|
Post by Zorro on Jul 12, 2006 13:19:52 GMT -5
I found something in Micah about a leader coming out of Bethlehem, but I can't find anything yet prophesying Jesus to be a Nazarene or that this would be cause of his downfall. There is mention of this prophesy in the NT, but I find no reference yet.
Matt 2:23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
This is the explanation of that verse from the NIV study bible:
These exact words are not found in the OT and probably refer to several OT prefigurations and/or predictions (note the plural, "prophets") that the Messiah would be despised (e.g., Ps 22:6, Isa 53:3), for in Jesus' day "Nazarene" was virtually a synonym for "despised" (see Jn 1:45-46).
As for the rejection of Christ because of being a Nazarene, this is from John 7:
40Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
41Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
42Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
43So there was a division among the people because of him.
44And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.
45Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?
46The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
47Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?
48Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?
49But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.
50Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)
51Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?
52They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.
Bottom line is that I disagree with your initial premise that an abundance and clarity of prophesy would lead to acceptance of Christ by the majority. First of all the clarity comes as we look at fullfillment of same in hindsight. For those witnessing Christ on earth, the Spirit surely opened some eyes even as events were unfolding, but for the most part (particularly for the masses), clarity came after his resurrection (compare Peter pre and post resuurection, for example). IMO, this is very easy to understand when we consider prophecy relating to his second coming and the "end of the world". From my perspective there's currently little or no clarity at all. I have all faith that from eternity it will be clear as a bell. So again, from my perspective...fullfillment of Biblical prophesy proves the existence of God. I fully understand that this would be meaningless to an entrenched atheist. But there are some that are struggling with this issue that seem to have some basic Christian beliefs, so my hope is that this might be an area of consideration that would be helpful to them.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 12, 2006 19:34:55 GMT -5
Incredible,
And that's fine. It would be irrational for you to believe in a god if you do not currently have warrant for such a belief.
Ok. Again good. My next question would be, how do you define proof?
Ditto. Through attempting to answer my own questions to my own satisfaction I lost belief in God. It took a good deal of thinking and research for me to find warrant for a new belief in God.
Depends what you mean by proof. Every skeptic has a different level of "proof" that they require. And it is clear that many skeptics also would still refuse to believe even if shown proof that satisfied their requirements. They would then say, "Well, I can't know if this is god, a demon, or a highly technologically advanced being tricking me." Skepticism is paralysing.
The atrocities committed in the name of an ideology are not particularly good evidence against a belief. I know of no atheist who gave up atheism because of what happened in Russia and China and Cambodia. However, if pushed I would in fact argue that genocide is logically compatible and even a logical conclusion of neo-Darwinian naturalism.
Right. However you have to realise this cuts both ways. All the sincere, pious secular humanists doesn't make it true. The truth value of a paradigm requires an investigation.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. However I interpret it, I keep returning to the nature of rationality and warranted belief and am left wondering what exactly is the problem.
First, if you are asserting that belief in God is itself irrational then you are wrong. Belief in God is only irrational for those who lack warrant for their beliefs. Second, if you are saying that extremist acts by ultra-fundamentalists are irrational, then I broadly agree but with the proviso that extreme ultra-fundamentalism can be rational for some people. I think such acts are wrong, immoral, evil etc. - but it is difficult to label all such acts as irrational. A person born, raised and indoctrinated into say, Jemaah Islamiyah (sp?) is rational if he believes its teachings. He would only be come irrational if shown defeating evidences to his belief, comes to comprehend those defeators, intellectually accepts the wrongness of his views, yet turns around and continues to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Just read it on Jul 12, 2006 21:23:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 12, 2006 22:09:59 GMT -5
Farrell Till is about as credible and convincing as Kent Hovind.
My point is that fundy atheists are about as worth listening to as fundy Christians. Sorry if I offend anyone but that's what I think.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jul 13, 2006 6:57:51 GMT -5
My goodnes Rob, they wouldn't be atheist bigots, would they?
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Jul 13, 2006 7:46:41 GMT -5
Consider the origin of life: science tells us that life evolved from an amoeba-like organism resulting from various proteins combining by chance in a primordial pool.
OK. If that is what happened, I'm fine with that.
But how did that first creature begin to reproduce? DNA is soooo complex that I cannot imagine DNA to be an accident of evolution. And why can't we duplicate this event in a lab?
Many philosophers over the millennium have tried to prove the existence of God from a logical perspective, but most have fallen short of success. The one that I prefer is the swiss watch analogy. Imagine that you are hiking in the woods an you see a shiny object on the trail. When you examine it, you discover that it is a watch that keeps perfect time. What is the most logical explanation for it being there. Well, if you saw not other sign of anyone else in the woods, you may assume that the materials just "accidentally" combined in such an order that the result was this nice time piece. More likely, you will assume that it was constructed by intelligent design, a creator, if you will, and place in that location.
When you examine the complexity of a mammal, you will see that it is far more complex than that watch. But if you want proof other than circumstantial, I doubt that it will be forthcoming.
|
|
|
Post by Rob O on Jul 13, 2006 7:59:58 GMT -5
Hey Jxr. I don't deny religious bigots exist. I asked you "Who are the religious bigots?" as in would you care to define that pejorative phrase in relation the scenario you wanted answered. Kent Hovind? Knock yourself out...... www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22kent+hovind%22&meta=
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jul 13, 2006 8:23:46 GMT -5
Consider the origin of life: science tells us that life evolved from an amoeba-like organism resulting from various proteins combining by chance in a primordial pool. OK. If that is what happened, I'm fine with that. But how did that first creature begin to reproduce? DNA is soooo complex that I cannot imagine DNA to be an accident of evolution. And why can't we duplicate this event in a lab? Many philosophers over the millennium have tried to prove the existence of God from a logical perspective, but most have fallen short of success. The one that I prefer is the swiss watch analogy. Imagine that you are hiking in the woods an you see a shiny object on the trail. When you examine it, you discover that it is a watch that keeps perfect time. What is the most logical explanation for it being there. Well, if you saw not other sign of anyone else in the woods, you may assume that the materials just "accidentally" combined in such an order that the result was this nice time piece. More likely, you will assume that it was constructed by intelligent design, a creator, if you will, and place in that location. When you examine the complexity of a mammal, you will see that it is far more complex than that watch. But if you want proof other than circumstantial, I doubt that it will be forthcoming. Brick, No doubt any lifeform is complex, and with low entropy (highly predictable/ordered) systems, there is obviously some sign of a guiding power. In this discussion, I am questioning that the Judaeo-Christian God-definition of this power is correct. As soon as we accept the Judaeo-Christian definition, by default, we accept much of the associated Christian liturgy. In proving/disproving God, my approach would be to look for evidence that the Judaeo-Christian model is valid, and not just some overblown political/governance system hailed from an obscure corner of the earth.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jul 13, 2006 8:27:14 GMT -5
Hey Jxr. I don't deny religious bigots exist. I asked you "Who are the religious bigots?" as in would you care to define that pejorative phrase in relation the scenario you wanted answered. Kent Hovind? Knock yourself out...... www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=%22kent+hovind%22&meta=Just stirring the pot, Rob. Actually, that dig should be more directed at Zorro, since he appeard to take offence at my comment. My initial comment about bigots, was an attempt to dissuade posters of the why are you questioning this, just believe in God genre.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 13, 2006 10:54:39 GMT -5
Just stirring the pot, Rob. Actually, that dig should be more directed at Zorro, since he appeard to take offence at my comment. My initial comment about bigots, was an attempt to dissuade posters of the why are you questioning this, just believe in God genre.
Actually, I'm very interested in engaging in dialog with atheists, because I admittedly have no comprehension of how they can think the way they do. I don't consider engaging people with diverse points of view to be threatening to my faith at all, in fact I believe understanding (not necessarily agreeing with) opposing views nurtures my personal growth. If you go back to the post where you first used the term "religious bigots" you will note that the post was specifically addressed to "also struggling" and me. Is it any great wonder that I would consider your barb as directed at me?
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 13, 2006 14:48:05 GMT -5
Just read it and understand.
I read it. The first thing I had to do was overcome the bellicose, sneering and mocking style and actually consider his viewpoint, which I admit was difficult...but I did read a great deal of it. What I found was really a broad brushed attack on biblical inerrancy, using prophecy as a general framework. His primary flaw is that he is demanding a definition of inerrancy that I doubt any biblical scholar holds - absolute scientific precision when the most widely held definition is absolute truthfulness. I'll use his favorite starting point as an example. He says there are NT quotes of prophesies that don't exist in the OT, going so far as to call Jesus himself a liar. His problem is that he is demanding exact quotes when the Hebrew language made no such demands and made no real accommodations for them. There was no such thing as quotation marks or any such equivalent. Why? Because the language made no demand for direct quotation. The demand was for accuracy of truthfulness. For example.....let's say a client tells my secretary they will be coming into my office in 5 minutes. My secretary then tells me that my client is coming in right away. Even though she translated the message without exact scientific precision, her translation to me was truthfully accurate. I have no desire to argue this voluminous piece line by line, but I will say this error alone covers a great deal.
|
|
|
Post by jxr on Jul 13, 2006 19:18:10 GMT -5
Zorro, I went back and re-read my post. My apologies for framing the post the way I did. It was not my intention to label you a bigot. I presumed that proposing such a heresy that I did would attract a flurry of admonishment from others rather than any meaningful discussion. In hindsight, I should have split the post in two.
|
|
|
Post by Zorro on Jul 13, 2006 19:41:08 GMT -5
jxr, Thanks, I appreciate that. It's all good
|
|
|
Post by Just read it on Jul 13, 2006 20:11:27 GMT -5
Farrell Till is about as credible and convincing as Kent Hovind. My point is that fundy atheists are about as worth listening to as fundy Christians. Sorry if I offend anyone but that's what I think. Then refute what he says. Or will you stick to ad hominems? I think you are more capable of attacking the person--especially athiests--than the arguments of the person. Why don't you rite your thesis on the refutation of that link I provided?
|
|