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?

[Goat]

That wouldn't be fair of me to claim that there are 300 prophecies in debate because you couldn't answer every one of them.

Can't I?? How do you know?

The number is unimportant: If there is one prophecy that can be shown to be written before the fact of it's precise fulfillment, then the Bible contains one prophecy that can only be explained by supernatural means.

Is that true?? I mean, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Not only that, you have not shown that there are any prophecies in the bible that can only be explained by supernatural means. You are making that claims, can you show any prophecy that is like that?

I mean, to examine such a claim is a several step process.. the first basic step is showing what the quote is.. second step is to show how it's about Jesus, and how Jesus fulfilled it. Third step is to look at it in context , so see if that is a proper interpreation, then you have to show that the passage was not written to.

The ones you showed earlier you abandoned after merely quoting what it was. IT seems you were unable to follow through to explain WHY it should be about Jesus, and that is even BEFORE looking at translation and context. Oh. you have to show it's 'precise' too.. since you made a claim about 'precise fulfillment'.

Sounds to me like that is a steep hill to climb. I have seen similar claims in the past, and no one, no matter how educated and devote has been able to claim that hill.

I am claiming at this juncture only that there are over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament attributed to Christ. If I am wrong about the interpretation about one of them, it doesn't preclude the other 299 are irrelevant.

Can you show you are right about ANY?? That is the question.

So for the sake of fairness, I will address these prophecies one at a time, on their own merit rather than lumping them in with 299 other passages and contexts.
Fair enough?

Yes,.. fair enough.. that way each can be address IN turn, without using the technique known as the 'Gish Gallup', where tons and tons of information is thrown , and you are hoping that something sticks (even if it is all wrong).

[Danmark]

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?

We're 14 pages into this. That should have been enough time to "demonstrate by logical deduction the Bible is God's word."

Haven't seen it yet. Waiting.

[jimvansage]

"If you can't explain something simply, you don't know it well enough" -Albert Einstein

Fair enough.

If a document being considered as a candidate for special revelation from God has characteristics A, B, C, D...T, and those characteristics could not be the product of human effort unaided by supernatural means, then that document is the Word of God.

The document under consideration is the Bible
Those qualities are as follows:
predictive prophecy
uncharacteristic views
unity
scientific accuracy/foreknowledge

I recognize that I must provide evidence to back up these claims, but the only way one can reject the conclusion is to demonstrate that the Bible possesses none of these qualities.
Lack of predictive prophecy does not explain away supernatural unity, views, etc.
I've already given you this argument. I am now making my case.

Predictive prophecy.
Deuteronomy 18:15 KJV "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken"

Translations:
"Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken" ASV
"A prophet will the LORD thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken" (Jewish Publication Society Translation)

Context: Law given by Moses to the generation about to enter the promised land
Call to be perfect (v. 13)
Warning that other nations followed after sorcerers and diviners, etc. (v. 14)
Admonition to follow the Prophet whom God would raise up "like unto" Moses, from among the nation of Israel

Reasoning:
Jesus was an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah (Mt. 1)
Jesus claimed to be this Prophet/Messiah/Christ (John 4:26)
This prophecy was claimed by Peter and Stephen to be a reference to Christ as the Messiah (Acts 3:22; 7:37)
If it does not apply to Jesus as the NT Lawgiver, it applies to no one else in history.

[Goat]

"If you can't explain something simply, you don't know it well enough" -Albert Einstein

Fair enough.

If a document being considered as a candidate for special revelation from God has characteristics A, B, C, D...T, and those characteristics could not be the product of human effort unaided by supernatural means, then that document is the Word of God.

The document under consideration is the Bible
Those qualities are as follows:
predictive prophecy
uncharacteristic views
unity
scientific accuracy/foreknowledge

I recognize that I must provide evidence to back up these claims, but the only way one can reject the conclusion is to demonstrate that the Bible possesses none of these qualities.
Lack of predictive prophecy does not explain away supernatural unity, views, etc.
I've already given you this argument. I am now making my case.

Predictive prophecy.
Deuteronomy 18:15 KJV "The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken"

Translations:
"Jehovah thy God will raise up unto thee a prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken" ASV
"A prophet will the LORD thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken" (Jewish Publication Society Translation)

Context: Law given by Moses to the generation about to enter the promised land
Call to be perfect (v. 13)
Warning that other nations followed after sorcerers and diviners, etc. (v. 14)
Admonition to follow the Prophet whom God would raise up "like unto" Moses, from among the nation of Israel

Reasoning:
Jesus was an Israelite, of the tribe of Judah (Mt. 1)
Jesus claimed to be this Prophet/Messiah/Christ (John 4:26)
This prophecy was claimed by Peter and Stephen to be a reference to Christ as the Messiah (Acts 3:22; 7:37)
If it does not apply to Jesus as the NT Lawgiver, it applies to no one else in history.

Well, there were plenty of prophets.. Deutronomy was talking about a principle.. that the people who were not in power would complain about and give warning to those in power. There were plenty of ones. HOWEVER, the age of prophecy ended at the first Disporia, and no one after then is considered a prophet.

Now, Peter and Stephen can claim that (as written down after the fact by someone with a theological axe to grind. This is what is known as 'taking a generality, and writing to.'

It applies to Isaiah, it applies to EACH and every one of the prophets described in the Nevi'im. Sorry.. this is somethign that was written two, using an old Jewish tradition, not a prophecy about Jesus.

[Danmark]

"If you can't explain something simply, you don't know it well enough" -Albert Einstein

Fair enough.

If a document being considered as a candidate for special revelation from God has characteristics A, B, C, D...T, and those characteristics could not be the product of human effort unaided by supernatural means, then that document is the Word of God.

The document under consideration is the Bible
Those qualities are as follows:
predictive prophecy
uncharacteristic views
unity
scientific accuracy/foreknowledge

I recognize that I must provide evidence to back up these claims, but the only way one can reject the conclusion is to demonstrate that the Bible possesses none of these qualities.
....

The way you have set this up, wouldn't you have to agree one can reject your conclusion if the Bible fails to possess any one of those qualities?

Even then, based on they way you have formulated the test, you would only have shown a supernatural means, not 'god.'

Then you still would have the problem of defining what 'god' means.

[jimvansage]

@Danmark - That's why I wouldn't normally set forth this argument without first giving arguments for Theism (see the "Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logic?" forum).
In summary, God is eternal, omnipotent, morally perfect, etc.

Predictive Prophecy:
The Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, yet another prophet promises that God would bring His Son out of Egypt

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" (Micah 5:2, KJV)
The one ruler promised would be "Everlasting" (God?) yet would come forth out of Bethlehem - the anticipation in the first century was that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem according to the New Testament.

"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1)
Israel is never called God's son to my knowledge.

How could the Messiah be born in Bethlehem yet called out of Egypt?
Oh yeah!
To fabricate the story of Christ to completely harmonize with all of these prophecies is a work of pure genius, perhaps genius beyond human imagination alone.
But Jesus of Nazareth being born in Bethlehem and his family fleeing to Egypt only to return (come out of) it fulfills both of these.
More to come...

[Danmark]

@Danmark - That's why I wouldn't normally set forth this argument without first giving arguments for Theism (see the "Can the existence of God be demonstrated by logic?" forum).
In summary, God is eternal, omnipotent, morally perfect, etc.

Predictive Prophecy:
The Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, yet another prophet promises that God would bring His Son out of Egypt

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting" (Micah 5:2, KJV)
The one ruler promised would be "Everlasting" (God?) yet would come forth out of Bethlehem - the anticipation in the first century was that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem according to the New Testament.

"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1)
Israel is never called God's son to my knowledge.

How could the Messiah be born in Bethlehem yet called out of Egypt?
Oh yeah!
To fabricate the story of Christ to completely harmonize with all of these prophecies is a work of pure genius, perhaps genius beyond human imagination alone.
But Jesus of Nazareth being born in Bethlehem and his family fleeing to Egypt only to return (come out of) it fulfills both of these.
More to come...

[emphasis applied] That is exactly what happened, tho' I don't see why it would be 'a work of genius.' On the contrary, I see it as a facile effort. You really only have two elements listed, Bethlehem and Egypt. Easy to fabricate long after the fact. As many others have shown here and in other literature, there is scant [actually zero] record of Jesus of Nazareth depicted outside the gospel accounts, which are not recorded until 40 years or more after his alleged life and death. And those accounts contradict each other, particularly re: the circumstances of his birth. When the early church, after Paul's writings, wanted to harmonize some of what Paul wrote, the gospels were written. The were written, esp. Matthew with a very specific idea, to make the accounts fit into Biblical prophesy, so that is what they wrote. Curious, they did not find a Biblical prophesy about the 2d coming, but they did what they could.

[jimvansage]

Another reason this debate is going nowhere is because it is continually being affirmed that there is no extra-biblical mention of Jesus of Nazareth. This is simply not the case.

Say what you want about the Testimonium Flavianum, but Josephus also mentions John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]"
Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.23

There were many who claimed to be Christ at that time, but one named Jesus.

Besides, if the only record of Jesus of Nazareth is the New Testament, it is still a record, whether one accepts all of it as true or just in part.

Between Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, and others' records who do speak of Jesus
I would need 14 pages to spend on the subject

[Danmark]

Another reason this debate is going nowhere is because it is continually being affirmed that there is no extra-biblical mention of Jesus of Nazareth. This is simply not the case.

Say what you want about the Testimonium Flavianum, but Josephus also mentions John the Baptist and James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ

"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]"
Antiquities of the Jews, 20.9.23

There were many who claimed to be Christ at that time, but one named Jesus.

Besides, if the only record of Jesus of Nazareth is the New Testament, it is still a record, whether one accepts all of it as true or just in part.

Between Tacitus, Pliny, Suetonius, and others' records who do speak of Jesus
I would need 14 pages to spend on the subject

I am in complete agreement that the Josephus ref. alone would take more than a few pages to examine. Since it is a lengthy and well known debate, I will simply copy the words of others re: the fact the famous passage is later forgery and has been well documented:

Here's one of many arguments:
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named for him are not extinct to this day."
If this is the strongest and earliest extra-biblical evidence for the historical Jesus, then the scholarship is on the shakiest grounds. That passage from Josephus has been shown conclusively to be a forgery, and even conservative scholars admit it has been tampered with. But even were it historical, it dates from more than six decades after the supposed death of Jesus.

.... scholars have largely discounted the Josephus paragraph- as a later interpolation. The passage, although widely quoted by believers today, did not show up in the writings of Josephus until centuries after his death, at the beginning of the fourth century. Thoroughly dishonest church historian Eusebius is credited as the real author. The passage is grossly out of context, a clear hint that it was inserted at a later time.

All scholars agree that Josephus, a Jew who never converted to Christianity, would not have called Jesus "the Christ" or "the truth," so the passage must have been doctored by a later Christian--evidence, by the way, that some early believers were in the habit of altering texts to the advantage of their theological agenda. The phrase "to this day" reveals it was written at a later time. Everyone agrees there was no "tribe of Christians" during the time of Josephus--Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

If Jesus were truly important to history, then Josephus should have told us something about him. Yet he is completely silent about the supposed miracles and deeds of Jesus. He nowhere quotes Jesus. He adds nothing to the Gospel narratives and tells us nothing that would not have been known by Christians in either the first or fourth centuries. In all of Josephus' voluminous writings, there is nothing about Jesus or Christianity anywhere outside the tiny paragraph....
http://www.exminister.org/Barker-debunk ... Jesus.html

[Nickman]

That wouldn't be fair of me to claim that there are 300 prophecies in debate because you couldn't answer every one of them.

The number is unimportant: If there is one prophecy that can be shown to be written before the fact of it's precise fulfillment, then the Bible contains one prophecy that can only be explained by supernatural means.

I am claiming at this juncture only that there are over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament attributed to Christ. If I am wrong about the interpretation about one of them, it doesn't preclude the other 299 are irrelevant.

So for the sake of fairness, I will address these prophecies one at a time, on their own merit rather than lumping them in with 299 other passages and contexts.
Fair enough?

Nothing in the Hebrew bible is attributed to a Christ. The few Messianic prophetic writings we find are about a Jewish Messiah who is a human and not part deity. He is a political leader who was to "save" the Israelites from their capture and slavery. He was to setup Israel as the one big nation above all others. Jesus is a Christ or anointed one from Greek and Roman origins, who was believed by some Romanized Jews to be the messiah. He doesn't meet the criteria. When a culture is overtaken and captured, many ideas leak into the subordinate culture from the dominate one. There becomes a mixing of ideas. This helps explain how a Roman Christ could have been mistaken and even believed to be a messiah. Im not saying this is completely true, but it is my observation which is seen in other cultures as well.