Evidence for the Bible / God

[Logicman]

I so love those who quote mine in an always vain attempt to 'prove' their earlier statements

Yes, Father Just does write: however, he follows up with these words:

I understand that it is difficult for the absolutist mind, but the Jesuit is doing nothing more than providing an outline for the growth and changes of the mono-theistic Judeo Christian religion. Judaism was not monotheistic from its origination but only gradually changed over a several centuries from its Canaanite origins.

He blew it on the early stage, pure and simple.

 

[roguenuke]

Christ was basically adopted. He was the legal son and heir of Joseph, but not his biological son. You cannot accept Matthews narrative on Christ's genealogy without accepting his narrative on Christ's paternity.

I demand a paternity test. Til then, there is really no evidence that Jesus was not Joseph's son.

 

[Somerville]

He blew it on the early stage, pure and simple.

In other words, "I believe what my preachers tell me is true, no matter how much more knowledgeable people say they are wrong."

For those who don't know anything about the Jesuits, who have done some bad things in the past but now are generally seen as scholars and academics for the Roman Catholic Church: To become a brother in the order requires studies and pastoral duties over 10 to 12 years, another 2 to 4 years to become a priest during which academic studies are also required. A Jesuit priest with a PhD will have been looking at books for at least 15, if not 20, years. For some reason I think I will believe they know just a wee bit more than most evangelical 'scholars', not all but most.

 

[Logicman]

In other words, "I believe what my preachers tell me is true, no matter how much more knowledgeable people say they are wrong."

For those who don't know anything about the Jesuits, who have done some bad things in the past but now are generally seen as scholars and academics for the Roman Catholic Church: To become a brother in the order requires studies and pastoral duties over 10 to 12 years, another 2 to 4 years to become a priest during which academic studies are also required. A Jesuit priest with a PhD will have been looking at books for at least 15, if not 20, years. For some reason I think I will believe they know just a wee bit more than most evangelical 'scholars', not all but most.

Somerville, the scriptures and commentary I provided bust him on that.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Only in your mind....

 

[Somerville]

Somerville, the scriptures and commentary I provided bust him on that.

Oh, poopy!

My experience has been that those who call themselves evangelicals will consistently refuse to accept any research or archaeological finds which show their beliefs have next to zero support.

As an ex-Catholic, I have great respect for Jesuit academics. I may not always agree with their findings but I know they spend much more time studying the origins with open eyes and minds than any evangelical scholar I have ever met.

 

[RAMOSS]

I think the "scholar" you cite needs to go back to the seminary and start over.

From the general website you provided above:

Re. The Resurrection

(Outline below by...) Felix Just, S.J., Ph.D.

B) Biblical Background of Belief in the Resurrection:
⦁ Earliest Stages in OT: No belief in life after death whatsoever; life simply ceases to exist:

Resurrection in the New Testament

Really? Your Ph.d. scholar really believes that? Evidently he missed some very important teachings and scriptures, to wit:

Psalm 23:6 - "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the LORD forever."

Then there's Daniel 12:2 - "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."

And if you want to go back to the Torah, there's this, as explained by Jesus (God), from Matthew 22 (speaking about Exodus 3:6):

That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. "Teacher," they said, "Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and have children for him. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. Finally, the woman died. Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?" Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living."

And there's more examples of his sloppy scholarship in that website but I'll rest with that.

So, your "scholar" has a few fleas. Beware!

That is a bad translation. If you look at Tehillim - Chapter 23 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible , you will see the artscroll translation is

6May only goodness and kindness pursue me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord for length of days.

And the 1953 JPS translation says

"Only goodness and steadfast love shall pursue me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the lord for many long years"

The JPS commentary say "THe house of the lord" : the temple. The psalmist hopes to be in god's presence at the Temple (have access to God) throughout his long life. If this is an exile psalm, it implies the return to the land of Israel.


Now, it has become to be understood in after the exile to be the afterlife, but that was not it's original meaning. It wasn't until the theology that was developed in the second century bce that the concept of the 'world to come' was introduced to some sects of Judaism. It is accepted by the vast majority of scholars that the Book of Daniel was written between 165 and 160 bce.

 

[Logicman]

Oh, poopy!

My experience has been that those who call themselves evangelicals will consistently refuse to accept any research or archaeological finds which show their beliefs have next to zero support.

There is nothing that refutes the New Testament accounts of Jesus. You think there is but you haven't succeeded in your claims. Nor has the anti-Biblical-Jesus crowd had any luck.

 

[Logicman]

That is a bad translation. If you look at Tehillim - Chapter 23 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible , you will see the artscroll translation is

And the 1953 JPS translation says

The JPS commentary say "THe house of the lord" : the temple. The psalmist hopes to be in god's presence at the Temple (have access to God) throughout his long life. If this is an exile psalm, it implies the return to the land of Israel.

Now, it has become to be understood in after the exile to be the afterlife, but that was not it's original meaning. It wasn't until the theology that was developed in the second century bce that the concept of the 'world to come' was introduced to some sects of Judaism. It is accepted by the vast majority of scholars that the Book of Daniel was written between 165 and 160 bce.

Sorry, not a good argument. And your late-dating of Daniel has been a bust also.

 

[RAMOSS]

Sorry, not a good argument. And your late-dating of Daniel has been a bust also.

It certianly has not been. You haven't been able to refute the Jewish Encyclopedia, nor can you answer the inaccuracies of the family of the king, the borrow persian words that were added over 100 years after the traditional date, or any of the reasons rational people say it's 160-165 bce.

From Daniel

W. Sibley Towner writes: "Daniel is one of the few OT books that can be given a fairly firm date. In the form in which we have it (perhaps without the additions of 12:11, 12), the book must have been given its final form some time in the years 167-164 B.C. This dating is based upon two assumptions: first, that the authors lived at the later end of the historical surveys that characterize Daniel 7-12; and second, that prophecy is accurate only when it is given after the fact, whereas predictions about the future tend to run astray. Based upon these assumptions, the references to the desecration of the Temple and the 'abomination that makes desolate' in 8:9-12; 9:27; and 11:31 must refer to events known to the author. The best candidates for the historical referents of these events are the desecration of the Temple in Jerusalem and the erection in it of a pagan altar in the autumn of 167 B.C. by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The inaccurate description of the end of Antiochus' reign and his death in 11:40-45, on the other hand, suggests that the author did not know of those events, which occurred late in 164 or early in 163 B.C. The roots of the hagiographa (idealizing stories) about Daniel and his friends in chaps. 1-6 may date to an earlier time, but the entire work was given its final shape in 164 B.C." (Harper's Bible Commentary, p. 696)

Louis F. Hartman writes: "Having lost sight of these ancient modes of writing, until relatively recent years Jews and Christians have considered Dn to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. Inasmuch as chs. 7-12 are written in the first person, it was natural to assume that Daniel in chs. 1-6 was a truly historical character and that he was the author of the whole book. There would be few modern biblical scholars, however, who would now seriously defend such an opinion. The arguments for a date shortly before the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 164 are overwhelming. An author living in the 6th cent. could hardly have written the late Hebrew used in Dn, and its Aramaic is certainly later than the Aramaic of the Elephantine papyri, which date from the end of the 5th cent. The theological outlook of the author, with his interest in angelology, his apocalyptic rather than prophetic vision, and especially his belief in the resurrection of the dead, points unescapably to a period long after the Babylonian Exile. His historical perspective, often hazy for events in the time of the Babylonian and Persian kings but much clearer for the events during the Seleucid Dynasty, indicates the Hellenistic age. Finally, his detailed description of the profanation of the Temple of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167 and the following persecution (9:27; 11:30-35) contrasted with his merely general reference to the evil end that would surely come to such a wicked man (11:45), indicates a composition date shortly before the death of this king in 164, therefore probably in 165." (The Jerome Biblical Commentary, vol. 1, p. 448)

ANd much much more.

 

[Logicman]

It certianly has not been. You haven't been able to refute the Jewish Encyclopedia, nor can you answer the inaccuracies of the family of the king, the borrow persian words that were added over 100 years after the traditional date, or any of the reasons rational people say it's 160-165 bce.

ANd much much more.

ROTFLOL.

Too bad for you Ezekiel mentions Daniel several times, so it had to be a whole lot earlier than you try to portray. That alone decimates you.

 

[RAMOSS]

ROTFLOL.

Too bad for you Ezekiel mentions Daniel several times, so it had to be a whole lot earlier than you try to portray. That alone decimates you.

So??? You do not seem to understand that mentioning daniel doesn't mean that the book of Daniel was written by Daniel It just means the the writer of the book of Daniel took the concept from Ezekiel. You don't know very much, do you?

 

[Logicman]

So??? You do not seem to understand that mentioning daniel doesn't mean that the book of Daniel was written by Daniel It just means the the writer of the book of Daniel took the concept from Ezekiel. You don't know very much, do you?

More than you.

Here's where your late-dating of Daniel gets flushed down the commode.

As Wilson states, “With the exception of the neo-Platonist Porphyry, a Greek non-Christian philosopher of the 3rd century AD, the genuineness of the Book of was denied by no one until the rise of the deistic movement in the 17th century.” (Wilson p.28)

"All of the evidence at Qumran exempts a Maccabean period date and points to a 6th century date for the book of Daniel, with one author for the entire book and that Daniel himself was a historical figure."

More in the link:

Dating the book of Daniel

So you might want to trash your sophomoric, late-dating arguments, because they just don't work.

And by the way, Ezekiel himself is a prophet, so your attempts to late-date Daniel because you can't fathom predictive prophecy is an exercise in futility.

 

[RAMOSS]

More than you.

Here's where your late-dating of Daniel gets flushed down the commode.

As Wilson states, “With the exception of the neo-Platonist Porphyry, a Greek non-Christian philosopher of the 3rd century AD, the genuineness of the Book of was denied by no one until the rise of the deistic movement in the 17th century.” (Wilson p.28)

"All of the evidence at Qumran exempts a Maccabean period date and points to a 6th century date for the book of Daniel, with one author for the entire book and that Daniel himself was a historical figure."

More in the link:

Dating the book of Daniel

So you might want to trash your sophomoric, late-dating arguments, because they just don't work.

And by the way, Ezekiel himself is a prophet, so your attempts to late-date Daniel because you can't fathom predictive prophecy is an exercise in futility.

YTes, there is a minority of people cling to the date, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Heck there are people who cling to the idea that the earth is 6000 years old.

I don't put much stock in 'biblical scholars' who think that 'the bible is without errror'. It skews their judgement. As for the author of that essay, he is a photographer. That does not give him very good credentials.

And yes, Ezeikel is supposed to be a prophet. That does not mean that Daniel wrote the book of Daniel, even if Ezekiel mentioned that there was a prophet named Daniel. My point obviously went over your head.

 

[Paschendale]

Evidence for the Bible / God

Critics claim there is no evidence for God or the Bible / New Testament. Many scholars have been refuting that idea for centuries, noting archaeological evidence, fulfilled Messianic prophecies, and so on.

This thread is for debate on those issues.

p.s. This thread is being created again because we can't argue for the existence or non-existence of God in the religion forum. Here in the philosophy forum we can.

So what's your evidence? After hundreds of pages of Logicman's thread and his constant nonsense, there was no evidence offered. And just to be clear, Jesus did not fulfill any messianic prophecies. He did not usher in any kingdom of god on earth. The only way to claim that he did is to completely ignore the point of those Jewish prophecies within Judaism.

 

[Logicman]

So what's your evidence? After hundreds of pages of Logicman's thread and his constant nonsense, there was no evidence offered. And just to be clear, Jesus did not fulfill any messianic prophecies. He did not usher in any kingdom of god on earth. The only way to claim that he did is to completely ignore the point of those Jewish prophecies within Judaism.

Talk about constant nonsense. That refuse you just posted takes the cake for it.

 

[Logicman]

YTes, there is a minority of people cling to the date, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Heck there are people who cling to the idea that the earth is 6000 years old.

I don't put much stock in 'biblical scholars' who think that 'the bible is without errror'. It skews their judgement. As for the author of that essay, he is a photographer. That does not give him very good credentials.

And yes, Ezeikel is supposed to be a prophet. That does not mean that Daniel wrote the book of Daniel, even if Ezekiel mentioned that there was a prophet named Daniel. My point obviously went over your head.

Sorry, not buying your Daniel arguments. I refer you back to the prior link I provided.

 

[winston53660]

Sorry, not buying your Daniel arguments. I refer you back to the prior link I provided.

Just curious but can you name one prophecy that has come true with quantifiable empirical evidence that is testable?

 

[Logicman]

Just curious but can you name one prophecy that has come true with quantifiable empirical evidence that is testable?

If your standard for authenticity is empirical evidence, first provide empirical evidence for these individuals from antiquity:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

 

[RAMOSS]

If your standard for authenticity is empirical evidence, first provide empirical evidence for these individuals from antiquity:

1. Hippocrates
2. Attila the Hun
3. Archimedes of Syracuse
4. Confucius
5. Hannibal

THere is one thing about all of those.

Not one of those is making a supernatural claims. They are are considered 100% human, and nothing but human. None of their deeds are considered in the supernatural realm. None of those have resurrections involved in them, or , if someone fails to believe in them due to lack of evidence, no one is whining about how they are going down to the BBQ for not believing.

 

[RAMOSS]

Sorry, not buying your Daniel arguments. I refer you back to the prior link I provided.

Too bad your link did not do anything to counter what I said.... and did not have accurate information in it. You do understand that, don't you?? Or , are you so lazy you don't even read your own sources?

 

[Logicman]

THere is one thing about all of those.

Not one of those is making a supernatural claims. They are are considered 100% human, and nothing but human.

Well then, it should be much easier to provide empirical evidence for them. So let's see it.

 

[Logicman]

Too bad your link did not do anything to counter what I said.... and did not have accurate information in it. You do understand that, don't you?? Or , are you so lazy you don't even read your own sources?

It destroyed your position.

 

[RAMOSS]

Well then, it should be much easier to provide empirical evidence for them. So let's see it.

I am sure that if I went and bother, you would hand wave it away. THe challenge is what is known as a 'diversonary tactic' so that you don't have to back up your own claims. However, I never made any claims for any of those to begin with. It's a pitiful attempt to distract from the fact you have nothing but bluster, insults and the arrogance of false bravado

 

[RAMOSS]

It destroyed your position.

Did it?? How do you know? You posted a raw link, and did not point out where it 'destroyed' the position at all. I don't think you even read that link.

Come to think it is, the only link it appears you have any compreshension about what is actually written is that stupid blog you post from, and that guy is as bad at reading as you are.