19 Apr 17
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFNo not in other words. Anyone who makes a truth claim is required to provide a burden of proof. I don't know how many times I will need to repeat this for you to be able to grasp it. Perhaps its simply beyond you? Perhaps you don't want to see it? who can say.
In other words the burden of proof regarding your claim that the Bible is divinely inspired lies with you.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonshipThat's a very strange 'back to front' argument. Clearly it is later events that have been shaped to fit earlier prophecies. I think you know that. (There is no coincidence).
What a "coincidence" ! What an unusual "coincidence".
The Apostle Peter tells us that the whole matter of Noah's ark and the flood was a pointer in history to the death and resurrection of Christ [b](First Peter 3:20-21)
But could Moses have known this so as to cause the ark of Noah to land on the dry land on the very day of the calendar that Je ...[text shortened]... at a truth. What a message -
http://www.ministrybooks.org/SearchMinBooksDsp.cfm?id=1802E1AC0F[/b]
Even when I provide an example of the illogical return of Jesus to Bethlehem, just to tick off one of those earlier prophecies, you describe it as a minor issue.
I suggest it is a major issue that shakes the very foundation of divine inspiration!
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeThat's a very strange 'back to front' argument. Clearly it is later events that have been shaped to fit earlier prophecies. I think you know that. (There is no coincidence).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You think wrong.
What I think is that you have a conspiracy theory going to suggest somehow Christ's birth or death was concocted to fall in line so as to make prophecy seem valid.
I think that God does things so that He usually leaves a person a side door out in case the man really doesn't want God.
I don't think God bludgeons the world with evidence so intrusive so as to usurp the human will. For example - writing across the stars in space "Here I Am. I am God"
I don't think God does things today in such a way. But if a man really does not want to have anything of a relationship with Him, He leaves a side door for you to slip out. He will not force Himself on you. He is too big for that.
Even when I provide an example of the illogical return of Jesus to Bethlehem, just to tick off one of those earlier prophecies, you describe it as a minor issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you want me to believe, it seems, that the power and personality of one claiming to be Son of God and the King of Israel, and acting the part, needed go dig up justifiable rational in the prophet Micah.
So they dug up Micah 5:3 to match that this Person of extraordinary character artificially corresponded to One from days of eternity to be King of Israel. I don't believe that.
Rather, before Jesus was even grown into a young boy, the scholars knew enough that any "born" Messianic king should be found born in Bethlehem. Retrofitting is a conspiracy theory.
I suggest it is a major issue that shakes the very foundation of divine inspiration!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funny how this "shaking" hasn't shaken the Gospel apart or down in 20 centuries.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Even when I provide an example of the illogical return of Jesus to Bethlehem, just to tick off one of those earlier prophecies, you describe it as a minor issue.
Your comment puzzles me.
He (Jesus) returned from Egypt to Nazareth not Bethlehem (Matthew 2:23) .
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29599
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonshipSorry, that should have been the ' illogical return of Joseph (and Mary) to Bethlehem, and Jesus being born there.Even when I provide an example of the illogical return of Jesus to Bethlehem, just to tick off one of those earlier prophecies, you describe it as a minor issue.
Your comment puzzles me.
He (Jesus) returned from Egypt to [b]Nazareth not Bethlehem (Matthew 2:23) .[/b]
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Apr 17
3 edits
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeAlright, I will give some time to your source -
Sorry, that should have been the ' illogical return of Joseph (and Mary) to Bethlehem, and Jesus being born there.
(http://ask.metafilter.com/121168/Why-Did-Mary-And-Joseph-Have-To-Go-To-Bethlehem).
I assume that you mean for me to go off and argue with the author of the article.
But that's no fun. He's not here but you are.
I'll start reading here to see what you mean.
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeI am not afraid as you have erroneously assumed. I will chose my own battles if you do not mind and I will not be coerced and cajoled by an unruly mob of pitch fork waving villagers on the basis of some trumped up charges of fear. I am a chess player sir, objectivity is my business and I know NO FEAR!
Objectivity - Noun that means a lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice.
Objectivity doesn't mean withholding your own belief in fear of having to defend it.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
So it seems that it is Prof. Bart Erhman you are wishing I would educate.
Well, I respect Bart Erhman's skill in history and NT textural criticism. And I would not presume to debate him. But there are people who can stand up to Bart Erhman.
Actually, Erhman is not the darling Jesus myther that some people think he is. As he has said that people denying that Jesus ever lived are really just making fools of themselves.
But to the comment in the article:
Ditto all the above. Also, as Ehrman points out (rightly, in this case), because the census required Jesus' family to go back "to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David," (KJV) with no real implication that Joseph or his ancestors resided in Bethlehem more recently, this would mean that everyone would have to go back to their homeland from a thousand year ago--a bureaucratic nightmare. The inference that Joseph must have lived there is just an inference: there is no mention anywhere in the canonical gospels as to his birthplace, Bethlehem, Nazareth or otherwise. Combined with the lack of a record of any such census, it really seems to be more of a pretext to drop the Davidic line and Bethlehem into Jesus' birth narrative, as Pater Alethias said.
If I was in Dr. Erhman's class I would ask -
"Dr. Erhman, are we to expect that instead of 27 New Testament books there should have been perhaps 2700 books specifically detailing every minute explanation on any even tangentially related historical detail of the account ? "
It says Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey. Should we demand that we know WHO raised the donkey, where was the donkey kept all the time, how much the mother of the donkey cost, the color, weight, age, of the donkey, etc, etc, etc.?
The economical nature of the Gospel of Luke does not call for Luke thirty to fifty times more bulk discussion to anticipate the nitpickery of 21rst Century skeptics demanding nothing be left unexplained.
The inference that Joseph must have lived there is just an inference: there is no mention anywhere in the canonical gospels as to his birthplace, Bethlehem, Nazareth or otherwise.
Right.
Exhaustive discussion on that tangential detail is lacking.
Details JUST for details' sake was not really Luke's intention.
That may be the demand of the modern skeptic - that NOTHING be left unexplained by the Gospel writer in any historical detail what-so-ever.
But he says that he carefully followed a journalistic interview to compose his writings.
" It seemed good to me [Luke] also, having carefully investigated all things from the first, to write them out for you in an orderly fashion, most excellent Theophilus,
So that you may fully know the certainty of the things concerning which you were instructed." (Luke 1:3,4)
Don't you think Luke had to make decisions about what was worth going into greater detail and what was sufficient to be left with a general inference?
You did notice the closing comments of the article? (my bolding)
So, I just want to get this straight: bearing in mind Houstonian's impressive find, is it possible the Romans forced everyone to go to their "official home town" because they were so anal about the census?
posted by metastability at 6:12 PM on May 4, 2009
What I mean is: Given the above, it is not hard to imagine the Romans requiring people to go back the their "official residence" for counting. The official residence is not necessarily the same thing as the place they were born, or where their ancestors were born. I'm just playing devil's -er, Jesus'- advocate here.
posted by metastability at 2:44 PM on May 5, 2009
Interesting though. And I will spend some more time on this issue (or non-issue) as the case may turn out to be.
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonshipha! brilliant!
So it seems that it is Prof. Bart Erhman you are wishing I would educate.
Well, I respect Bart Erhman's skill in history and NT textural criticism. And I would not presume to debate him. But there are people who can stand up to Bart Erhman.
Actually, Erhman is not the darling Jesus myther that some people think he is. As he has said that people denying ...[text shortened]... gh. And I will spend some more time on this issue (or non-issue) as the case may turn out to be.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
19 Apr 17
1 edit
To be fair to Ghost, yes, I admit that some of the things the NT writers said were prophetic fulfillment seem like a leaning propaganda.
I said "some".
IE. The prophecy of the virgin bearing a child in Isaiah has been argued. From what I have seen the original language does not mean "HAS to be a woman never having the sexual act." It can mean young woman. It does not have to mean "CANNOT be a virgin as typically understood."
19 Apr 17
Originally posted by sonshipNo lets not be fair to the Ghost he's been mean to me all day calling me a wussie and saying that I am afraid.
To be fair to Ghost, yes, I admit that some of the things the NT writers said were prophetic fulfillment seem like a leaning propaganda.
I said "some".
IE. The prophecy of the virgin bearing a child in Isaiah has been argued. From what I have seen the original language does not mean "HAS to be a woman never having the sexual act." It can mean young woman. It does not have to mean "CANNOT be a [b]virgin as typically understood."[/b]