Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logic?

[McCulloch]

I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

2. The Bible is God's Word*

Can the Bible's divine authorship be demonstrated by logical deduction?

[jimvansage]

You know what I think these things mean.
Job 19:25 - God would stand on the earth
Hosea 1:10; 2:23; Isaiah 10:22, 23 - The Gentiles would know the glory of God also
What's your take on those?
Can you explain why a Jewish prophet would promise God's blessings on the Gentiles?

@Danmark: Still waiting to hear when you think Matthew, specifically Matthew 24 was written.

[Goat]

You know what I think these things mean.
Job 19:25 - God would stand on the earth
Hosea 1:10; 2:23; Isaiah 10:22, 23 - The Gentiles would know the glory of God also
What's your take on those?
Can you explain why a Jewish prophet would promise God's blessings on the Gentiles?

@Danmark: Still waiting to hear when you think Matthew, specifically Matthew 24 was written.

Why would they have anything to do with Jesus what so ever?? Lists and claims without looking at it in depth is meaningless. How about looking at those in context and explaining to me why it should be about jesus, rather than just making unsupported claims.

[jimvansage]

You can't say one minute that you're not interested in what Paul says (how he applies the passages in Isaiah and Hosea to apply to Jesus Christ dying for Jew and Gentile alike, and Jew and Gentile alike coming into one body; the church/body of Christ) and then ask why I believe it is possible that those verses foretell that very thing.

It's possible that Job's "redeemer standing on the earth in the last day" could be a reference to the incarnation of God in the flesh (Jesus of Nazareth)
It's possible that the uncharacteristic promise of the Jewish prophets that God would bless the Gentiles as well evidences not only that God inspired the message of those prophets (as He is no respecter of persons, a lesson that took a Jew like Simon Peter a long time to learn, according to the book of Acts and Galatians) but also evidences the promised fulfilled in a new covenant (Jer. 31:31).

Without that New Covenant being fulfilled by Jesus Christ in AD 30 or so, the religion of OT Judaism has been extinct since AD 70 without a new covenant or a Temple whereby to have atonement by Levitical sacrifice in the Temple and the original covenant delivered by Moses and the prophets.
From a Christian worldview of course.

Now, do you want me to preach some more, or will you answer my questions?
How do you interpret the passages in Job, Isaiah, and Hosea
and do you have a viable explanation for them?

[Goat]

You can't say one minute that you're not interested in what Paul says (how he applies the passages in Isaiah and Hosea to apply to Jesus Christ dying for Jew and Gentile alike, and Jew and Gentile alike coming into one body; the church/body of Christ) and then ask why I believe it is possible that those verses foretell that very thing.

Well, I don't care what Paul says. That has nothign to do with your claim about 'there are 300 prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus in the OT'. You gave a list of several.. You have not shown that they actually talk about Jesus.

It's possible that Job's "redeemer standing on the earth in the last day" could be a reference to the incarnation of God in the flesh (Jesus of Nazareth)
It's possible that the uncharacteristic promise of the Jewish prophets that God would bless the Gentiles as well evidences not only that God inspired the message of those prophets (as He is no respecter of persons, a lesson that took a Jew like Simon Peter a long time to learn, according to the book of Acts and Galatians) but also evidences the promised fulfilled in a new covenant (Jer. 31:31).

the 'It's possible' is not very good evidence of a fulfilled prophecy , now is it. It is much more likely that it is 'let's retrofit stuff into the Jewish scripture, and pretend it's about Jesus.

Without that New Covenant being fulfilled by Jesus Christ in AD 30 or so, the religion of OT Judaism has been extinct since AD 70 without a new covenant or a Temple whereby to have atonement by Levitical sacrifice in the Temple and the original covenant delivered by Moses and the prophets.
From a Christian worldview of course.

Well, from the Jewish point of view, that is a total distortion of the idea of the sacrifces.. and honestly.. because most of the world was too far away to sacrifice in the Temple, they had alternate ways for sacrifice and atonement. Totally unneeded .. even before Jesus.

Now, do you want me to preach some more, or will you answer my questions?
How do you interpret the passages in Job, Isaiah, and Hosea
and do you have a viable explanation for them?

Preach, hell no. I don't want you to preach. I want you to back up your claims. "It's possible' is not backing up the claims. You did not address any of those passages in context at all. Do you know what is mean by 'in context', since you are so studiously avoiding context.

What is the actual passage, and what are the surrounding passages to see what the author was actually talking about?? Can you make your case using the words , for example, of Job himself, and using the passages surrounding the passage you are plucking out as being a 'prophecy'.. A sound bit is not a prophecy.

When are are able to make your case with the actual passage, and the words surrounding the passage,and not saying 'it's possible'..

I will note you didn't even quote the passage .. you just through out a line, and made claims.

Can you back up your claims without 'preaching'? Can you just take the text, the surrounding text, and make your case? Avoiding that issue is certainly not making the claims 'Jesus fulfilled 300 prophecies' either logical or reasonable.

I don't have to give a 'viable explanation for them'... I am not the one making the claim. I will probably give a good alternate explanation .. once you attempt to back up your claim so that it is taken out of the 'out of context quote' stage.

[jimvansage]

You're faulting my case because I'm not arrogant enough to say unequivocally that my interpretation of these OT verses is the one and only proper interpretation, and I'm actually interested in what you think they mean?

With the exception of the 70 years the Israelites spent in Babylon, it was my understanding that all males had to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem 3 times a year -
Thus the Song of Ascents (Ps. 120-134) were to be sung on their pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and the Jews of all nations gathered in Jerusalem in Pentecost in Acts 2.

Regardless, my case is that a group of Jews, whose law taught them not to associate with Gentiles, would not promise that God would bless the Gentiles as well without some sort of inspiration from an impartial God who made Jew and Gentile alike (all the nations of the earth of one blood Acts 17:26).

It wouldn't be a popular notion, it probably never would have been entertained by the average Jew of the time or even in the first century (When Jewish men verbally thanked God in prayer that they were not born a Gentile, a Samaritan, or a woman).
In humility, I propose this as a possibility, but no other viable explanation makes sense to me.
You have claimed that the only possibility that should be excluded when interpreting OT prophecy is that the fulfillment any OT prophecy cannot be in the person or work of Jesus of Nazareth (which is a universal negative based on presuppositions more than anything else, especially not proof).

Whether you accept it might be a possibility or not, what is the alternative?

[Goat]

You're faulting my case because I'm not arrogant enough to say unequivocally that my interpretation of these OT verses is the one and only proper interpretation, and I'm actually interested in what you think they mean?

I am not faulting your case, I am saying you are not even presenting a case yet. You made a claim about how the 300 prophecies of Jesus in the OT show divine authorship. I challenged you on the claim of 300 prophecies, and asked yhou to show some , in context, that do not fit into certain categories, such as being vague, out of context, mistranslatesd, or written to.

You have a list of 5, and you have not even shown what the phrase what, (just chapter/number, which i am NOT going to bother to look up), and you didn't look at it in context, nor explain how/why you think it's about Jesus. You haven't even laid out what your 'interpretation', or why you think it is 'possible' (although IMO, just saying it is 'possible' is falling under the category of vague).

With the exception of the 70 years the Israelites spent in Babylon, it was my understanding that all males had to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem 3 times a year -
Thus the Song of Ascents (Ps. 120-134) were to be sung on their pilgrimage to
Jerusalem, and the Jews of all nations gathered in Jerusalem in Pentecost in Ac

Really?? Care to back up this beside some random bible quote. Show the source of this 'understanding' Prove it. Back up your 'understanding' with a reference to a source.

2.

Regardless, my case is that a group of Jews, whose law taught them not to associate with Gentiles, would not promise that God would bless the Gentiles as well without some sort of inspiration from an impartial God who made Jew and Gentile alike (all the nations of the earth of one blood Acts 17:26).

I don't consider 'Acts' as a source about Judaism. Can you show a scholarly source that shows that 'The law of the Jews taught them not to associate with Gentiles'?? Where did you get this notion? Is that what 'Acts 17:26 actually says, .. I am not going to look it up, but how about quoting it, showing the context of that quote (you have yet to do that with anything yet, or even show what a quote is., even as a sound bite). Back up this claim.

It wouldn't be a popular notion, it probably never would have been entertained by the average Jew of the time or even in the first century (When Jewish men verbally thanked God in prayer that they were not born a Gentile, a Samaritan, or a woman).

What an odd notion. Where did you get the idea that Jewish men verbally thank god in prayer they were not born a Gentile, or woman or a Samaritan. Please show your source for that. Can you show me what prayer they recited?

In humility, I propose this as a possibility, but no other viable explanation makes sense to me.
You have claimed that the only possibility that should be excluded when interpreting OT prophecy is that the fulfillment any OT prophecy cannot be in the person or work of Jesus of Nazareth (which is a universal negative based on presuppositions more than anything else, especially not proof).

Well, then back it up. Proposing something is not supporting it. Back up your claims. I don't have to propose an opposite until I know what you are actually saying. You give a list of several different passages, you don't quote those passages, nor do you examine them in context. You say 'it's possible', but you don't explain WHY it's possible. Do you know what supporting your claim actually means? You then insist I 'provide another explaination'.. but that is what is known as 'shifting the burden of proof'.. You haven't even DISCUSSED a single of those passages.. and you have come up with some rather outlandish and bizarre other claims about Judaism, also without backing up those claims.

Whether you accept it might be a possibility or not, what is the alternative?

When you actually discuss anything in context,,.. and show sources, then I will worry about giving an alternative. I want you to actually MAKE a case.. and you have yet to even get to step one, by showing what any specific quote actually IS, much less addressing it in context.


IF you want, I can address just ONE of those passages, and show you what I mean. Which one of the quotes in the Jewish scriptures do you want me to address,???

[jimvansage]

JEWISH PRAYER: "I thank you that I was not born a Gentile, a slave or woman." [1] TALMUD: "Every man who teaches his daughter Torah is as if he taught her promiscuity." [2] "Let the words of Torah be burned up, but let them not be delivered to women." [3] Rabbis were forbidden to speak to any woman in public, even their own mothers or sisters. Samaritan women were regarded as ritually unclean from birth.

[1] William Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), p. 67.
[2] Mishnah Sotah 3:4
[3] Jer Sotah 19a

Google brought me to this particular website, though I have read the prayer in more than one commentary on the Gospel of John
http://www.xenos.org/teachings/?teaching=473

Maybe a little too much information, but it helps my case
My case is this categorical syllogism:

If a document being considered as the special revelation of God has certain views contained within which are uncharacteristic of the time and cultural context in which they were produced, then that document is special revelation from God.
The Bible has certain views contained within which are uncharacteristic of the time and cultural context in which it was produced.
Therefore, the Bible is special revelation from God.

A document like Isaiah and Hosea which though written by Jews yet promise God's blessings on the Gentiles is so uncharacteristic and unpopular of the time they were written (and btw could not be written after the Babylonian exile except with guidance from God) that only the inspiration of God could move these men to make these promises.

The passages under consideration:
Isaiah 10:22, 23 speak of the remnant
Isaiah 10:21-23 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness. For the Lord GOD of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined, in the midst of all the land

Hosea 1:10 has Messianic overtones
and identify the remnant spoken of in Isaiah as including Gentiles also
("those who were not My people")
I'll give you the context too

Hosea 1:9-11 "Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

Hosea 2:18-23 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD. And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the LORD, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.

This is not a reference to the return from Babylonian captivity, because the Gentiles were not incorporated into Judah (and Israel cannot be what is meant by "ye who were not my people" centuries after the Mosaic covenant)

It would probably take the resurrection of a Jewish teacher for Jews to accept that kind of thing - the Babylonian Talmud is full of hatred toward the Gentiles, even says that it is better to have sex with an animal than a Gentile (I don't have a copy of it in my library, but I'll look up the reference in time).

Case, context;
Is there anything else you need?

[Goat]

JEWISH PRAYER: "I thank you that I was not born a Gentile, a slave or woman." [1] TALMUD: "Every man who teaches his daughter Torah is as if he taught her promiscuity." [2] "Let the words of Torah be burned up, but let them not be delivered to women." [3] Rabbis were forbidden to speak to any woman in public, even their own mothers or sisters. Samaritan women were regarded as ritually unclean from birth.

[1] William Barclay, The Letters to Timothy, Titus and Philemon (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975), p. 67.

So, we have a Christian claiming this.. reallY??

[[2] Mishnah Sotah 3:4

This is what Mishna Sotah 3:34 says

Mishnah Sotah 3:4: A Negative View of the Pharisees

The following passage shows that for some, Pharisaic extremism, or perhaps even hypocrisy, would be an object of ridicule.


[Rabbi Joshua] used to say: A foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, an ascetic woman,94 and the plagues of the Pharisees, these destroy the world.

Notice, not only did I give what the passage says, but I gave a source to where I got that information from , to be checked for veracity. Could you give your source.. and what they claim the passage is? That is known as 'backing up your claim'.

[3] Jer Sotah 19a

And here, we have a discussion of Sotah 19a/b.. which if you look at, has nothing to do with what you claim it does

http://www.steinsaltz.org/learning.php? ... cleId=1030

Sotah 19a-b
June 12, 2008

This month's Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by:
Dr. and Mrs. Alan Harris
The Lewy Family Foundation
Marilyn and Edward Kaplan

To dedicate future editions of Steinsaltz Daf Yomi,
perhaps in honor of a special occasion or in memory of a loved one, click here.

* * *
While the second perek (=chapter) of Masechet Sotah focused on the preparations that were done for the ceremony, the third perek, which begins on our daf (=page), deals with the ceremony itself. The first Mishnah in the perek teaches that the minhah - the meal offering - was removed from the basket and placed in a keli sharet - a utensil belonging to the Temple - and was given to the woman to hold. As is generally the case with menahot, tenufah - lifting the minhah - was then done, with the kohen placing his hands under the hands of the owner and lifting the minhah up in the air. Afterwards it was brought to the altar and sacrificed, with the remainder given to the kohanim to eat. Tosafot bring a question that is presented by the Talmud Yerushalmi. Is there not a lack of propriety in having the kohen lift the minhah up thereby touching the hands of the woman? The Yerushalmi rejects the possibility that a cloth was placed between their hands, arguing that something like that would create a hatzitzah - a separation - which would not allow the requirement of tenufah to be fulfilled correctly. Rather, the Yerushalmi concludes, such a short term physical touch does not lend itself to sensuality. Others suggest that the kohen did not actually place his hands directly under the woman's while he was performing tenufah with her, rather he would hold the edges of the utensil on their upper end. The Tosafot ha-Rosh suggests that we can reconcile the two explanations by saying that the Talmud Yerushalmi recognized that given the close proximity of the kohen and the Sotah, it was likely that they would come into contact with one another, and that putting them into such a situation was deemed inappropriate. The conclusion, however, was that contact for just a moment is not something that should be of concern to us.

Google brought me to this particular website, though I have read the prayer in more than one commentary on the Gospel of John
http://www.xenos.org/teachings/?teaching=473

Oh, the Gospel of John. I had NO idea that the Gospel of John could tell Jews what they believe.

I wlll not that the link you showed had NOTHING to do with propehcy, or how the Jews prayed.

Maybe a little too much information, but it helps my case
My case is this categorical syllogism:

If a document being considered as the special revelation of God has certain views contained within which are uncharacteristic of the time and cultural context in which they were produced, then that document is special revelation from God.
The Bible has certain views contained within which are uncharacteristic of the time and cultural context in which it was produced.
Therefore, the Bible is special revelation from God.

Is it, or is it evidence of confirmation bias?? Can you prove that claim is true? Sounds like circular reasoning to me also.=

A document like Isaiah and Hosea which though written by Jews yet promise God's blessings on the Gentiles is so uncharacteristic and unpopular of the time they were written (and btw could not be written after the Babylonian exile except with guidance from God) that only the inspiration of God could move these men to make these promises.

The passages under consideration:
Isaiah 10:22, 23 speak of the remnant
Isaiah 10:21-23 The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness. For the Lord GOD of hosts shall make a consumption, even determined, in the midst of all the land

Is that what is says??? Well, at least you FINALLY quoted a sound bit. But , what is that sound bit actually talking about? What is the context?? it is part of a story, an narrative. What is that narrative saying and talking about? A line in isolation does not mean much. What is the narration talking about?? Then, explain how that narration is talking about Jesus.

Hosea 1:10 has Messianic overtones
and identify the remnant spoken of in Isaiah as including Gentiles also
("those who were not My people")
I'll give you the context too

Hosea 1:9-11 "Then said God, Call his name Loammi: for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel.

And how is that talking about Jesus? What is the story line, and how does it relate to those two sentences?? I am glad you actually quoted some lines.. FINALLY.. but what is the context, and how does that relate to Jesus?

Hosea 2:18-23 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground: and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in lovingkindness, and in mercies. I will even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness: and thou shalt know the LORD. And it shall come to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the LORD, I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth; And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God.

This is not a reference to the return from Babylonian captivity, because the Gentiles were not incorporated into Judah (and Israel cannot be what is meant by "ye who were not my people" centuries after the Mosaic covenant)

Is it?? What is the context?? Not the lines in isolation., but how does it fit in with the narrative, and how is it about Jesus?

It would probably take the resurrection of a Jewish teacher for Jews to accept that kind of thing - the Babylonian Talmud is full of hatred toward the Gentiles, even says that it is better to have sex with an animal than a Gentile (I don't have a copy of it in my library, but I'll look up the reference in time).

Case, context;
Is there anything else you need?

Yes, I want you to show the source about where you say 'the Babalyonian Talmud is full of Hatred. You made specific claims about prayers for Gentiles , and when I looked up the passages in the Talmud you claimed, they were nothing of the sort.

I want you to show your sources for that claim. You made claims, I know are incorrect. Let's see your source that shows that 'Jewish Rabbis were not allowed to speak to women in public'.

Let's see you post your source.

I do find it facinating that rather than deal with the OT passages in context, you quote the passages, without explaining why it should be about Jesus, and then you go on a tirade about the Talmud, and prayers that the Jews alledgedly did, and how hateful the Talmud is. I really want you to back that up,and show your sources. .. the key part is SHOW YOUR SOURCES.
Not just list them, but show them.

[Nickman]

How about Matthew 24? There is a long list of prophesies that were supposed to have taken place within "a generation" according to Matthew 24:33. Been about 2000 years. Still waiting.

Not to mention they were to be performed in THAT GENERATION. The text is explicit on this. I have done extensive work on Matthew 24 and Luke 21. One major thing Jesus said was that his return would happen in THAT GENERATION. If the bible is claimed to be the word of god it has to explain why this blatant and apparent problem is right there for anyone to see and realize Jesus was wrong.

[jimvansage]

At this point, if I posted the book of Hosea in it's entirety, you would say I was stripping the book out of it's cultural context.

I'll have to see where Barclay got his information regarding the JEWISH PRAYER (whether the other information is correct or not is irrelevant, but I do apologize for not triple-checking my secondary sources-The JEWISH PRAYER may very well still be on record somewhere, but I'll need time to research it).

My understanding of what is written in the Babylonian Talmud is second-hand - some friends of mine were reading it, and that is what they said they found. I'm not presenting it as evidence, you can read the Talmud for yourself and see if it says what I claimed. It's a fairly expensive book, and I don't have copies to distribute to make a point.

As far as any verse that may arise in this discussion is concerned, you have made no claim of knowledge about the interpretation or context either, so until you can show me an example of how I am to possibly interpret a passage in the Old Testament, I am at a loss.

So let's just conveniently forget everything I have ever said about Isaiah and Hosea. The argument will come up in regards to other facets of the Bible, but I'm not interested in interpreting the Old Testament by your standards. If I had my doctorate in the Old Testament, it would take me months to compile the information you are demanding of me to defend a handful of propositions.

I will find another prophecy to consider that is fulfilled in Christ rather than His church according to my interpretation.