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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

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

Post #1

Post by McCulloch »

jimvansage wrote: 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?
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #121

Post by Goat »

jimvansage wrote: 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.
Really?? While you improved by actually quoting the phrase you

I'll have to see where 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).
In other words.. he made a claim, yet he did not give a source. So, some evangelistic Christian makes a claim about Judaism he doesn't back up, and you are taking it as gospel.. nor are you actually showing the source where he made the claim. Do please research it, and show the SOURCE that makes that claim..

YOu said Webster.. give chapter.. and quote exactly what he said.
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.
Well, let me put it this way.. your friends were wrong. You gave specific passages and claimed they said certain things. I looked up those passages.. even posted the discussion of those passages here, and you were, bluntly wrong. They had NOTHIGN to do with what you claimed they said.
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 far, yhou have only quoted 2 lines in any passage, yet.. you have not even examined those passages, and explained why it should be about Jesus, or how Jesus 'fulfilled' the prophecy. You are getting closer to where you need to be.. but it is only step 1.. I appreciate you posted the passage rather than just chapter/number. That still doesn't show context... nor does it explain how you are getting 'This is a prophecy about Jesus' from that passage.


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.
Ok.. how about doing 1 passage.. just one.. and we can do a total examination of that. Don't try to bring in some kind of 'Jewish prayer' that is claimed by someone elsde, or bring in second hand claims about the talmud.. Let's go examine one passage that you claim to be a prophecy, and we can go into it in depth. It would be fair to show the NT reference to this passage.. then we can see if the reference in the NT is honest and fair.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

jimvansage
Apprentice
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:39 pm
Location: Sesser, IL

Post #122

Post by jimvansage »

I will explain Matthew 24, with a source unequivocally cited.

I only ask that you give me your opinion as to when the Gospel according to Matthew was written.
Anyone?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #123

Post by Goat »

jimvansage wrote: I will explain Matthew 24, with a source unequivocally cited.

I only ask that you give me your opinion as to when the Gospel according to Matthew was written.
Anyone?


Well, when it comes to Matthew, Matthew was written between 80 and 100 CE.. anything in Mathew that is a 'prediction' is after the fact.

However, Matthew is not part of the claim you made earlier. Your claim was 'There are 300 prophecies that Jesus fulfilled that are in the Old Testament. Examining Matthew would not give any prophecies that Jesus fulfilled in the OT.

And, since Matthew was written after 80 C.E.. well, the prediction about the temple being destroyed is 'after the fact' so to speak...
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

jimvansage
Apprentice
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:39 pm
Location: Sesser, IL

Post #124

Post by jimvansage »

I expected as much.
George Peter Holford believed (as did most scholars before 1805 or so) that Matthew was written before AD 70.
70% of churches in America teach that Matthew 24 has yet to be fulfilled (though you again won't find that claim before 1805, before the writings of Darby and Scofield).

Holford outlines Matthew 24, and how the events predicted there took place between AD 30 and 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed.
Comparison of Mark 13, Luke 21, and other relevant passages in the Gospels make this clear.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1 ... proof.html

So, I believe that the events in Matthew 24:1-34 happened within forty years of when they were allegedly spoken, when Romans destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem.

I might upset a lot of Christians for saying this, but I reject the theology that teaches the Rapture (a word not found in the Bible), a literal 1000 year reign of Christ in Jerusalem, etc.

I believe what Jesus taught, that at the end of time the living and dead, just and unjust will take part on their corresponding resurrections (John 5:28, 29).

But skeptics like Goat will deny out right that Matthew was written before AD 70 or that those words were spoken by anyone before AD 70 because of their presupposition that supernatural prophecy is impossible.

Many site Mark 9:1 in conjunction with Matthew 24:34 to show that the kingdom ought to have been established in the first century AD, but the classic view is that the spiritual kingdom of God and the church are interchangeable (Matt. 16:17-19).

User avatar
Nickman
Site Supporter
Posts: 5443
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Idaho
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #125

Post by Nickman »

jimvansage wrote: I expected as much.
George Peter Holford believed (as did most scholars before 1805 or so) that Matthew was written before AD 70.
70% of churches in America teach that Matthew 24 has yet to be fulfilled (though you again won't find that claim before 1805, before the writings of Darby and Scofield).

Holford outlines Matthew 24, and how the events predicted there took place between AD 30 and 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed.
Comparison of Mark 13, Luke 21, and other relevant passages in the Gospels make this clear.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1 ... proof.html

So, I believe that the events in Matthew 24:1-34 happened within forty years of when they were allegedly spoken, when Romans destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem.

I might upset a lot of Christians for saying this, but I reject the theology that teaches the Rapture (a word not found in the Bible), a literal 1000 year reign of Christ in Jerusalem, etc.

I believe what Jesus taught, that at the end of time the living and dead, just and unjust will take part on their corresponding resurrections (John 5:28, 29).

But skeptics like Goat will deny out right that Matthew was written before AD 70 or that those words were spoken by anyone before AD 70 because of their presupposition that supernatural prophecy is impossible.

Many site Mark 9:1 in conjunction with Matthew 24:34 to show that the kingdom ought to have been established in the first century AD, but the classic view is that the spiritual kingdom of God and the church are interchangeable (Matt. 16:17-19).
There is a thread on the forum labeled the Olivette Discourse. On that thread I would loveto debate this claim you have. I have wrote extensively on that thread about Matthew 24 and Luke 21. That thread would be a more appropriate place for this discussion.

The part of your post that pops out at me is that you say that the words of the Olivet Discourse were fulfilled before 70 AD, correct? If they were then why didn't Jesus return? He said specifically that that generation would see all of these things, one of which was his return that would be like lightning and can be seen as far as west is from east. If the signs of his coming, written in the different versions of the Olivet Discourse, had to happen before 70 AD because Jesus said so in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 then why didn't the other things he said also come true? That other thing would be his return. How can you divorce what he said about his return from the rest of the Discourse? He was asked two simple questions, when it would happen and what would be the sign. He answered those questions explicitly and very straightforward. He gave them all of the signs and things that would happen and even the sign of his coming as that of lightning. He answered the question about when as well by saying THIS GENERATION will not pass away before all things I said have come to pass. He then tells them to be ready and watchful cause they don't know the exact day.

Why tell that to them in this private conversation? Do you think he was speaking to you?

Do you think he even had a clue that we would one day go to the moon or now Mars?

What would make you think that his private conversation with his disciples has anything to do with you or anyone else for that matter?

What you have when you claim that Jesus said these words before 70 AD is just an opinion based on no evidence whatsoever. Could someone had said it before 70 AD? Yes. Do we know if someone did? NO. Are these discourses dated to after these events? Yes. Is this held by the majority of the scholarly community? Yes. If they were written after 70 AD would that not discredit them? Yes.


I can write prophecies about stuff that happened in the past all day with 100% accuracy.

cnorman18

Post #126

Post by cnorman18 »

jimvansage wrote: 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).
Not particularly interested in the topic of this thread, but I was asked to contribute on this.

The prayer quoted above is essentially accurate. It is actually three separate lines of the daily morning service, and it reads, "Blessed are You, Lord our God, Ruler of the universe, Who has not created me a woman" -- followed by similar phrases about not having been made a Gentile or a slave. These phrases only remain in Orthodox siddurim (prayerbooks), and in that movement, analogous to Christian fundamentalism, men and women are not even allowed to sit within sight of one another, and women do not speak, in services. The more modern branches have long since revised them. My own branch, Conservative Judaism, has revised them in our Siddur Sim Shalom to a postive form, wherein they read, "...who has made me in God's Image, a free person, and a Jew." In the Reform movement, I do not know if they remain in the liturgy at all.

From the second century CE, when they were added to the liturgy, it was understood and taught by the sages and rabbis that these prayers -- more properly called berakhot, or "blessings," in Jewish parlance -- were not intended to disparage women, Gentiles, or slaves; they were by way of giving thanks for the privilege and responsibility of keeping the Mitzvot, the commandments (small c). Women, slaves, and Gentiles were not obligated to keep as many of the 613 laws as Jewish males were, and this obligation was considered an honor worthy of giving thanks.

This sort of thing is not exclusive to Jews. It is notable that in Greek tradition, Socrates, or perhaps Plato, was said to be in the habit of thanking God for three things every morning: "that I was born a human and not a beast; a man and not a woman; and a Greek and not a Barbarian." And of course we've all heard the songs that declare one's gratitude and pride at being an American.
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.
Not likely. It's more probable that they were reading one of the many websites and books which purport to tell "The Truth about the Talmud," but which promote distortions, mistranslations, and deliberate fabrications instead. All that sort of thing is based on the work of a 19th-century defrocked Russian priest named Justinas Bonaventura Praniatis who published a scurrilous book on the subject that has long since been discredited, as he himself was discredited and disgraced during his own lifetime. Don't believe everything you read or hear about the Talmud. I myself have dissected and proven such allegations false on this very forum, more than a dozen times.

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.
The Talmud is actually not "a book," but a large set of books; it runs from twenty to more than fifty volumes in English, depending on the translation and the edition. A hardcover set is indeed very expensive, in the neighborhood of $1,500; but times do change. I downloaded the Soncino edition of the entire Babylonian Talmud onto my iPhone last year as a Kindle ebook for the exorbitant sum of ninety-seven cents.

It was never a "secret" book, as some antisemitic websites claim, but today there is no excuse for anyone who misrepresents it. It is available online, free, anywhere.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #127

Post by Goat »

jimvansage wrote: I expected as much.
George Peter Holford believed (as did most scholars before 1805 or so) that Matthew was written before AD 70.
70% of churches in America teach that Matthew 24 has yet to be fulfilled (though you again won't find that claim before 1805, before the writings of Darby and Scofield).
Yes, some self proclaimed scholars believe that. However, most scholars believe that Matthew copied Mark, and that Mark was written after 65 CE at the earliest.. and probably after 70 CE. Outside of Church tradition, what evidence do you have that it was written before 70 CE?

Why should I believe a theologian who died almost 200 years ago about the date which Matthew was written? Do you ignore the last 200 years of biblical scholarship?

What does that have to do with your claim 'There are 300 prophecies from the Old Testament that Jesus fulfilled'?



Holford outlines Matthew 24, and how the events predicted there took place between AD 30 and 70, when Jerusalem was destroyed.
Comparison of Mark 13, Luke 21, and other relevant passages in the Gospels make this clear.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1 ... proof.html

So, I believe that the events in Matthew 24:1-34 happened within forty years of when they were allegedly spoken, when Romans destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem.

I might upset a lot of Christians for saying this, but I reject the theology that teaches the Rapture (a word not found in the Bible), a literal 1000 year reign of Christ in Jerusalem, etc.

I believe what Jesus taught, that at the end of time the living and dead, just and unjust will take part on their corresponding resurrections (John 5:28, 29).

But skeptics like Goat will deny out right that Matthew was written before AD 70 or that those words were spoken by anyone before AD 70 because of their presupposition that supernatural prophecy is impossible.

Many site Mark 9:1 in conjunction with Matthew 24:34 to show that the kingdom ought to have been established in the first century AD, but the classic view is that the spiritual kingdom of God and the church are interchangeable (Matt. 16:17-19).
Well, let's see, there are two possibilities (at least)... but the major two possibilities are

1) It's a prediction, and Jesus saw the writing on the wall, and predicted the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple

or

2) Matthew was written AFTER the fact, as IF it was written before the fact.


Which is more likely?

and

What is the actual physical evidence for it being written before 70 C.E? Can you show any evidence from outside the actual work that it was written before 70 c.e.?

I will note that you talk about 'skeptics' etc etc etc, but what you are NOT doing is presenting any evidence. Stop addressing ME, and address the evidence.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

jimvansage
Apprentice
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:39 pm
Location: Sesser, IL

Post #128

Post by jimvansage »

Thanks for the clarification.

@Nickman - We should discuss more on the Olivet Discourse Forum

@Goat - Patience is a virtue.

I'm not only arguing from predictive prophecy, but uncharacteristic worldviews, scientific foreknowledge, unity, accuracy, and possibly other arguments I haven't even presented (the conversion of Saul of Tarsus) and there may even be qualities I'm not aware of.

One of the things that was said needs highlighted:
"This sort of thing is not exclusive to Jews. It is notable that in Greek tradition, Socrates, or perhaps Plato, was said to be in the habit of thanking God for three things every morning: "that I was born a human and not a beast; a man and not a woman; and a Greek and not a Barbarian." And of course we've all heard the songs that declare one's gratitude and pride at being an American"

So if all nations had that sense of nationalism, borderline racism, and male chauvanism, then a document that does not exude any of these things is uncharacteristic of the time, and a document inspired by an impartial eternal God would not be plagued by such
[This is an argument based on uncharacteristic views, not predictive prophecy]
Any nation at that time who claims that their god would would bless any other nation would be a strange thing indeed, but we have examined such a thing in Hebrew Scripture, and in the New Testament, with Jesus teaching a Samaritan woman (John 4) and the statement that there is no difference between male and female, Jew or Greek, barbarian or Scythian, slave or free (Gal. 3:27; Col. 3:11).

When I have time to prepare a coherent and more well-thought ought argument from an OT prophecy, I will present it.
I appreciate it that you are holding me to the Law of Rationality, and you do bring the debate to a higher level than the average internet fracas, and I commend you for it.
But seriously, be patient.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #129

Post by Goat »

jimvansage wrote:

@Goat - Patience is a virtue.

I'm not only arguing from predictive prophecy, but uncharacteristic worldviews, scientific foreknowledge, unity, accuracy, and possibly other arguments I haven't even presented (the conversion of Saul of Tarsus) and there may even be qualities I'm not aware of.
Yet, the claim I am calling you on was a very specific one, and that one is 'THere are 300 prophecies in the OT that were fulfilled by Jesus. Since you are either unwilling or unable to show that, would you withdraw that claim.

We will get to the 'uncharacteristic world view, etc etc, when you actually make a claim.

But, will you admit that you can not show 300 prophecies fulfilled by Jesus ?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

jimvansage
Apprentice
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 11:39 pm
Location: Sesser, IL

Post #130

Post by jimvansage »

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?

Post Reply