Pummeling Porphyry to Defend Daniel's "Evidence"?

[2PhiloVoid]

My position is that this is a rule about prophecy, and it isn't a prophecy itself. There's nothing to come true or not. It's just a rule. At least by how I read it.

Ok. Fair enough. I will agree with you that it is "a rule." However, I have a different view about the overall context in which it sits, and thereby, a different view about how it is to be applied.

The football rule that a safety is worth two points is not a prediction that a safety will be scored in a game. Some rules are hypothetical by nature.

So this paragraph of yours is silly. You are mixing my position together with your initial assumptions and acting like you've discovered some new problem. We already knew our positions were incompatible.

Ok. Well, then there's really not much left to talk about is there. I mean, it's not as if you're just chomping at the bit to know if my position is true or not. So, we can just agree to let things rest here.

Best Wishes.

I don't understand how additional material makes my point invalid. Or are you saying it's contradicted? But don't most Christians hold the Bible higher than the Talmud? Shouldn't my point override yours even if there is a conflict?

Ok, let's take a look.


Criteria.
The criteria by which a prophet is distinguished as false are, in the view of rabbinical jurisprudence, partly expressed and partly implied in the Deuteronamic dicta:

• (1) One who has "spoken to turn you away from the Lord" (xiii. 6 [A. V. 5])...

We can ignore this first one. Recall I said,

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?

This brings us to the next criteria:

• (2) When the things predicted "follow not, nor come to pass" (Deut. xviii. 22). This test is applicable only when the alleged revelation has reference to the near future, as in the case of Zedekiah, who in God's name prophesied success to Ahab's arms, and in that of Micaiah, who predicted disaster from the impending war (I Kings xxii. 11 et seq.). Where his prediction concerns a distant period the skeptic will say (Ezek. xii. 27): "The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that are far off." But even where the prophecy concerns the immediate future this test is not always applicable. It is conclusive only when a prediction of prosperity fails, because then it is seen that the alleged revelation did not emanatefrom the All-Merciful (comp. Jer. xxviii. 9); but the failure of a prediction of disaster is not conclusive, the fulfilment of such predictions being always conditioned by the conduct of the people (Jer. xviii. 7, 8; xxvi. 19; Ezek. xviii. 21, xxxiii. 11; comp. Yer. Sanh. xi. 30b).

So first of all they're taking directly from Deuteronomy 18. Shocking!

With regards to prophecy of the far future, this proves my point exactly. Look where they quote Ezekiel 12:27. The skeptics scoff at far-future prophecies (indicating they wouldn't be bothered to write it down, especially in an era where writing something down is not cheap or easy). Further, look at it in context. Ezekiel 12:26-28 says,


26 Again the word of Jehovah came to me, saying, 27 Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel say, The vision that he seeth is for many day to come, and he prophesieth of times that are far off.

28 Therefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: There shall none of my words be deferred any more, but the word which I shall speak shall be performed, saith the Lord Jehovah.


So we see that Jehovah sees little value in far-future prophecies and he's expediting it. This is my point EXACTLY.



Well if you're talking about how Deuteronomy was actually written then we have to get into Josiah and his wartime propaganda. But who knows, maybe you think Moses actually existed.



We were never talking about whether he would be able to write it down. We are talking about whether scribes would preserve it for centuries if they thought he was a false prophet. And if his prophecies hadn't come true, wouldn't they think he's a false prophet? Or... if they were of the understanding that the prophecies were for the far future, why, then, did they reject Jesus? Your position makes no sense at all.

Since we have different, incompatible views about the Bible and about prophecy, and due to the fact that my position makes no sense to you, then there's really little reason for me to get into any kind of further refutation (or correction) about your interpretive stance. But, I am proud of you for taking the time to at least look at the source I provided.

Again, best wishes, and Merry Christmas!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Ok. Fair enough. I will agree with you that it is "a rule." However, I have a different view about the overall context in which it sits, and thereby, a different view about how it is to be applied.

Ok. Well, then there's really not much left to talk about is there. I mean, it's not as if you're just chomping at the bit to know if my position is true or not. So, we can just agree to let things rest here.

Best Wishes.

Since we have different, incompatible views about the Bible and about prophecy, and due to the fact that my position makes no sense to you, then there's really little reason for me to get into any kind of further refutation (or correction) about your interpretive stance. But, I am proud of you for taking the time to at least look at the source I provided.

Again, best wishes, and Merry Christmas!

To clarify, what I'm saying makes no sense is not your position but rather an unintended logical consequence of your position.

It's like if someone told you that the moon is made of cheese. As a proposition you can make sense of that. The conclusions that would follow are the problem. So it might be shorthand to say the claim makes no sense.

So I fully understand your position. I know what you're saying. But an accidental logical conclusion is that scribes copied and preserved Daniel for centuries because they thought it foretold far-future events, and then did not believe that Christ fulfilled those events. Right? Isn't that an unintended consequence of your position? Does that conclusion seem sensible to you as a proposition on its own?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

To clarify, what I'm saying makes no sense is not your position but rather an unintended logical consequence of your position.

It's like if someone told you that the moon is made of cheese. As a proposition you can make sense of that. The conclusions that would follow are the problem. So it might be shorthand to say the claim makes no sense.

So I fully understand your position. I know what you're saying. But an accidental logical conclusion is that scribes copied and preserved Daniel for centuries because they thought it foretold far-future events, and then did not believe that Christ fulfilled those events. Right?

Correct.

Isn't that an unintended consequence of your position?

No. It fully falls in line with the expectations I have according to the multiplex of epistemological parameters which direct my viewpoint.

Does that conclusion seem sensible to you as a proposition on its own?

Yes, it does seem sensible, particularly since my view doesn't rely on boiling things down to some one or two seemingly irrefutable syllogisms we might construct from our wranglings with "logic," but rather by way of the ongoing growth and encompassing coherence that comes by expansive study culled from many, many sources.

For instance, one of the sources that comes into play here is a book I bought way back in 2005 which was David Klinghoffer's, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus. So, is there any wonder on your part as to how this book (among many others) might play into the ways in which I would perceive the nature of the problem at hand and thereby attempt to answer the questions you've posed to me above?

On top of this, there are various epistemological and prophetic motifs within the Pentateuch that mediate your questioning of me here.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Correct.

No. It fully falls in line with the expectations I have according to the multiplex of epistemological parameters which direct my viewpoint.

Yes, it does seem sensible, particularly since my view doesn't rely on boiling things down to some one or two seemingly irrefutable syllogisms we might construct from our wranglings with "logic," but rather by way of the ongoing growth and encompassing coherence that comes by expansive study culled from many, many sources.

For instance, one of the sources that comes into play here is a book I bought way back in 2005 which was David Klinghoffer's, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus. So, is there any wonder on your part as to how this book (among many others) might play into the ways in which I would perceive the nature of the problem at hand and thereby attempt to answer the questions you've posed to me above?

On top of this, there are various epistemological and prophetic motifs within the Pentateuch that mediate your questioning of me here.

Well, thanks for the response, I guess, but really you said nothing here. Just the usual name dropping and derision of logic.

The reality is that the prophecy game is an absolute no-win. Do prophecies have to be fulfilled within the lifetime of the prophet? Then there's no prophecy of Jesus. Can prophecies be about the far future? You still lose because the standard position Christianity takes is that Jesus didn't even fulfill all of the supposed prophecies (hence the reason Jesus has to come back to fulfill the rest).

When it comes to any other religion on earth, you will absolutely not take every statement in the associated holy writings as fact. Yet even if we nonbelievers take everything in the Bible as fact, and even your own interpretation thereof, we're still left with prophecies that Jesus didn't fulfill. Joining Christianity is like buying a phone app where a critical feature is "coming soon" and has been for years.

 

[cvanwey]

... you do know that I'm not permitted here to refute you on this point, right? Not that I want to, really, being that this thread pertains to the book of Daniel and all ...


Apparently, Porphyry thought some of Daniel's prophecies were specific enough that he felt he had to assume the book of Daniel was written after the historical fact(s) which are supposedly referred to. Porphyry decided this was a proper evaluation due to Daniel's general historical accuracy. But of course, I know you've completely read and watched both videos in the OP, so you already know what Porphyry's contentions were with Christians over this ...

It's not puzzling; it's just that I have a different epistemological conception of all of this than you do. Your view seems to comport, and be in reaction to, an otherwise 'fundamentalistic' outlook. I've never had that luxury of being a fundamentalist, so I'm not prone to being stuck in the epistemic framework that you're emotionally attuned to.

In this particular thread, I really couldn't care less if "the Flood" happened or not; I'm focusing on the complaints of Porphyry.

No, I think the jury is still out for this one.

You doubt the nature of historical writing?

I don't offer arguments until I'm confident that a potential interlocutor actually wants to engage and interlocute. So far with you, I'm not convinced, so all you're going to get from me is name dropped references to various books.

....back to your pal, Porphyry!

In this thread, I'm more interested in whether Daniel's prophecies are relevant to religious belief ... nor not.

Or how about this... Let's don't explore another truth, and say we didn't, ay?

Again, this thread is about the book of Daniel.

Where prophecy is concerned, any prophecy, the 'predictions need details'. Such specific details in fact, which are not left for interpretation on any level really. And in such specific details, where again, you are basically not allowed to 'fill in the blanks' later, and state, 'see, look, the prophecy came true,' and still have a large majority of the populous not accept it. Otherwise, Nostradamus can be as relevant.

As stated prior, it's like throwing a dart at the wall, and painting a bull's eye around it later.

In conclusion, there exists no prophecy I've seen which fulfills the criteria of being credible. 'Daniel' is, by any means, no acception.

I long ago read Daniel, and found nothing specific or compelling... Just a lot of poetry and vague generalizations. So why would I care what specific individuals have to say, which differ from my position?.?.?.? I'll answer.... I don't. Why? Because nothing in Daniel is specific enough to resonate any higher than going to my local 'psychic reader', in which I am sure to receive plenty of the same vague generalizations in which I can tie to my reality, if my hopes are even slightly invested as such.

As I stated a while back... If your predisposition is belief, then you will look for patterns and find a way to make it all fit -- just as the Muslims speak of fulfilled prophecy for their beliefs.