimony on the matter.

No doubt at all. You are what you read though. If you only read Quentin Smith, well, then don't be surprised if you end up a hard-line atheist! Conversely, if you balance out Quentin with some Alvin Plantinga or C.S. Lewis then you'll be in a better position to actually decide between the two systems, much more objectively. Let me know you think.

Respectfully,
BGiC

Cross Examiner

Mr. Gregg
The strategy is to bury the opposition in a heap of motions! I know this one. I'm one of the few opposing counsels here. You're here because you've likely already decided? Or are you all still open, just curious.

Christ just means Messiah. You think Messiah is not a preoccupation of the OT? Or did you not get my original meaning?

I can't but I'll bet I can find you a good counter to Robert Price if you actually want one. Ah, the will of man as the decider of his mind...

They are not historical narratives? What about Luke's opening statement?

References from Pliny, Thallus, Tacitus, the Talmud, Seutonius, and Lucian for example? Keep in mind Van Gogh died penniless and unknown. Also, bare in mind that record-keeping then is not what it is today. No palm pilots. One wrote down the important things--Jesus was of local significance only (yet they still referred to him) to the Romans until his birth, life, death and resurrection changed Rome itself.

Even without the alleged interpoloations Josephus acknowledges the historical Jesus Christ on his own. Don't toss the baby with the bathwater.

If Jesus was thoroughly divine spiritual savior to you, then what is our disagreement?

The authors intended their testimony as allegory only? You'll have to show me something to overturn the common sense notion that they intended to be take seriously.

Commanding the reader to observe Jesus' moral teachings whilst immoraly spreading the teaching (lying)? Eeee. Unstable minds? Duplicitous authors?

You say early Christians did not hold the Gospels to be legit? Please elaborate.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul. Are you suspicious because they're in the same compilation (the Bible)?

Torah, the Talmud and the Tanaach well preceeded the Holocaust and the amazing events of Israel's resurrection as a nation and it's survival amidst violent neighbors that perpetually attack. That's some retrojective theory you've got there brother.

You'd apply self-fulfilling prophecy to an entire people group? Outside of it's normal application to the individual? It might just happen if everyone wishes real hard? Sounds like you're wishing real hard too.

That settles it then. Since the Israeli General has no motivation to think that...

Read the Case for Faith and then the Case for Christ openly. I'd rather not reinvent the wheel.

Archaeological confirmation shows that the Bible is rooted in reality, doesn't prove it is infallible but certainly moves to the credibility issue. Imagine if we found something contrary--say we found proof that Jericho did't exist in Canaan but actually existed in Syria! Can you imagine? I'd have to have a change of heart...the opposite applies for you though.

The part about invisible pink unicorns?

No, but if they found the remains of a big wooden horse, Herme's magical sandals, Princess Nausicaa's wedding dress and the skeleton of a Cyclops, all contradicting the expert's claims that such did not exist, we'd have to rethink some things. Not that I'd ever compare the obviously mythological and fictitious accounts of Homer to the serious renderings in the Bible. Have you actually read the Odyssey? Do you actually see similarities between it an the Bible? If so, elaborate.

Strobel was one of yours until he began his earnest seeking of evidence that did not naturally corroborate he preconcieved notions. We could all learn a thing or two from this postures. As for credentials; Masters from Yale Law who worked as Legal Editor for Chicago Tribune. Investigative journalist. Good background for the undertaking of examining Christianity objectively and thoroughly with procedure in mind. You laugh? Respectfully, what are your credentials for laughing at his? Not very nice, is it?

Thoroughly demolished? So resoundingly I've yet to hear of this great victory? No doubt the atheist rebuttal would be big news at iidb, but anywhere else? Did you actually read his works or just the critiques, to buffer your faith?

The Gospels are not trustworthy? How so?

You'd have to show that the Gospels are not trustworthy in order for your argument to matter. Ever read Simon Greenleaf? Try a rebuttal to his analysis of the credibility of the Gospels. Paul equivocated on the Resurrection?

1 Corinthians 15:13
If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised.

1 Corinthians 15:12
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

Romans 1:4
and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:5
If we have been united with him like this in his death, we will certainly also be united with him in his resurrection.

1 Corinthians 15:21
For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.

1 Corinthians 15:42
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;

Philippians 3:10
I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,

True, but it can prove that it's not true or, if in agreement with incidental facts, further demonstrates the Bible's general trustworthiness.

Did you hear the death knell of Christianity when we find out that Ephesus never existed? Just a natural mistake one can expect when an attempt at a conspiracy this large is undertaken. There's bound to be a slip up. Colson and crew couldn't keep the lid on the Watergate Conspiracy for a week, you can't get any 5 Jewish men in a room to agree that the sky is blue; what makes them think they can keep this Jesus thing up for two millenia? Oh shoot, they found Ephesus? Well, keep digging! We'll find some contradiction if we look hard enough.

Like the beams used in his cruxifiction (sic)? How'd we know they were his if we found them anyway? Isn't that a bit like trying to weigh a chicken with a yard stick? Beware the Procrustean bed my friend.

More conspiracy against the common sense understanding of things? You'll have to show me they didn't believe in a risen Lord. Didn't Paul's writings set that straight?

I picked on poor Alex for that reason. There's an ongoing debate about whether Christ qualifies as an historical personnage or not, using Alex as a comparison. Though I might add that the atheistic POV is the fringe minority of biblical/historical scholarship. I can certainly understand the necessity of the atheist POV that Christ did not exist though...I think if he did not exist then it raises more questions than can possibly be answered more satisfactorily than that he simply existed. Conspiracy theories tend to work that way and so I am not surprised.

I just briefed the Odysseus myth at your impelling (sic?) and it bears no similarity to the Bible. What is your favorite myth=Bible platitude? The Osiris thing or ...?

You're an atheist right? Precluding God when studying the evidence is not exactly objective either. Try to gain some balance by allowing for His existence in your mind then study the evidence. That is the point of these verses.

Exactly. You are what you read (or mentally consume in another manner, if you're a visual or audio learner). You choose what you read. Ergo you choose who you are. There will be none who are seperated from God after this life who did not first choose to be seperated from him here, now.

Au contraire. Presupposition is a given when talking about the human mind and interpretation of evidence. What do you think jury selection is all about? Evidence is not evidence.

Sure thing, if you continue to pursue the evidence for God, not only reading criticism against him, balancing and keeping open the possibility, in your mind, that He exists and may yet call you. This is actually why I find the both the agnostic and the spiritual seeker more honest and objective than the atheist.

Can science measure history? Only to a certain, limited extent. Much of the determination is epistemological/philosophical. Science can never determine historical truth on it's own. Thus, when you examine the record of the Resurrection you take on the role of juror, not lab tech. It is important to keep this in mind.

Like Newton, Pasteur and Boyle? Yeah, I know.

You mean like Charles Darwin? Whose only degree was in Theology (or so I've heard)? Ironic.

Chuck D. (not the musician, the evolutionist) did the retrojecting bit, that's for sure. Regardless of the age, how did non-living chemicals become life? We don't have to discuss it here, not the right frame or scope I'm sure, but post what you have. I ask because I've seen nothing that approaches persuasive. On to Mr. fried beef sandwich and that's it for the day! Fried beef sandwich, is that a real menu item somewhere, sounds like it might be on the same menu as a mayonnaise sandwich, yum.

Respectfully,
BGiC

Cross Examiner

My Beef with Mr. Beef

Check it (can you tell I'm tired of writing?). Tom Clancy, Mr. Rainbow Six, writes a realistic novel about the Navy SEALS training facility at Camp Le Jeune, North Carolina. A following, for some reason, develops based off this book assuming it is true in every detail. Years later, they discover that the Navy SEALS training facility described by Clancy was not in N.C. but actually in Coronado CA.! What's the implication of this? Don't take Tom's book as authoritative on all things! Certainly don't put your life and stock into it. Same with the Bible. Back to my random selection of archaeological confirmation.

-Discovery of the Ebla archive
-Proof of the Hittites found at Bogazkoy, Turkey
-Sir Henry Rawlinson's discovery of the Nabonidus inscriptions
-More recent confirmatory (of the above) find at Hillah, a suburb of Babylon
-Discovery of the Caiaphas family tomb
-Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls
-The Tel Dan 'House of David' inscription

Many of the above, before their discovery, were used as evidence against the Bible's more controversial claims. For example, secular anthroplogists and archaeologists were absolutely convinced that the Hittites did not exist, that the Bible fabricated their existence. Then lo and behold they find evidence of the Hittite people. Does this mean the Bible is completely infallible? No! Does this count as yet more evidence for it's credibility? You do the math.

I absolutely love this paragraph. Too funny! Odds were stacked against Israel since the Balfour Declaration. I'll not get into the evidence since it's so widely held that they shouldn't have prevailed all these years--you can check it yo sef at TIME or CNN I'm sure. You bring up, accidentally, an interesting point. America has aided Israel. America is the sole remaining superpower. Isn't there a promise about those who bless Israel get blessed themselves somewhere?

No More Posting Today--it's Friday!

BGiC