Pummeling Porphyry to Defend Daniel's "Evidence"?

[cvanwey]

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.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm in earnest search for truth. In the mean time, I will scrutinize, critique, question, and probe any such claims, which do not appear to jive with the entire umbrella of my total reality.

But getting back to my point(s). Be 'galled' if you will, but I feel my next assertions or conclusions are really not debatable

The human brain is flawed. There appears no absolute way to determine if one receives divine revelation, verses self manifestation. A person could do mushrooms, feel they received contact from Jesus, and then, from that time forward, be a believer in Christ and also preach the word. Belief in Christ is the beginning to the possibility for Heaven verses hell.

An Orthodox Jew, under the claimed Christian flag, has no chance. No amount of study, works, or deeds will earn the 'right of passage' to Heaven, according to Christianity. Belief in Christ is the beginning and catalyst, in which one is judged. In conclusion, I find the end result lacking in 'righteous validation'. Why?

I was a believer for decades. I decided to finally read the Bible. I studied the claimed resurrection, and found the claims and evidence lacking. So much so, that I am now a severe skeptic. I had already found many of the other claims and assertions suspect, practically the entire OT quite frankly. The 'resurrection', however, is what kept me around - (for various unfounded reasons, quite frankly).

At some point, I realized that my own cognitive dissonance was not founded or rational to keep. I must be consistent, as I would and do discount or discredit any opposing claims in religious dogma, which appear unfounded or unsubstantiated.

As stated elsewhere, if God does exist, my opinions don't matter. If I do not feel God's ways are justified, it becomes irrelevant. God will do what God will do. However, I am stuck with the brain I have. If God would want to smite me, to a place of eternal torture, for honestly concluding that the evidence does not jive to me, and realize that to continue believing as such would require severe special pleading, being intellectually honest with myself, I cannot do as such. So if what Christianity claims happens to somehow still be true, then so-be-it! However, I cannot make myself believe something if the evidence does not correlate with my interpreted reality. So maybe I should just do mushrooms

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 ...

okay But I trust you already know why I disagree. Hint: You can always draw parallels and meaning, if you already believe.

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 as I've stated prior, if the creation account, flood claim, Exodus claim, etc., do not appear to be validated by human discovery, it appears well substantiated for one to say so, doesn't it?

Truth is truth. To create special circumstances, or to hand-wave away alternate discovery, which refutes the claim, is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty. If this is what God requires of such individuals, to retain belief in Him, when He is not going to instead actually clarify all such concluded alternate discovery; and leave such conclusions standing as 'fact' (disputing the Biblical claim), then God appears to be asking for a level of 'faith' by many, which is dishonest.

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...........

Let's get real @2PhiloVoid ....

'16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.'

'15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.'

And the second you provide opposing scripture to 'offset' these assertions, you will have then also further demonstrated my point. Which is, 'God appears to be the author of confusion.'

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.

I'm right there with you buddy. However, it took me decades to realize why (I) feel 'pulled' .... indoctrination, along with the continuance of surrounding by assertive Christians whom I revere as intelligent, along with daily affirmations from TV, media, colleagues, etc.. 'They can't all be wrong, can they?" Repetition is key!

Have you attempted to research why (you) might feel pulled?

If you were born in India or Pakistan or some other non-predominant 'Christian' place, would you honestly feel as pulled?

Also, if you also admit you have never received direct revelation, and also admit that all you have is the book for validation, and the book may not appear to align with you either, then you must ask yourself, WHY are you feeling 'pulled'? I gave you some of my reasons

I mean, I can watch/read a scary movie/book, a sad movie/book, or an emotional movie/book, and feel empathetic to the point of goosebumps or tears. But does this mean it's real?

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.

Would you at least admit that the presupposition of Christianity was planted all along?

I read a study once, that concluded that when college students take a world religions class, they come out of it re-affirming their own beliefs, verses finding 'truth' in another.

Furthermore, I do not want to 'rubber stamp' you by any means, I know you are well read and educated. However, it appears you might be 'accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses'?

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.

What you are requesting appears impossible. You know, as well as I, that 100 people can read the very same book, and when they are requested to give a book report, you will most certainly receive many alternate conclusions and interpretations.

As for interpretation of the Bible..... There exists many claimed assertions that appear abundantly clear, like the two verses I provided above. So I ask, why do so many 're-interpret' them? Is it to reinvent their own religion? I have no choice but to take the verses for face value. To do anything else is wishful thinking.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

How do you know my frame of mind? Were you an ex-Christian atheist at some point?

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.

Let me try to understand your position. So... Jehovah is taking a "hands-off" approach to the Bible, allowing humans to compile it mostly on their own. There is no real set of rules in place for who is or isn't a prophet, so the people of the time used their best judgment to determine who spoke for Jehovah.

And their best judgment included writing down predictions which did not come true, and then to continue copying and maintaining the document containing those predictions for centuries for no apparent reason, and THEN when the prophecy was supposedly fulfilled the very scribes who maintained the document for centuries went on to mostly refuse to believe that Jesus was the messiah?

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

So I take it you concede the point then.

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.

You could show the prophecy truly was fulfilled, and that it was unambiguous. Rules in place or not, a prophecy hundreds of years beforehand is eyebrow raising. The obvious issue is that Daniel's prophecy, like nearly all, are ambiguous. That's the reason they're able to be reinterpreted later on, fulfilling the criteria of a "living" scripture by Jewish standards.

A specific prophecy applying to a specific time and location would be unable to be reinterpreted later, and it would fall out of favor. Unless someone could prove unequivocally that it came true.

... 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.

And this is how we know Deuteronomy 18 is a rule, not a prophecy. Deuteronomy 18, while worded in a clunky way, is straight forward. It's NOT cryptic, like nearly all prophecies are. There's no new way to interpret Deuteronomy 18.

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.

Right... we can't read the plain text. It's as though your thought process is, "I'm not allowed to take any interpretation as my own unless it's been published three times by namedrop-worthy scholars."

...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.

LOL, see above.

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.

You keep refusing to address my argument on the grounds that "I'm the only one saying this." That's not a valid response.

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.

Daniel was a eunuch slave.

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].

MY POINT EXACTLY. Even now, with documentation resources being free and long-lasting, STILL no one would write down and preserve the words of any random person "prophesying" something.

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

LOL.

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.

Is it also highly questionable, epistemologically 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.

I'm not cherry picking. I accounted for the whole context. You and I disagree on what is being said. Your "don't cherry pick" line here is just code for "can't we please just ignore this one part?" The answer is no.

 

[Oncedeceived]

[QUOTE="cvanwey, post: 73436496, member: 409
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 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.

[/QUOTE]

This is something that many Christians don't understand as well as the Jews. The Jews are God's chosen people, we as Christians are just grafted in. The whole of history is centered on the Jews and God's plan for the Jewish people and Israel. The Jews and prophecy are hand in hand from the past up to now and beyond. Israel is the focus of God's attention right now. Much of earlier prophecies will be taking place perhaps very soon. There is a growing awareness in some of the Jews even now that they recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Regardless, it will be the Jews that God will honor in the end. The Jews are first and Christians are the gentiles. At some time in what I believe will be the near future Israel/the Jews will realize that Jesus Is their Messiah.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you know my frame of mind? Were you an ex-Christian atheist at some point?

I've had my moments of doubt, frustration, and even crises of disbelief at times in the past. So, at the very least, YES-------I do know what being an "atheist" feels like, even if it hasn't been for an extended time of 20 years or so.

Let me try to understand your position. So... Jehovah is taking a "hands-off" approach to the Bible, allowing humans to compile it mostly on their own.

To some extent, it might be seen like this, which is in accord with Jewish and Christian believers who hold to a more moderate to liberal model of epistemology regarding the nature of Biblical revelation.

There is no real set of rules in place for who is or isn't a prophet, so the people of the time used their best judgment to determine who spoke for Jehovah.

There a essential rules; but these essential rules, like the one you culled out of Deuteronomy 18, are not given in a comprehensive nor abstract manner, but rather in a dialectical manner, thus requiring some inference AND some synthesis of the ideas that are expressed in various ways in the Scripture and within the ancient Jewish form of thought. (See Robby Gallaty on this for more).

Gallaty, Robby (2017). The Forgotten Jesus: How Western Christians Should Follow an Eastern Rabbi. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

And their best judgment included writing down predictions which did not come true, and then to continue copying and maintaining the document containing those predictions for centuries for no apparent reason, and THEN when the prophecy was supposedly fulfilled the very scribes who maintained the document for centuries went on to mostly refuse to believe that Jesus was the messiah?

That depends. Was Porphyry correct to say what he said, in full? Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic contends that Porphyry made some stuff up about the book of Daniel. Is he wrong about that?

So I take it you concede the point then.

No, I partially concede. I only said that you seem to be 'generally' in line with Jesus' evaluations of the Pharisees; but I didn't say that you are 'specifically' so.

You could show the prophecy truly was fulfilled, and that it was unambiguous. Rules in place or not, a prophecy hundreds of years beforehand is eyebrow raising.

"Rules in place or not...?" Well, saying this pretty nearly blows away the need for me to be concerned about discussing with you the nature of any existing rules about prophecy that may be in the Bible, doesn't it?

The obvious issue is that Daniel's prophecy, like nearly all, are ambiguous. That's the reason they're able to be reinterpreted later on, fulfilling the criteria of a "living" scripture by Jewish standards.

...that will depend.

A specific prophecy applying to a specific time and location would be unable to be reinterpreted later, and it would fall out of favor. Unless someone could prove unequivocally that it came true.

Unless it's a matter of God enabling a person to bring to gather a disparate collection of details in such a way that ... all of sudden ... some kind of interpretive coherency is attained, even in not comprehensively.

And this is how we know Deuteronomy 18 is a rule, not a prophecy. Deuteronomy 18, while worded in a clunky way, is straight forward. It's NOT cryptic, like nearly all prophecies are. There's no new way to interpret Deuteronomy 18.

I think you mean to say that a particular verse IN Deut. 18 is a rule. The part that I am speaking about in Deut. 18, which is different than the part you're speaking about, IS A PROPHECY.

Right... we can't read the plain text. It's as though your thought process is, "I'm not allowed to take any interpretation as my own unless it's been published three times by namedrop-worthy scholars."

....I didn't say that.

LOL, see above.

...great. I'm glad you're having a laugh.

You keep refusing to address my argument on the grounds that "I'm the only one saying this." That's not a valid response.

Ok. And I don't qualify your response as being valid, or sound, either. So now what?

Daniel was a eunuch slave.

So what? Have you even read the book of Daniel in full?

MY POINT EXACTLY. Even now, with documentation resources being free and long-lasting, STILL no one would write down and preserve the words of any random person "prophesying" something.

Who says that during the 70 years of Captivity and Exile in Babylon that the Jews who were alive and in Babylon at that time thought Daniel was just a 'nobody'?

LOL.

I'm glad you find all of this to be humorous.

Is it also highly questionable, epistemologically speaking?

OF COURSE IT IS! That's what I've been saying in regard to Biblical Epistemology for ------------------- oh how long now?-------- like the last few years that I've been on CF writing about all of this 'philosophy' stuff.

I'm not cherry picking. I accounted for the whole context. You and I disagree on what is being said. Your "don't cherry pick" line here is just code for "can't we please just ignore this one part?" The answer is no.

You're right. You're not cherry picking. I'll take your correction on this. Rather, you're committing various acts of "eisegesis" to assuage your ongoing resentment toward Christians and Christianity. How's that? Would that be a more accurate assessment?

 

[cvanwey]

This is something that many Christians don't understand as well as the Jews. The Jews are God's chosen people, we as Christians are just grafted in. The whole of history is centered on the Jews and God's plan for the Jewish people and Israel. The Jews and prophecy are hand in hand from the past up to now and beyond. Israel is the focus of God's attention right now. Much of earlier prophecies will be taking place perhaps very soon. There is a growing awareness in some of the Jews even now that they recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Regardless, it will be the Jews that God will honor in the end. The Jews are first and Christians are the gentiles. At some time in what I believe will be the near future Israel/the Jews will realize that Jesus Is their Messiah.

But in the mean time, all Orthodox Jews are going to hell And if my knowledge of scripture is sound, you don't get a 'do-over' after natural death. So I'm not sure why anything you said is relevant.

On a side note, seems odd that a just God actively promotes favoritism, based upon something one has no control over?

However, you have failed to touch on the question, in which you specifically decided to quote. So I will rephrase it in a way more palatable in red.

Is it 'just' to send someone to a place of eternal torture, if they actively and earnestly research the claims of a resurrection, determine the evidence is lacking, and reject Christ as a Messiah, but still believe in the OT version of Yahweh and continue to practice Jewish tradition and customs?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I'm in earnest search for truth. In the mean time, I will scrutinize, critique, question, and probe any such claims, which do not appear to jive with the entire umbrella of my total reality.

But getting back to my point(s). Be 'galled' if you will, but I feel my next assertions or conclusions are really not debatable

The human brain is flawed. There appears no absolute way to determine if one receives divine revelation, verses self manifestation. A person could do mushrooms, feel they received contact from Jesus, and then, from that time forward, be a believer in Christ and also preach the word. Belief in Christ is the beginning to the possibility for Heaven verses hell.

An Orthodox Jew, under the claimed Christian flag, has no chance. No amount of study, works, or deeds will earn the 'right of passage' to Heaven, according to Christianity. Belief in Christ is the beginning and catalyst, in which one is judged. In conclusion, I find the end result lacking in 'righteous validation'. Why?

Personally, I don't quite cut all of this "judgment stuff" so neatly and cleanly as some Christians do ... although I will agree with other a good number of other Christians that for an Orthodox Jew who has clearly understood the Christian viewpoint about how Jesus of Nazareth is the 'true' Messiah, that if that Jewish person knowingly rejects Jesus as Savior, then it might not turn out so well for that Jewish person on Judgment Day. But, being that it's not uncommon for Jewish people to have a completely naive, erroneous, distorted, or just plain truncated understanding of 'who' Jesus even was, then God's mercy and grace might just do something for them that we can't expect would be done in the final analysis.

I was a believer for decades. I decided to finally read the Bible.

...ok. And I became a Christian BY reading the Bible. So, there's that, even though I'll admit that my faith has gone through more than a couple of stages since I became a Christian back in '86.

I studied the claimed resurrection, and found the claims and evidence lacking. So much so, that I am now a severe skeptic. I had already found many of the other claims and assertions suspect, practically the entire OT quite frankly. The 'resurrection', however, is what kept me around - (for various unfounded reasons, quite frankly).

Sure. I can understand that part of it.

At some point, I realized that my own cognitive dissonance was not founded or rational to keep. I must be consistent, as I would and do discount or discredit any opposing claims in religious dogma, which appear unfounded or unsubstantiated.

Sure. You can only do what your own mind and perception will enable you to do.

As stated elsewhere, if God does exist, my opinions don't matter. If I do not feel God's ways are justified, it becomes irrelevant. God will do what God will do. However, I am stuck with the brain I have. If God would want to smite me, to a place of eternal torture,

...I don't believe in a Hell that ends in Eternal Torture. Just an F.Y.I. in case you didn't already know this.

... for honestly concluding that the evidence does not jive to me, and realize that to continue believing as such would require severe special pleading, being intellectually honest with myself, I cannot do as such. So if what Christianity claims happens to somehow still be true, then so-be-it! However, I cannot make myself believe something if the evidence does not correlate with my interpreted reality. So maybe I should just do mushrooms

On a philosophical level, being that people's perceptions are diverse, I expect you'll suite yourself. But don't assume that other people's perceptions or epistemic conceptions are either identical, or even inferior, to your own. No, you have yours and they have theirs.

okay But I trust you already know why I disagree. Hint: You can always draw parallels and meaning, if you already believe.

And as I've stated prior, if the creation account, flood claim, Exodus claim, etc., do not appear to be validated by human discovery, it appears well substantiated for one to say so, doesn't it?

Truth is truth.

No, the truth about Truth isn't quite as clear as some people like to make it out to be.

To create special circumstances, or to hand-wave away alternate discovery, which refutes the claim, is nothing more than intellectual dishonesty.

Exactly. So don't do it!

If this is what God requires of such individuals, to retain belief in Him, when He is not going to instead actually clarify all such concluded alternate discovery; and leave such conclusions standing as 'fact' (disputing the Biblical claim), then God appears to be asking for a level of 'faith' by many, which is dishonest.

...that's one way to see it, but it might not actually be the truth of the situation as all people experience it individually.

Let's get real @2PhiloVoid ....

'16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.'

'15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.'

And the second you provide opposing scripture to 'offset' these assertions, you will have then also further demonstrated my point. Which is, 'God appears to be the author of confusion.'

....um, what is the actual context of the passage from which you're pulling this verse about 'confusion,' cvanway? [1 Cor. 14:1-34] Somehow, I don't think it has to do simply with who is being the 'most real.'

I'm right there with you buddy. However, it took me decades to realize why (I) feel 'pulled' .... indoctrination, along with the continuance of surrounding by assertive Christians whom I revere as intelligent, along with daily affirmations from TV, media, colleagues, etc.. 'They can't all be wrong, can they?" Repetition is key!

For some, repetition is the key. But for us philosophers, purposeful critiques of various Ideas and Media, whether they be of an atheistic or a Christian nature, followed by nuanced deconstructions about the interpretations that others are repetitively parroting among themselves, is "key."

Have you attempted to research why (you) might feel pulled?

What do you think? Do you want me to list out all of the various fields in which I've done some studying? I mean, I may not be Einstein by any means, but I don't think it would be a real mark of humility for me to say that I haven't studied anything in the area of the Sociology or Psychology of Religious Belief...when I actually have.

If you were born in India or Pakistan or some other non-predominant 'Christian' place, would you honestly feel as pulled?

That depends.

Also, if you also admit you have never received direct revelation, and also admit that all you have is the book for validation, and the book may not appear to align with you either, then you must ask yourself, WHY are you feeling 'pulled'? I gave you some of my reasons

And I've already explained a number of fields that have contributed to my own understanding, haven't I?

I mean, I can watch/read a scary movie/book, a sad movie/book, or an emotional movie/book, and feel empathetic to the point of goosebumps or tears. But does this mean it's real?

It also doesn't mean that reading a history book means that any of what is discussed by the historian ever happened in just the way he or she has reported it to have happened, either.

Would you at least admit that the presupposition of Christianity was planted all along?

That depends on what you mean by it being "planted." As an analogy, something being "planted" doesn't mean it will grow and thrive since there are a host of other mediating factors in the environment that can intrude upon such growth in the natural world, likewise in the mental world of any child.

I read a study once, that concluded that when college students take a world religions class, they come out of it re-affirming their own beliefs, verses finding 'truth' in another.

That could be, but one study does not in itself make an iron-clad truth. I'd have to see the study and then apply to the study what I learned from the course on Research Methodologies I had when I undertook my Master's Degree.

Furthermore, I do not want to 'rubber stamp' you by any means, I know you are well read and educated. However, it appears you might be 'accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses'?

I could be ignoring the misses, but how many atheist books, articles and/or websites would I have to read in order to convince you that I haven't ignored the "misses"?

What you are requesting appears impossible. You know, as well as I, that 100 people can read the very same book, and when they are requested to give a book report, you will most certainly receive many alternate conclusions and interpretations.

In what kind of class did you experience this kind of outcome? A World Religions Class?

As for interpretation of the Bible..... There exists many claimed assertions that appear abundantly clear, like the two verses I provided above.

So.....this kind of contradicts the implications of what you just said in the previous paragraph, don't you think?

So I ask, why do so many 're-interpret' them? Is it to reinvent their own religion? I have no choice but to take the verses for face value. To do anything else is wishful thinking.

I think you know as well as I do that each individual person can interpret biblical verses differently (some times) for various different reasons; people aren't clones, nor do they all live in the same social environment.

I find it rather odd that Skeptics insist that different people living in different countries can "only be expected" to have differing beliefs, but when it comes to the Bible, people should be expected to somehow magically transcend all of these psychological and social variations and interpret the Bible the same way, everywhere and at all times, with some kind of iron-clad precision and uniformity.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I've had my moments of doubt, frustration, and even crises of disbelief at times in the past. So, at the very least, YES-------I do know what being an "atheist" feels like, even if it hasn't been for an extended time of 20 years or so.

To some extent, it might be seen like this, which is in accord with Jewish and Christian believers who hold to a more moderate to liberal model of epistemology regarding the nature of Biblical revelation.

There a essential rules; but these essential rules, like the one you culled out of Deuteronomy 18, are not given in a comprehensive nor abstract manner, but rather in a dialectical manner, thus requiring some inference AND some synthesis of the ideas that are expressed in various ways in the Scripture and within the ancient Jewish form of thought. (See Robby Gallaty on this for more).

Gallaty, Robby (2017). The Forgotten Jesus: How Western Christians Should Follow an Eastern Rabbi. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

That depends. Was Porphyry correct to say what he said, in full? Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic contends that Porphyry made some stuff up about the book of Daniel. Is he wrong about that?

No, I partially concede. I only said that your seem to be 'generally' in line with Jesus' evaluations of the Pharisees; but I didn't say that you are 'specifically' so.

"Rules in place or not...?" Well, saying this pretty nearly blows away the need for me to be concerned about discussing with you the nature of any existing rules about prophecy that may be in the Bible, doesn't it?

...that will depend.

Unless it's a matter of God enabling a person to bring to gather a disparate collection of details in such a way that ... all of sudden ... some kind of interpretive coherency is attained, even in not comprehensively.

I think you mean to say that a particular verse IN Deut. 18 is a rule. The part that I am speaking about in Deut. 18, which is different than the part you're speaking about, IS A PROPHECY.

....I didn't say that.

...great. I'm glad you're having a laugh.

Ok. And I don't qualify your response as being valid, or sound, either. So now what?

So what? Have you even read the book of Daniel in full?

Who says that during the 70 years of Captivity and Exile in Babylon that the Jews who were alive and in Babylon at that time thought Daniel was just a 'nobody'?

I'm glad you find all of this to be humorous.

OF COURSE IT IS! That's what I've been saying in regard to Biblical Epistemology for ------------------- oh how long now?-------- like the last few years that I've been on CF writing about all of this 'philosophy' stuff.

You're right. You're not cherry picking. I'll take your correction on this. Rather, you're committing various acts of "eisegesis" to assuage your ongoing resentment toward Christians and Christianity. How's that? Would that be a more accurate assessment?

I think the discussion is ballooning out of control a bit. There's one question you asked that I don't want to dodge, so I'll include it as a post script, but to focus the conversation can you please just answer me one question:

How did the Jews of the OT days know whether or not a prophet who claimed to be speaking on behalf of Jehovah actually was doing so and was not a false prophet?





Now, as for this:

"Rules in place or not...?" Well, saying this pretty nearly blows away the need for me to be concerned about discussing with you the nature of any existing rules about prophecy that may be in the Bible, doesn't it?

Let me just remark that we're having this discussion because of the problem of divine hiddenness. Yes, of course, if Jehovah revealed himself then all these discussions would be moot. And of course he doesn't even have to reveal himself directly. Give some kind of advanced knowledge, like atomic theory or germ theory. Or a mathematical proof. Something. Oh, right, we get "prophecies." But not a single one is specific and closed to interpretation, aside from the ones that come true in the very next chapter.

It wouldn't matter that the Bible is inaccurate, self-contradictory, socially and ethically dated, and so on
IF the issue of Jehovah's existence were settled definitively and in your favor. Wouldn't matter because the issue would be solved. But until that happens, all we can go on is the Bible because, like it or not, it's the document that represents Christianity.

 

[cvanwey]

...I don't believe in a Hell that ends in Eternal Torture. Just an F.Y.I. in case you didn't already know this.

Okay? Matthew 13:50; Revelation 9:2; Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:10

I could be ignoring the misses, but how many atheist books, articles and/or websites would I have to read in order to convince you that I haven't ignored the "misses"?

No, my response was in sighting Daniel as proof, in this case I should have clarified a little better

In what kind of class did you experience this kind of outcome? A World Religions Class?

Any class or book club review. We might agree on some of the physical undeniable facts and claims, but the meanings may widely vary. (i.e.) They were in a car crash, there was two men, etc...

So.....this kind of contradicts the implications of what you just said in the previous paragraph, don't you think?

Pardon my clumsiness here... Please refer to above. Also, please reference the flood, as I've used repeatedly Though it appears axiomatic, that the Bible makes a very black and white assertion of a flood taking place, many still spin it. So when I stated 're-interpret' them, maybe you can answer why. I have a pretty good idea why, (because the evidence does not fit the claim)

I find it rather odd that Skeptics insist that different people living in different countries can "only be expected" to have differing beliefs, but when it comes to the Bible, people should be expected to somehow magically transcend all of these psychological and social variations and interpret the Bible the same way, everywhere and at all times, with some kind of iron-clad precision and uniformity.

Check this out:

world religion map 2018 - Google Search:

Truth is universal. So why the distinct divisions, based upon regions? Now perform a global consensus on another claim of truth, outside of religion. You would not see a distinct dividing line, based upon region.

 

[devolved]

So, for those of you who want to also take up the gauntlet, join me as we explore and contend with Porphyry's skeptical arguments about the extent to which the book of Daniel can be seen as any kind of evidence (or set of multiple evidences) for the Christian (or Judaic) faiths...........................

I certainly think that it's not the kind of evidence that a typical brand of atheists would look for, especially since Daniel is more in line with someone's recount of a vivid psychodelic trip that's then linked to some reality that's projected on some rather vague and undetermined future.

In the very least one could argue the Derren Brown "system" approach to these writings... even if these came true:

I also can call it "Alex Jones Prophesy" effect. Alex Jones over the course of his conspiratorial career predicted a vast number of events happening, as he does it nearly daily. Once he gets a few "hits" he then turns around and uses these hits as a valid confirmation for everything he said. Of course, if you forget, or don't have access to all of the other predictions he throws around in the same shows... you would consider him to be a wise sage worthy of attention.

So, I would be extremely careful for using books like Daniel as evidence for Judeo-Christian God, because we have no way of knowing how many predictions there were, and whether what you see is the "seemingly unlikely" 10 heads in a row prediction that Derren Brown is demonstrated in the above video.

In context of certain vague predictions it's even trickier, because as humans we can look for matching patterns. Think of Simpsons and Donald Trump on the elevator, etc.

In any religion the appeal is similar, and it's actually the very same appeal in the modernized version of that generic appeal to "prophesy" in science. There are a set of predictions, and if these turn up, then hypothesis is likely true. I'm not really sure that we thoroughly thought this one through.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But in the mean time, all Orthodox Jews are going to hell And if my knowledge of scripture is sound, you don't get a 'do-over' after natural death. So I'm not sure why anything you said is relevant.

On a side note, seems odd that a just God actively promotes favoritism, based upon something one has no control over?

However, you have failed to touch on the question, in which you specifically decided to quote. So I will rephrase it in a way more palatable in red.

Is it 'just' to send someone to a place of eternal torture, if they actively and earnestly research the claims of a resurrection, determine the evidence is lacking, and reject Christ as a Messiah, but still believe in the OT version of Yahweh and continue to practice Jewish tradition and customs?

The Jews were saved by grace just as are the Christians. For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account" (Rom. 4:3-8).

 

[cvanwey]

The Jews were saved by grace just as are the Christians. For what does the Scripture say? "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Now to the one who works, his wage is not reckoned as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven, and whose sins have been covered. "Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account" (Rom. 4:3-8).

Yes, but this is assuming that the 'Lord' comes as package deal - (Yahweh/Jesus), as in John 3:16-18. And the Jews don't....

May I also reiterate.... Seems odd that an all loving claimed God placed favoritism, based upon something humans have no control over?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Okay? Matthew 13:50; Revelation 9:2; Revelation 19:20; Revelation 20:10

If we take into account the fact that much of the prophetic language we find in the New Testament reflects allusions and/or reapplications of Jewish Idioms of Judgment taken from the Old Testament, then we can allow this fact to inform our interpretation of what we 'think' we read in Matthew 13:50 and in the passages you've cited from the book of Revelation.

No, my response was in sighting Daniel as proof, in this case I should have clarified a little better

Ok. You'll have to be more specific then, because I'm not following where you think I only accepting the 'hits' (whatever those would be) and ignoring the 'misses' (again, whatever it is that you think those would be.

Any class or book club review. We might agree on some of the physical undeniable facts and claims, but the meanings may widely vary. (i.e.) They were in a car crash, there was two men, etc...

Sure. We could expect this kind of diverse perception and interpretation in any class that handles the reading of a book. The Bible is no exception, nor should it be. The fact that the Bible is somehow and on some level "inspired" (whatever that is precisely?) doesn't preclude the other fact that not everyone---and in this case, perhaps not even the writers---perceive and understand in full what the inhering "inspiration" will amount to in all instances. We can all then (together) moan, groan and gripe all day to God about how or why He hasn't seen fit to enable us all to be on the same interpretive frequency when reading the Bible, but at the end of the day, it is what it is. And some people will decide to struggle forward anyway with it, and other will just decide to 'heck with it' and throw the Bible in the trash. In fact, this is basically what we find the Biblical writers themselves telling us will happen. And for some reason today........................we're surprised by this! (Well God, ....I would like the Bible to be 'true,' but just not in 'that way.')

Pardon my clumsiness here... Please refer to above. Also, please reference the flood, as I've used repeatedly

Why just harp on the Flood? Why not just harp on the fact that Evolution is true and we find little to nothing in Genesis that seems to reflect that fact of our world?

Though it appears axiomatic, that the Bible makes a very black and white assertion of a flood taking place, many still spin it.

As a person familiar with some tidbits of Ancient Historiography and with our present understand about the philosophical and literary structures of written History, I have to ask, "So what?" Why would we expect Moses (or whoever wrote the Pentateuch) to know fully and truly whether and how any Ultra-Flood actually happened or not?

No, I'm content to think (from my own studies) that the Flood motif in Genesis is simply an adaptation and recontexualization of an already existing meta-physically inclined literary trope taken from among the Mesopotamian cultures of the time in which Genesis was written. It's inspiration isn't in informing us that some Meteorological World Catastrophe actually happened, but rather in representing and reframing the Flood motif through Hebrew Theology pertaining to the presence of One True God rather than to a pantheon of lesser god(s). In my saying this, I'm following the kind of scholarship that is found among the likes of Conrad Hyers, Peter Enns, Kenton L. Sparks, and maybe Christian Smith in this interpretive analysis of "the Flood." Of course, they're not the only ones who have provided me various frames of consideration.

The fact is, anything that could possibly come that far back in history by way of supposed '2nd hand' testimony or oral tradition probably isn't going to comport with our notions of more substantive historical truth. No, we'll just have to consider it from the paradigm in which it was written at the time.

So when I stated 're-interpret' them, maybe you can answer why. I have a pretty good idea why, (because the evidence does not fit the claim)

And why do you think it is? Have you read the scholars that I've read?

Check this out:

world religion map 2018 - Google Search:

Truth is universal. So why the distinct divisions, based upon regions? Now perform a global consensus on another claim of truth, outside of religion. You would not see a distinct dividing line, based upon region.

No, truth is not universal, my friend. There are some 'truth statements' that have been articulated by way of our Modern Scientific Age that now seem to be undeniable, like "the Earth is a sphere," but again, by keeping the predominant methodology of science in mind, i.e. Methodological Naturalism, we can affirm that Religion and Science make up two distinct, and only partially overlapping, spheres of human learning or contemplation. So sure; we should expect the typical citizen of India to look up in the sky and say, "The Earth revolves around the sun," while still asserting perhaps on a religious level that the Universe is "just turtles, all the way down!" And then likewise, take a survey in the U.S. and find that most people also think, "The Earth revolves around the sun," but then express a myriad ways in which they think that perhaps "God did it!"

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I certainly think that it's not the kind of evidence that a typical brand of atheists would look for, especially since Daniel is more in line with someone's recount of a vivid psychodelic trip that's then linked to some reality that's projected on some rather vague and undetermined future.

Sure. I actually agree with this, which is why I said to gaara what I said many posts above. (post #12)

In the very least one could argue the Derren Brown "system" approach to these writings... even if these came true:

I also can call it "Alex Jones Prophesy" effect. Alex Jones over the course of his conspiratorial career predicted a vast number of events happening, as he does it nearly daily. Once he gets a few "hits" he then turns around and uses these hits as a valid confirmation for everything he said. Of course, if you forget, or don't have access to all of the other predictions he throws around in the same shows... you would consider him to be a wise sage worthy of attention.

While I appreciate the suggestion you've made by way of the Alex Jones video, I still think that at least some of what he says is nullified by what Rabbi Benjamin Scolnic states in his second video, as well as by the evaluations made by Thomas Kelly regarding the ontology and conceptualization of evidence, for ANY field of study. (See Thomas Kelly's article:

Thomas, K. (2008). Evidence: Fundamental concepts and the phenomenal conception. Philosophy Compass, 3, 933-55.

So, I would be extremely careful for using books like Daniel as evidence for Judeo-Christian God, because we have no way of knowing how many predictions there were, and whether what you see is the "seemingly unlikely" 10 heads in a row prediction that Derren Brown is demonstrated in the above video.

Yes, but again, see Kelly on this 10 heads in a row 'type' problem ...

In context of certain vague predictions it's even trickier, because as humans we can look for matching patterns. Think of Simpsons and Donald Trump on the elevator, etc.

What?

In any religion the appeal is similar, and it's actually the very same appeal in the modernized version of that generic appeal to "prophesy" in science. There are a set of predictions, and if these turn up, then hypothesis is likely true. I'm not really sure that we thoroughly thought this one through.

No, I think there's more to it than just this, devolved. We need to be more expansive when handling Daniel. We need to take in as many Cons and Pros as possible in our personal journey of evaluation for this book (or for biblical eschatology and apocalyptic literature on the whole).

 

[cvanwey]

If we take into account the fact that much of the prophetic language we find in the New Testament reflects allusions and/or reapplications of Jewish Idioms of Judgment taken from the Old Testament, then we can allow this fact to inform our interpretation of what we 'think' we read in Matthew 13:50 and in the passages you've cited from the book of Revelation.

You stated you do no believe in a place of torture. I provided a verses, from the Bible, which indicated the gnashing of teeth in a lake of fire. Quite frankly, it appears pretty apparent, as to the verse from the Bible. It would also appear that to interpret the verse in any other way may be wishful thinking, if one is going to accept the Bible as credible.

Ok. You'll have to be more specific then, because I'm not following where you think I only accepting the 'hits' (whatever those would be) and ignoring the 'misses' (again, whatever it is that you think those would be.

If we are speaking about prophecies, in order to take them seriously, they need to be very specific; and not left to multiple interpretations. I've seen no verses of Bible prophecy, or any prophecies claims quite frankly, which were concrete and not somewhat or completely ambiguous. To cite Daniel, while already being a believer, is really no different than a believer in an alternate God belief reading passages, and finding ways to make them fit, after the fact. It's kind of like throwing a dart, letting it hit the wall, then painting a bull's eye around it.

Sure. We could expect this kind of diverse perception and interpretation in any class that handles the reading of a book. The Bible is no exception, nor should it be. The fact that the Bible is somehow and on some level "inspired" (whatever that is precisely?) doesn't preclude the other fact that not everyone---and in this case, perhaps not even the writers---perceive and understand in full what the inhering "inspiration" will amount to in all instances. We can all then (together) moan, groan and gripe all day to God about how or why He hasn't seen fit to enable us all to be on the same interpretive frequency when reading the Bible, but at the end of the day, it is what it is. And some people will decide to struggle forward anyway with it, and other will just decide to 'heck with it' and throw the Bible in the trash. In fact, this is basically what we find the Biblical writers themselves telling us will happen. And for some reason today........................we're surprised by this! (Well God, ....I would like the Bible to be 'true,' but just not in 'that way.')

This did not address my point. The book makes many very specific claims. Like floods, creation accounts, Towers of Babels, plagues, etc... They either did or didn't happen. If we find some of them did not, then we have issues - (from a claimed book of truth).

Why just harp on the Flood? Why not just harp on the fact that Evolution is true and we find little to nothing in Genesis that seems to reflect that fact of our world?

Evangelicals are consistent. They at least will stick to every claim like grim death, no matter what. Where you, on the other hand, continue to vex me greatly. You claim you've never received direct messages from God, and from what I can gather, claim 1. intuition and 2. feeling pulled when reading the Bible, as your reasoning for being Christian. So if the Bible remains some sort of guide or benchmark, and you too admit some stuff is false, is this benchmark actually sound?

As a person familiar with some tidbits of Ancient Historiography and with our present understand about the philosophical and literary structures of written History, I have to ask, "So what?" Why would we expect Moses (or whoever wrote the Pentateuch) to know fully and truly whether and how any Ultra-Flood actually happened or not?

No, I'm content to think (from my own studies) that the Flood motif in Genesis is simply an adaptation and recontexualization of an already existing meta-physically inclined literary trope taken from among the Mesopotamian cultures of the time in which Genesis was written. It's inspiration isn't in informing us that some Meteorological World Catastrophe actually happened, but rather in representing and reframing the Flood motif through Hebrew Theology pertaining to the presence of One True God rather than to a pantheon of lesser god(s). In my saying this, I'm following the kind of scholarship that is found among the likes of Conrad Hyers, Peter Enns, Kenton L. Sparks, and maybe Christian Smith in this interpretive analysis of "the Flood." Of course, they're not the only ones who have provided me various frames of consideration.

The fact is, anything that could possibly come that far back in history by way of supposed '2nd hand' testimony or oral tradition probably isn't going to comport with our notions of more substantive historical truth. No, we'll just have to consider it from the paradigm in which it was written at the time.

Did it actually happen or not? The evidence points to no. The Bible states it did. Not that hard.

And why do you think it is? Have you read the scholars that I've read?

I already stated in my last response.... People are forced to 'spin' it because they realize the claim is not justified.

On a side note, what if I read 27 scholarly works on Hinduism? Does that make Hinduism more true?

No, truth is not universal, my friend.

So I guess the claim of a resurrection may not be true?

Also, my prior point was to demonstrate that apparent truths would not be so clearly divided by region. You would see a random scattering.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, but this is assuming that the 'Lord' comes as package deal - (Yahweh/Jesus), as in John 3:16-18. And the Jews don't....

No, the significance of Faith in the Old Testament Jews brings their salvation just as when Christ came it is through Faith of Christ Jesus that saves us today.

May I also reiterate.... Seems odd that an all loving claimed God placed favoritism, based upon something humans have no control over?

So? Humans have no control over anything in regards to many things. God made a covenant with the Jewish people, and He doesn't break it.

 

[cvanwey]

No, the significance of Faith in the Old Testament Jews brings their salvation just as when Christ came it is through Faith of Christ Jesus that saves us today.

So today's Jew can continue not accepting Christ as the Messiah, and continue practicing the OT/Torah alone, and are still saved?

So? Humans have no control over anything in regards to many things. God made a covenant with the Jewish people, and He doesn't break it.

I too agree that if God does exist, my opinion does not matter.

However, it does seem rather perplexing and inconsistent to place a certain population of people 'above' others, based purely upon physical traits; completely out of human control. Such acts appear synonymous with racism and prejudice. Meaning, it more-so aligns with the likes of humans writing stories, and appealing to their own race in favor. Also coincidental, in that such stories originated from the Jews to begin with...

I mean, just think if someone received special treatment, simply because of being born into a specific race? Does this appear fair, equal, just, and/or sound?

Otherwise, for God to apparently grant special favor to humans, which possess specific physical fleshly characteristics, from the very same God whom also chastises humans for being of flesh and sinful, appears inconsistent again.

But hey, that's just me...

 

[Oncedeceived]

So today's Jew can continue not accepting Christ as the Messiah, and continue practicing the OT/Torah alone, and are still saved?

All we know is that the OT Jews were saved by their faith, I have reason then to believe that if they are religious Jews today they would also fall into salvation by faith. We know also from Scripture that those alive at the time when the gentiles are in full number and the last days are reaching fulfillment, that the whole nation of Israel will recognize Jesus as their Messiah.

I too agree that if God does exist, my opinion does not matter.

However, it does seem rather perplexing and inconsistent to place a certain population of people 'above' others, based purely upon physical traits; completely out of human control. Such acts appear synonymous with racism and prejudice. Meaning, it more-so aligns with the likes of humans writing stories, and appealing to their own race in favor. Also coincidental, in that such stories originated from the Jews to begin with...

I mean, just think if someone received special treatment, simply because of being born into a specific race? Does this appear fair, equal, just, and/or sound?

Otherwise, for God to apparently grant special favor to humans, which possess specific physical fleshly characteristics, from the very same God whom also chastises humans for being of flesh and sinful, appears inconsistent again.

But hey, that's just me...

Considering that the people of Abraham's day were following pagan beliefs including child sacrifice. Abraham followed God and turned away from the pagan practices of the day, forming the covenant with God. God favored Abraham and his descendants due to their faith in Him. He rewarded them and also punished them harshly if they were to fall into the pagan rituals that surrounded them. I don't find it 'special favor' but a reward for recognizing God as the God of creation.

 

[cvanwey]

All we know is that the OT Jews were saved by their faith, I have reason then to believe that if they are religious Jews today they would also fall into salvation by faith. We know also from Scripture that those alive at the time when the gentiles are in full number and the last days are reaching fulfillment, that the whole nation of Israel will recognize Jesus as their Messiah.

Well, I have good reason to 'believe' that if the Bible is true, then an Orthodox Jew will 'rot in hell'. The reason I believe this... It says so in the very book in which you continue to assert truth

It states very clearly, you are not saved by works, but through Jesus the Christ alone. According to the 'fulfilled prophecy", in which is 'The Christ', the Jews continue to reject Him. In doing so, 'they shall burn.'

So until the rapture, all such practicing Orthodox Jews go to hell. If you again want evidence of this assertion, look no further than the most coveted and popular verses from the NT John 3:16-18.

Considering that the people of Abraham's day were following pagan beliefs including child sacrifice. Abraham followed God and turned away from the pagan practices of the day, forming the covenant with God. God favored Abraham and his descendants due to their faith in Him. He rewarded them and also punished them harshly if they were to fall into the pagan rituals that surrounded them. I don't find it 'special favor' but a reward for recognizing God as the God of creation.

I would agree that God could make a pact with each individual. Actually, if He does exist, He could of course do whatever He wishes. But such acts do represent favor. And it seems more logical and consistent to judge EACH individual upon their own accord, and not based upon traits which are not chosen, and including anyone within that entire race.

Example... Two people apply for a job, (a Jew and a Chinese person). The employer hires one over the other, because the employer favors Jews. Sure, the employer could scrutinize the Jew worker after employment, and punish or fire them if they are not 'up to snuff'. However, they were hired, based upon a bias or preference before hand.

Seems like an 'ungodly' trait, and more to the likes of a human quality. Which quite frankly, is what the Bible reads like...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You stated you do no believe in a place of torture. I provided a verses, from the Bible, which indicated the gnashing of teeth in a lake of fire. Quite frankly, it appears pretty apparent, as to the verse from the Bible. It would also appear that to interpret the verse in any other way may be wishful thinking, if one is going to accept the Bible as credible.

No, I did not say that. I said, I do not believe in a Hell that ends in a place of ETERNAL torture. Sure, there seems to be some suffering meted out as a penalty after the death of the disobedient, but I believe the suffering that is administered in Hades comes to an end at some point in future ages after the Final Judgement, or something along that line (and no one knows exactly except God). I also believe that at least some of the verses which Christians have interpreted to refer to an endless Hell (like Matthew 13:50) instead pertain to a temporal, conditional judgement declared upon people in this life and world (i.e. one that looks something like the Destruction of Jerusalem and the displacement of the Jewish population between A.D. 70 and A.D. 140).

If we are speaking about prophecies, in order to take them seriously, they need to be very specific; and not left to multiple interpretations. I've seen no verses of Bible prophecy, or any prophecies claims quite frankly, which were concrete and not somewhat or completely ambiguous. To cite Daniel, while already being a believer, is really no different than a believer in an alternate God belief reading passages, and finding ways to make them fit, after the fact. It's kind of like throwing a dart, letting it hit the wall, then painting a bull's eye around it.

You're free to feel that way, but I'm just saying that I think you're wrong. I also think that Porphyry is wrong in his attempt to assume that the content in Daniel "couldn't possibly be real prophecy---that it just had to have been written after the fact." But of course, you know this because you watched the two videos I posted in the OP, right?

This did not address my point. The book makes many very specific claims. Like floods, creation accounts, Towers of Babels, plagues, etc... They either did or didn't happen. If we find some of them did not, then we have issues - (from a claimed book of truth).

I did address your point, but you're doing two things there: 1) Ignoring my explanations, and 2) Forgetting that THIS thread is focused upon the content and claims of the book of Daniel.

Evangelicals are consistent. They at least will stick to every claim like grim death, no matter what. Where you, on the other hand, continue to vex me greatly.

And like John the Baptist did for some of his hearers, I'm sure I will continue to vex you. In fact, no where have I claimed to be a regular, mainstream Evangelical Christian. I've made no claim to Sola Scriptura, no claim to Once saved, Always Saved, no claim to Dispensational Rapture eschatology, no claim that the Bible even need to be inerrant in order to be considered inspired and relevant. No, but I have said time and time again that I'm in line with Pascal and Kierkegaard on a number of things, as well as being a person who promotes the basic platform of BioLogos. Some might call me a Christian Existentialist; some might think I'm part of the Emergent Church (although I'm not); some might think I'm some kind of heretic, but at worst, I'm sure I could really just be identified as a kind of Neo-Evangelical. But whatever. I'm Trinitarian, and I typically align myself with the [Restorationist] Christian Church/Instrumental in a general, more philosophically expansive kind of way.

You claim you've never received direct messages from God, and from what I can gather, claim 1. intuition and 2. feeling pulled when reading the Bible, as your reasoning for being Christian. So if the Bible remains some sort of guide or benchmark, and you too admit some stuff is false, is this benchmark actually sound?

Sure. For a person like Pascal or Kierkegaard, I would think your observations here could apply. But these observations of yours in and of themselves would not explain the whole of my more existential Christian leaning.

Did it actually happen or not? The evidence points to no. The Bible states it did. Not that hard.

Yes, the writer of Genesis states that it did. The problem is that we don't know why he thinks this. Or do we?

Of course, we could ask you, "Do you think that Human Rights exist, and if so, what are they, really?" And you would proceed to answer the question OUT OF the Western Political Paradigm in which you live, think and breath, much as the writer of Genesis did when writing about some Big Flood ...

However, if the writer of Genesis actually was present during the Exodus from Egypt AND at the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, then we have a different kind of written account being made at that point in contrast to the one about the Flood, don't we?

I already stated in my last response.... People are forced to 'spin' it because they realize the claim is not justified.

Or it could be that you're a bit ignorant of the Philosophy of History and about how written history works and what is actually going on in the mind of the modern historian when he or she 'thinks' they're reporting ... THE PAST. Shall we exchange books with each other on this subject?

On a side note, what if I read 27 scholarly works on Hinduism? Does that make Hinduism more true?

No, but it would likely assure the rest of us that you actually know what you're talking about when treating and discussing the subject of Hinduism, and if it were to be true in some capacity, then more than many other people, you'd likely have knowledge and interpretations about it that might very well need to be considered since other will have overlooked the many facets of Hinduism that your aware of.

So I guess the claim of a resurrection may not be true?

'Truth' and 'truth claims' are different things; let's not confuse metaphysics with epistemology. Also, simply having 'truth' in one area of life doesn't guarantee that the same person has accurate (or truthful) perceptions about other areas of life. And all of this could very well apply to how both YOU or I perceive and understand the nature of the book of Daniel, among other books and letters of the Bible.

Also, my prior point was to demonstrate that apparent truths would not be so clearly divided by region. You would see a random scattering.

This is garbage. I don't think you've done enough work to show the 'universality' of human perception. Even if we often have commonality of shared scientific truths in various parts of the world today for instance, it's because those persons in other cultures or nations have adopted the same scientific methodologies by which they would arrive at similar conclusions. Again, when we're speaking of the structures of verbal truth claims as they are constructed in the human mind, even in a scientific mode, we are only expressing 'provisional' truth, not truth of the fullness of REALITY as it is. Remember that. You also need to keep in mind that much of how any person or any society sees 'truth' in Reality will depend on how they conceptualize the nature of reality as a whole.

 

[cvanwey]

No, I did not say that. I said, I do not believe in a Hell that ends in a place of ETERNAL torture.

Okay then... Matthew 25:41

'“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.'

Matthew 25:46

'And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

You're free to fell that way, but I'm just saying that I think you're wrong.

So Daniel's prophecies aren't ambiguous, and are instead very specific, not left to interpretation?

And like John the Baptist did for some of his hearers, I'm sure I will continue to vex you. In fact, no where have I claimed to be a regular, mainstream Evangelical Christian. I've made no claim to Sola Scriptura, no claim to Once saved, Always Saved, no claim to Dispensational Rapture eschatology, no claim that the Bible even need to be inerrant in order to be considered inspired and relevant. No, but I have said time and time again that I'm in line with Pascal and Kierkegaard on a number of things, and one who promotes the basic platform of BioLogos. Some might call me a Christian Existentialist; some might think I'm part of the Emergent Church (although I'm not); some might think I'm some kind of heretic, but at worst, I'm sure I could really just be identified as a kind of Neo-Evangelical. But whatever. I'm Trinitarian, and I typically align myself with the [Restorationist] Christian Church/Instrumental in a general, more philosophically expansive kind of way.

Sure. For a person like Pascal or Kierkegaard, I would think your observations here could apply. But they in themselves would not explain the whole of my more existential Christian leaning.

My point stands substantiated. You are one puzzling individual

Yes, the writer of Genesis states that it did. The problem is that we don't know why he thinks this. Or do we?

You could speculate the 'why' and never come to a common consensus. However, the point is that the author asserted a claim which never likely happened, from the very book which claims truth. So let's speculate... He copied a story already in circulation, he was high on mushrooms, he was schizophrenic, he had a dream and thought it was real, temporary insanity, lying, or..... it was true and God provided him with facts as he transcribed it. Commence occam's razor. Wait, we don't even need to do that... The story is false, so who really cares what the author's motivation was, because again, the story is false

However, if the writer of Genesis actually was present during the Exodus from Egypt AND at the giving of the Law at Mt. Sinai, then we have a different kind of written account being made at that point in contrast to the one about the Flood, don't we?

If the story is false, and the author asserts it's true, case closed. The rest is minutiae left for 'water cooler banter.'

Or it could be that you're a bit ignorant of the Philosophy of History and about how written history works and what is actually going on in the mind of the modern historian when he or she 'thinks' they're reporting ...

Nah, I doubt as much.

THE PAST. Shall we exchange books with each other on this subject?

I do enjoy receiving countless inferences to how many books you have apparently read. Yes, we get it, you are well read. I even acknowledged as much. Not sure what you are trying to prove? Let the arguments speak for themselves. Place that brain power where it is needed; in the arguments

No, but it would likely assure the rest of us that you actually know what you're talking about when treating and discussing the subject of Hinduism, and if it were to be true in some capacity, then more than many other people, you'd likely have knowledge and interpretations about it that might very well need to be considered since other will have overlooked the many facets of Hinduism that your aware of.

So when I state that the prophecy of Daniel is no more or less ambiguous than any other mundane and unspecific prophecy, I don't know what I'm talking about? This must mean that his prophecy was extremely specific, and not left to wide debate, (because it is of course not ambiguous)?

'Truth' and 'truth claims' are different things; let's not confuse metaphysics with epistemology. Also, simply having 'truth' in one area of life doesn't guarantee that the same person has accurate (or truthful) perceptions about other areas of life. And all of this could very well apply to how both YOU or I perceive and understand the nature of the book of Daniel, among other books and letters of the Bible.

Let's just fast forward to the end... I will re-iterate my question.

Is the resurrection truth? It is a yes or no question. It either happened or it didn't, independent of human opinion. Does the evidence lead towards or against it at least? So if this questions is not solvable, then is it really true?

In the mean time, let's explore another 'truth'....

(rhetorical) The earth's shape is a spherical globe. Does it matter that some 'flat-earthers' state otherwise, and have read many books and can present arguments to the contrary? How do we know such a statement is true? (rhetorical)

This is garbage. I don't think you've done enough work to show the 'universality' of human perception. Even if we often have commonality of shared scientific truths in various parts of the world today for instance, it's because those persons in other cultures or nations have adopted the same scientific methodologies by which they would arrive at similar conclusions. Again, when we're speaking of the structures of verbal truth claims as they are constructed in the human mind, even in a scientific mode, we are only expressing 'provisional' truth, not truth of the fullness of REALITY as it is. Remember that. You also need to keep in mind that much of how any person or any society sees 'truth' in Reality will depend on how they conceptualize the nature of reality as a whole.

You have missed my point again. Religion is segregated by distinct regions. They cannot all be true. So one must ask... 'Why' is this the case? Your explanation does not fit. But thanks anyways. Remember, 'a picture is worth a thousand words'