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]

Yes, but an interpolation neither proves that
1. Josephus did not say something regarding Jesus of Nazareth in his writing
2. Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist

It, it does show that what is said is modified for theological/political purposes, and therefore corrupts that piece of evidence to the point it can't be used.

Just that a dishonest Christian added words into the document

Josephus is not the only historian who mentions Jesus, but its the one most want to spend time on because it contains obvious interpolations
Oh, another thing it doesn't prove:
3. All other historical references to Jesus are interpolations

Yet, all the others were from even later that Jospehus.. well after Christians were wondering about the Empire, and attempting to spread their beliefs and story. Those are far enough away in time that we can safely say 'That is evidence of Christians and what they believed'. It is not evidence of the divine authorship of the bible (remember the thread subject matter), nor even of the existence of Jesus more than just a belief.

Even lack of historical evidence outside the New Testament proves nothing.
I doubt there will be many historical documents that will mention either of us,
it doesn't mean we never existed.

It DOES mean that the stores in the New Testament were vastly exaggerated, since it relays events that were amazing enough, with so many alleged eye witnesses it SURELY would have been mentioned..But, no one mentioned the dead coming out of their graves, the relaying of the 'Thallus darkness at noon' is such a stretch of the imagination to be unbelievable by any rational person, and contemporaries who were in Jerusalem at that time period didn't mention him. Philo for example, mentioned the Essenes, and Pilate, but not Jesus.

[Danmark]

Even lack of historical evidence outside the New Testament proves nothing.
I doubt there will be many historical documents that will mention either of us,
it doesn't mean we never existed.

The writers of the New Testament claim that Jesus had huge numbers of followers, performed mighty miracles and on the event of his death there was a solar eclipse, an earthquake and hundreds of zombies walking about in Jerusalem. It is highly unlikely that these events would go by unnoticed by contemporary chroniclers. I doubt that any historical documents will mention me, I have done nothing worthy of notice. Neither apparently did Jesus of Nazareth.

This may be one of the strongest arguments against the historical Jesus, or at at least against the description of him in the Gospels (combined with Paul's lack of knowledge of the details of Jesus' life and acts).

Given the extraordinary claims the gospel makes about his ministry and miracles, it is inconceivable there is no record of him outside of the church's reconstructed history in the gospels.
Tho' using today's rather over inclusive media as a comparison is unfair, even rather mundane figures like myself are fairly well documented in local news archives on a monthly if not weekly basis. I can't 'prove' this point without revealing my full name if you want to challenge it, you can send me a private message.

But Jesus was a 'miracle worker' who defied the church of his day, was convicted of a crime punishable by death. He was a man who entered a major city triumphant with multitudes singing hosannahs of praise, yet . . . nothing reported.

Josephus reported events of this time period, including events less important to us today, bu no mention of Jesus.
Roman rule in the land of Israel (63 BCE – 324 CE)

Main article: Judaea (Roman province)


Siege and Destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (1850 painting by David Roberts)


The sack of Jerusalem depicted on the inside wall of the Arch of Titus in Rome
Judea had been an independent Jewish kingdom under the Hasmoneans, but was conquered by the Roman general Pompey in 63 BCE and reorganized as a client state. (Roman expansion was going on in other areas as well, and would continue for more than a hundred and fifty years.) Later, Herod the Great was appointed "King of the Jews" by the Roman Senate, supplanting the Hasmonean dynasty. Some of his offspring held various positions after him, known as the Herodian dynasty. Briefly, from 4 BCE to 6 CE, Herod Archelaus ruled the tetrarchy of Judea as ethnarch, the Romans denying him the title of King. After the Census of Quirinius in 6, the Roman province of Judaea was formed as a satellite of Roman Syria under the rule of a prefect (as was Roman Egypt) until 41, then procurators after 44. The empire was often callous and brutal in its treatment of its Jewish subjects, see Anti-Judaism in the pre-Christian Roman Empire. In 66 CE, the Jews began to revolt against the Roman rulers of Judea. The revolt was defeated by the future Roman emperors Vespasian and Titus. In the Siege of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the Romans destroyed much of the Temple in Jerusalem and, according to some accounts, plundered artifacts from the temple, such as the Menorah. Jews continued to live in their land in significant numbers, the Kitos War of 115–117 CE nothwithstanding, until Julius Severus ravaged Judea while putting down the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132–136 CE. 985 villages were destroyed and most of the Jewish population of central Judaea was essentially wiped out, killed, sold into slavery, or forced to flee[citation needed]. Banished from Jerusalem, the Jewish population now centred on Galilee. Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina and Judea was renamed Syria Palestina, to spite the Jews by naming it after their ancient enemies, the Philistines. Jews were only allowed to visit Aelia Capitolina on the day of Tisha B'Av.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_his ... _324_CE.29

[jimvansage]

No, it does matter
Because even if Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 could be shown to predict a Messiah dying on the cross, accurately predicting that Roman soldiers would cast lots for his garments (a fulfillment outside Jesus' power to fulfill on purpose), then you can argue all day and night that Jesus of Nazareth never existed
Anyone who understands the prophecies in the OT would have to make that claim to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures.

I think I know what Doug Wilson means when he says he doesn't argue for the truth of the Bible, just defends a rational outlook of the Bible. No matter how sound or valid the argument, some will try to find flaws in it.

[Goat]

No, it does matter
Because even if Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 could be shown to predict a Messiah dying on the cross, accurately predicting that Roman soldiers would cast lots for his garments (a fulfillment outside Jesus' power to fulfill on purpose), then you can argue all day and night that Jesus of Nazareth never existed
Anyone who understands the prophecies in the OT would have to make that claim to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures.

I think I know what Doug Wilson means when he says he doesn't argue for the truth of the Bible, just defends a rational outlook of the Bible. No matter how sound or valid the argument, some will try to find flaws in it.

When Psalm 22 is mistranslated AND taken out of context , and Isaiah 53 is taken out of context, to try to make Jesus into a God , that tends to show that , well, the bible does not have divine authorship. .. at least when it comes to the NT.

Now, the whole garments thing is this 'written to so it makes something that wasn't a prophecy look like a prophecy.'.. if you read Isaiah 53 in context.. with th eproper translation, it's in 'completed action' tense,.. i.e. past tense, not future tense. It wasn't a prophecy.

[Nickman]

No, it does matter
Because even if Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 could be shown to predict a Messiah dying on the cross, accurately predicting that Roman soldiers would cast lots for his garments (a fulfillment outside Jesus' power to fulfill on purpose), then you can argue all day and night that Jesus of Nazareth never existed
Anyone who understands the prophecies in the OT would have to make that claim to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures.

I think I know what Doug Wilson means when he says he doesn't argue for the truth of the Bible, just defends a rational outlook of the Bible. No matter how sound or valid the argument, some will try to find flaws in it.

Can you show that Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are actually Messianic in nature? Can you back this up by Talmudic writings? Can you show in any way that these verses are not applied to anyone else or are directly fulfilled in othe areas of the bible, specifically the OT? What makes you think that these verses are Messianic to begin with? Are you a translator or Rabbi? What authority do you have to claim that these verses are Messianic?

[jimvansage]

Past tense? then what is Isaiah 53 talking about?

But God can speak of things yet to happen as though they were, can He not?
"(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Romans 4:17)
Is Genesis 17:5 also in past tense? "for a father of many nations have I made thee"?
Does not mean it is not a prophecy/promise of God

[Goat]

Past tense? then what is Isaiah 53 talking about?

But God can speak of things yet to happen as though they were, can He not?
"(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Romans 4:17)
Is Genesis 17:5 also in past tense? "for a father of many nations have I made thee"?
Does not mean it is not a prophecy/promise of God

isaiah 53 is the end of what is known as the Fourth servant song. It is talking about how the Nation of Israel suffers because of the actions of people who make it up, and how israel shall be a inspiration to the Gentile nations of the world.

[jimvansage]

Yes, I'm familiar with that interpretation.
What passages in Isaiah contain the Four Servant songs?
Are the servants in all of these songs a reference to Israel, in your opinion?

[Goat]

Yes, I'm familiar with that interpretation.
What passages in Isaiah contain the Four Servant songs?
Are the servants in all of these songs a reference to Israel, in your opinion?

It's starts at Isaiah 42, and it explicitly says the servant is Israel.


Rather than cut/paste a whole bunch of stuff, I would suggest you read A rabbinical analysis of the Servant Songs

[jimvansage]

So certain sections of Isaiah 41, 44, 45, 48, and 49 specify that Israel is the servant under consideration in those passages.

Is there no passage in Isaiah that speaks of a servant other than Israel?