Fullfilled Bible prophecy

One of the Sydney (Australia) Christian churches recently commenced a well advertised 10 part seminar on Biblical prophecy. I was determined to attend the kick-off and duration, but was interstate.I wonder if almeyda attended or played a role in this?This seminar was guaranteed to be a shocker and really needed a sceptic present to attempt to offset the steady flow of mis-information.I've posted this before and it is a great starting source for unravelling this prophecy nonsense:
Farrell Till Prophecy » Internet InfidelsThe whole proposal of prophecy is a fraud.Here's just one rebuttal from Farrell Till:

---

Matthew also saw prophecy fulfillment in the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem. When the wise men inquired about the birth of the king of the Jews, Herod called the chief priests and scribes together and asked where the Christ would be born:So they said unto him, "In Bethlehem of Judea, for thus it is written by the prophet: `But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, Are not the least among the rulers of Judah; For out of you shall come a Ruler Who will shepherd My people Israel'" (2:5-6).The place where this was written was Micah 5:2, which we should look at to get a sense of how New Testament writers sometimes distorted Old Testament scriptures to suit their needs:"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, Though you are little among the thousands of Judah, Yet out of you shall come forth to Me The One to be Ruler in Israel."As we will soon notice, the differences are important enough to show that Matthew tampered with the text to make it fit the situation he was applying it to.For the moment, let's notice that Matthew's application of the statement was typical of his writing style. No contemporary event seemed too insignificant for him to see prophecy fulfillment in it. This fact doesn't seem to faze Bible fundamentalists. If Matthew said it, that's good enough for them. What they seem completely unable to understand, however, is that just because this is good enough for them doesn't mean that it's good enough for people who use logic to determine what should or should not be believed. Matthew, for example, saw fulfillment of Hosea 11:1 in the flight into and return from Egypt of Joseph's family, (2:15). And what does Hosea 11:1 say? "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." The context of this statement shows very clearly that Hosea intended this statement as a reference to the Israelite exodus from Egypt. Bibliolaters can talk from now until doom's-day about the "double intention" of some prophecies, and the truth will still remain: if Matthew had not imaginatively applied this statement to Jesus, no one would have thought it referred to anything but the Israelite exodus. Matthewstretched and distorted Old Testament scriptures in this way, yet bibliolaters expect us to swoon over his claim that the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem fulfilled Micah 5:2.The "Bethlehem" in Micah 5:2, rather than being a town, was very likely intended as a reference to the head of a family clan. What many people who stand in awe of this allegedprophecy fulfillment don't know is that a person named Bethlehem was an Old Testament character descended from Caleb through Hur, the firstborn son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (I Chron. 2:18; 2:50-52; 4:4). Young's Analytical Concordance, p. 92, identifies Bethlehem as this person in addition to its having been the name of two villages, one in Zebulun and the other in Judea.An examination of the Micah 5:2 "prophecy" in context indicates that it was indeed a reference to the clan rather than the town: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel." The fact that the Bethlehem in this verse was described as "little among the thousands of Judah" casts serious doubt on Matthew's application of the statement. In a region as small as Judah, one could hardly speak of a town as one of "thousands," yet in terms of a Judean clan descended from Bethlehem of Ephrathah, it would have been an appropriate description for an obscure family group that hadn't particularly distinguished itself in the nation's history. The NIV translates that part of the verse like this: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah...." Similar renditions are made by the RSV, NRSV, NAS, NAB, the Jerusalem Bible, and other translations, all agreeing that Micah referred to a family clan rather than a town.

---

Even almeyda lies about the nature of the quote in Micah 5:2 in the post above.It horrifies me that they would have conducted a seminar to lie to prospective convertees.Incredible shame on you almeyda.Edited to fix quoteThis message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 05-28-2004 01:44 AM

We've been over this before almeyda.Credit to:http://www.jacobspinney.com/tomshort.htmThe following undermines the integrity of the New Testament writers themselves.1. He would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)Micah 5:2 states,But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of you shall come forth to Me the One to be Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting.When the author of Micah mentioned Bethlehem Ephrathah in 5:2, the author was referring to a name, Bethlehem Ephrathah or Bethlehem of the house of Ephrathah (1Chronicles 2:50-51), not a place. Also, this ruler in Israel that the author of Micah mentions is supposed to be a person who saves the children of Israel from the Assyrians (Micah 5:5-15), but the Assyrian power ceased to exist 606 years before Jesus was ever supposedly born! The adversaries of the Hebrews during the time of Jesus were the Romans, not the Assyrians. Thus, this verse couldn’t have been talking about Christ.2. He would be preceded by a messenger (Isaiah 40:3)This verse is taken out of context. It isn’t referring to a messenger of the Messiah. It is referring to the Jews being released from Babylonian captivity. Just read the chapters before it and see for yourself. But I’ll give this the benefit of the doubt. Suppose it really was referring to a messenger of the Messiah. Is it that rare that you have heard people claiming that the second Messiah will be coming? No, in fact, every other week I hear of someone claiming that the second Messiah is coming. I doubt this was any different in the past with the first Messiah.3. He would enter Jerusalem on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9)This is supposed to be specific? I’ll give Mr. Short the benefit of the doubt that this was referring to Jesus. But donkeys back then were the method of travel like cars are today! What else would Jesus enter Jerusalem on, an elephant, a camel? Saying that someone will enter Jerusalem on a donkey back then is as specific as saying that someone will enter San Diego in a car today.4. He would be sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12)Zechariah 11:12 has absolutely nothing to do with Jesus being sold for 30 pieces of silver. It was about Zechariah quitting his job and getting 30 pieces of silver for his wages. It wasn’t at all meant to be a prophecy. Plus, Matthew 27:9 says that this prophecy was fulfilled in Jeremiah, not Zechariah. Yet there is no analogy of someone being sold for 30 pieces of silver in Jeremiah, nor is there one in Zechariah because this verse is taken out of context. Oh, and one more thing, the currency of Jesus’ time were minted coins. Pieces of silver had gone out of circulation 300 years before then!5. His betrayal money would be thrown into the house of the Lord and then used to buy a potter’s field (Zechariah 11:13)Again, this part in Zechariah is taken out of context and not meant to be a prophecy. In Zechariah chapter 11, God told Zechariah to throw his wage money (30 pieces of silver) into the potter. God was expressing that 30 pieces of silver was a rip off and to just throw it into the house of the Lord for the potter or the treasury. This chapter isn’t referring to a potter’s field, but a treasury. In fact, the Syriac manuscripts of Zechariah never mention potter but treasury, and it makes perfect sense if you look at the context. Again, Matthew 27:9-10 states that this prophecy came from Jeremiah, not Zechariah. Yet this analogy is nonexistent in Jeremiah, nor is it existent in Zechariah because it is taken out of context. I strongly suspect that if there weren’t a correlation in the 30 pieces of silver, no one would see this as being analogous to Jesus being sold to the slightest.6. He would be silent before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7)This chapter is again taken way out of context. He is referring to Israel, not Jesus. In the first verse of Isaiah chapter 53, it says,Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?In Isaiah, and throughout the Jewish Bible, God's "arm" refers to the physical redemption of Israel from the oppression of other nations (Isaiah 52:8-12, Isaiah 63:12, Deuteronomy 4:34, Deuteronomy 7:19, Psalms 44:3). For anyone who tries to read the context of what this chapter is saying, it becomes apparent that this chapter is referring to Israel, not Jesus.7. His hands and feet will be pierced (Psalm 22:16)This chapter describes the speaker being hunted down and killed rather than being crucified. Many bulls have surrounded Me; strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me. . . For dogs have surrounded Me. . . They pierced My hands and My feet. . . Save Me from the lion’s mouth and from the horns of the wild oxen! Why must I be the one to point out that these correlations aren’t at all correlating? Surely the person who found this apparent prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion had read the context this verse is in!8. He would be crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12)Again, Isaiah chapter 53 is referring to Israel, not Jesus.Dr. Raphael Patai, a noted anthropologist, Biblical scholar and author, writes in his book Messianic Text,""... it also must be pointed out that several of these Biblical Messianic prophecies are Messianic only in the light of these later interpretations. At the time of their composition, these passages may have had other meanings. The important prophecies of Deutero-Isaiah about the Suffering Servant for instance, are considered by Jewish as well as Christian scholars as referring to the people of Israel as a whole.In Isaiah 49:3 the Suffering Servant is explicitly identified with Israel. On this basis, as well as on the basis of certain other features, all the so called "Servant Songs" (Isa.42:1-4 , 49:1-6 , 50:4-9 and 52:13 -53:12) have long been taken to speak of the sufferings of exiled Israel as personified in ‘The Servant of the Lord.’

I thought I had already established in post 14 above that Matthew was a shocker for manufacturing Bible prophecy, and in most cases he couldn't even quote the OT correctly. Matthew's integrity is somewhat in tatters.See:
Farrell Till Prophecy » Internet InfidelsAlso, seeing as the life and times of Jesus were recorded (and probably largely made up) by the writers of the NT who weren't even eyewitnesses, who had access to the OT before they started writing, how do we know they simply didn't fabricate scenarios about Jesus where prophecy was seen to be fulfilled?They certainly had the motivation to try to make it look like their messiah fulfilled prophecy. And Matthew can be seen to be caught red-handed by anyone who is capable of comparing to pieces of text.This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-23-2004 12:03 AM

Willow wrote: The prophecy in Matthew looks like nasty manufactured tripe to the non-Christian, but I will grant you that from the perspective of Matthew he may have had honest intentions.... which is actually somewhere in between lying and truth telling:From
Not Found - Webflow HTML website template

---

It seems most unlikely that Matthew's presentation would change the mind of anyone who was not already inclined to believe that Jesus was the messiah. Perhaps some people neither knew what the prophets really said nor questioned whether Matthew's stories were literally true; those people might be convinced that Jesus had fulfilled prophecies. And while this may well have been the effect of Matthew's gospel on a few, we need not conclude that Matthew's purpose was to trick the gullible. A more responsible line of inquiry into Matthew's purpose in correlating prophecies with stories about Jesus is to imagine the circumstances that would allow Matthew and his audience to honestly believe in his presentation of Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy.Scholars generally agree on what those circumstances were. We have to try to see things the way Matthew and his people did, regardless of whether we see things that way today. Matthew and his audience already believe that Jesus is the messiah. They also believe that God must have been dropping hints about the long-awaited messiah in the scriptures, especially in the books of the prophets. So Matthew goes back to the scriptures and studies them carefully, looking for clues about Jesus the messiah. For Matthew, the recognition of Jesus as the messiah is the newly revealed key that will unlock the hidden meaning of prophecy. When Matthew finds a prophetic statement that could be about Jesus, he tries to match it up with something he already knowsor believesabout Jesus' life. Furthermoreand this is crucialwhatever a prophet says about the messiah, or the future Davidic king, or God's son, Matthew can take to be information about Jesus not previously recognized as such.The net result of all this is obvious: The early Christian belief that Jesus fulfilled prophecy arose after and because of the belief that he was the promised messiah. This very important finding needs to be emphasized. The belief that Jesus was the messiah was the basis for the belief that he was the fulfillment of prophecy. It was not that people noticed that Jesus had fulfilled a series of prophecies and so concluded that he must be the messiah. The process worked the other way around. It was because Christians were convinced that Jesus was the messiah that they went searching through the scriptures to discover which prophecies he had fulfilled. The proclamation that Jesus fulfilled prophecy is a testimony to Christian faith, not a description of its origin.With this in mind, we can easily see why Matthew's Jewish contemporaries were not persuaded by his "proof from prophecy." It had nothing to do with having hard hearts or closed minds, or being deceived by their leaders. All of that is Matthean caricature. It had to do with the fact that Matthew's presentation of prophecy makes sense only from the perspective of prior belief in Jesus. Outside of that perspective, Matthew's use of prophecy has no persuasive power, and can even look like a deliberate distortion of the scriptures aimed at deceiving those who are uninformed and easily impressed.

---

Poignantly ends with:

---

The belief that the prophets were pointing to Jesus, though perhaps helpful at the time Matthew wrote his gospel, has long since outlived its usefulness. It is a belief that distorts the scriptures and has had ugly consequences in history. Out of respect for Judaism and for the Bible, therefore, I propose that Christians have an intellectual and moral duty to abandon this obsolete, self-serving, and dangerous belief.

---

Lysimachus wrote If you are going to create a religion, you must surely have a prediction of and an explaination as to why some people will reject it. Even Scientology has that. I would have thought it would have been a mandatory clause to help believers understand why all others think they are wrong. The only weeping heard is from the believers.Like you, I can be bought. Prove to me that your Christian offer of enternal life is anything other than hopeful nonsense and my life is entirely in your God's hands. How many more generations will pass before the Christian rapture? I'll wager what you call my mortal soul that Christianity will cease as a religion before your messiah shows up. And that, unfortunately could take many more centuries. As I see it, the world is more moral than it has ever been, in part due to the decline of religious influence and blind adherence to totalitarianisms and the rise of humanism. For starters, we don't burn people anymore (although some US states do on the chair). Not burning people is a good thing. Phew! It's just as well that those stories are make believe!Everthing is not entirely as before. With stops and starts, we are slowly trying to move towards a better world, where human rights prevail. Religion is still dragging us down. I am more certain that this tale is nonsense than you are that it is true. I base my knowledge gathering techniques on science, not religious faith. I trust science with my life on a daily basis, when I trust in technology. I'm going to test and demonstrate that faith tomorrow night when I fly 1000kms in a plane. Try to achieve that with faith.I can demonstrate vast aspects of your faith are false: want to put the efficacy of prayer to the test? faith healing? Bible Codes? Bible Numerics? Pyramidology? want to see me demonstrate glossolalia? want to compare your evidence of creation/world-wide flood against the demonstrable sciences based on evolutionary principles? Want me to show you more parts of the Bible where there are contradictions, absurdities, unfulfilled prohecy, made up prophecy etc?Aren't you justifiably worried about wasting your life pursuing a religion that is so unconvincing, demonstratbly false in every material claim, built up on lies and distortions, based on reprehensible history and so terribly intellectually bankrupt?Convert before it is too late! The atheist rapture and it's messiah, Science, beat your Christian rapture by an eternity.(Sorry, I wanted to know what it felt like to go off the handle like a Bible thumping evangelist. Feels good!)This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-28-2004 04:04 AM

Willow wrote: I don't believe I actually used the word liar....I was actually trying to help you out. On the face of it, Mathew's attempts at phrophecy fulfilment appear... less than credible. As an act of concession I included the reference to that article which states that Mathew had honest intentions. I still think it's dodgey, but I can't go so far as to impugn his intentions.It sounds like you are trying the (Jesus) must be a liar/madman or the son of God argument you failed to convey in another thread a while back (Checkmate evidence).Mathew need not be lying or or conveying the truth, with no other option in between. He could believe he was telling the truth, but actually be very mistaken. I don't think that you lie when you make your arguments on this forum. You are just mistaken in the belief that you are conveying the truth.We can see how Mathew is honetsly mistaken. It was conveyed in my posts above.I'll have to do more homework and have more time to respond to the rest of yuor post.One last point, the Jesus Seminar is very worrying for fundie Christians. Over 20 years, over 200 of the world's leading Bible scholars undercut fundie Bible interpretations, right down to denying the occurance of a bodily resurrection.What a problem...Not Found - Webflow HTML website template

I refer to fundamentialism in the traditional sense of the word:- A religious movement characterised by the return to fundamental principles of Christianity, rigid adherence to these principles, intolerance of other views including secularism.or- An organised militant evangelical movement originating in the US late 19c or early 20c in opposition to Protestant liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of the scripture.Fundamentalist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comIf you guys don't fall within either of these definitions, these please accept my sincere apologies.If you feel that you do not fall into either of these definitions because in the same convoluted and semantically tortuous way that many fundies like to consider themselves not "religious", then please accept my utter contempt.

Willow wrote: Please don't make me re-write the examples above that I gave of Mathew's attempts to demonstrate fulfilled prophecy. I think the examples were very clear.You do not have to be a Bible scholar to see that Matthew, can't quote the OT correctly and can't read sentences in the context of the OT in which they appear.No rational person would conclude that this is not an example of manufactured prophecy, unless you are blinded by faith. I think you'll find that many of the Jesus Seminar are themselves Christians. They are certainly qualified to make assessments on Biblical history. If modern Biblical scholarship has revealed that the supernatural claims of the Bible are mythical, then it is time to re-assess your stance on these matters.And this is a question I ask many Christians: how could it ever be proven to you that certain aspects of your belief are false?If evidence and the findings of the world's most knowledgeable contemporary scholars disagree with that you take on faith and on the word on one scholar (Scott), then isn't it time to take heed and reassess? It's your salvation on the line here, afterall.What does the Bible say about false prophets?This revelation need not be incompatible with your Christian faith. There are several Christians on this forum who have no trouble sustaining their belief on faith alone and are also able to incorporate our 21st century understanding of Biblical history.Time to crawl out of fundamentalism.Not Found - Webflow HTML website template

Lysimachus wrote: There are significant possibility of error, that's why there are over 30,000 Christian denominations. That's why there are thousands more faiths other than Christianity. In considering wether you are in error you also have to be honest enough to consider whether your Christian interpretation is in error and indeed if Christianity itself is in error. To determine the latter you HAVE to delve into not only other religions but also other belief systems that leaves God out of the picture.Forget about praying where you risk self deception. Forget about merely reading Christian apologetics where you risk being deceived by those with an agenda. Use your brain to determine whether you have been deceived. I did and I determined that Christians are being deceived by themselves and others.For me, the realisation of the deception started with Creationism. It is a complex topic, but it is a great place to start to begin to understand ther way Christianity (and religions in general) use a complex web of emotional persuasion and misinformation to obtain and retain converts. Of course there is nothing wrong for Christians to adpat. In the 21st Century unless you want your faith to be an absurd archaic enigma that no longer serves the needs of the people you can either evolve with the times (as the Catholic Church has done) or prove that youare right (which none of them have done). The history of the Christian church shows that it's interpretation of morals is far from immutable, and for the sake of modern society, it is just as well. Your American society did not even emobody the concept of sin into law when it was founded. You have two of the ten commandments reflected in law: killing and stealing. Most of the other "sins" are actually rights of the individual.The lowest moral points in history are those times when totalatarianisms reigned. Of course, the Bible itself preaches blind obedience to those in power.Today we have tolerance, freedom, universal suffrage, respect for human and animal rights, equality, international bodies formulated to protect these rights. Jump up and down all you like in your attempts to support your agenda of repressed sexuality. The rest of us can only hope that the day will never come that the likes of you drag us back into the morality of the Dark Ages. This false notion has been dealt with in this forum repeatedly. Do you own homework and try reading outside Christian apologetics. You might want to start by explaining how your constitution protects the rights of individuals to worship any God they like in direct contrast to the first commandment. Lithodid-Man dealt with this nutty notion well.Whilst I abhor violence, I do believe that America has brought some of the wrath of foreign radicals down upon itself due to it's reprehensible history of dealing with foreign affairs. I do not condone terrorism, but I do understand the notion that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. It's hard to fight clean when you are dramatically outgunned.I never understood the mentality of Muslim fanatics until the events of the last 3 years demonstrated that that mental state is common to any religion.Fanatics from one religion crash planes into buildings. Fanatics from another bomb and shoot civilians and torture prisoners.Religious tolerance is the key. Why aren't you guys just satisfied with your belief that you are right? Why hassle and kill others that hold different views? Surely those 144,000 places are all full up by now? Now your just making this stuff aren't you. Is this in the Bible or did you get it in a divine message?The rest of the world is telling America to wake up, but as long as some of you nutters believe you are on a mission from God, you wont listen. Where exactly, and how is this applicable to today as opposed to some other time in Christianity's history?I was lead astray by new ideas. Rightly so. The God that you conceive gave me a brain, why did he not expect me to use it? He gave me the courage to resist emotional temptation and blackmail, so why should I not be rewarded for showing it? He gave the ability to identify falsities, why should I be condemned for refusing them? Ok this little speil of unsubstantiated preaching is almost relevant to this thread. Given that the Bible has been incorrect with other prophecy, as demonstrated above, why should we take this, 2000 year overdue prophecy as correct (remember there hasn't been a Christian who ever lived who didn't believe that he was in the end times?)Every good religion has to have a good end time scenario. Why is yours any better?Let me get this right: This is the deity that creates man, throws in irresistable temptation, knowing that he would fall, knowing ultimately only 144,000 out of billions would ever be saved and the rest condemned to eternal damnation.This is not how any person would define love.Now let me finish with a little speil:What are you gambling with here? Most Christians commit their Sundays and one or two nights a week to their faith, over 10-20 years tithing equates to an investment property or the price of decent education for your children, you have to ostracise yourselves from non-believing friends, you can get totally emotionally screwed at any time when your leader goes off the handle which can do anything from tear your family apart (I've seen it happen in Australia), ruin you financially or even kill you (a la Jim Jones amd Koresh), and if you have a mortal soul you may lose that if you have chosen the wrong faith or the wrong Christian interpretation.What a price to pay. You better be checking the validity of your beliefs daily, and reading outside your faith's apologetcis. A wonderful, loving God would expect no less.Edited for typosThis message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-30-2004 12:07 AM

Willow wrote: Ok, ok, if legit, this is a valid point: I did miss this and I apologise. Using Mica 5:2 as the example, can you provide me with the text from the LXX showing that Matthew quoted correctly from it. Can you also show me how in the text of the LXX it unambiguously refers to Bethlehem as a city and not as a family clan. From a non-Christian perspective it looks manufactured. Matthew may have genuinely believed that he had found prophecy fulfilled.By including this link:
Not Found - Webflow HTML website template
I conceded that I have no basis for saying that Matthew intentionally lied. Surely these has to be a deliberate intention to deceive before one can be considered to be lying? Otherwise one is merely honestly mistaken.Why are we still arguing this? It is no skin off my chin whether Matthew made this stuff up deliberately or innocently. It's unconvincing on it's own merits independent of this point. Waffle I can. This is a hobby afterall, not a living.Intelligence doens't really factor into the equation. The initial conversion experience into religion is emoional and trancends intellect. What matters more is how one evaluates evidence and whether they hold beliefs immune to reason and investigation. Of course it does. Here we go playing the make up an alternate definition for a commonly used term game again:Christian:1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.Christian Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.comAs you can see, what the person actually claims about their belief ("One who professes") is sufficient as is one's actions ("or follows", "or lives"). I'd say that by both their claims about their faith, or by their following the Christian religion or their Christian-like actions, that some members of the Jesus Seminar are indeed Christians. Disputing the following and actions is merely your opinion.(It is interesting to note that despite the obvious fact that the Bible is the principle source (as well as un-cannonised gospels) of the life and teachings of Jesus, an obsession with the book itself is not essential for being a Christian. This is where a lot of Christians go off the rails and become less Christ-like)The definition above puts you in the fellow Christian company of the Jesus Seminar Fellows, The Pope, Dr Scott, David Koresh, Torquemada, Jim Jones and Mother Teresa, to name a few. This is a purely unsubstantiated claim about over 200 educated, responsible, academically successful fellow Christians that you have probably never met. That's your particular interpretation of Christianity, and it stands on it's own merits. If one professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus or one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus, but one beleives that all of the Bible's supernatural claims are not literal, then one is still a Christian. Nothing in the definition requires a particular Biblical interpretation.The bottom line is fellow Christians, with more knowledge, understanding and honesty about the Bible and it's origins and varicity have declared that much of what you hold to be true, is not true. A frustrated wave of your hand does not dismiss this. It is time to re-assess what you hold to be true on matters in faith inlight of what we know by evidence and rational thinking.It need not lead you to abolish your faith. It doesn't for those Christians in the Jesus Seminar and for some Christians in this forum. If your faith can't absorb new understandings then it is nothing but mere dogma, and it is very, very likely wrong. Didn't the Bible get cannonised on the basis of a vote? This is probably the most liberal thing Christianity has done in it's history. It took another 1600 years until the Jesus Seminar included that same technique for determining the varacity of Bible claims.The technique of colored marble, while applied to the foggy discipline of history, is a brilliant approach. They have only a small core of accepted facts and then build upon them, as determine by the votes of colored balls, out to more tentaively held assumptions. Similar to science and is ceratinly better than having to adhere to the interpretational whims of one nutter at the top, no matter how respected that nutter might be. And your personal beliefs don't enter into your attempts at Biblical interpretation? And remember, some of them are Christians and in the same way some Christians accomodate evolution, you accomodate an old earth, they accomodate non-literal miracles. Believing in uproven and unsubstantiatied miracle claims is not essential for Christian belief.Back up your claims of dishonesty or retract them. Ok. What evidence would be sufficient to contradict a claim that you make? IMO you are often talked into logical corners in many of these threads yet you deny any threat to your faith. And it is not just on matters of Biblical interpretation, you crash and burn on historical claims, claims of fact and even of the definitions of terms. And of course you deal with the conclusions of the Bible scholars of the Jesus Seminar with a wave of your hand.What would be sufficient evidence to contradict a view that you hold? The testimony of an expert? A demonstration or the results of a test?Peer reviewed literature? Only Dr Scott's opinion? A revelation from God?You already presume that you are right, your book is inerrant, your prophet is true and your schitzophrenia messages from God.Give me an example of where you have conceded a point about your faith on this forum. Just one, or are you, in you opinion, always right like I presumed? The second sentence sounds like trying to prove macro-evolution to a creationist: they keep moving the goal posts until they require a fish to grow legs and crawl out of the water before their eyes.Your's is a valid question and, unlike mine, not too ambiguous.Remember I am up for miracle demonstrations and actively seek to see or experience them. That's why I particpate in religious conversion experiences.To be a miracle the event would have to be inexplicable to modern science and independently verifiable by other witnesses who's opinions I respected (because I am aware of the susceptability of the individual human mind to delusion).You know, something like the seas parting, all first borns dying, the sun darkening when it wasn't an eclipse or being able to put my hand in Jesus's spear wound. Nothing too challenging for God!Vague and silly claims about Bible codes, pryramidology, answered prayer, and faith healing don't cut it. This answers your question above: because the writers didn't think they were making false prophecies, amoungst numerous other reasons. Here's a couple: what about Yahweh's failed land pronise? Even the Bible itself admits this failed to come to pass. What about Tyre?No Bible-version/Greek/Aramaic translation chicanery allowed. Not necessarily: they still believe Christ to be the messiah and God to exist. That doesn't pass muster with my atheist world view. Ok, you may well trump me here as I am no Bible scholar.But let's try this for starters. Do you refer to non-cannonised for gospels for assistance in interpreting the Bible, and if not why not?

I obviously forgot who the hell I was debating for a minute, but now I know clearly from your post above...Willow wrote: What? Just because the word Bethlehem appears in Micah 5:2, (albeit in a completely different context referring to a family clan not a city), according to Matthew this prophecises the birth of Christ in Bethlehem???I've challenged you to back up your claim that it is an issue of Bible version by showing me Micah 5:2 from the LXXX. Until you do this, this particular prophecy claim is rebutted.Shall we move on to another? Sticking with Matthew, how about:"In another example, Matthew said that the purchase of the potter's field with the thirty pieces of silver that Judas cast back to the chief priests and elders fulfilled a prophecy made by Jeremiah: "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was priced, whom certain of the children of Israel did price; and they gave them for the potter's field as the Lord appointed me" (27:9-10). The only problem is that Jeremiah never wrote anything remotely similar to this, so how could this be a fulfillment of "that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet"? Some scholars have suggested that Matthew was quoting "loosely" a statement that was actually written by Zechariah (11:12-13) rather than Jeremiah. If this is true, then one can only wonder why a divinely inspired writer, being guided by the omniscient Holy Spirit, would have said Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. "Farrell Till Prophecy » Internet Infidels I stand by what I said. I would not be so absurd as to impugn the intellect of Christians.I personally know many individuals who are educated and very intelligent and are Christians. Their conversions to Christianity were often dramatic emotional conversions. Hence why I say, enlightenment transcends intellect. Faith is independent of intellect, and it resides in the emotional realm.Christians compartmentalise their mental processes so that their intellect and rational approach to their day to day life need not conflict with their religious life. When you talk to them you can easily identify this line and the grief in causes them when compelled to cross it.There is a classic line from Creationist Kurt Wise in a nasty book that I am presently reading called "In Six Days": "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the word of god seems to indicate".That is certainly a case of divorcing one's intellect from matters of faith, which leads me back to the questions I asked you: How would you know if you were ever wrong on matters of faith; what form would such evidence have to take? Arguably it would have to be something from your prophet or a personal message from God. You'd better have great faith in those sources because of the gamble I outlined in my post to Lysimachus above. What a gamble this faith thing is.Even when all the evidence of the world intellectually compells you to reject or modify your faith, you still cling to your faith un-revised.And, of course historically, faith has been an atrocious method of gathering correct knowledge. You could well be smarter than I, but your knowledge gathering method is seriously flawed and is so far from the scientific method. I trust my life on my technique, and so do you when you hypocritically take for granted everything it offers you in modern society, like modern transport, medicine and this method of communication, and yet you reject scientific findings on evolution because it disagrees with something you hold on faith... I'm sorry, but you've repeatedly been shown that you cannot just make up your own definitions to suit. There has to be some sort of objective definition for "Christian", and a definition made up by all small sub-group of that faith to exclude all others that they disagree with, doesn't cut it.You already make up your own definition for "fundamentalist" and "religious" as well as make up new words. Feel free to label yourselves with any original term that you see fit, but objectively you will be Christians along with anyone else who professes a belief in Christ or follows his teachings. And this of course includes members of the Jesus Seminar. Who are you to judge whether any of the Jesus Seminar have this spirit or not? Some churches here in Australia say that essential evidence of the Holy Spirit is the ability to speak in tongues (Glossolalia). I can demonstrate glossolalia to the satisfaction of those Christians and I'm an atheist (which they don't know). Go figure.Niether the Bible quotes you gave above, or the objective definition of Christian require an adherence to any particular interpretation of the Bible. I don't think this is a correct use of claim of strawman argument. This is just merely a wave of your hand. When there is no basis or evidence for belief in something, such a belief is irrational.My present God(s), by the way, are Homer Simpson, PC Games, exercise buzz, house music, adrenalin rushes, and apricot danishes. Mmmmm apricot danishes. The people "we know" are those leading international Bible scholars, including Christians and that "God senseless" condition is that convulted, circular and illogical mental state Dr Scott conceived out of Romans to try to reject anyone who had been persuaded by the evidence of evolution.Do you homework, for God's sake, some of the members of the Jesus Seminar are ministers and pastors in Christian churches:Not Found - Webflow HTML website templateIt really irks you when Christians come to different conclusions than you: you either love to ignore the existence of Christians who accept evolution, or apply your "god sense removed" concept, or now when they differ to you on Biblical interpretation, you label them atheists! You really do love extremes, don't you? I'd hate to live in your intense world of black and white, good and evil. Does this flow from your religious view of the world? Have you lost the ability to percieve middle ground? There are, of course, those who reserve verdict on miracles, who are indifferent, unpersuaded, open to and unsure.It's just that we have absolutely no convincing evidence of what is an unambiguos miracle in all of history. They ceratinly aren't occuring today which just so happens to coincide with the time in history when we can apply scientific tests to such claims. Yea, and now some Christians are agreeing with those conclusions because they are probably correct. Delightful turn of phrase from your indwelt spirit. That aside, yes I am quite satisfied that some Christians are being more intellectually honest about Biblical scholarship and Biblical analysis. Our increasingly moral world has increased tolerance towards individuals who seek to verify the varacity of religious claims. We don't burn them anymore. More black amd white. Anything that disagrees with you is this Satanic conspiracy. I thought satan was the deceiver, so why do so many fundies love to distort the truth?I'm afraid that the scholarly weight of the Jesus Seminar trumps one Dr Scott. The Jesus Seminar is not the only body of Biblical scholars who argue that some of the gospels were, what you call, "forgeries" (or at least written by someone other than the name which was given to them: which is not an uncommon literary practice of the time). These arguments are based on very convincing historical textual analysis, not on emotive concerns that one's faith in the inerrancy of the Bible might be undermined.Dr Scott's claims are also trumped regularly in this forum. 'tis a silly concept. We're even on that one. Language. Some of Dr Scott's profanities are rubbing off on you.I've said it before, a belief in a particular interpretation is not fundamental to being a Christian. Do you worship God and Jesus or Dr Scott and the Bible? Thoroughly agree about Brian. I respect the Christians, Trixie and Jar, amoung others, on this forum. Of course I don't.Some personal beliefs are shaped by conclusions. My personal beliefs were an amorphous mass for many years. I set out to find religion and to find God. I already accepted that the scientific method was the best method for knowledge gathering, and that faith alone was not. I came to this conclusion based on the testable results of science and technology and comparing this to the myriad of beserk claims made by faith.I never excluded God. Science doesn't do that, but I fail to see why I couldn't apply the scientific method to religious claims. Unfortunately religion fails on all it's material claims and purely resides in the realms of faith. Even the mental and emotional processes behind faith have adequate scientific explainations.Atheists are rightly smug. They have the demonstrable evidence of science and technology to back up their rebuttal of religious claims. Religion fails material tests.Now my personal beliefs shape my conclusions: but I am honest enought to admit I can, and indeed seek, to be proven wrong. You do no such thing and dwell in the realms of blind adherence to dogma. Great. This is a first step away from worshipping a book for it's own sake.

Hello Willow.I can tell you are keen to bail, because your post contains mainly preaching.Willow Wrote: Then why is everything to do with religion so emotive for the religious? I don't really think this example proves your point, even before we do the dictionary thing which you hate.I have a logical expectation that the other drivers are going to stop based on past experience, or evidence, if you will. In this sense that you are using the word: even science has "faith" because it proceeds on the basis of trust in past observations. Flying in a plane is therefor all about this sort of faith.But is this the same use of the word as in the religious context? I think not.When you guys talk about faith, you talk about belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, or belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.By using two separate definitions of faith, you are confusing the issue. If you are talking about faith in the same way as I have "faith" in travelling in a plane, then by all means show me the basis on which I should have the same "confidence in the truth, value, or trustworthiness" of your God or religious beliefs.Remember I will require the same standard of evidence that gives me confidence in knowing the plane will not (often!) crash.To provide me with anything less is to require me to have belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. And as I have said, that is a poor thing to rely upon cause it will be far from trustworthy (and may get you killed)Faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.Faith Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com Yea, but it's not the same sort of faith, is it? It is reasoned, logical faith based on past experience. Nothing like what Christianity asks you to have (how the heck could you have a reasoned logical faith in something (God) that you previously didn't think existed and presently have absolutely no proof of?). You have hit the nail on the head of the essence of the emotional conversion experience. In many fundamentalist churches, it works like this: the covertee is shown where in the Bible it is says that they can receive the Holy Spirit (and Speak in tongues, depending on the church). They have a conversion experience, which can often take many forms and may or may not include glossolalia. Either way they are told that this experience is the incoming Holy Spirit as spoken of in the Bible, therefor the Bible was true in this point it must be true in everything else; like where it says you have to come to church every week, pay us 10% of your earnings, convert or cease seeing your heretic friends, submit to the authority of the church etc etc.This conversion experience is exploited to set off the whole process of belief. How does this conversion experience work...The convertee will be subject to powerful persuasion, often in front of a large body of people, their family and partners, next to forceful charasmatic church elders, often in a physically vulnerable state (baptism requires you to often be in swimmers and completely wet) all pressuring you to perform. It is not disimiliar to those mass hypnotism shows like Martin St James (does he perform in the US) where people and be compelled to do silly things by Martin and the pressure of the deisire to perform/conform.The humility you are requested to show to "God" is actually humility to the conversion process and those who are directing it.But there is the additional element of an extreme appeal to emotion. Prospective convertees are usually emotionally vulnerable in the first place, and are sold an emotively appealing product: eternal love and life.The conversion process often invokes an emotional breakdown, manifesting in laughter, crying, joy, relief: a whole plethora of emotions. If they are asked to repeat multisyllabillic words, particularly with multiple letter "l"s, like Allelula, or Praise the Lord, the reflex response of glossolalia can occur. This alone often bewilders people enough to make the feel as though something of religious significance has happened.Of course, there is the occasional person for which nothing happens: they are pressured and pressured, and if there is no success told to continue to pray repeatedly over the coming days and weeks, enough until they soften up to finally submit at a future time.As usual, there is no outcome, from which they will conclude that the experience is not valid. Something vaguely conversional is the Holy Spirit, and lack of such an experience is due to a fault in the convertee (lack of faith, humility etc etc).So a convert is set up ripe from the outset to believe the Bible (or at least that particular churches interpretation of it) based upon the faulty premise of this promise manifest, as you, Willow, call it. And of course, most people know very, very little about the Bible, it's history and origins and are in no position to question it moving forward.All of the above it purely an emotive experience, not intellectual. Emotively, the Bible is the word of God. Intellectually the Bible is an intruguing, but flawed non-unique arbitray collection of religious texts.Emotionally Mathew was identifying fulfilled prophecy of the Christ as fortold in the OT. Intellectually is was just manufacturing prophecy through optimistic misquoting.The most impressive thing out of this whole scenario is how people in ancient times identify the above formula for "enlightenment". But study of ancient history has shown me that we can easily underestimate the insight, knowledge and even the guile of our ancient ancestors. And besides, most the other relgions have impressive and successful conversion processes too. You have not sustained this point of view. Your emotional faith now declares that everbody, whether thay be Christian or not, who differs from you in their Biblical interpretation is now an atheist. It's a gamble with your time, money, emotional (and spiritual) energy and well as your mortal soul. Particularly if you risk all this on faith, in the spiritual sense of the word. This was the topic of another forum: Method of Madness, Post ad Reasoning and Confirmation Bias.What you don't understand is that nothing different happens in the life of a Christian compared to the life of a non-Christians. Christians just interpret their world to comply with their belief that God is playing a role in it. This is that religious type of "faith" isn'it it? The belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, or belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. That's that type of faith you'd be foolish to gamble on. I love this bit. Why then, if you get an incontrovertible miracle, and "knowledge" Jesus is alive and real and a tangible "relationship" do you constantly need to re-inforce this knowledge? What other knowledge that you hold to be true, in order to maintain it requires you to:- Gather exclusively with others who believe the same
- Exclude exposure to material that contradicts that "knowledge"
- Sing songs and engage in other emotive rituals in support of it
- Constantly here some inane pastor drone on and on about it
- Use mental gymnastics to affirm your belief in it and avoid thoughts that contradict itThis isn't really knowledge is it? When I know something, like where I grew up, I don't need to confirm this knowledge on a daily basis. Vague faith, or hope, in something that is logically and intellectually unconvincing requires this sort of process. A conversion process in Christianity gives you Jesus, and conversion process in Islam gives you Mohummad.And why are we still calling it faith, unless it is in the religious sense? I wonder why don't you guys call it KNOWLEDGE... I would be so abrupt towards Christians without first fully investigating their claims: that would be arrogance based on ignorance. I completely understand the conversion process and the mental gymnastics involved. Been there, done that. Eh? But all Christians tell me that God loves me. Emotively that sounds pretty cool, intellectually, given the evidence, God's existence and the existence of his love is unconvincing and somewhat daft.The millions are not crazy, just wrong. I will admit though, that it is the atheist that are evolutionarily abberant. Religiousity seems to be the norm, and it certainly helps produce more offspring. This stuff is getting nutty. It is more like you are changing your own perception of reality. A fairly perilous thing to do. What has faith given us? An effective treament for epilepse? Astronomy? Modern medicine? Modern agriculture? A consistently applied method of justice? Modern transport? An effective basis for foreign policy? Anything??? Well it still is flawed because "faith" is going to give you very little chance to determine the one correct religion from the multitude of incorrect ones. Inronically if there was a true religion, and indeed a deity, our best knowledge gathering techniques which underpin science and technology are probably the best techniques to use to find it.I don't exclude the possibility of a God in the vastness of the picture of the universe, science has laid out for it. Such a God ceratinly doesn't look anything like a Christian God, and it seems he doesn't really even give a dam about us little chemical anomolies in a tiny corner of the universe. What a petty jealous creature this God of your is.Willow I've run out time this week. Tell me more about this, and I'll respond next week.Sorry about the typos that I am sure are there, but have no time to look for.