Pummeling Porphyry to Defend Daniel's "Evidence"?

[Nihilist Virus]

Are you saying that you think that Jesus was a false prophet?

Did he say that things would happen and then they never happened?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did he say that things would happen and then they never happened?

You mean haven't happened yet?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You mean haven't happened yet?

So that's a yes then? Also did you read Deuteronomy 18 or nah?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So that's a yes then? Also did you read Deuteronomy 18 or nah?

yes.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

yes.

Ok so is there anything specific about my analysis that you call into question? You can't just agree with the facts and logical structure of an argument and then disregard the inevitable logical conclusion simply on the grounds that you'd prefer it isn't true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The point of Deuteronomy 18 is that a prophecy must come true within a prophet's own lifetime. The punishment of death for a false prophet absolutely necessitates this fact. Further, the purpose of a prophecy is merely to convince the people of Israel that the prophet truly speaks for Jehovah.

Recall that the people are terrified of personally witnessing Jehovah. So Jehovah and the people agreed that a mediator (a prophet) would relay messages from Jehovah to the people, and the "litmus test" for such a mediator was a prophecy that should come true. When it comes true, he's then free to speak on behalf of Jehovah.

Considering also that documents of this time costed somewhere around the modern price of a new car or new home (depending on the length of the document), and considering that multiple copies would be created over the centuries, it is comical to think that they would preserve the words of someone universally thought of as a false prophet.

If there's no necessity for a prophecy to come true in the prophet's lifetime, then there absolutely cannot be a punishment for false prophets. If there is no punishment for false prophets, absolutely anyone can say absolutely anything they like. I don't think it worked that way. Do you?

So, what does this have to do with Daniel's prophecies and/or Porphyry's detraction of those same prophecies (both of which are the focus of this thread)?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

So, what does this have to do with Daniel's prophecies and/or Porphyry's detraction of those same prophecies (both of which are the focus of this thread)?

You said in the OP that the book of Daniel is evidence of Christianity because Daniel predicted the future. I'm telling you that Deuteronomy 18 precludes this from even happening, and you refuse to address the point.

It's well known that rabbis continued to reinterpret scriptures in modern ways and a book was considered dead only when this couldn't be done.

This is what Matthew loved to do. Matthew 2:15, by modern standards, absolutely and unequivocally takes Hosea 11:1 out of context. What he really did was reinterpret what was otherwise a dead document.

The reality is that a "prophecy" in the Bible is generally delivered in one chapter and "fulfilled" in the next. Then, hundreds of years later, rabbis or Christian scholars reinterpret what they're reading like a high school class discussing the intent behind Lord of the Flies.

The saddest reality of all is that the Christians who feel nothing when they go to church desperately need to justify the devotion they're giving to their god, so they latch onto anything that fits the narrative they already concluded must be true. A mangled reinterpretation ripped out of context like a battlefield amputation will suffice in the absence of genuine evidence.

You might notice that the "spiritual" Christians tend to care significantly less about apologetic gymnastics. Their brains are already releasing the sweet, sweet chemicals in church when everyone is singing and lifting their hands, so there's little need to justify the belief.

None of this is new information... unless you've been ignoring my points about Deuteronomy 18 from the beginning. Seeing as how you've yet to comment on it, I wonder if maybe you are ignoring it. Should we be done, then?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You said in the OP that the book of Daniel is evidence of Christianity because Daniel predicted the future. I'm telling you that Deuteronomy 18 precludes this from even happening, and you refuse to address the point.

And which Jewish Rabbi did you happen to run across who said this?

It's well known that rabbis continued to reinterpret scriptures in modern ways and a book was considered dead only when this couldn't be done.

As far as I know, Rabbis have traditionally been variant in their interpretations over the centuries; you are familiar with the terms 'midrash' and 'pesher,' aren't you?

This is what Matthew loved to do. Matthew 2:15, by modern standards, absolutely and unequivocally takes Hosea 11:1 out of context. What he really did was reinterpret what was otherwise a dead document.

The reality is that a "prophecy" in the Bible is generally delivered in one chapter and "fulfilled" in the next. Then, hundreds of years later, rabbis or Christian scholars reinterpret what they're reading like a high school class discussing the intent behind Lord of the Flies.

Perhaps; perhaps not. But being that you're hardly a scholar on these things, I'd doubt that you'd know a whole heck of a lot about it all.

But here's a link by which we can get started:

PROPHET, FALSE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

The saddest reality of all is that the Christians who feel nothing when they go to church desperately need to justify the devotion they're giving to their god, so they latch onto anything that fits the narrative they already concluded must be true. A mangled reinterpretation ripped out of context like a battlefield amputation will suffice in the absence of genuine evidence.

That is one sad reality, but there is another that is worse than that, and that's the one in which an atheist thinks he knows everything and therefore doesn't feel the need to consider anything further but yet still loves to open his mouth with a wide, yawning void and spit out whatever is caught between his teeth at the moment.

You might notice that the "spiritual" Christians tend to care significantly less about apologetic gymnastics. Their brains are already releasing the sweet, sweet chemicals in church when everyone is singing and lifting their hands, so there's little need to justify the belief.

Did you happen to catch my comment to another CF poster on the way in which I think the term "gymnastics" is highly in need of reconsideration as an appropriate analogy for Christian apologetics?

None of this is new information... unless you've been ignoring my points about Deuteronomy 18 from the beginning. Seeing as how you've yet to comment on it, I wonder if maybe you are ignoring it. Should we be done, then?

Yes, we should be done ............ but alas, I'm sure that a hope for an ending won't last.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

And which Jewish Rabbi did you happen to run across who said this?

There is no substitute for simply cracking open the book and reading it. Deuteronomy 18. Give it a go.

As far as I know, Rabbis have traditionally been variant in their interpretations over the centuries; you are familiar with the terms 'midrash' and 'pesher,' aren't you?

Are you agreeing with what I said or not?

Perhaps; perhaps not. But being that you're hardly a scholar on these things, I'd doubt that you'd know a whole heck of a lot about it all.

But here's a link by which we can get started:

PROPHET, FALSE - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Again, read the Bible passage I'm referring to. Not the Talmud. The Talmud isn't part of Christian canon. Except whenever you want to cherry pick out of it I guess?

That is one sad reality, but there is another that is worse than that, and that's the one in which an atheist thinks he knows everything and therefore doesn't feel the need to consider anything further but yet still loves to open his mouth with a wide, yawning void and spit out whatever is caught between his teeth at the moment.

I know how to read and that's all I need to have the leg up in this discussion. One of us has read Deuteronomy 18 and the other hasn't. I don't need to email every rabbi on earth and collect every last Jewish Pokémon to understand what I'm reading in plain text.

Did you happen to catch my comment to another CF poster on the way in which I think the term "gymnastics" is highly in need of reconsideration as an appropriate analogy for Christian apologetics?

Nope. And yes I agree we should do away with gymnastics as an analogy for apologetics. Tap dancing is a much better fit.

Yes, we should be done ............ but alas, I'm sure that a hope for an ending won't last.

Yeah this is a bit like beating through a wall with my head. Maybe one day I'll get you to simply read the text relevant to the discussion... one day...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is no substitute for simply cracking open the book and reading it. Deuteronomy 18. Give it a go.



Are you agreeing with what I said or not?



Again, read the Bible passage I'm referring to. Not the Talmud. The Talmud isn't part of Christian canon. Except whenever you want to cherry pick out of it I guess?



I know how to read and that's all I need to have the leg up in this discussion. One of us has read Deuteronomy 18 and the other hasn't. I don't need to email every rabbi on earth and collect every last Jewish Pokémon to understand what I'm reading in plain text.



Nope. And yes I agree we should do away with gymnastics as an analogy for apologetics. Tap dancing is a much better fit.



Yeah this is a bit like beating through a wall with my head. Maybe one day I'll get you to simply read the text relevant to the discussion... one day...

You obviously have missed a large portion of the things I've said to cvanwey over the last several weeks (and months). I'd suggest you get with him and review "MY" point of view on just how it is that we SHOULD approach, handle, and attempt to read the Bible in its full, various contexts....something a so-called 'straight' reading will never, ever provide you.

Since you're going on and on about Deut. 18, and since I know that for someone like yourself logic and math are all-important, here's a brain-teaser for you to ponder: if Deuteronomy 18, which is written through Moses, says that God will raise up for Israel another prophet like him at some point in the future, then why would we be tempted to expect the Prophet which Moses speaks of to "arrive" within Moses' lifetime?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You obviously have missed a large portion of the things I've said to cvanwey over the last several weeks (and months). I'd suggest you get with him and review "MY" point of view on just how it is that we SHOULD approach, handle, and attempt to read the Bible in its full, various contexts....something a so-called 'straight' reading will never, ever provide you.

So... you think I should regard you as my teacher? Lol.

Since you're going on and on about Deut. 18, and since I know that for someone like yourself logic and math are all-important, here's a brain-teaser for you to ponder: if Deuteronomy 18, which is written through Moses, says that God will raise up for Israel another prophet like him at some point in the future, then why would we be tempted to expect the Prophet which Moses speaks of to "arrive" within Moses' lifetime?

I don't understand what this has to do with math. In any case this is not a prophecy. It is not a prediction of the future. It's an assembly where rules were established. One of those rules is that there needs to be a mediator between Jehovah and the people.

If I say the Rams and Chiefs will play in the Super Bowl, that's a prophecy. If I say a touchdown counts for 6 points, that's a rule. There's a difference. Just because I say a touchdown counts for 6 and it comes true doesn't mean I made a prophecy.

With regards to Deuteronomy 18, please forgive my blunt vulgarity but I'm going to look directly at the text. Here are the last 3 verses:

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.


I find the delivery to be a bit awkward. Let me rearrange this to make it more clear:

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.


Condensed:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously:

the prophet, which shall presume, shall die.


Now apply this rule to your interpretation of Daniel and explain how it makes sense.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So... you think I should regard you as my teacher? Lol.

No, in your present frame of mind, I don't think anyone could be your teacher ...

I don't understand what this has to do with math. In any case this is not a prophecy. It is not a prediction of the future. It's an assembly where rules were established. One of those rules is that there needs to be a mediator between Jehovah and the people.

...the part about the coming of THE PROPHET "is" a prophecy!

If I say the Rams and Chiefs will play in the Super Bowl, that's a prophecy. If I say a touchdown counts for 6 points, that's a rule. There's a difference. Just because I say a touchdown counts for 6 and it comes true doesn't mean I made a prophecy.

The problem with O.T. "rules" is that the Jews can't seem to agree where interpretation ends and finality begins, at least not in all cases. And of course, there might be a reason for this ... like maybe, God purposely did not give the Bible to us as a comprehensive and complete manifesto about the nature of the world or about the full way in which He's going to deal with humanity in all of its variety.

With regards to Deuteronomy 18, please forgive my blunt vulgarity but I'm going to look directly at the text. Here are the last 3 verses:

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.


I find the delivery to be a bit awkward.

That's because it is....awkward. We both know that the text has passed through various hands, and if there was an earlier proto-text, or texts, then we're bound to find some passages that seem to be haphazard in their presentation. Deuteronomy 18 (following similar material in Deuteronomy 13) seems to be one such passage.

Let me rearrange this to make it more clear:

21 And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the Lord hath not spoken?

22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

20 But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.


Condensed:

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously:

the prophet, which shall presume, shall die.


Now apply this rule to your interpretation of Daniel and explain how it makes sense.

Frankly, I haven't yet some across either a Jewish Rabbi, a Christian Theologian, or a non-Christian detractor of biblical prophecy (like Porphyry) who asserts what you're asserting about the nature of Deuteronomy 18. I wonder why?

Whatever the case may be, and even though I know you're a smart guy, I'm not convinced by your personal eisegesis of Deuteronomy 18. If anything, it smacks of the same kind of eisegesis which Satan is alluded to having used on Jesus in that little tête-à-tête in the desert wilderness. So, in this case, I'm going to refrain from saying that your inference about Deut. 18 somehow unhinges, or should unhinge, our interest in the book of Daniel, or even in Daniel himself.

Now, back to Porphyry ...

 

[cvanwey]

The problem with O.T. "rules" is that the Jews can't seem to agree where interpretation ends and finality begins, at least not in all cases. And of course, there might be a reason for this ... like maybe, God purposely did not give the Bible to as a comprehensive and complete manifesto about the nature of the world or about the nature of how He's going to deal with humanity in all of its variety.

That's because it is....awkward. We both know that the text has passed through various hands, and if there was an earlier proto-text, or texts, then we're bound to find some passages that seem to be haphazard in their presentation. Deuteronomy 18 (following similar material in Deuteronomy 13) seems to be one such passage.

It also seems awkward, or bazaar even, that a claimed omniscient being would knowingly inspire writings which, 'passed through various hands, and if there was an earlier proto-text, or texts, then we're bound to find some passages that seem to be haphazard in their presentation.'

Kind of presents the apparent dichotomy of..... are such verses actually God inspired, or instead do they just only claim to be (and are not); and all subsequent re-copies are no different than the former - only to add/subtract/modify their own various flavors accordingly?

Also makes one wonder why God would not strive to preserve the original text, if for any other reason, to at least avoid such later confusion. Really makes one think and ponder of the apparent reality of it all....

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It also seems awkward, or bazaar even, that a claimed omniscient being would knowingly inspire writings which, 'passed through various hands, and if there was an earlier proto-text, or texts, then we're bound to find some passages that seem to be haphazard in their presentation.'

Kind of presents the apparent dichotomy of..... are such verses actually God inspired, or instead do they just only claim to be (and are not); and all subsequent re-copies are no different than the former - only to add/subtract/modify their own various flavors accordingly?

Also makes one wonder why God would not strive to preserve the original text, if for any other reason, to at least avoid such later confusion. Really makes one think and ponder of the apparent reality of it all....

Although I'm kind of tired of going over this same ground again and again, you do realize that both Jews and Christians have given answers to these kinds of questions already.

For me, it seems like a wise step for God to leave the Bible in tatters ... otherwise, we'd probably have the tendency to worship the book rather than the Book-Giver.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, in your present frame of mind, I don't think anyone could be your teacher ...

Personal attack. Please at least mix it in with an argument.

...the part about the coming of THE PROPHET "is" a prophecy!

If this is not the set of rules by which prophets operated, then what are said rules?

The problem with O.T. "rules" is that the Jews can't seem to agree where interpretation ends and finality begins, at least not in all cases. And of course, there might be a reason for this ... like maybe, God purposely did not give the Bible to as a comprehensive and complete manifesto about the nature of the world or about the nature of how He's going to deal with humanity in all of its variety.

The reason is so the Pharisees can justify their pointless existence. The Pharisees can't let the commoners in on that secret or else they'll be right there in the mud with them shoveling farm feces. They find it better to not have to actually work for a living.

That's because it is....awkward. We both know that the text has passed through various hands, and if there was an earlier proto-text, or texts, then we're bound to find some passages that seem to be haphazard in their presentation. Deuteronomy 18 (following similar material in Deuteronomy 13) seems to be one such passage.

Problems with the text are not my problem. If you think you know what Jehovah actually said, share it with the rest of us.

Frankly, I haven't yet some across either a Jewish Rabbi, a Christian Theologian, or a non-Christian detractor of biblical prophecy (like Porphyry) who asserts what you're asserting about the nature of Deuteronomy 18. I wonder why?

Because Jews and Christians have been thoroughly let down by prophecy time and time again and so they have to put a different spin on it. As for skeptics, I don't see many of them diving deep into books like Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

Whatever the case may be, and even though I know you're a smart guy, I'm not convinced by your personal eisegesis of Deuteronomy 18. If anything, it smacks of the same kind of eisegesis which Satan is alluded to having used on Jesus in that little tête-à-tête in the desert wilderness. So, in this case, I'm going to refrain from saying that your inference about Deut. 18 somehow unhinges, or should unhinge, our interest in the book of Daniel, or even in Daniel himself.

Now, back to Porphyry ...

Way to respond thoroughly... oh wait, nevermind. I pointed to where it says false prophets shall be put to death, and if Daniel predicted something that wouldn't come true for hundreds of years then everyone would think he was a false prophet and he would've been executed. What would NOT happen is the preservation of his predictions in written form. Certainly not back then, due to the exorbitant cost of doing so, as I have already pointed out.

And AGAIN, if your prophecy doesn't have to come true in your own lifetime, ANYONE CAN PROPHESY ANYTHING.

But I doubt you'll acknowledge the obvious problem with your POV.

You want me to respond to your hand-picked skeptic from millenia ago. But your entire premise is off base. It's like you're saying, "Because 30 is prime, it follows that..." And I'm pointing out that 30 isn't prime, so I don't care about the rest of what you're saying. Faulty premise from the start.

 

[cvanwey]

Although I'm kind of tired of going over this same ground again and again, you do realize that both Jews and Christians have given answers to these kinds of questions already.

As I'm sure you are also aware, any and every subject and topic of Christianity has been overly exhausted. You can 'google' any question and see a multitude of answers.

But the truth of the matter remains unresolved. And who is to blame? I mean, is it God's fault that millions of Orthodox Jews, whom avidly study scripture, genuinely conclude that the evidence for a claimed resurrection is false or lacking; deeming or resulting in the Orthodox Jew residing in hell for eternity, for only earnestly deriving an improper conclusion, based upon their own flawed God given senses?

And yes, this is a loaded question As you can tell, I've already formulated my assumption on the matter, until such time as someone presents a scenario to the contrary.

For me, it's seems like a wise step for God to leave the Bible in tatters ... otherwise, we'd probably have the tendency to worship the book rather than the Book-Giver.

Disagree. What is in 'tatters', is knowing what to actually believe. If there instead existed a finite set of clear rules and dictates, yes, some may still commit idolatry, by worshiping the book. But at least there would exist clear rules as to the correct doctrine to follow. And to boot, many do so anyways. Meaning, worship the book.

And many whom worship the book, may still go to heaven. And yet, on the flip side, an Orthodox Jew has no chance, as they too might worship the book, but stand no chance of heaven, according to Christianity.

Furthermore, many claim to not have received direct contact from the 'giver' and can only rely upon the book.

 

[devolved]

Disagree. What is in 'tatters', is knowing what to actually believe. If there instead existed a finite set of clear rules and dictates, yes, some may still commit idolatry, by worshiping the book. But at least there would exist clear rules as to the correct doctrine to follow. And to boot, many do so anyways. Meaning, worship the book.

Well, then we wouldn't ever progressed anywhere, because our future would be set and spelled out, and constrained by the rules. Hence, the point is that Biblical narrative is more of a retrospective survey and judgement, than it is predictive of some future.

And many whom worship the book, may still go to heaven. And yet, on the flip side, an Orthodox Jew has no chance, as they too might worship the book, but stand no chance of heaven, according to Christianity.

What do yo mean by "Heaven", and why do you think "going to Heaven" is the Christian objective, as opposed to Character of God embodied in Jesus?

 

[cvanwey]

Well, then we wouldn't ever progressed anywhere, because our future would be set and spelled out, and constrained by the rules. Hence, the point is that Biblical narrative is more of a retrospective survey and judgement, than it is predictive of some future.

So are you saying our later 'retrospective' or ex post facto justifications for no longer adhering to prior convoluted and apparent 'misinterpreted' dictates, such as 1 Timothy 2:9-12, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 25:44-46, and many others, were later meant for human revision, as we are working towards a more progressive and equal society, (or some future 'end goal'); turning away from ancient perceived prior translated ideals, which are no longer applicable to actual reality, or better yet, were not followed correctly prior? But somehow, such translations were necessary at the time?

Furthermore, I was not aware that actual truth changes over time, or needs modification?

So you honestly think that God provided convoluted messages and ideas, left for a multitude of interpretation, for the fear or reasoning that humans would not later progress, and instead become complacent and/or stagnant, if such messages were instead clear and concise???

What do yo mean by "Heaven", and why do you think "going to Heaven" is the Christian objective, as opposed to Character of God embodied in Jesus?

The 'Christian objective' is to accept, repent to, and love Jesus. And for this, the offered reward is heaven; and not hell.

What I mean by 'Heaven' is with God in a utopian afterlife. And by 'hell', I mean absent from God and to be surrounded by all other unbelievers and 'blasphemers', in a place of eternal torment and torture.

If one does not accept the claim of 'Character of God embodied in Jesus', according to Christianity, they will eternally rot.

Now to my actual point of the prior post....

Does it appear warranted or justifiable to condemn someone whom earnestly made the incorrect conclusion, based upon honest assessments and inquiries; using their 'God-given' brain? In this case, the practicing Orthodox Jew.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

As I'm sure you are also aware, any and every subject and topic of Christianity has been overly exhausted. You can 'google' any question and see a multitude of answers.

But the truth of the matter remains unresolved. And who is to blame? I mean, is it God's fault that millions of Orthodox Jews, whom avidly study scripture, genuinely conclude that the evidence for a claimed resurrection is false or lacking; deeming or resulting in the Orthodox Jew residing in hell for eternity, for only earnestly deriving an improper conclusion, based upon their own flawed God given senses?

And yes, this is a loaded question As you can tell, I've already formulated my assumption on the matter, until such time as someone presents a scenario to the contrary.

Yes, you've formulated your own set of assumptions on the matter, just as I have my own, and because my own Religious Epistemology is somewhat laced with the existentialism, I don't actually blame you for arriving at the kind of quasi-Kantian conclusions that you do. However, I do get a little galled by you when you keep insisting that your own form of epistemology and historical philosophy just HAS to be the only contender for anyone to consider by which they even could--or should--be religious. My religious epistemology instead expects that people could become Christians by various modes of epistemic realization or insight, despite their education levels. I'm also not dogmatic on some motifs of Christian belief that other, more fundamentalistic christians will insist we all adhere to in their specific denominational structure of thought.

So, what does this mean for my belief that the book of Daniel counts as evidence? It means that while I understand that there are both problems of a literary and historical nature with the book, there is still enough there, I think, to gain my religious attention for deeper consideration, existentially speaking ...

Disagree. What is in 'tatters', is knowing what to actually believe. If there instead existed a finite set of clear rules and dictates, yes, some may still commit idolatry, by worshiping the book. But at least there would exist clear rules as to the correct doctrine to follow. And to boot, many do so anyways. Meaning, worship the book.

Yes, some do. And those persons deserve to be challenged in that regard--------which is perhaps one reason God permits the ongoing presence of Atheists, Skeptics, Relativists, and Nihilists. Because nothing can bring the idolatry to the attention of an an idolatrous religious person more than the statement, "Y'know what? That Bible you prize so highly just ain't true!"

And many whom worship the book, may still go to heaven.

...well, I don't know about that. I don't think we can't say either way.

And yet, on the flip side, an Orthodox Jew has no chance, as they too might worship the book, but stand no chance of heaven, according to Christianity.

Well, only God can know all of the mediating factors that affect that psychology of any particular Orthodox Jew. I leave the final judgement up to God...........

Furthermore, many claim to not have received direct contact from the 'giver' and can only rely upon the book.

I claim to NOT have received direct contact from the Giver, even if I will say that existentially, I do very much 'feel' pulled by my own aesthetic (and generally rational) response to not only rely upon the Bible, but to also reach out to the God and the Savior whom it purports to reveal to us.

In all of this, I can and will readily admit that my 'belief' doesn't come by some kind of tight, Foundationalistic lego-block building of justification, but rather through the ongoing accumulation of considerations that seems bring what appears to be a jumbled Jewish mess into a more focused, more Coherent collection of individually diverse religious ideas [still incomplete and non-comprehensive] by which I have begun to 'see' both God and the Devil present in the world.

Of course, I don't really expect other people to 'see' what I see, although it might not hurt for other people to read what I've read if they want to attempt to see thing the way that I see them through my eyes.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Personal attack. Please at least mix it in with an argument.

If I mix it in, it'll likely get lost amid the turmoil of thought. Besides, I think that a person's frame of mind, if it be an angry or resentful one, does play some role in shaping that person's religious evaluations, typically but not always for the worse.

If this is not the set of rules by which prophets operated, then what are said rules?

Excellent question! But as I've told others here, I don't think we find much in the way of a clear, specific set of rules for either Religious Epistemology or Hermeneutical Procedure expressed within the totality of the Bible. Rather we find disconnected indices and inferences scattered through the various texts by which we'll have to collect and ponder as we read. I do think God has intended to leave some of the finality of religious understanding 'existentially open' rather than simply prone to the conclusions that may come from mere human deliberation over a collection of books and letters.

The reason is so the Pharisees can justify their pointless existence. The Pharisees can't let the commoners in on that secret or else they'll be right there in the mud with them shoveling farm feces. They find it better to not have to actually work for a living.

So, it seems that you're generally in line with Jesus on this point. How interesting ...

Problems with the text are not my problem. If you think you know what Jehovah actually said, share it with the rest of us.

The key word here is "know," and while I may perceive that I do 'see' some level of applicable historical truth in, say, the book of Daniel, this doesn't mean it's just going to be a cake-walk to show you or anyone else how it could be true, or even at least relevant to our modern religious situation.

Because Jews and Christians have been thoroughly let down by prophecy time and time again and so they have to put a different spin on it. As for skeptics, I don't see many of them diving deep into books like Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

... well, again, if God DIDN'T give His revelation in completely comprehensive ways, but rather in ways that are cryptic, then it goes without saying that none of us will in all ways see the forest for the trees when it comes to looking at every cryptic revelation that has been seemingly delivered through various Jewish minds.

As for any failure on either Daniel's or Jesus' part, I'm prone to think we often don't understand what is being said rather than that it simply ......... failed.

Way to respond thoroughly... oh wait, nevermind. I pointed to where it says false prophets shall be put to death,

...and I pointed to the verses right before that which, in my mind, SHOULD be considered in tandem with the verses you've cited. We should also consider that no Jews that I'm aware of would say what you're saying about what you think is some 'obvious' implication.

...and if Daniel predicted something that wouldn't come true for hundreds of years then everyone would think he was a false prophet and he would've been executed.

This is only you thinking this. Do remember that, according to the book of Daniel, he did have some supernatural precedent in interaction with Nebuchadnezzar for being seen as a voice speaking with authority, and this is the literary content we find in the book of Daniel even if we also admit in hindsight that we presently feel as if we're left wondering how the whole book of Daniel was (or wasn't) put together in the first place.

What would NOT happen is the preservation of his predictions in written form. Certainly not back then, due to the exorbitant cost of doing so, as I have already pointed out.

I'm not even sure where you're getting this. Care to cite your sources? Besides, if Daniel was connected in some way to the royal court of King Nebuchadnezzar, I doubt that money and resources would have been a problem for Daniel.

And AGAIN, if your prophecy doesn't have to come true in your own lifetime, ANYONE CAN PROPHESY ANYTHING.

Really? Ok. Try prophesying something for us 400 years out about what the world will look like politically, NV. Or, better yet, how about prophesying with accuracy what will transpire politically in Israel and in Jerusalem within the furthest extent of the lifetime of those reading this post ... [which is something that Jesus did].

But I doubt you'll acknowledge the obvious problem with your POV.

Oh, I don't know. What is my point of view and what problem do you think exists with it?

You want me to respond to your hand-picked skeptic from millenia ago. But your entire premise is off base. It's like you're saying, "Because 30 is prime, it follows that..." And I'm pointing out that 30 isn't prime, so I don't care about the rest of what you're saying. Faulty premise from the start.

And I'm saying that your supposed [rug yanking] point of opposition to all that I'm bringing up in my OP is highly questionable, hermeneutically speaking.

Didn't Jesus say something to Satan about how we should live by the 'whole' Word of God and not just 'claim' little cherry-picked portions of it that we might feel are suitable for what we each might like to see happen in our lives? Satan seems to have thought it would be useful for Jesus to do some cherry-picking, irregardless of the full contexts of just about every other Jewish Hermeneutical context that exists historically, ethnically and literarily.