Jeremiah's New Covenant vs. Christianity

Chris Sandoval wrote a fine essay that is featured on the front page of infidels.org. Included here is the opening paragraph and a link to the page. One of the main proofs proffered by Christianity is its allegations that Jesus of Nazareth fulfilled Old Testament prophecies such that he is the Messiah. Sandoval points out that the writer of Hebrews took Jeremiah 31 out of context and twisted the text to make it imply a prophecy of a new covenant. Sandoval then explains how and why the Hebraic author got it wrong.

"The New Testament authors frequently manufactured prophecies about Jesus by twisting Old Testament passages out of context to make them say things the original authors never intended. The Old Testament prophets had nothing to say about Jesus, who lived many centuries after their time; they only spoke about the concerns of their own times, as we read in treatises by Jim Lippard on the Secular Web[1], and American patriot and deist Thomas Paine[2]. Here we examine one spectacular but commonly overlooked example of misquoted prophecy--Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant.[3]"

Jeremiah's New Covenant vs. Christianity

56 comments:

Unknown said...

Jim Lippard wrote an excellent piece exposing the failure of the Old Testament prophecies to actually relate to Jesus. He wrote: "Every case of alleged fulfillment of messianic prophecy suffers from one of the following failings: (1) the alleged Old Testament prophecy is not a messianic prophecy or not a prophecy at all, (2) the prophecy has not been fulfilled by Jesus, or (3) the prophecy is so vague as to be unconvincing in its application to Jesus."

The Fabulous Prophecies of the Messiah

Sean Carter said...

Been following you for a while, and I posted a question on my blog - looking for viewpoints
http://cartersviews.blogspot.com/2008/06/simple-religious-test.html

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Alfred Edersheim was trained as a Rabbi in Germany of the 19th century. He became a Chrisitan in college, befoer he could become a Rabbi. But he was linguistic genius and knew the Talmud and Torah as well as any Rabbi of his day. He became a major scholar at Oxford and Cambridge. His "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah" show that it is perfectly possibly to interpret Jer 31 in the way that Christians do, and to do so from the perspective of an Orthdoox Jew.

I have known and spoken with Rabbis, real actual Rabbis, not protestant "wannabes", Rabbis who believe Jesus is the Messiah. They say its' perfectly valid conclusion. No one puts up this kind palaver against the Lubevitchites and their interpretations are much more tenuous.

In 200 71 Rabbis singed a letter that ran in news papers in Israel stating that they believe Jesus is the Messiah.

The two Rabbis I talked to, one did not want his identity revealed. The other is named Rabbi Othneil and he teaches at a real Orthodox temple.

His teacher was ordained (I think that's called "shavar?") by the same guy who ordinated Tovia Singer. Thus Singer has not been able to question his credentials.

Unknown said...

Hello Sean: Thanks for your interest. I'll polish up the spectacles and get the read on.

Unknown said...

More later.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

"The Old Testament prophets had nothing to say about Jesus, who lived many centuries after their time; they only spoke about the concerns of their own times, as we read in treatises by Jim Lippard on the Secular Web[1], and American patriot and deist Thomas Paine[2]. Here we examine one spectacular but commonly overlooked example of misquoted prophecy--Jeremiah's prophecy of the New Covenant.[3]"

Zak 4 indicates that the Messiah's name would be Jesus. It says "this is the name of the man who brings the branch." The phrase "brings the branch" is well known to be a euphanism for Messiah. the name of the man to whom they refer is, the highpreist of the era in which Zerubabel was to rebuild the temple, his name was Joshua. Of course you know that's anglicized version of Yeshua , which is Jesus.


The thing about Edersheim is he shows us 450 passages from the OT which Rabbis int he Talmud say are speaking bout the Messiah. They include this passage in Jeremiah 31. So Rabbis in the Talmud in the fourth century AD or so said this passage pertained to the messiah.

Jews recognize that this passage does pertain to a change in the covenant situation because they use it to justify getting along without the temple sacrifices.

Unknown said...

J.L. Hinman, greetings. I finally made it back and am working on replies. I hope to have something to post up by morning. It may be tomorrow evening before, I get it.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

J.L. Hinman, greetings. I finally made it back and am working on replies. I hope to have something to post up by morning. It may be tomorrow evening before, I get it.

Hey Robert! I'll be looking for that!;-)

Unknown said...

J.L. Hinman: Greetings and Thank you for your replies. I apolgize for the tardiness of this response. My ambition exceeds my compositional ability.

My purpose in cobbling together such a long reply is in harmony with my greater purpose in blogging at deunkingchristianity. I seek to engender doubts about the soundness and validity of the Christian religion to help those considering Christianity or deconverting from Christianity to make a positive choice to reject the vile Asian superstition. Christianity is as harmful to society as it is damaging to the individual. I care because all human beings are genetically related by virtue of sharing common ancestry. We are all cousins and extended family. Evolution by natural and sexual selection for beneficial genetic drift, lateral gene transfers, and mutations in correlation with known geologic process like the eruption of the Tambora supervolcano caldera approximately 70,000 years ago has yielded our species. We are, genetically, very similar, and we share common ancestors from that time 70,000 years ago when the climatic catastrophe caused by the supervolcano nearly wiped out our species and reduced our population to only a few thousand individuals. This reply took me about 10 hours of work to produce. I hope it helps you, my distant cousin, to find the clarity of thought and courage to abandon Christianity. Don't be fooled by my straight forward or terse seeming tone; that's just my style. I like you as a person even though I'm concerned for your well being. Thanks in advance for reading.

Your argument from authority or [1] “argumentum ad verecundiam” (Latin: argument to respect)] is plainly fallacious. You are trying to establish that Christianity's claim that Jeremiah 31:31-34 was a Jean Dixon style clairvoyant prediction of a future event relative to the past setting of the document. Doing so by appealing to authority and basing the truth value of your assertions on the authority, knowledge or position of the person asserting it, is a fallacy in regard to logic, because the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source. [1]

Your fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam claim has the following form.

1. A makes claim B
2. there is something positive about A,
3. therefore claim B is true.
The first statement is called a 'factual claim'. The last statement is referred to as an 'inferential claim' and represents the reasoning process. You 'factual claim' is that “ Edersheim” has great credentials and wrote a book refuting Sandoval's straight forward and in context exegetical analysis of Jeremiah 31:31-34 and making the claim that “Jesus is the Messiah.” Your further claims regarding Edersheim's education and associates infers there is something positive about the prior claim. By direct inspection, its clear your argument fits the description of fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam by claiming “Jesus is the Messiah.”.

However, your fallacy here does not disqualify your argument, but your enthymemes do. Your Christian worldview is patently false. In it, there is no logic, no morality, no uniformity of nature. To make any sort of valid argument you must borrow or steal logic, morality, and uniformity of nature from naturalism. [2]

Moreover, Christianity's doctrine regarding prophecy is problematic. If prophecy is real, then the future already exists, and hard deterministic fatalism is true. This is evident because knowledge is a mental grasp of facts of reality. If your God were to exist and if it propagated knowledge of the future through prophecy, then it would have to have knowledge of the future. Having such knowledge would be impossible unless there was already reality in the future from which knowledge could be harvested. This would be fatal to Christianity. If hard deterministic fatalism is true, then freewill is an illusion. The freewill defense would then be a farce, and the problem of evil would entail the non-existence of any wholly good, wholly powerful, wholly knowledgeable being. The resultant paradox renders Christianity non-cognizable and incoherent. For that cause alone, Christians and all people of faith should reject the notion of prophecy.

By arguing from authority, you make it now essential that I correct the false impression that ad verecundiam is persuasive by discussing a better way of understanding. I will cite Dr. Richard Carrier on the Argument to the Best Explanation, to wit that the ABE is superior to mystical exegetical hermeneutics to ascertain what the text of the Bible actually says. This is not an example of a fallacious implementation of argumentum ad verecundiam because there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. This I shall do. Carrier summarizes McCullagh, p.15-44 [3] in the following passage about the Argument to the Best Explanation.

“Apart from the obvious fact that a theory must be testable even to be considered, McCullagh enumerates six criteria that must be fulfilled to construct a strong ABE. In short, when we compare the "advocated theory" with "any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject" it: (1) "must be of greater explanatory scope," that is, it must explain more existing evidence; (2) "must be of greater explanatory power," that is, it must make the existing evidence more probable; (3) "must be more plausible," based, that is, on established general truths about the time, the place, the context, etc., and the universe generally; (4) "must be less ad hoc," that is, it must contain fewer "new suppositions" that have no other evidential support apart from the fact that they make the theory fit the evidence; (5) "must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs," that is, it must be less challenged by existing evidence and general accepted truths; and, finally: (6) "must exceed [on the previous five criteria] other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much...that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects" (p. 19) [3].
The reality is that for much of history, especially ancient history, it is not common for any theory to be so successful as this. Historians always deal in probability, but they get knee deep in uncertainties far more than any other scientist or investigator. Thus, what is reasonable to believe is, in general, what is ‘most probable', not just what is ‘practically certain', since such confidence can rarely be had for claims about ancient history. But the ABE still serves the historian here, too: while no theory in many cases can win on all six criteria, very often one theory can win on enough of them, and by a large enough margin, as to be the most credible, possibly even the only credible theory. The relative credibility of two theories, in other words, rests in proportion to their relative success on the criteria of the ABE. For instance, based on an ABE one might correctly say that theory x is very likely and theory y rather unlikely, therefore it is more reasonable to believe x over y.” [4]

The ABE's first criteria, "must be of greater explanatory scope,", allows the reasoning person to validly hold that a straight forward plain sense reading of Biblical text is preferred because such a reading will yield an understanding that is much more likely to be uniformly ascertained by all exegetes. A distribution of understandings amongst a population where an overwhelming majority share a common interpretation of a particular text implies a strong consensus that leads to greater explanatory scope.

Secondly, the ABE entails "must be of greater explanatory power," that is, it must make the existing evidence more probable”. To be more probable, any given text, not just the Bible, must be more attuned and in harmony with reality. A straight forward reading of the text is more likely to be in accordance with the actual state or conditions that conforms to reality of what the author actually wrote. As opposed to mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism that varies from person to person, a straight forward plain sense reading will be more attuned to the reality of what the author meant. A wild schizophrenic diversity of interpretations cannot be more attuned to what an original author actually meant. Thus the plain sense of the text is of greater explanatory power.

The third criteria of the ABE is "must be more plausible," based, that is, on established general truths about the time, the place, the context, etc., and the universe generally;” To be more plausible, a reading must have an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; it must be credible and believable. Again the straight forward plain sense of the Biblical or any other text will be more likely to have an appearance of truth or reason given the author was intending to reasonably make her statements. The contrary position that mystical knowledge can be obtained by exertion of one's own or the action of some alleged ruling consciousness is the primacy of consciousness fallacy. Mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism cannot render a text more plausible because no consciousness can manipulate, amend, modify, change or control existence. Knowledge cannot be had by faith.[5]

ABE's forth criteria is "must be less ad hoc," that is, it must contain fewer "new suppositions" that have no other evidential support apart from the fact that they make the theory fit the evidence”. Ad hoc in the sense used in philosophical discussions means “the addition of corollary hypotheses or adjustment to a philosophical or scientific theory to save the theory from being falsified by compensating for anomalies not anticipated by the theory in its unmodified form.” [6] Again, the straight forward reading of a text authored by someone who means what they say and says what they mean, will be less ad hoc than a mystical minded twisting or torturing of the text to make it say what one wishes as if it were a ventriloquist dummy.

The fifth criteria used in the ABE is "must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs," that is, it must be less challenged by existing evidence and general accepted truths”. Like a true champion who can't be beat, a straight forward reading of the plain sense of the text is going to be more in accordance with the reality of what the author actually wrote. On the other hand, each individual mystic will have a differing exegetical hermeneutics molding their analysis. That would explain the vast number of differing Christianities. The muddled and mundane landscape of Christian sectarianism exhibiting a schizophrenic diversity of doctrinaire opinion is confirming evidence that use of mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism to interpret Biblical texts cannot help but be disconfirmed by accepted beliefs. In contradiction, a rational, reasoned, straight forward plain sense reading is by its basal characteristics much less likely to be disconfirmed by accepted beliefs because it is in harmony with what the text actually says.

The final and sixth criteria states “"must exceed [on the previous five criteria] other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much...that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects". In a horse race where the favorite has won a thousand races in a row, would it make sense to bet on a long shot nag? This is, like the proper method to understand the Bible, straight forward. The hypothesis that best conforms to the ABE must be the best way to understand the text in question.

Back to the question of Jeremiah 31:31-34, of course, I completely disagree with J.L. Hinman. Modern Christians and Messianic Jews wrongfully interpret Biblical passages using mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism as did the ancients who fabricated the texts. The habit of using the Bible as a ventriloquist dummy is deeply ingrained in almost all Christian sectarians. I think this is a hold over from the early days of Gnosticism when the faith was divided into outer-public mysteries and inner-private mysteries. The outer mystery is the simple message of “believe and be saved or don't and burn” while the inner mysteries entails esoteric symbolic exegesis and interpretations.

Further regarding y J.L. Hinman's argumentum ad verecundiam, it is obvious, nonetheless, that an overwhelming consensus of Jewish Torah-Talmud scholarship would take the position defended by Sandoval in his essay. The authority cited by J.L. Hinman is a very small percentage of dissenting Jewish scholarship, consisting of isolated religious zealots, who are disconnected from mainstream Jewish culture. Messianic Jews, have been in my experience, uniformly fanatical and near delusional to the extent of psychosis. It is a mistake for anyone to take them seriously. Mainstream Judaism has always rightly rejected the patently absurd claims that prophecies from the OT indicate the fictional character [7], Jesus of Nazareth, was the Jewish Messiah.

Before discussing the text of Jeremiah 31:31-34, it is illustrative to examine Jeremiah 31:15. This passage was used by the Matthean writer in Matt 2:18 (YLT) where the reader is told of Herod's order to murder all male children less than two years old in and around Bethlehem fulfilled a prophecy of Jeremiah:

“`A voice in Ramah was heard -- lamentation and weeping and much mourning -- Rachel weeping [for] her children, and she would not be comforted because they are not.'”.

By reading this extraction in its original context in Jeremiah 31 and the two prior chapters, it is evident that the passage was addressing the problem of Jewish dispersion caused by the Babylonian captivity. Jeremiah repeatedly promises the Jews would be recalled from captivity to reclaim their land. In the verse quoted by Matthew, he said: Jeremiah 31:15 (YLT)

“Thus said Jehovah, A voice in Ramah is heard, wailing, weeping most bitter, Rachel is weeping for her sons, She hath refused to be comforted for her sons, because they are not.”

Intending this passage to apply to the Jewish captivity contemporary to his own time, Jeremiah indicated in the verses immediately following that he promised a return for those who had been scattered: "Thus said Jehovah: Withhold thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears, For there is a reward for thy work, An affirmation of Jehovah, And they have turned back from the land of the enemy. And there is hope for thy latter end, An affirmation of Jehovah, And the sons have turned back [to] their border." (vv:16-17 YLT). If verse 15 (the weeping verse) was a prophecy of Herod's massacre, why would the rest of the passage, which promised the return of Rachel's sons, not also be prophecy? It seems obvious that it would have to be, does it not? Why then is there is no claim in Matthew's gospel that the children murdered according to Herod's edict were ever brought back to their border? Of course, to include such a story element would have meant writing that the children were restored back to life. Consequently, Rachel's "work" was never "rewarded," and her sons never "turned back [to] their border." In Jeremiah, the word “sons” was obviously being used in a figurative sense to mean the descendants of Rachel, adults as well as children, and not to exclusively mean literal sons only, as would have to be the case if events in Matthew 2 are to be interpreted as fulfillment of a "prophecy." It is quite obvious that Jeremiah 31:15 was a prophecy of Herod's massacre only because Matthew twisted it into one. [8]

Meanings are transferred from one subject to another via the principle of analogy. Transference depends on logical association between ideas. The principle of analogy is a tool used to perceive a writer's methods. In the case of Jeremiah 31:15 and Matt 2:18, the Matthean writer used his hermeneutics and mystical esoteric symbolism to purposefully distort the plain sense of Jeremiah 31:15 by changing the figurative sense of sons from “descendants of Rachel, adults as well as children” to generic male children. The Matthean writer then proceeded to take 31:15 out of its context of the problem of Jewish dispersion caused by the Babylonian captivity, and misapplied it to his fictive narrative. The straight forward reading of Jeremiah 31:15-17 conforms to all the ABE criteria because it is known with good certainty that the Judaic prisoners did return to Judea while the Herodian massacre of the innocents did not occur. The ABE criteria cannot be established for falsehood. But the Matthean writer did establish a precedent, and by analogous hermeneutics the Hebraic writer also took Jeremiah out of context and misapplied 31:31-34 with purposeful intent to craft a fictive exhortation.

In Sandoval's essay, he notes that the Hebraic writer quotes Jeremiah 31:31-34 as a prophecy that the Christian Church replaces ethnic Israel as God's chosen people The most important New Testament proof text for this doctrine is Hebrews 8:7-13 (YLT).

“for if that first were faultless, a place would not have been sought for a second. For finding fault, He saith to them, `Lo, days come, saith the Lord, and I will complete with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah, a new covenant, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day of My taking [them] by their hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt -- because they did not remain in My covenant, and I did not regard them, saith the Lord, -- because this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord, giving My laws into their mind, and upon their hearts I will write them, and I will be to them for a God, and they shall be to Me for a people; and they shall not teach each his neighbour, and each his brother, saying, Know thou the Lord, because they shall all know Me from the small one of them unto the great one of them, because I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawlessnesses I will remember no more;' -- in the saying `new,' He hath made the first old, and what doth become obsolete and is old [is] nigh disappearing.”

Comparing Jeremiah 31:31-34 (YLT)

“Lo, days are coming, an affirmation of Jehovah, And I have made with the house of Israel And with the house of Judah a new covenant, Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day of My laying hold on their hand, To bring them out of the land of Egypt, In that they made void My covenant, And I ruled over them -- an affirmation of Jehovah. For this [is] the covenant that I make, With the house of Israel, after those days, An affirmation of Jehovah, I have given My law in their inward part, And on their heart I do write it, And I have been to them for God, And they are to me for a people. And they do not teach any more Each his neighbour, and each his brother, Saying, Know ye Jehovah, For they all know Me, from their least unto their greatest, An affirmation of Jehovah; For I pardon their iniquity, And of their sin I make mention no more.”

Taking note of the obvious false presumption of historical context that the Exodus and military conquest of Canaan actually happened contained in these passages, (a condition sufficient to render the prophecy false), and by examining the verses prior to the text it can be understood that the phrase “after those days” refers to the end of the Babylonian exile.

Jeremiah 31:20-21 (YLT)
"A precious son is Ephraim to Me? A child of delights? For since My speaking against him, I do thoroughly remember him still, Therefore have My bowels been moved for him, I do greatly love him, An affirmation of Jehovah. Set up for thee signs, make for thee heaps, Set thy heart to the highway, the way thou wentest, Turn back, O virgin of Israel, Turn back unto these thy cities. Till when dost thou withdraw thyself, O backsliding daughter? For Jehovah hath prepared a new thing in the land, Woman doth compass man. Thus said Jehovah of Hosts, God of Israel, Still they say this word in the land of Judah, And in its cities, In My turning back [to] their captivity, Jehovah doth bless thee, habitation of righteousness, Mountain of holiness. And dwelt in Judah have husbandmen, and in all its cities together, And they have journeyed in order. For I have satiated the weary soul, And every grieved soul I have filled.' On this I have awaked, and I behold, and my sleep hath been sweet to me. Lo, days are coming, an affirmation of Jehovah, And I have sown the house of Israel, And the house of Judah, With seed of man, and seed of beast. And it hath been, as I watched over them to pluck up, And to break down, and to throw down, And to destroy, and to afflict; So do I watch over them to build, and to plant, An affirmation of Jehovah."

The context for Jeremiah 31:31-34, set by the preceding passage at 20-28, is that of returning from Babylonian exile to the Judaic homeland. Verses 21, 24, 27-28 directly refer to the happy time in the near future when the Jews are back in Judea. From this its plain that Sandoval correctly asserts “Jeremiah’s new and everlasting covenant is not Christianity in the first century AD; it pertained to the return of the Jewish exiles from the Babylonian Captivity in the sixth century BC, a generation after Jeremiah’s time. After the exile, God was to forgive the sins of the Jews unconditionally, and [magically] reform their rebellious will so that they would never sin again. Thus they would always be worthy of God's blessings, and dwell safely in the land of Israel forever. The prophet made this clear in several commonly overlooked parallel passages:” [9]

Jeremiah 24:4-7 (YLT)
“And there is a word of Jehovah unto me, saying: Thus said Jehovah, God of Israel, Like these good figs so do I acknowledge The removed of Judah -- that I sent from this place, [To] the land of the Chaldeans -- for good. And I have set Mine eyes on them for good, And have brought them back to this land, And built them up, and I throw not down, And have planted them, and pluck not up. And have given to them a heart to know Me, For I [am] Jehovah, And they have been to Me for a people, And I am to them for God, For they turned back unto Me with all their heart.”

Applying ABE to this passage, there is greater explanatory power and scope in viewing this as a parallel to 31:31-34. That this is plausible is discovered by noting the similarity interjacent to Jeremiah 31:27. The shared planting-sowing metaphor links the context of Jeremiah 31:31-34 with 24:4-7. Thus the prophetic predicate in 24:6 is applicable to 31:31-34. This linkage with 31:31-34 is evidence that 31:31-34 refers to the return of the exiles at the end of the Babylonian captivity.

Jeremiah 32:36-41 (YLT)
“And now, therefore, thus said Jehovah, God of Israel, concerning this city, of which ye are saying, It hath been given into the hand of the king of Babylon by sword, and by famine, and by pestilence, Lo, I am gathering them out of all the lands whither I have driven them in Mine anger, and in My fury, and in great wrath, and I have brought them back unto this place, and have caused them to dwell confidently; and they have been to Me for a people, and I am to them for God; and I have given to them one heart, and one way, to fear Me all the days, for good to them, and to their sons after them: and I have made for them a covenant age-during, in that I turn not back from after them for My doing them good, and My fear I put in their heart, so as not to turn aside from me; and I have rejoiced over them to do them good, and have planted them in this land in truth, with all my heart, and with all My soul. `For thus said Jehovah: As I brought in unto this people all this great evil, so I am bringing in on them all the good that I am speaking concerning them; and bought hath been the field in this land of which ye are saying, A desolation it [is], without man and beast, it hath been given into the hand of the Chaldeans. Fields with money they buy, so as to write in a book, and to seal, and to cause witnesses to testify, in the land of Benjamin, and in suburbs of Jerusalem, and in cities of Judah, and in cities of the hill-country, and in cities of the low country, and in cities of the south, for I turn back their captivity -- an affirmation of Jehovah.'”

Greater explanatory power and scope are found by inspection of the parallels between 31:31 and 32:40, between 31:27 and 32:37. The shared restoration metaphor links the context of Jeremiah 31:31-34 with 32:36-41. Thus the prophetic predicate in 24:6 is applicable also to 32:41. This links 32:36-41 with 31:31-34 and is evidence that 31:31-34 refers to the return of the exiles at the end of the Babylonian captivity.

Jeremiah 50:1-5 (YLT)
“The word that Jehovah hath spoken concerning Babylon, concerning the land of the Chaldeans, by the hand of Jeremiah the prophet: `Declare ye among nations, and sound, And lift up an ensign, sound, do not hide, Say ye: Captured hath been Babylon, Put to shame hath been Bel, Broken hath been Merodach, Put to shame have been her grievous things, Broken have been her idols. For come up against her hath a nation from the north, It maketh her land become a desolation, And there is not an inhabitant in it. From man even unto beast, They have moved, they have gone. In those days, and at that time, An affirmation of Jehovah, Come in do sons of Israel, They and sons of Judah together, Going on and weeping they go, And Jehovah their God they seek. [To] Zion they ask the way, Thitherward [are] their faces: Come in, and we are joined unto Jehovah, A covenant age-during -- not forgotten.”

Observing the travel imagery in in 50:5a is analogous to similar imagery in 31:21and the parallel covenant references in 50:5b vs 31:31 allows the exegete to obtain greater explanatory power and scope from a straight forward reading. Plausibility is gauged by noting that 50:1-5 refers to the downfall of Babylonia. This linkage with 31:31-34 is evidence that 31:31-34 refers to the return of the exiles at the end of the Babylonian captivity.

Jeremiah 50:17-20 (YLT)
“A scattered sheep is Israel, lions have driven away, At first, devour him did the king of Asshur, And now, at last, broken his bone Hath Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon. Therefore thus said Jehovah of Hosts, God of Israel: Lo, I am seeing after the king of Babylon, And after his land, As I have seen after the king of Asshur; And I have brought back Israel unto his habitation, And he hath fed on Carmel, and on Bashan. And in mount Ephraim, and on Gilead is his soul satisfied. In those days, and at that time, An affirmation of Jehovah, Sought is the iniquity of Israel, and it is not, And the sin of Judah, and it is not found, For I am propitious to those whom I leave!”

The shared shepherding allegory in 31:24 and 50:19 in conjunction with the similarity regarding forgiveness from 31:34 to 50:20 link 31:31-34 with the end of the exile.

Its very obvious from the previously cited passages the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-34 only and exclusively applies to the Jews in Judea after the close of captivity and exile. Jeremiah accentuates that God's election of Israel as his chosen people is eternal and unconditional in the subsequent passage.

Jeremiah 31:35-37 (YLT)
“Thus said Jehovah, Who is giving the sun for a light by day, The statutes of moon and stars for a light by night, Quieting the sea when its billows roar, Jehovah of Hosts [is] His name: If these statutes depart from before Me, An affirmation of Jehovah, Even the seed of Israel doth cease From being a nation before Me all the days. Thus said Jehovah: If the heavens above be measured, And the foundations of earth below searched, Even I kick against all the seed of Israel, For all that they have done, An affirmation of Jehovah.”

By linking the continuation of celestial events to the continuation of the nation of Israel, Jeremiah (or whoever was writing in his name), established interdependence of 35-37 with the prior prophetic assertions of a new covenant. In the entire context of chapter 31, a straight forward reading of 31-34 yields an understanding that the passage applies to the establishment of a post exilic Jewish state and a magical writing of the Mosaic Law into Jewish hearts.

Jeremiah's new covenant prophecies utterly failed. To be fulfilled the Babylonian exile would have had to have lasted seventy years as Jeremiah's prophetic utterances listed in Jeremiah 25:11-12, 29:10-14 and 2 Chronicles 36:20-23 states. All Jeremiah's other prophecies are presumed in context of a 70 year exile. But what really happened was that the exile began in 587 BC when Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar defeated Judah, razed Jerusalem, and deported its population to Babylon. Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple were to lie in ruins during the proffered 70 year period, and the Jews were to reside as exiles in foreign lands. Forty-nine years later, however, the exile ended in 538 BC. This was the year after King Cyrus of Persia had conquered Babylonia and when he allowed the Jews to return to their homelands. At this time, God was supposed to bestow the blessings of the new covenant upon the Jews as described in Jeremiah 50:1-20. [9]

Although some Jews returned to Judea after the 49 year exile, God failed to supernaturally reform their hearts or secure them in Judea forever as predicted by Jeremiah. Subsequently, Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi condemn the post-exilic Jews as sinners. Besides, the Diaspora Jews scattered across the near east and Roman world after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Most of the Jews just remained in the Diaspora from Babylonian times till the present. [9] This, in conjunction with the undeniable fact that divine law has not been written onto the hearts of the Jews, represents a complete failure of Jeremiah's prophecy.

The Old Testament prophets leaned on several rationalizations when their predictions did not come true. The conditional prophecy theory allowed Jeremiah and the other prophets to save their lives from the capital crime of being a false prophet as described in Deuteronomy 18:20. Claiming God revokes a promise of blessing if a nation sins against him, and revokes punishment if they repent Jeremiah emulated Jonah who predicted that the sinful city of Nineveh was about to be destroyed. Story has it that the Ninevites repented and God spared them. Micah prophesied that the Assyrians would dismantle Jerusalem, God rescinded his threat after King Hezekiah repented. Failure of the new covenant prophecies cannot be so conveniently explained away because they are unconditional. God was prophesied to change the sinful hearts of the Jews so that they would willingly obey him, and merit his blessings in the land of Israel forever. [9] This did not happen.
Jeremiah's prediction of the new covenant is doubly embarrassing to Christians. The Hebraic author miscued by purposefully misapplying Jeremiah 31:31-34 as a prediction of the alleged Christian covenant. Jeremiah or the Deuteronomic redactor [10] erred in writing or anachronistically interpolating this passage as a prediction of Israel's eternal post exile blessings. Jeremiah 31:31-34 has been misused and twisted by New Testament authors; however, it was falsified by subsequent history. This is not at all what is expected if the Old and New Testaments are the inerrant, inspired Word of God, but is exactly what is expected if the Bible was written and authored by ignorant and ordinary religious fanatics.

Sandoval has defended his essay in the IIDB forum. [11] He acknowledges a weakness in his essay pointed out by a user that he failed to emphasize the conservative nature of any change in dispensational covenants. The forum user brought attention to the covenant between El Shaddai and Abraham was not superseded by the new covenant between Yahweh, Moses, and the Jews at Sinai. This view is supported by Sandoval's response.
“For all we know, you may be correct that the prophet Jeremiah intended the “halakhah” (or observances) of the new covenant to be the same as that of the old covenant. Richard Elliot Friedman in his book “Who Wrote the Bible?” maintains that Jeremiah or one of his associates was the compiler of the first edition of the Deuteronomistic History (i.e., Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings), and his career began during the reign of King Josiah (Jeremiah 1:1-2), when High Priest Hilkiah first "discovered" the original version of the Book of Deuteronomy in the Temple. So it would be no surprise if Jeremiah understood the "old" and "new" covenants as having similar or identical statutes and observances.”

Sandoval's argument from Friedman's observations is buttressed by the Old Testament scriptures themselves. For they directly and in no uncertain terms declare that the Mosaic Law is an eternal covenant. (The following are from the RSV.)

Gen 17:19 God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.

Ex 12:14 "This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance for ever.

Ex 12:14 "This day shall be for you a memorial day, and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD; throughout your generations you shall observe it as an ordinance for ever.

Ex 12:17 And you shall observe the feast of unleavened bread, for on this very day I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt: therefore you shall observe this day, throughout your generations, as an ordinance for ever.

Lev 23:14 And you shall eat neither bread nor grain parched or fresh until this same day, until you have brought the offering of your God: it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

Lev 23:21 And you shall make proclamation on the same day; you shall hold a holy convocation; you shall do no laborious work: it is a statute for ever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.

Lev 23:31 You shall do no work: it is a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

Deu 7:9 Know therefore that the LORD your God is God, the faithful God who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love him and keep his commandments, to a thousand generations,

1Ch 16:15 He is mindful of his covenant for ever, of the word that he commanded, for a thousand generations,

Psa 111:7-8 The works of his hands are faithful and just; all his precepts are trustworthy, they are established for ever and ever, to be performed with faithfulness and uprightness.

Psa 119:151 But thou art near, O LORD, and all thy commandments are true. Psa 119:152 Long have I known from thy testimonies that thou hast founded them for ever.

Psa 119:160 The sum of thy word is truth; and every one of thy righteous ordinances endures for ever.

Mal 4:4 "Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel.

Thus the context of Jewish-Mosaic law familiar to Jeremiah (or whoever was writing in his name) was one of an eternal unending covenant. To use the ABE in interpretation of the text of 31:31-34 our suppositions "must be less ad hoc," that is, it must contain fewer "new suppositions" that have no other evidential support apart from the fact that they make the theory fit the evidence. To assume that Jeremiah meant that a new covenant included abrogation of the Mosaic law, justification before the Jewish God by means of human sacrifice, and institution of sacred consumption of blood [12] instead of return from exile and supernatural writing of the Mosaic law into the hearts of Jews as the text clearly affirms is to introduce multiple ad hoc enthymemes. ABE criteria #5 selects the plain sense in-context reading of Jeremiah 31:31-34. The mystical muddle headed misapplication of Jeremiah 31 to Hebrews 8 is disconfirmed by the prevalence of Mosaic Law to 6th century BCE Jewish religious culture.

In conclusion, it is clear that a common sense straight forward reading of the text of Jeremiah's prophetic utterance at 31:31-34 does not allude to a new covenant embodied in Christianity but rather to an enhancement of the then existing Jewish Mosaic law. That this is so follows from the facts that:
1.Argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy and cannot establish a true conclusion.
2.That the Christian worldview itself is deeply flawed and is incapable of supporting reality based exegetical reasoning.
3.If prophecy were actually real, then the resultant incoherence of Christianity due to hard deterministic fatalism would render Christianity paradoxical.
4.That the Argument to the Best Explanation triumphs over mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism to interpret Biblical texts by virtue of the ABE's basal confirmation of the reality of what an author actually wrote.
5.The principle of analogy is a useful tool allowing the exegetical inquirer to ascertain mischievous similarities interjacent to related midrashic passages fabricated for fictional narrative.
6.The context of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is determined by examination of parallel passages from Jeremiah. The prophet's intended context supports and is in harmony with the conclusion.
7.The fact that Jeremiah's prophecy failed is fatal to Christianity's presuppositional affirmation that its fantasy God structures and vivifies a supporting soma of doctrines and reveals the fallacy of the Hebraic writer.
8.The overall context of the exilic Jewish religious culture centered around a commitment to the never ending and eternal covenant of the Mosaic law. Assumptions to the contrary are ad hoc fallacies and are disconfirmed by generally accepted truths of 6th century BCE Judaism.
Taken together these points support Chris Sandoval's analysis of how and why Hebraic writer erred in citing Jeremiah 31:31-34 as a prophecy of Christianity as the new covenant in Hebrews 8:7-13. Therefore I assert Sandoval's argument is secure from J.L. Hinman's attack.

[1] http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Argumentum+ad+verecundiam&gwp=13

[2] See Transcendental Argument for Non-existence of God.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/martin-frame/tang.html

[3] C. Behan McCullagh, Justifying Historical Descriptions, 1984.

[4] http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html#Method

[5] “Consciousness is the faculty of awareness—the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
Awareness is not a passive state, but an active process. On the lower levels of awareness, a complex neurological process is required to enable man to experience a sensation and to integrate sensations into percepts; that process is automatic and non-volitional: man is aware of its results, but not of the process itself. On the higher, conceptual level, the process is psychological, conscious and volitional. In either case, awareness is achieved and maintained by continuous action.
Directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from one’s awareness of the external world. Some object, i.e., some content, is involved in every state of awareness. Extrospection is a process of cognition directed outward—a process of apprehending some existent(s) of the external world. Introspection is a process of cognition directed inward—a process of apprehending one’s own psychological actions in regard to some existent(s) of the external world, such actions as thinking, feeling, reminiscing, etc. It is only in relation to the external world that the various actions of a consciousness can be experienced, grasped, defined or communicated. Awareness is awareness of something. A content-less state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.” - Ayn Rand, “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, p.37

[6] http://www.answers.com/topic/ad-hoc?ff=1

[7] I say fictional because there is no evidence that guy, the Christ of Faith as depicted in the canonical Gospels, existed. Therefore he probably did not. It may be true that a historical Jesus of some sort existed, but if he did, he is forever lost to history.

[8] Ferrel Till, “PROPHECIES: IMAGINARY AND UNFULFILLED”,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html


[9] Chris Sandoval, “Jeremiah's New Covenant vs. Christianity”,
http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=785

[10] Raymond F. Person, “Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomic School”
http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/books?id=4088416075876&isbn=1850754551

“Person concludes that the Deuteronomic school's redactional activity continued into the postexilic period. In Part I, he first critiques the commonly-held conclusion that the Deuteronomic school ceased in the Exile. He then presents evidence that suggests that the Deuteronomic redactions of the Deuteronomic History and Jeremiah continued into the postexilic period. this evidence is of two types: (1) Deuteronomic phraseology in the postexilic additions found in the MT and (2) the themes of return and restoratin as vaticinia ex eventu. In Part II, the conclusion that the Detueronomic school continued in the postexilic period is bolstered with additional evidence in the form of Deuteronomic phraseology in the redactional material of Second Zechariah. adapting the methodology applied by J Philip Hyatt and others to Jeremiah, Person argues that Zechariah was redacted by the Deuteronomic school with the addition of the Deuteronomic prose in Zechariah 9-14. In Part III, Person comments on the possible social setting of the Deuteronomic school in postexilic Yehud as well as its theology in this setting.”

I am arguing that Person's hypothesis is very likely true by virtue of its intrinsic truth content rather than from the fact Person wrote a fancy book.

[11] http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=246538&highlight=sandoval

[12] Consider the contradiction between Lev. 7:22-27 and 1 Cor. 11:23-25. The same being cannot be responsible for both passages unless it is a liar and deciever.

DingoDave said...

J.L. Hinman,
On your blog 'Atheist Watch' you wrote:

'Call to Chrisitians: Do not Throw Pearls Before Swine'
"When I ask this, often the answers I get are on the order of "becasue I love them, God loves them, and I want to show them the truth so they can be saved." But, why don't you spend your time trying to convert serial killers? God loves them. Don't you want them to be saved? It would probably be more productive.
Or why not spend your time trying to convert crack dealers? It would be about as productive. Crack dealers would come as close as atheists to giving serious consideration to anything you have to say.
I am seriously asking Christians to stop talking to atheists. we need to start treating these thugs like the little bullies they are.the only reason they want to talk to you is so they can laugh and say "O how stupid religous people are! I am so smart compared to them." They want to so badly to feel superior. They have no desire whatsoever to hear your arguments or to think about anything.
Unless we stop talking to them they will go on using this as an excuse to berate and riducle. Only when they have no Christians to talk to that they will get the message taht their snide hateful atttitudes are not acceptable."

You really don't like atheists very much do you J.L.? If that's the way you really feel, then what are you doing here?
By the way, being an atheist myself, I don't appreciate being compared to serial killers, or crack dealers, or bullies or thugs.

Robert_B wrote:
-"Moreover, Christianity's doctrine regarding prophecy is problematic. If prophecy is real, then the future already exists, and hard deterministic fatalism is true...This would be fatal to Christianity. If hard deterministic fatalism is true, then freewill is an illusion."

The Bible (especially the New Testament) clearly teaches the doctrine of predestination. It's only a problem for modern Christians because most of them recognise what an abominable doctrine it is, which they rightly view as being very unfair and unjust. It's not a problem for Calvinists though. Calvinists like Gene Cooke and Paul Manata see nothing wrong with the idea of people being punished for events which are out of their control. Thankfully most modern day Christians (apart from Calvinists) are better than their holy book.

It's frustrating when Christians will not admit that a Bible author actually meant what he wrote. It makes a mockery of the term 'Bible believing Christian'.
In my experience, it's more often we atheists who are prepared to take the Bible authors at their word. It seems to me to be utterly dishonest for Chrisitans to twist Old Testament prophecies in such a way as to force fit them into a Christian framework, when their original meanings should be obvious even to blind Freddy. I'm sure that it takes a certain kind of blind committment to their pre-concieved dogmas that Christians don't seem to recognise how dishonest they are being when they do this.

Unknown said...

When I was looking over my reply to Mr Hinman, I noticed the difference between Jer. 32:31 and Heb. 8:9. (Bible verses are from Young’s Literal Translation.)

Not like the covenant that I made with their fathers, In the day of My laying hold on their hand, To bring them out of the land of Egypt, In that they made void My covenant, And I ruled over them -- an affirmation of Jehovah. Jer 31:32 (YLT)

Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the day of My taking [them] by their hand, to bring them out of the land of Egypt -- because they did not remain in My covenant, and I did not regard them, saith the Lord, -- Heb 8:9 (YLT)

In J31:32b we read: "In that they made void My covenant, And I ruled over them", but in H8:9b the text reads: "because they did not remain in My covenant, and I did not regard them". First notice the differences in 32b, it says "they [the Jews] made void My covenant" while in 9b, it says: "because they did not remain in My covenant". This is significant from a theological and doctrinal standpoint. If the Jews voided the covenant as in Jeremiah, then there is no offense against the deity, for the covenant is simply voided. Distinctively different is Hebrews, where "they [the Jews] did not remain in My covenant" means the Jews were liable and culpable for offense against the deity since the covenant was still in effect.

Secondly, in Jer. 31:32b the text says: “…And I ruled over them…”, but Heb. 8:9b reads as: “…and I did not regard them…”. In the former, Yahweh is still sovereign and the Jews are still his people; however, in the later, Yahweh has abandoned the Jews by no longer regarding them. It appears the Hebraic author cooked the books to make a foundation of lies upon which to build Christianity’s doctrine that its believers are the replacements for the Jews as the chosen people.

The author of Hebrews purposefully and knowingly changed the text of Jeremiah 31:32 in order to make these subtle distinctions.

Unknown said...

Mr. Hinman: I will address the issue you raise regarding Zechariah 3:8. I cannot promise to have an analysis at any specific time, but I will work on it and will post when completed.

Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention.

DingoDave said...

J.L. Hinman wrote:

-"Zak 4 indicates that the Messiah's name would be Jesus. It says "this is the name of the man who brings the branch." The phrase "brings the branch" is well known to be a euphanism for Messiah. the name of the man to whom they refer is, the highpreist of the era in which Zerubabel was to rebuild the temple, his name was Joshua. Of course you know that's anglicized version of Yeshua , which is Jesus."

It has been proposed by some Bible Scholars that the name 'Jesus' refers to a title rather than a real name. The name "Yehoshua", and it's hellenised form Jesus, means "Yahweh saves", or "Savior" in it's shortened form.

This hypothesis is supported by the New Testament itself. Philippians 2 states that Jesus didn't recieve his name / title until after his resurrection and ascension into Heaven.

Philippians 2
[5] Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
[6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
[7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
[8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
[9] Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
[10] that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
[11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

What Paul or some other early Christian writer had done was to bastardize a passage in Isaiah , in an attempt to turn Jesus into a god.

Here is the original passage in Isaiah.
"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.’" Isaiah 45:22-23

Yahweh swears that all will bow the knee to him, whereas Paul says that all will bow their knee to the Lord Jesus!
This isn’t the only place where Paul wrote that Christ was exalted by Yahweh to the highest level and realm of authority.

"and what is the immeasurable greatness of his power in us who believe, according to the working of his great might which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all." Ephesians 1:19-23

Notice that the original passage is strictly monotheistic. Yet the author of these Pauline passages selectively quotes only part of it in an attempt to deify Jesus. This is simply one more example of early Christians twisting Old Testament scripture in order to fit their agenda of a newly created god-man.
These were not prophecies, but were deliberate distortions of the Jewish scriptures perpetrated by early Christian cultists in order to give their new religion a false appearance of authenticity. No educated Jew in early Christian times would have fallen for this sort of sophistry, and history shows us that the vast majority of them didn't.

Zechariah 3:8 was a self fullfilling prophecy. The Early Christian cultists intentionally named themselves the 'Branchites' in response to this and other pasages.

'Nazarenes (Branchites) and Ebionites'

Josephus reports four main sects or schools of Judaism: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots. The earliest followers of Jesus were known as Nazarenes, and perhaps later, Ebionites, and form an important part of the picture of Palestinian Jewish groups in late 2nd Temple times.

The Ebionite/Nazarene movement was made up of mostly Jewish/Israelite followers of John the Baptizer and later Jesus, who were concentrated in Palestine and surrounding regions and led by "James the Just" (the oldest brother of Jesus), and flourished between the years 30-80 C.E. They were zealous for the Torah and continued to walk in all the mitzvot (commandments) as enlightened by their Rabbi and Teacher, but accepted non-Jews into their fellowship on the basis of some version of the Noachide Laws (Acts 15 and 21). The term Ebionite (from Hebrew 'Evyonim) means "Poor Ones" and was taken from the teachings of Jesus: "Blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom of God" based on Isaiah 66:2 and other related texts that address a remnant group of faithful ones. Nazarene comes from the Hebrew word Netzer (drawn from Isaiah 11:1) and means "a Branch"—so the Nazarenes were the "Branchites" or followers of the one they believed to be the Branch. The term Nazarene was likely the one first used for these followers of Jesus, as evidenced by Acts 24:5 where Paul is called "the ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes." Here we see the word used in a similar way to that of Josephus in writing of the four sects/schools of Judaism: Pharisees; Sadducess; Essenes; and Zealots. So the term Nazarene is probably the best and broadest term for the movement, while Ebionite (Poor Ones) was used as well, along with a whole list of other terms: Saints, Children of Light, the Way, New Covenanters, et al. We also know from the book of Acts that the group itself preferred the designation "The Way" (see Acts 24:14, 22, etc.). The term "Christian," first used in Greek speaking areas for the movement, actually is an attempt to translate the term Nazarene and basically means a "Messianist."

The Essenes (possibly from 'Ossim, meaning "Doers of Torah"), who wrote or collected the Dead Sea Scrolls, pioneered certain aspects of this "Way" over 150 years before the birth of Jesus. They were a wilderness (out in the Arava, near the Dead Sea--based on Isaiah 40:3), baptizing (mikveh of repentance as entrance requirement into their fellowship), new covenant, messianic/apocalyptic group (they were expecting three redemptive Figures—the Prophet like Moses and his two Messiahs), that saw themselves as the remnant core of God's faithful people—preparing the Way for the return of YHVH's Glory (Kavod) as set forth in Isaiah 40-66. They too referred to themselves as the Way, the Poor, the Saints, the New Covenanters, Children of Light, and so forth. Perhaps their most common designation was the Yachad--the brotherhood or community, and they referred to themselves as brother and sister. They were bitterly opposed to the corrupt Priests in Jerusalem, to the Herods, and even to the Pharisees whom they saw as compromising with that establishment to get power and influence from the Hellenistic/Roman powers. They had their own developed Halacha (interpretation of Torah), some aspects of which Jesus picks up (ideal of no divorce, not using oaths, etc.). They followed one they called the True Teacher (Teacher of Righteousness) whom most scholars believe lived in the 1st century B.C.E. and was opposed and possibly killed by the Hasmonean King/Priests at the instigation of the Pharisees. John the Baptizer seems to arise out of this context and rekindle the apocalyptic fervor of the movement in the early decades of the first century C.E.
http://www.religiousstudies.uncc.edu/JDTABOR/ebionites.html

Unknown said...

Of late, I’ve been reading Disputing Christianity by Richard H Popkin. (Prometheus Books, ISBN: 1-59102-384-X)

Dr. Popkin, sadly passed away, crafted a work showcasing a powerful argument against Christianity. Popkin was intrigued as to why a devout Harvard Divinity School graduate and Congregationalist minister would renounce Christianity and then pen a devastating rebuttal against his former faith. George Bethune English deconverted from Christianity after studying an argument against his faith composed by a late 16th century heretical Jewish Rabbi. Issac ben Abraham of Troki wrote a document called the “Chizzuk Emunah.” George Bethune English in turn wrote “The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old”. (This book is available on Google books or Project Gutenberg as a free download.)

This bears on the current discussion of prophecy because English’s adaptation of Rabbi Issac’s argument against Christianity centers around showing Jesus of Nazareth did not meet the Old Testament criteria necessary to be legitimately considered as the Messiah. George Bethune English details why OT prophecy is inapplicable to Jesus of Nazareth. In chapter 5 he examines the OT prophecies and discusses the hermeneutics and ways of quoting and interpreting scripture employed by the New Testament writers. In this endeavor, English cites Willem Surenhuis [Surenhuys, Surenhusius (c.1664-1729) was a Dutch Christian scholar of Hebrew, known for his Latin translation of the Mishnah, the first of the complete work. It was published from 1698 to 1703. The son of a German-born minister, he studied at the University of Groningen, and later taught in Amsterdam. - wikipedia]

Surenhusius discovered, after a lengthy survey of Talmudic literature, the following hermeneutical rules used by first century Rabbis and the Apostle Paul in construction of their religious midrash.

"1. The first rule is--"reading the words of the Hebrew bible, not
according to the points placed under them, but according to other
points substituted in their stead," as is done by Peter, Acts iii. 3; by
Stephen, Acts vii. 43, and by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 54; 2 Cor. viii. 16,
and Heb. iii. 10; ix. 21; xii. 6.

2. The second rule is--"changing the letters, whether those letters
be of the same organ (as the Hebrew grammarians speak,) or not,"
as is done by Paul, Rom. ix. 33; 1 Cor. xi. 9; Heb. viii. 9, and x. 6;
and by Stephen, Acts vii. 43.

3. The third is--"changing both letters and points," as is done by
Paul, Acts xiii. 41, and 2 Cor. viii. 15.

4. The fourth is--"adding some letters, and taking away others."

5. The fifth is--"transposing words and letters."

6. The sixth is--"dividing one word into two."

7. The seventh is--"adding other words to those in the text, in
order to make the sense more clear, and to accommodate it to the
subject they we upon."

8. The eighth is--"changing the order of words."

9. The ninth is--"changing the order of words, and adding other
words."

10. The tenth is--"changing the order of words, adding words,
and retrenching words," which, (says he) is a method often used
by Paul. Of the application of all these rules, he gives examples
taken from the New Testament.

It is not necessary to make many observations upon these rules,
they speak for themselves most significantly; for what is there that
cannot be proved from the Old Testament, or any other book, yea,
from Euclid's Elements! or even an old almanac! by the help of
"altering words and sentences; adding; retrenching; and
transposing, and cutting words in two," as is stated above by a
learned and good man, and sincere Christian who found out, and
brought forward, these rules, as the best means of getting the
authors of the New Testament out of a difficulty, which had long
shocked and grieved their best friends."

The Project Gutenberg EBook of "The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old", last page of chapter V, by George Bethune English

Bethune’s observation cuts to the core the Christian case for use of alleged OT prophecies in the NT documents. By the rules ferreted out by Willem Surenhuis, I could prove the moon is made from green cheese with citations derived from USA Today for June 30, 2007.

My intention is to do a series of essay review-reports on Popkin’s and English’s work. George Bethune English is especially interesting, though he lived 1787-1828, as he wrote "The Grounds of Christianity Examined" (Boston 1813) shortly after deconverting from Christianity. His interesting life and continued literary efforts against Christianity in response to his critics is appropriate for debunkingchristianity.

Unknown said...

Dingo Dave, That's an Excellent post. Thanks for your clever insight. The true origins of Christianity seem to me most likely to repose with groups you named, Nazarenes and Ebionites. Hellenistic influence of the Theraputae (sp?) and Cynics in confluence with survivors of the Jewish war could have been the fertile soil from which further cults evolved.

DingoDave said...

Robert_B wrote:
-"Hellenistic influence of the Theraputae (sp?) and Cynics in confluence with survivors of the Jewish war could have been the fertile soil from which further cults evolved."

The early church historian Eusebius, in his book 'Ecclesiastical History' makes a striking statement about the Theraputae. In a rare moment of candour he admits that the theraputae/Essenes, were the original Christians.

He states;

"Those ancient Therapeuts were Christians, and their ancient scriptures were our Gospels and Epistles", (Ecel. Hist. p. 63.)

For a comprehensive list of Essene/Christian similarities visit.
http://www.thenazareneway.com/essene_and_christian_parallels.htm

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Robert_b~ "Moreover, Christianity's doctrine regarding prophecy is problematic. If prophecy is real, then the future already exists, and hard deterministic fatalism is true."

[False assertion. Foreknowledge is what we would expect from a truly omniscient being. Sharing that foreknowledge with HIS people is what we would expect for a truly all powerful and loving being who is in “touch” with his people.

His knowing the future does not entail rank fatalistic predeterminism. God foreknows based on HIS ability to know all whether that is in our past, present, or future. Isaiah 46:10~ “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:” Further in the book of Isaiah Ch.48 God renders an overarching premise in why he reveals future events to his people,

1- Because of the obstinatinance of the people v.4,
2- So that they would know that no idol or anything else had brought to pass what (He)God declared v.5.
3- So that people would not take self-glory from what God had done v.7. and
4- So that God could communicate and reveal HIS truth to the people. V.16-17.]

Robert_b~ "Back to the question of Jeremiah 31:31-34, of course, I completely disagree with J.L. Hinman. Modern Christians and Messianic Jews wrongfully interpret Biblical passages using mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism as did the ancients who fabricated the texts."

[Now, the burden of proof is on you to name fabrications and support your assertions. Although assertions such as yours have been made through Documentary Hypothesis, those assertions have been put down adequately by scholars and there is generally no acceptance of Documentary Hypothesis other than through radical, internet spawned atheists and fringe, NOT centrist, scholars who irresponsibly peddle erroneous information to promote and sell books. Other than state in general that texts were fabricated which carries no weight, is totally arbitrary, and based on subjective opinion]

Robert_b~ "The habit of using the Bible as a ventriloquist dummy is deeply ingrained in almost all Christian sectarians. I think this is a hold over from the early days of Gnosticism when the faith was divided into outer-public mysteries and inner-private mysteries. The outer mystery is the simple message of “believe and be saved or don't and burn” while the inner mysteries entails esoteric symbolic exegesis and interpretations."

[Expansion or restatement of Walter Bauer’s debunked and thoroughly rejected theory of alternate Christianities. Please stick to the issue at hand...You argument that there is no such thing as biblical prophecy.

I've noticed that atheists like to argue as many points at one time as possible so that they can divert attention when their argument fails....Dingo,s the perfect example...How's Vienna Beach? Let’s see if I can make you get to cussin’ again!!!]

Robert_b~ "The authority cited by J.L. Hinman is a very small percentage of dissenting Jewish scholarship, consisting of isolated religious zealots, who are disconnected from mainstream Jewish culture. Messianic Jews, have been in my experience, uniformly fanatical and near delusional to the extent of psychosis. It is a mistake for anyone to take them seriously"

[Argumentum Ad Hominem in effort to reduce credibility. Your rank classism and boarderline racism, have nothing to do with the argument at hand. You assert that the biblical prophecies are false and that “prophecy” is an impossibility. Mr. Hinman has carefully and clearly pointed out that there is a great consensus among many Messianic Jews and other Jews for that matter, that Jesus was and further is the Messiah clearly defined in the OT prophetic narrative, don't impune the character of them who agree based on the best available evidence such as the one that Mr. Hinman mentions.]

Robert_b~ " Intending this passage to apply to the Jewish captivity contemporary to his own time, Jeremiah indicated in the verses immediately following that he promised a return for those who had been scattered: "Thus said Jehovah: Withhold thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears, For there is a reward for thy work, An affirmation of Jehovah, And they have turned back from the land of the enemy. And there is hope for thy latter end, An affirmation of Jehovah, And the sons have turned back [to] their border." (vv:16-17 YLT). If verse 15 (the weeping verse) was a prophecy of Herod's massacre, why would the rest of the passage, which promised the return of Rachel's sons, not also be prophecy?"

[Jer. 31:16-17 ~ “Thus saith the LORD; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the LORD; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the LORD, that thy children shall come again to their own border.”

The entire portion is prophetic. I'll make my final observations regarding this portion here as your article adds no new dimension and is further snared at this point.

Even if this passage is restricted to the return from captivity and the restoration of Israel it is predictive. Baruch writing on behalf of Jeremiah prior to 605 BC. 605 BC was the FIRST or initial deportation of captivity. (587 BC as you reference was the last deportation…the clock was already running) Cyrus the Great conquered Babylon in 539 BC. The decree of Israel’s return was not until 538 BC. It took 2 years to gather materials and get ready for the return. They didn’t go until 536 BC. Once we factor in a minimum 4 month to 6 month trip- 900 miles one way) with all the equipment and people the bible reports we are left with a laying of the Temple foundation (Ezra 3:8-13) WE HAVE 70 YEARS. The temple wasn’t finished for another 15 years in 520 BC.

Point 1-There is a 49 to 50 year gap from the last deportation of 586. You and your source use and inaccurate method to date the passage and that is intentional to bolster your fallacious argument.

Point. 2- Jer. 31 may in part pertain to this return but it is only in part. This event does not place a new covenant WITHIN the believer the events of Ezra. 3. In fact in Ezra the Old Covenant is rediscovered not a New Covenant given.

Dingo says Christian should read and believe the bible for what it says….well READ it then. It confirms what I’m saying.

Beyond all that, Isaiah in approximately 740 BC SPECIFICALLY names Cyrus in Isa. 44:28 who would give the decree as confirmed in Ez. 1:2. This offers an even a greater gap of 200 years between Isaiah’s prophecy and the eventual decree by Cyrus's edict.

You make a fallacious argument. You claim that prophecy does not exist, yet we point to phrophetic utterance that does. You claim that in order for prophecy to exist, that would be fatalistic determinism, which we see that Cyrus acted independently of prophetic knowledge.

What Richard Carrier intends to say (through you vicariously) is that these scriptures were redacted to make them fit. However, the evidence does not support your presuppostion.

Your revisionary proposition has been made through one or more documentary hypothesis and has been found defective and unsupportable both by Jewish history and the history of surrounding nations. You claim conspiracy theory when non exists.

Because your whole argument is dependent upon the non existence of prophecy and it can be demonstrated that prophecies were both made and fulfilled, your entire argument is rejected base on Argumentum Absurdium.

In short you don’t even bring this fallacious argument further along enough to attempt to make a credible argument against any of the easily and openly identifiable 60 PLUS Messianic prophecies that were rendered in the OT and fulfilled through Jesus.

Your assertions fly in the face of Peter Stoner’s information based on laws of statistical probability in which he only considers 48 of the extant prophecies and confirms the utter impossibility to manufacture a Jesus to fit the messianic promise as Jesus did. There is no argument of any credibility by any of the information that you offer as there is ample evidence against any redactions, ample evidence for historicity of the narratives in general and in no way can you credibly use pertinent scriptures in support of your argument.

Now, since most atheists are extreme conspiricy theorists, I'll ask you this...What would make a community...ANY community, create the worst possible lie ever imaginable in human history and by virtue of that lie encourage and encounter people to become LAW ABIDING citizens both morally, ethically and every other way?

If it was necessary that there was the greatest lie and historic revisions ever made throughout human history, what was the actual condition of man that a lie would better humanity?

Point is Carrier's and this articles COMPLETE assertion isn't even logical and has a fruitless and pointless end. Biblical illiteracy…not just a job…it’s an adventure (for some of you)]

Thank you.

Unknown said...

Mr. Dingo Dave: Thanks for mentioning Philippians 2:6-11. This evening, I looked in my copy of “The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”, and found the passage where Price discusses those verses. This is of paramount importance to a discussion of Biblical prophecy. Christians like Mr. Hinman presuppose the Christ of faith to be the historical Jesus. I completely disagree with that position. The hymn in Philippians is strong evidence that Paul believed in a cosmic Christ who was a spirit world being rather than a flesh and blood man. The Christians will go to any length to defend the notion that their fantasy was a real person; for if they acknowledge that Paul believed in a cosmic Christ, then all the alleged prophecies they use to try to validate their claims go bye-bye.

In “The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”, Robert M. Price engages in discussion of Paul L. Couchoud's observation that knocks the wind out of Christianity. “Couchoud pointed out a neglected detail of the important text Phil. 2:6-1, a hymn fragment about the suffer and exaltation of the Christ:

Phl 2:6-11 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, [even death on a cross]. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


Price continues: “Scholars agree [4] that the bracketed phrase, “event death on a cross” is secondary, as interrupts the meter of the rest. All agree as well that the hymn text is based ultimately on Isa. 45:22-23.

Isa 45:22 "Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.'

Price elucidates: “ The Philippians hymn thus delegates what was originally conceived as the exclusive divine dominion of Yahve to his glorified Christ after his suffering, in accord with the ancient mytheme glimpsed in Dan. 7:13-14 of Baal assuming coregency with his father El following his resurrection victory over Mot the death monster. ...... all agree that the Philippians hymn does depict the divine enthronement of the vindicated Christ. But they invariably read the text as if God had bestowed on someone already called Jesus the divine title Kurios, “Lord”, equivalent to Adonai in the Old Testament, ....... Couchoud notices that this is not quite what the text says. Instead, what we read is that, because of his humiliating self-sacrifice, an unnamed heavenly being has been granted a mighty name that henceforth should call forth confessions of fealty from all beings in the cosmos. At the name of “Jesus” every knee should bow,. Every tongue acknowledge his Lordship.

But, Couchoud reasoned with ineluctable logic, does not this piece of early Christian tradition presuppose a theology of the savior whereby he received the name Jesus only after his death struggle, even as Jacob received the honorific name Israel only after wrestling with God (Gen. 32:24-38)? According to such an understanding, there can have bee no Galilean adventures of an itinerant teacher and healer named Jesus. Rather, these stories must necessarily have arisen only at a subsequent stage of belief when the savior's glorification, along with his honorific name Jesus, had been retrojected back before his death. I would suggest that only such a scenario of early Christological development can account for, first the utter absence of the gospel-story tradition from most of th New Testament epistles, and second, the fictive, non-historical character of story after story in the Gospels.

And this in turn implies that the name of Jesus, once it came to be taken for granted as the name of the character, was unwittingly retrojected into the past history of the Character....”

Robert M. Price, “The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”, p.352-353

[4] Ralph P. Martin, “Carmen Christ: Philippians 2:5-11 in Recent Sholarship and in the Setting of Early Christian Worship”, rev. ed. (Grand Rapid: William B Erdmans, 1983) pp. Ixxxvii-xxxviii, 314-315; Joachim Jeremias, “The Central Message of the New Testament” (New York: Scribner, 1965), p.74 ;Reginald H Fuller, “The Foundations of New Testament Christology”, (New York: Scribner, 1965), p.204

A straight forward plain sense reading of the text indicates the unnamed hero is awarded the name of “Jesus” only after performance of and as reward for the salvific act. This indicates that the early cultists from whom the hymn was appropriated and Paul agreed; Christ was a cosmic spirit being. This reading supports Earl Doherty's “Jesuspuzzle” hypothesis.

Unknown said...

Mr. Harvey Burnett: greetings.

Regarding the incompatibility of prophecy as Jean Dixon style predictions based on knowledge of the future you wrote:

"...Foreknowledge is what we would expect from a truly omniscient being. ... His knowing the future does not entail rank fatalistic predeterminism. God foreknows based on HIS ability to know all whether that is in our past, present, or future. ...."

You support my contention. Knowledge is a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality. If your alleged god were to exist, it could only have knowledge of the future if that future already existed. You admit as much when you wrote:

God foreknows based on HIS ability to know all whether that is in our past, present, or future.

To know is to have information ascertained from reality. Thus knowledge of the future can only obtain if the future already exists in reality. If your god is real and has knowledge of the future, then hard deterministic fatalism is true. In that case, you worship-[in the sense of surrendering moral autonomy]-a malevolently evil monster. I am confident that I am correct on this issue, and I thank you for confirming my position.

However, you can escape the difficulty by viewing prophecy as a promise to facilitate a particular outcome, without foreknowledge. If you do this, there is an additional problem. In arranging particular states of affairs, and if your god were to exist, it would have to manipulate the minds of various people against their wills. Doing so would deprive those persons of free will and render them mere puppets. This is inconsistent with any conception of goodness. In this case, Christianity would once again have surrendered the moral autonomy of its acolytes to a force of malevolent evil.

Of course, you disagree, but we already know that. If you attack the concept of knowledge in such a manner as to, ironically enough, demonstrate a pervasive and thorough skepticism, then no knowledge could be available to anyone or any entity. In that case, no one could refute any claim, and you would emerge victorious. The seamy underbelly would then be that nobody could establish a claim either. A person could then not show they are not a brain in a vat, a simulation in an advanced computer, a victim of the Cartesian demon, or were not created last Tuesday with a full set of false memories.

Oh what a conundrum! Traditional Christian doctrines coupled with god belief leads to faith in either supreme or at best mundane evil. The only escape for you is to either embrace complete skepticism or force yourself to believe things that are obviously and patently false while pretending otherwise.

But wait what is that over the horizon. Why, its Atheist Man. [cue silly Superman theme music] Who disguised as mild mannered Robert Bumbalough leads a never ending struggle against silly superstitions and ridiculous religious claims. He's coming to the rescue with materialist apologetics.[stop music]

In my next post, I'll show why naturalism is immune to your silly magic.

I'll address the other points tomorrow. Pleasant Evening Cousin.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

"Robert M. Price, “The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”, p.352-353"

[Garbage!]

[Let's get with the real-

"Form to us means something that does not correspond to reality. That is not the case in this text. notice the parallel between the expression "the form of God" and "taking the form of a slave[or servant]" The same Greek word rendered "form" (morphe)[1]is used both times. Paul here draws a contrast between Jesus heavenly mode of existence, in which he had the "form of God" and his earthly mode of existence in which he had "the form of a slave". Jesus was not a mere man to whom his followers later accorded divine honors. Rather Paul says, Jesus was a divine person, existing in the form of God, who "humbled himself" by becoming a man in order to effect our salvation. His point is similar to Mark 10:45, "The son of man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Now if Jesus was truely a servant on earth, then he was truely God in heaven. The inherent lexical meaning of morphe also suggests this. Although the precise meaning of what Paul meant by this word has ben hotly debated, it is safe to say that it indicates a form that fully and accurately corresponds to the being that underlines it.If we think of form as an exact replica, or rather, as identical to the original, we get a good sense of what this means here. Thus in a most succinct manner, Paul here indicates both Christ's deity and his humanity ("form of God...form of slave").

The second important issue is that universal worship must be given to Christ: "every knee will bow...and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord." In this assertion we find a conceptual link to Exodus 20:4-5, the second commandment, which expressly forbids worship to any except the Lord (YHWH), the God of Israel. In Ph. 2 Jesus not only receives worship, but the same kind of worship that the second commandment restricts to God himself."

~ Reinventing Jesus- Koz, Sawyer & Wallace (Kregel Publications 2006) pg. 185

"Dohertys first book, The Jesus Puzzle, argues there is no credible evidence to believe Jesus existed as a historical person, a position that so contradicts the evidence that even most liberals he quotes, including the ultraliberal members of the Jesus Seminar, disagree with him. Virtually the only current view similar to his is in G. A. Wells's volumes discrediting Jesus existence, which have been soundly refuted by, among others, Dr. Gary Habermas"[2]


[1]On morphe ~ J.H. Moulton and George Milligan, vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand Rapids:Erdmans, 1930) 417; Peter T.O'Brien, Commentary on Phillippians 2:5-11 in recent interpretation in the setting of Early Christian Worship, rev. ed. (Downers Grove , IL.:InterVarsity Press 1997),24-41.

[2]The Christian Research Journal, Vol. 22, no. 3, Winter 1999, 5456.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Robert_b~"Thus knowledge of the future can only obtain if the future already exists in reality. If your god is real and has knowledge of the future, then hard deterministic fatalism is true."

[False. Gods ability to "know" is not based on our continuum or restrictions within our continuum. You confuse and cross-categorize the nature of God with the nature of humans. FYI- Christ "took on" human nature, but never divested himself of his divine nature. Your fallacy is almost like asking what color does water taste like?

God moves in and through time and is without any restriction of time. The points of time are set in a singularity but he chooses to operate in time. Therefore for him to know is not equivalent to manipulation in any manner. However, men respond they way they do because of what they choose and they are bound by the choices they make. Jesus comes to free us so that our choices will be unfettered and not masked or directed by the power of sin. Quite different than your understanding or construct. Anyway...NONE of that is the point and I will argue it no further...I want to hear about what you're suggesting here, that Messianic prophecy doesn't exist and there is no such thing as predictive prophecy. I told ya that's what you guys do best...make the arguments as broad as possible...called damage control!]

Robert_b~ "In that case, you worship-[in the sense of surrendering moral autonomy]-a malevolently evil monster. I am confident that I am correct on this issue, and I thank you for confirming my position"

[False again...the assertion does not make the point you would like to believe it makes under any circumstance but...knock yourself out!]

Robert_b~ "In my next post, I'll show why naturalism is immune to your silly magic."

[Yea right super-dud (I smile when I say that)...show me what ya got so we can see another naturalist bite the dust...while you're looking up your info go here and learn somethin' son:

http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/antisupernaturalism-historical-critical-methodology/

When you finish pt. 1 don't forget to go to part 2. I don't claim to have all the answers but God does for real!

C-U round the way Bobby-b!

DingoDave said...

I'd like to present a rebuttal to some of Harvey Burnett's latest outlandish assertions. There are so many things wrong with what he's written, that for the sake of readability, I'll break it up into two or three seperate posts.

Harvey Burnett wrote:

-"His knowing the future does not entail rank fatalistic predeterminism. God foreknows based on HIS ability to know all whether that is in our past, present, or future.
Isaiah 46:10~ “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”

You've just shot your own argument in the foot Harvey. The passage you just quoted (and many others like it) clearly states that Yahweh intentionally manipulates people and events in order to bring about a portion of his will. If he does this, then he is not just an innocent bystander watching events unfold, he is actually the architect of those events. Hence you cannot escape the conclusion that events in history are entirely at the whim of this cosmic meddler. You have just proven that on the Biblical world view, fatalistic determinism is indeed the state of affairs which we all live in. I know that you don't like it, but this conclusion is inescapable. According to the Bible Yahweh hardens people's hearts, sends lying spirits to deceive his prophets, sends strong delusions so that people will believe lies, harnesses and manipulates world leaders to do his bidding, sends disasters and calamities in order to influence human behaviour, places coins in the mouths of fishes in order to prove a political point, causes axe heads to float, resurrects people from the dead. etc. etc. etc.
How much more meddling and deterministic do things have to get before you can bring yourself to admit the obvious?

-"Although assertions such as yours have been made through Documentary Hypothesis, those assertions have been put down adequately by scholars and there is generally no acceptance of Documentary Hypothesis other than through radical, internet spawned atheists and fringe..."

What kind of fantasy world are you living in Harvey? The documentary hypothesis is well accepted among reputable Bible scholars. In reality it's the innerantist apologist community who refuse to accept it, who are the radicals. It's you who is on the radical fringe Harvey, not the mainstream academic Bible scholars.

-"Expansion or restatement of Walter Bauer’s debunked and thoroughly rejected theory of alternate Christianities."

You are lying for Jesus again Harvey. The existence of a multitude of alternate early Christianities is not in dispute among reputable contemporary Bible scholars. Hell, we even have some their literature to prove it. What do you think the gnostic Nag-Hammadi gospels represent? Would you describe these documents as 'orthodox'? We also have the testimonies of the early church fathers who continually railed against the 'unorthodox' versions of Christianity which they encountered. Get real Harvey.

-"I've noticed that atheists like to argue as many points at one time as possible so that they can divert attention when their argument fails....Dingo,s the perfect example...How's Vienna Beach? Let’s see if I can make you get to cussin’ again!!!"

Vienna Beach??? What does that mean? And why would you want to get me 'cussin' again? When did you get me cussin' in the first place? At any rate, in my opinion cussin' is better than lying.

-"Messianic Jews, have been in my experience, uniformly fanatical and near delusional to the extent of psychosis. It is a mistake for anyone to take them seriously"

Ditto for 'Messianic Christians' such as yourself.

-"Mr. Hinman has carefully and clearly pointed out that there is a great consensus among many Messianic Jews and other Jews for that matter, that Jesus was and further is the Messiah clearly defined in the OT prophetic narrative..."

I thought that you'd just advised us not to take any of them (Messianic Jews) seriously?? You can't even seem to be consistent between one paragraph and the next Harvey. I'm afraid that your 'delusional psychosis' is showing.

DingoDave said...

Harvey Burnett wrote:

-" If verse 15 (the weeping verse) was a prophecy of Herod's massacre, why would the rest of the passage, which promised the return of Rachel's sons, not also be prophecy?"

Because verse 15 (the weeping verse) is manifestly NOT a prophecy about Herod's massacre. That's the whole point!

-"Dingo says Christian should read and believe the bible for what it says….well READ it then. It confirms what I’m saying."

I have read the Bible Harvey (cover to cover), that's how I know that it's full of shit regardless of your apologetic handwaving. What percentage of your 'Bible Believing' church congregation can claim to have done the same?

-"Even if this passage is restricted to the return from captivity and the restoration of Israel it is predictive."

How do you know this Havey? It was very common practice in those days for religious zealots to write history as if it were prophecy, by falsely forging documents under the name of some long dead religious personality. This literature is known as Pseudepigrapha.

-"Beyond all that, Isaiah in approximately 740 BC SPECIFICALLY names Cyrus in Isa. 44:28 who would give the decree as confirmed in Ez. 1:2. This offers an even a greater gap of 200 years between Isaiah’s prophecy and the eventual decree by Cyrus's edict."

The book of Isaiah was actually written by at least two different people, during different time periods.

"One of the most critically debated issues in Isaiah is the proposition that it may have been the work of more than a single author. Different proposals suggest that there have been two or three main authors (Original Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, Trito-Isaiah), while alternative views suggest an additional number of minor authors or editors.
Almost all scholars who believe that there are multiple authors recognize some sort of division at the end of chapter 39 and that subsequent portions were written by one or more additional authors, referred to collectively as Deutero-Isaiah. Supporters of the three author proposal see a further division at the end of chapter 55. For most of the twentieth century the three-author position was the most widely held; in the 1990s, more complex and carefully nuanced positions (such as that from Williamson, 1994) started to appear. The typical objections to single authorship of the book of Isaiah are as follows:
Anonymity → That is to say that Isaiah’s name is suddenly not used from chapter 40-66.
Style → There is a sudden change in the mood of the book from Isaiah after chapter 40.
Historical Situation → The first portion of the book of Isaiah speaks of an impending judgment which will befall the wicked Israelites whereas the later portion of the book discusses God's mercy and restoration as though the exile were already a present reality.
Supernaturalism → Critics often reject the unity of the work as such would require that the author had intimate knowledge of future events-- a possibility precluded by the naturalism under-girding much of higher criticism.
These and other considerations have led most modern critical scholars to conclude that the book of Isaiah, in its present form, is the result of an extensive editing process, in which the promises of God's salvation are re-interpreted and claimed for the Judean people through the history of their exile and return to the land of Judah."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

Sorry Harvey, but I'm going with the naturalistic explanation. It makes far more sense, and it's far more likely to be true.

DingoDave said...

Harvey Burnett wrote:

-"In short you don’t even bring this fallacious argument further along enough to attempt to make a credible argument against any of the easily and openly identifiable 60 PLUS Messianic prophecies that were rendered in the OT and fulfilled through Jesus."

How many of these were either self fulfilling prophecies, or merely twistings of Old Testament passages perpetrated in an attempt to force fit these Old Testament passages into the newly invented Christian paradigm? Talk about trying to force a square peg into a round hole! Sheesh.

-"What Richard Carrier intends to say (through you vicariously) is that these scriptures were redacted to make them fit. However, the evidence does not support your presuppostion."

Even 'Blind Freddy' could see that these Old Testament scriptures have been redacted, distorted, twisted and mangled, in order to make them fit the newly emerging Christian theology. Have you taken the time to actually read some of the original passages upon which these false prophecies were based?

-"Your assertions fly in the face of Peter Stoner’s information based on laws of statistical probability in which he only considers 48 of the extant prophecies and confirms the utter impossibility to manufacture a Jesus to fit the messianic promise as Jesus did."

Concerning Peter Stoner;

"Peter Stoner was a co-founder of the American Scientific Affiliation, a Christian organization which describes itself as "a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science..."
Critiques of Stoner's apologetics.
C. P. Swanson, reviewing Science Speaks in The Quarterly Review of Biology, wrote: "...the author has fallen into the commonest error of using only these facts which bolster his hypothesis, and of discarding or controverting those which do not. For example, his discussion of the theory of evolution is not only misleading; it displays an abysmal ignorance of recent evolutionary studies."
Also, various critics have taken issue with Stoner's interpretation of prophecy. Stoner's apologetic work did not receive critical attention until its inclusion in Josh McDowell's 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict'...and criticism of these claims tends to be addressed at McDowell rather than Stoner, with Stoner's name mentioned in passing. These criticisms against McDowell, Stoner and others include historical errors, claims regarding after-the-event authorship and/or tampering with Biblical prophecies, and disputed meanings of certain Biblical phrases.
Others who disagree with specific claims made by Stoner include fellow Christians and secular historians: for instance, while Stoner says of Ezekiel's prophecy of the permanent destruction of Tyre "If Ezekiel had looked at Tyre in his day and had made these seven predictions in human wisdom, these estimates mean that there would have been only one chance in 75,000,000 of their all coming true. They all came true in the minutest detail", others claim that "the problem is that very little of this actually came to pass! In fact, it badly missed how history actually unfolded" and "The location of the city of Tyre is not in doubt, for it exists to this day on the same spot and is known as Sur."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Stoner

You've simply trotted out yet another religious fanatic who's agenda obviously isn't a dispassionate examination of the evidence, but a proir committment to defending the innerrancy of scripture. If Stoner is prepared to defend Ezekiel's failed prophecy against Tyre, then he'd be prepared to defend just about anything. Try again Harvey, and better luck next time.

-"If it was necessary that there was the greatest lie and historic revisions ever made throughout human history, what was the actual condition of man that a lie would better humanity?"

Do you mean like the church historian Eusebius, who wrote;

'That it will be necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment'
"...If a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?"
- Evangelicae Praeparationis, Book XII, chapter XXXI

And;

"But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon them (the martyrs), as we do not think it proper, moreover, to record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except the things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment.
Hence... we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be usefull first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity." - Eusebius de Martyr. Palestin. c. 12

Are you advocating pious lies and pious omissions Harvey, as long as they rebound to the glory of your god? It certainly looks to me like you are. If you wish to be willingly deceived by holy lies and pious frauds, then that's your business, but don't try to deceive the rest of us who might actually be interested in finding out the truth of the matter.

Thank you.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Dingo~ "I have read the Bible Harvey (cover to cover), that's how I know that it's full of shit regardless of your apologetic handwaving. What percentage of your 'Bible Believing' church congregation can claim to have done the same?"

[Now I knew it wouldn't take long...but that's exactly what YOU'RE full of...I used to cuss like a sailor BEFORE I got saved...It was my MINDLESSNESS that allowed me to do that...Anyway, 100% of BOTH my congregations have read the HOLY and PROPHETICALLY ACURATE Bible cover to cover.]

Dingo~ "You've just shot your own argument in the foot Harvey. The passage you just quoted (and many others like it) clearly states that Yahweh intentionally manipulates people and events in order to bring about a portion of his will."

[I used to study your answeres when I thought you at least had something to offer...but this is plain ole STUPID!...no response other than Hmmmmm! is justified]

Dingo~ "What kind of fantasy world are you living in Harvey? The documentary hypothesis is well accepted among reputable Bible scholars"

[I live in NO fantasy world...you're the one who believe in created critiques of antiquity that don't hold water...Every argument of Documentary Hypothesis has been put down but RADICAL INTERNET...home spun atheists like you who only know as much as your atheist friends DON'T HAVE A CLUE and only are interested in infecting others with you garbage...I won't even go through all the arguments...you're beneath my efforts.]

Dingo~" You are lying for Jesus again Harvey. The existence of a multitude of alternate early Christianities is not in dispute among reputable contemporary Bible scholars. Hell, we even have some their literature to prove it."

[You're NUTS! NO evidence but we're supposed to take it for what YOU say...EVERY refrence that you can point to in the bible is for sure ONE thing...NOT a rference to alternate Christianities...This is one of the MOST FLAWED and falblematic(sp) speculations I think ever presented in history...you know as well as I...(we'll I've already given you more credit than you're due) ANYWAY...ANY scholar of any repute knows all evidence points to a MID-to LATE SECOND Century Gnosticism that WAS NOT an alternative or even on the scene in FIRST CENTURY...Other myths were not even hailed as Christian...the documents from Nag...were all WAY too late and totally out of the box...Not even close. That's the word from EVERY CREDIBLE dater except for Crossan, Doherty, Price and extemists and fanatics such as you.Get a life Dingo.]

Dingo~ "How many of these were either self fulfilling prophecies, or merely twistings of Old Testament passages perpetrated in an attempt to force fit these Old Testament passages into the newly invented Christian paradigm? Talk about trying to force a square peg into a round hole! Sheesh."

[Since you are convinced of revisionary hypothesis there is nothing that will change your mind...but when you lokk at the actual history, what is described, the timing, verification from alternate nations that neither Israel (especially the prophets) had no control over and put it all together the case is OVERWHELMING...You won't look or examine the REAL because it blows all your theories up. Instead you concoct...yes CONCOCT a big conspiracy theory that brings in foriegn nations, kings, archaeology, events and cities only indicitive to that time and a wealth of information that could not have been revised because some of it was iunobtainable to the ancients...but that doesn't matter to you...let's just keep the conspiracy moving right along...SHEESH THAT!]

Dingo~"Do you mean like the church historian Eusebius, who wrote;"

[You sure don't have ANY Idea what any of this was about...

If we presume that the chapter title is authorial, there is then a question over how it should be translated. One interesting issue surrounds the word ('pseudos') translated as 'falsehood' by GIFFORD and GIBBON, and as 'mensonge' by SIRINELLI.

The word usually means 'lie' in Greek, but is also more value neutral than 'lie' or 'falsehood' is in English.

Here Eusebius is quoting, in the body of the text, a passage from Plato's Laws, Book II, and the same word is used there; while elsewhere in the PE Book 12 he quotes Plato's Republic, again using this word. In both cases the rendering 'lie' makes perfect sense, in the context of what Plato wanted to say.

Some translators have gone ahead and rendered it 'lie' in their translations of Plato. But R.G. BURY in the Loeb edition of the Laws (PLATO, THE LAWS, BOOK II, 663C,D,E. Loeb edition p.125, tr. R.G.Bury, 1926 - online) renders it as 'fiction'. And Sir Desmond LEE, in the Penguin edition of the Republic (PLATO, THE REPUBLIC, Book II, 376D-377D, Penguin edition, pp.129-131. Tr. Desmond Lee, 1955. - Online) does likewise, and adds the following note on the word:

"2. The Greek word pseudos and its corresponding verb meant not only ‘fiction’ — stories, tales — but also ‘what is not true’ and so, in suitable contexts, ‘lies’: and this ambiguity should be borne in mind."

Consequently, unless the context forbids -- and plainly from BURY we learn it does not -- the chapter heading might equally be rendered:

XXXI. That it will be necessary sometimes to use fiction as a remedy for the benefit of those who require such a mode of treatment

And this, of course, places a different slant on the text, and links neatly with Eusebius' reference to the Old Testament here. If on the other hand we presume the chapter title is by Eusebius, and we presume that the word 'lie' is intended by him, with all its connotation of inflicting injury, then we can reasonably say that the quote doesn't make Eusebius look very good.

But is this -- Gibbon's interpretation -- fair comment? Is Eusebius advocating the use of lies? or is this a discussion of the use of parables, and the value of fiction in education? Clearly there is room for more than one opinion here, and I would rather not suggest certainty where a judgement has to be made of a number of ideas. This is something the reader must do for himself; but I think Eusebius is not advocating dishonesty, so much as suggesting that fiction has a role to play in education.

It is difficult to see Gibbon's remarks as fair comment, particularly when one notices the mistranslation of the final part of the chapter heading.

Skip---

1. Eusebius does not say that falsehood and lying are acceptable, for whatever reason. This is an inference from his text, and not a very charitable one either. Few of us would wish to be subjected to such an inference, just because we don't denounce someone else while reviewing them.
2. Plato asks whether, if any lie/fiction/fable is permissible, the one he is discussing might not be one. Plato has been discussing whether or not the self-interest of the individual is the same as the interest of the community. He has just concluded that it is. The comment in question follows. Plato asks us for a moment to imagine that self-interest and public interest are opposed. He asks whether it would not then be justifiable, if any lie were (and he leaves that open), to tell people that in fact they were the same. The purpose is the good of the community, i.e. acting 'justly', rather than selfishly.
3. The infidels.org idea presumes that Eusebius has the idea of 'lie' in mind, rather than that of educational fiction. Pseudos usually has this meaning, it is true. However we have seen that the word 'pseudos' has been rendered otherwise even to translate Plato. Plato seems to have an idea of deception in mind, but is it necessary to presume that Eusebius has?
4. So is Eusebius really saying that the Bible is full of lies, and that this is one of the things the Greeks copied from the Jews? I find it hard to believe that Eusebius thought the bible was full of lies. But if so, surely such a curious proposition would certainly require more evidence than one footnote in the PE, anyway? That the bible contains stories, such as parables, intended to educate is surely a better interpretation? To resolve this, we need to see what Eusebius says elsewhere.
5. The idea presumes not just that Eusebius believes the bible is full of lies, but that if the bible is full of lies, it must be OK to lie; and that Eusebius has applied this in his writings. The purpose of the allegation seems to be to permit some of his testimony to be discarded. The first idea seems very strange, and the others are simply inferences from it. But no evidence is given for any of these.
6. Finally, if the idea of the 'white lie' is a cultural convention of the age, is it entirely reasonable to single out Eusebius?
In fact, if we look at PE 12, 4, we see how Eusebius really thinks about the scriptures - an external literal meaning, which is in fact a parable, and an inner meaning for those who have passed beyond the first stages of instruction. This relates so strongly to what Eusebius says here - 'for those who need this form of instruction' - that it seems pointless to look further.

"I prize truth above all else" (Chronicon, 1-4. Barnes, T.D. Eusebius and Constantine, Harvard 1981, p.114.)

Cut to the CONCLUSION:

The quote in question nowhere shows up in Eusebius, or any other early Church father for that matter. How the tale got twisted is easy to see. Blavatsky did not cite the author, but in the following sentences says that this doctrine of lying was "applied" by Eusebius (Of course she furnishes no proof of this). Some careless reader probably read the text, assumed it was Eusebius, and then ran to the web to publish his new proof of why not accept Christ. Then all the anti-Christian cohorts copied the error and now webville is littered with more slander.

Mosheim, John Lawrence von. The Institutes of Ecclesiastical History, Ancient and Modern. Volume I. tr. James Murdock. (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1847), Book II, Century IV, Part II, Chapter III, Sec. 2 (p. 259).

Unknown said...

District Supt. Harvey Burnett Greetings:

I hope you are well and are feeling fine.

Yesterday I wrote a short bit on the Christian fallacy of thinking its fantasy god's omniscient foreknowledge compatible with human free will. I argued that Yahweh having knowledge of the future necessarily entails the future existing in a fixed and steadfast fashion. Knowledge is knowledge of reality. If one claims to know that which does not exist, then the claim to knowledge is necessarily false.

There is a further consideration on this matter. Theodore M. Drange in an essay entitled "Incompatible-Properties Arguments: A Survey" (1998) published in Philo 1998 (2), pp. 49-60. and available online at http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/incompatible.html
makes the following argument related to omniscience.

1. If God exists, then he is immutable.

2. If God exists, then he is omniscient.

3. An immutable being cannot know different things at different times.

4. To be omniscient, a being would need to know propositions about the past and future.

5. But what is past and what is future keep changing.

6. Thus, in order to know propositions about the past and future, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 5).

7. It follows that, to be omniscient, a being would need to know different things at different times (from 4 and 6).

8. Hence, it is impossible for an immutable being to be omniscient (from 3 and 7).

9. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 8).

This is significant because the fantasy god you wrongly assert as real is defined by your fellow co-religionists as immutable. It is also defied as immaterial, supernatural, and transcendent. To be immutable means it cannot change states in any fashion or way. To be supernatural is defined as the negation of all that is natural. To be transcendent is to be not part of physical reality, to have no location, coordinates, or dimensions and to be atemporal having no duration. To be immaterial is to not be material and hence not be matter, energy, fields, or definable as a wave function. These definitions taken together entail your fantasy god is the ontological equivalent of nothingness. Therefore it is appropriate to say it is immutable.

If human free will is truly free like you say, then the future and the past are constantly changing as the timeline evolves and time progresses. To have knowledge of changing past and future events, your fantasy must have sensory perception of the past and future. There are two problems with this.

First, since your fantasy god does not have a body, it has no senses. It cannot see. It cannot hear. It cannot taste. It cannot feel. It cannot smell. It cannot sense in anyway an embodied being can sense. Thus it cannot have constantly updated knowledge of past and future.

Secondly, if you imagine it has such knowledge of constantly changing past and future events via some fantasy magic and since it has no substance that can carry or convey information, then it, as pure consciousness alone, cannot remain immutable as its alleged conscious knowledge continuously updates.

Omniscience and immutability are mutually incompatible. Thus either your god does not exist or it holds full and complete knowledge of a fatalistic determined timeline. If the later, then freewill is an illusion and you have surrendered your moral autonomy to a malevolently evil monster.

Additionally, there further arguments against your god fantasy along similar but significantly different lines. If I find time, I will delve into that.

Regarding your naked unsupported assertions on this and the other topics, I'll have to write on that over the weekend. I have to work tommorrow, so I need my beauty sleep.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Robert_b~ What you introduce is Theological Fatalism which is ot the best way to approach the subject although amateurs will get wrapped up in your words and follow their tail trying to keep up. The real is like this:

1- God is omniscient.

2- Since God is omniscient, he is also infallible.

3- If God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event, then

4- you will freely choose this based on your free will, not obligation or lack of choice about the event.

5- You still have free will to engage in event; God merely knows your choice before you make it.

You are not obliged to make choice 'A' anymore than choice 'B'. If you were going to change your mind, God would have seen that also, so you still have full free will in all matters.

Also, you will still make the same choices (with free will), even if God chose to not see the future. Seeing the future or not does not alter your free will.

The demise of free will would only logically come if God made His knowledge public in regard to the free will choice of individuals; this would alter future free will and make it an obligation.

An understanding of omniscience must be joined with an understanding of God's omnipresence in time. If God knows all events—past, future, and present—then He would know all events and decisions an individual would make though from the individual’s perspective those events and decisions have not yet occurred.

Since, according the Christian theology, God is atemporal (existing outside of time) God knows from creation the entire course of one's life, all the actions in which he will partake, and even whether or not that individual will accept his divine authority.

There is a vast difference between Predestination, Fatalism and Chance (or Fortune).

Fatalists teach that there is a blind, impersonal force, back of which there is no Divine purpose or any other, and over which none has control—not even God—and that things happen in this world and are swept along by this blind power. This is Fatalism.

The bible in no manner teaches that God is impersonal or a "force" and is very much involved within his creation. redemption through HIS Son Jesus is the epitome of that interraction.

Thanks Got help 4 me.

DingoDave said...

Harvey Burnett wrote:

-"But is this -- Gibbon's interpretation -- fair comment?...It is difficult to see Gibbon's remarks as fair comment, particularly when one notices the mistranslation of the final part of the chapter heading... Eusebius does not say that falsehood and lying are acceptable, for whatever reason. This is an inference from his text, and not a very charitable one either... The quote in question nowhere shows up in Eusebius, or any other early Church father for that matter. How the tale got twisted is easy to see."

And,

-"The infidels.org idea presumes that Eusebius has the idea of 'lie' in mind, rather than that of educational fiction."

This is merely further proof of what a bare faced liar you are Harvey. Nowhere did I quote Edward Gibbon, in fact I was scrupulously carefull not to do so.
I quoted Eusebius' own words, which makes your whole rebuttal nothing more than a pile of stinking garbage.
You seem to be an expert in passing along loads of stinking garbage Harvey. In fact you seem to have the ability to convince people that garbage smells more like some kind of exotic perfume rather than actual garbage. Harvey, I can smell the stench from here. (and I'm sitting on the opposite side of the world from where you are)
Even if your argument did hold water (which it doesn't), then what's the difference between trying to convince people that fiction is fact, and passing along outright falsehoods as if they were facts?
Please save your transparent sophistries for people who are more gullible than I am. You can feel free to insult the intelligence of your gullible flock, but please don't try to insult MY intelligence in a similar manner. To Hell with you, and the horse that you rode in on! (Now there's a heapin' helpin' of cussin' if you please).
Get in touch with reality Harvey, because you can rest assured that sooner or later reality will get in touch with you, whether you like it or not.

David.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Dingo~ "You can feel free to insult the intelligence of your gullible flock, but please don't try to insult MY intelligence in a similar manner. To Hell with you, and the horse that you rode in on! (Now there's a heapin' helpin' of cussin' if you please)."

[You always give the most sophisticated answers...obviously to insult your intelligence only requires that I wake up in the morning.]

Thanks Dingo...U do U!

Unknown said...

Mr. Harvey Burnett: Greetings,

I hope you are well and feeling fine. It is my hope to have time to compose a line by line analysis of your comments. This I will do if time permits. In the interim, I hope you find the following enlightening.

In response to your many unsupported assertions regarding the details of your theism fantasy, it should be pointed out that no one on this blog is contesting that your fantasy is not extremely detailed. Those dedicated to reality acknowledge that given a peculiar set of enthymemes, your fantasy can appear, to you, internally self-consistent. That is a fair explanation, at least in part, for your acceptance of an obvious pernicious fantasy and, what would be in some people, a delusion. However, when a person checks their basal premises and finds they do not comport with reality and if they are not mentally ill, they will, if they wish to live in harmony with reality, modify their foundational worldview to accept existence. If, on the other hand, the person modifies their fictional worldview to accommodate what is to them the most egregious part of an uncomfortable reality, then their delusion is in control of their mind. I truly hope you are categorized into the former group.

I think it useful to summarize my defense of the argument against prophecy exerted from the implied necessity of hard deterministic fatalism, if your fantasy god were actually real. Your alleged god is defined as omniscient. This means that it knows all logically knowable facts that are knowable given the limitations of its other attributes. Mr. Burnett’s fantasy god is also defined as being transcendent. This means it has the attributes of a-temporality, a-spatiality, and a-reality. The notion you call a god is further defined as being immaterial, non-corporeal, supernatural, and immutable. To be a-temporal is to be timeless and lack duration. To be a-spatial is to lack location, dimensions, coordinates, area, or volume. To be a-reality is to not be part of reality or existence, for existence is all that exists. To be immaterial is to not be material that is to not be matter, energy, fields, potentials, photons, neutrinos, any sub-atomic or quantum particle or wave function. To be non-corporeal is to lack material form and a physical body. To lack a physical body is to not have sensory perception capabilities. The supernatural is the negation of all that is natural, and hence is not defined in any positive manner. To not be natural and still act within reality is to violate identity and causality and the uniformity of nature; this would be a stolen concept fallacy. To be immutable is to lack any ability to change in any way.

Knowledge is knowledge of the facts of reality and is held in conceptual form. - Leonard Peikoff illuminates this issue: “To form a concept, one mentally isolates a group of concretes (of distinct perceptual units), on the basis of observed similarities which distinguish them from all other known concretes (similarity is “the relationship between two or more existents which possess the same characteristic(s), but in different measure or degree”); then, by a process of omitting the particular measurements of these concretes, one integrates them into a single new mental unit: the concept, which subsumes all concretes of this kind (a potentially unlimited number). The integration is completed and retained by the selection of a perceptual symbol (a word) to designate it. “A concept is a mental integration of two or more units possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular measurements omitted.” , “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy”, “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology”, 131. (I am not arguing that what Peikoff says is true because he says it. Rather I assert it is true by virtue of its intrinsic harmony with reality.)

The only way to have perceptual knowledge is via embodied sensory experience. “Man’s senses are his only direct cognitive contact with reality and, therefore, his only source of information. Without sensory evidence, there can be no concepts; without concepts, there can be no language; without language, there can be no knowledge and no science.” – (Ayn Rand, "Kant Versus Sullivan", "Philosophy: Who Needs It", 90.) The imaginary god character is, as definitied of Mr. Burnett’s fellow co-religionists, incapable of having knowledge derived from reality or knowledge in conceptual form. Lacking senses, time, and spatiality, Mr. Burnett’s imaginary god has no way, if it were to be real, of collecting information from reality. To do so requires sensory capability within time and space. Thus it could not update its alleged omniscient knowledge. Lacking a method to update ever changing knowledge of the future, past and present, Mr. Burnett’s imaginary god would, if were to exist, have to always have possessed a full set of every logically knowable fact. This would mean that the timeline of existence would have to be fixed and unchanging. If we, (or Mr. Burnett’s imaginary god) could know the future, then that would mean a concrete future already existed and was just waiting for us. If this were the case, then we would have no choice or freewill. Affairs would unfold in the way they would necessarily have to occur. Thus, if Mr. Burnett’s imaginary god were to be real, hard deterministic fatalism would be true.

Mr. Burnett has appealed to a hybrid model of transcendence where his imaginary god moves freely across the boundary between reality and a postulated transcendent realm. Boundary crossing behavior is itself problematic to the religionist’s case as it is unknowable how a non-spatial and a-temporal relation can attach to a spatial entity in time or visa-versa. Without an explanatory hypothesis that meets the criteria of methodological naturalism accounting for how boundary crossing from a postulated, a-temporal, a-spatial realm to reality can occur, the religionist’s appeal to the notion that its imaginary god moves freely across the boundary between reality and a postulated transcendent realm cannot succeed.

Without identity, causality, or the uniformity of nature Mr. Burnett’s imaginary god would have no way, if it were to be real, of having knowledge within existence and hence of updating information of a constantly changing timeline. Thus for it to “know” it would have to always have possessed a full set of every logically knowable fact. This would mean that the timeline of existence would have to be fixed and unchanging. If an omniscient being knows that I will have eggs for breakfast tomorrow, then when I get up tomorrow, I must have eggs for breakfast. For if I do not have eggs, then the omniscient being didn't really know it! Omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive, period. Thus, if Mr. Burnett’s imaginary god were to be real, then hard deterministic fatalism would be true.

Lacking any ability to change in any way, Mr. Burnett’s imaginary god would have no way, if it were to be real, of updating information harvested from reality (or of calculating the outcome of events from the uniformity of nature). But if free will is real, the future timeline is constantly changing. For Mr. Burnett’s imaginary god to ascertain those changes, it would, if it were real, have to constantly update and adapt to revised information. By virtue of being immutable, such updating and adapting would be precluded. Thus for it to “know” it would have to always have possessed a full set of every logically knowable fact. This would mean that the timeline of existence would have to be fixed and unchanging. The future would have to exist as a concrete reality that could not be subject to change. Thus hard deterministic fatalism would be true.

But hard deterministic fatalism is not true. Therefore, Mr. Burnett’s imaginary god only exists in his mind as a subjective self-created fantasy, and prophecy cannot foretell the future.

Just as imaginary characters in a person’s mind cannot be detected by others, in like manner, Mr. Burnett’s fantasy of a god cannot be detected by any means of sensory experience or instrumentation. It is impossible for Mr. Burnett, or any other religious mystic, to have perceptual information that can be used as isolated distinct perceptual units to form a basis for a concept of god. Thus Mr. Burnett’s (and any other god believer’s) claim to have knowledge of a “god” or various claims regarding such an entity’s “nature” are patently false. Thus no appeal to mystical esoteric or enigmatic declarations of “I just know” can be accepted.

Mr. Burnett may appeal to human decision making by noting that it is a behavior or process that a mind does. A mind deliberates, takes into account memory and sense data, does calculations, is motivated by feelings, and eventually comes to a specific decision. Mr. Burnett may claim this process of deliberation being already "out there" in the future and available for knowledge by an omniscient being who can tell the future, does not necessarily make its outcome different than it would be if the future is not "out there" or knowable. But this ignores the fact that the being Mr. Burnett imagines as god is devoid of sensory perception, is immutable, and cannot operate with identity, causality, or the uniformity of nature. All of which are conditions sufficient to prevent an omniscient being from detecting, harvesting or collecting information from a future that is constantly updating and changing in response to a large number of agents having and exercising free volitional will. The limitations imposed upon the alleged god, imagined by Mr. Burnett, due to its various other attributes entail how it must necessarily act.

Further to this issue are considerations, if an omniscient being were to have advanced knowledge that Jones was going to do X prior to time (t), then the probability P of Jones doing X would be exactly 1, P(X)=1. However if the omniscient being did not have advanced knowledge that Jones was going to do X prior to time (t), then P(X)would equal 0. Both imply hard deterministic fatalism would be true.

If Jones changes his mind from a state where he intends to do X prior to time (t) and subsequently decides not to do X prior to time (t), then the omniscient being would have had to have known prior to Jones changing his mind that he would do so. Thus the omniscient being would have known prior to Jones changing his mind that P(X)=0. Likewise if Jones changes his mind from a state lacking intention to do X prior to time(t) to a state of intending to do X, then the omniscient being would have known prior to Jones changing his mind that P(X)=1. These both imply hard deterministic fatalism would be true.

If Jones actually vacillates about X, or lacks knowledge of X, then the omniscient being would still have to know prior to Jones’ ultimate action whether P(X)=0 or P(X)=1. This implies hard deterministic fatalism would be true.

If an omniscient being did not have advanced knowledge that Jones was going to do X prior to time (t) and if Jones did actually do X prior to time (t), then the omniscient being would fail to have advanced fore knowledge of a logically knowable fact. It that case the omniscient being would not be omniscient and could not exist as an omniscient being. An omniscient being must necessarily have fore knowledge of whatever Jones does. Thus implying hard deterministic fatalism would be true.

But, again, hard deterministic fatalism is not true. Therefore, Mr. Burnett’s imaginary god only exists in his mind as a subjective self-created fantasy, and prophecy cannot foretell the future.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Robert_b~ "In response to your many unsupported assertions regarding the details of your theism fantasy, it should be pointed out that no one on this blog is contesting that your fantasy is not extremely detailed. Those dedicated to reality acknowledge that given a peculiar set of enthymemes, your fantasy can appear, to you, internally self-consistent. That is a fair explanation, at least in part, for your acceptance of an obvious pernicious fantasy and, what would be in some people, a delusion."

[Ok...Now that you have to build your self confidence in order to address anything of substance...Can we get to the point?]

Robert_b~ "However, when a person checks their basal premises and finds they do not comport with reality and if they are not mentally ill, they will, if they wish to live in harmony with reality, modify their foundational worldview to accept existence."

[Ooh, you mean make up an alternate reality such as yours?]

Robert_B ~"If, on the other hand, the person modifies their fictional worldview to accommodate what is to them the most egregious part of an uncomfortable reality, then their delusion is in control of their mind. I truly hope you are categorized into the former group."

[You hope for me...I’ll hope for you]

Robert_b~ "I think it useful to summarize my defense of the argument against prophecy exerted from the implied necessity of hard deterministic fatalism, if your fantasy god were actually real."

[Now we’re getting somewhere...back to the original argument...Please no more "buckshot atheistic apologetics" as you fine anti-Christ advocates like to do...You should restrict yourself to loosing ONE argument at a time]

Robert_b~ "Your alleged god is defined as omniscient."

[No...not exactly...God, the creator of the world, has revealed himself as omniscient and omnipresent...but we cannot forget that he has also revealed himself as sovereign, all powerful, and all loving just to name a few more of his characteristics. So in all accuracy omniscience like transcendence are mere facets of his being or nature and does not include all that HE is or has revealed himself to be]

Robert_b~ "This means that it knows all logically knowable facts that are knowable given the limitations of its other attributes."

[Why certainly HE does know all limitations…including yours to offer anything of substance in this argument]

Robert_b~ "To lack a physical body is to not have sensory perception capabilities."

[This is where your radical concept of MN breaks down. The restrictions of your assumptions apply to "naturally" defined or caused classes of individuals and beings. We recognize with the help of MN, the Principle of Correlation or that every cause has an effect...BUT God is an UNCAUSED cause that has full sensory awareness, and state of being...In fact in the existence before what can be classified as "natural things" (Genesis 1:1) we note that John 1:1 that says, “In the beginning was the WORD (Memra) and the WORD (Memra) was God…” This was IN the beginning...not before it or after it...The locations was IN...So, in short, because HE is an unrestricted, UNCAUSED CAUSE...HE is not subject to your design concept of physical awareness based on a “physical”,“natural” or "corpereal" body...

Therefore since your argument is based on a fallacious premise there can be no real understanding until you deal with the overarching failure of MN to adequately and articulately account for individuals and beings who reside outside of what you believe is a closed continuum. Until this is addressed and you accept or at the very least consider an Open Historical Critical and Methodological basis we will talk past one another ALL DAY...BUT as with you and most anti-Christ advocates I know the argument is more important than the facts of reality and in this case a TRUE understanding of the nature of God and the relationship he has to all of our free-will]

Robert_b~ "The supernatural is the negation of all that is natural, and hence is not defined in any positive manner."

[No. Not in an open historical critical methodology. Of course the NATURAL explanation remains the primary place to find an explanation, but discovery (as it pertains to the supernatural) may take one further than what is both naturally reasonable and plausible...Thus the benefit of an “Open” Methodology. You don’t have to close your eyes and “pretend” the supernatural doesn’t exist as you anti-Christ advocates often do]

Robert_b~ "The only way to have perceptual knowledge is via embodied sensory experience. “Man’s senses are his only direct cognitive contact with reality and, therefore, his only source of information. Without sensory evidence, there can be no concepts; without concepts, there can be no language; without language, there can be no knowledge and no science.” – (Ayn Rand, "Kant Versus Sullivan", "Philosophy: Who Needs It", 90.)"

[Now I know you like Ayn Rand but let’s see what she actually sets forth:

1- She believed in individualism and objectivism which is the chosen worldview of most atheists. Basically this principle sets forth that people should do what is in their own interests and live for themselves rather than others. Her philosophical view was premised on enlightened selfishness and rejected altruistic welfare in favor of self-reliance. Her belief was primarily declared in her second book, Anthem. She taught that humans were rational self-interested people. In 1962, Rand founded The Objectivist, a journal advocating her belief that humans are rational and self-interested individuals. This was followed by The Ayn Rand Letter from 1971 which lasted until her death.

2- Her 5 primary tenets of her “faith” were 1.Reality is objective. 2. One should always follow reason. 3.Morality is objective and can be known through reason. 4.Everyone should always be selfish. 5.Capitalism is the only just economic system.

3- The whole concept of rational self-consciousness and moral significance leads to a functionalist view where the “more functional” get more, and have access to more while them that are “less functional” receive less and deserve less. This is the heart of Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

4- Her epistemology was “perception” in so that “perception” is the base of all knowledge and that accorded to the “awareness” that we have through the physical senses. The mind is ultimately a “tabula rasa” (blank slate) and no knowledge is possible apart from sense experience. The medium by which an objectivist fixes the gulf between experience and concepts is language.

5- This has led a host of individuals to various interpretations and applications of her work and philosophy. One of the more notable individuals who promoted the philosophy of rational objectivism to it’s logical conclusion was Peter Singer. Singer a self described rational objectivist rejected birth as a dividing line and establishment of personhood for infants. He taught that in infant birth, although there was a difference in size, location, dependency, and development, those factors were nominally irrelevant. Instead of upgrading a fetus to the status of a person, he would down grade the fetus to the status of a nonperson because newborns, like fetuses, are “incapable of seeing themselves as distinct entities over time” He further states, “Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time, They are not persons, therefore the life of a newborn is less valuable than the life of a pig, a dog or a chimpanzee.” (Peter Singer, Practical Ethics 1st ed. [Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1979] 122-123.

It's my hope that every human atheist and Christian alike will find these logical conclusions to objectivism deploreable. I mean You ALL rant and rave when a child is abused by some Christian and denied access to proper medical care but DO YOU rant and rave the same way when atheists take your objectivist world views to their conclusions and call CHILDREN less than DOGS AND MONKEYS?---John PLACE THAT as the next topic on your blog...You want Christians to admit when they are wrong...Can atheists do the SAME??? Parade the atheist concept of "childen" as being less than animals on the front page of your blog...That will be telling!

Additional problems with empiricism (objectivism) include:

1- Lacks an explaination of how the physical senses convey “knowledge” to the incorporeal mind. Neither Ayn Rand nor any of her exegetes have every offered a demonstration of how “knowledge” is gained through sense experience. David Hume set forth a great argument against objectivism. Van Til said this of Hume’s argument, “Hume’s thought remains as the simplest proof that if one takes his stand upon the sense world as such there is no knowledge possible of anything.“ (Van Til, Cornelius, ed.. The Works of Cornelius Van Til. New York, NY: Army Labels Co., 1997.

2- Lacks first principles: “Christianity is the only deductive system with a self-consistent and self-justifying first principle that has been infallibly revealed by an all-powerful and all-knowing God, and that is broad enough to yield a sufficient number of propositions to construct a comprehensive and self-consistent worldview.” (Chueng, Presuppositional Apologetics)

The Much Better System Based on Christian faith

1- Since the Christian faith is a one of a prepositional truth. The bible alone contains these truths and propositions and is the maxim where by the Christian lives. This is a much better system than “knowing truth” because you “feel it” or “perceive it” as the objectivist teaches.

2- The Christian receives all knowledge from God

A DOG dressed up in nice clothes is still a DOG…same with a PIG….This in an accurate summary of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and teaching. The other garbage that fills your “sensory perceptions” may sound good and deceive others but DEM DOGS don’t hunt here. Your whole philosophical construct seems to fly in the face of your very nature and person. As you are one of the most cordial persons on this board. Unfortunately adopting fallacious philosophies such as this is certainly an underachievement.

I have made clear concise and to the point factual statements against your position. You have not offered any contradictory proof based on the material that you’ve given so far and our difference of opinion as to the value of objective rationalism is further noted and displayed for the truly inquisitive to see.

In conclusion, there is no rational explanation why prophecy does not and could not exist. There is no evidence against the fact that god does exist, and all that could be offered are only arguments from silence. And further, I have demonstrated the fallacious assumptions of Richard Carrier’s interpretation of Jer. 31 and 25, and we can save the debate for documentary hypothesis for another post. Thanks Robert, you have helped me to take another look at info, that had sat dormant for quite some time.]

Thank you. C-Ya around the way.

DingoDave said...

Harvey Burnett wrote:

-"You're NUTS! NO evidence but we're supposed to take it for what YOU say...EVERY refrence that you can point to in the bible is for sure ONE thing...NOT a rference to alternate Christianities....This is one of the MOST FLAWED and falblematic(sp) speculations I think ever presented in history...you know as well as I...(we'll I've already given you more credit than you're due) ANYWAY...ANY scholar of any repute knows all evidence points to a MID-to LATE SECOND Century Gnosticism that WAS NOT an alternative or even on the scene in FIRST CENTURY...Other myths were not even hailed as Christian...the documents from Nag...were all WAY too late and totally out of the box...Not even close. "

While I'm not entirely certain what you have just written (it appears to be some form of broken English) I will take a stab and assume that you're asserting that the Bible does not record the existence of any alternate Christianities, and that the Nag-Hammadi manuscripts were written too late to qualify as being a form of early Christianity.
You are forgetting/ignoring the fact that the 'orthodox' Christian creed didn't reach anything like it's final form until after the Council of Nicea which was held in 325 AD. Even after this council 'heretical' Christianites still abounded, and the early church fathers were kept very busy trying to refute them and stamp them out.

You are also ignoring all the other sects which we know existed in the early days of the Christian era such as the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, the Marcionites, the Arianists, the Montanists, the Donatists, the Novatians, the Paulicians, the Anabaptists, the Nestorians, the Manicheans, the Pelagians, the Adoptionists, the Valentinians, the Docetists, the Modalists, the Monarchianists, the Monophysites, the Subordinationists, the Apollinarianists, the Encratites, the Eutychianists, the Sabellianists, and all the other multitude of various gnostic sects which we know flourished during the early years of the Christian era.
Hell, even the apostle Paul regularly fulminated against other so called 'false' Christianities which were being preached among his congregations as early as the mid first century AD.

2Cor.11
[4] For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.
[12] And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do.
[13] For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
[14] And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
[15] So it is not strange if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.
[22] Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they descendants of Abraham? So am I.
[23] Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one...

Gal.1
[8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
[9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

Gal.2
[1] Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
[2] I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.
[3] But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
[4] But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage --
[5] to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

Acts13
[6] When they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they came upon a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet, named Bar-Jesus.
[7] He was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence, who summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God.
[8] But El'ymas the magician (for that is the meaning of his name) withstood them, seeking to turn away the proconsul from the faith.
[9] But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him
[10] and said, "You son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, full of all deceit and villainy, will you not stop making crooked the straight paths of the Lord?

Even the author of 2 Peter complained about the 'false' Christianities which were being preached during his time, and he cursed the preachers of them.

2Pet.2
[1] But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
[2] And many will follow their licentiousness, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.
[3] And in their greed they will exploit you with false words; from of old their condemnation has not been idle, and their destruction has not been asleep.
[12] But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed, reviling in matters of which they are ignorant, will be destroyed in the same destruction with them,
[13] suffering wrong for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their dissipation, carousing with you.
[14] They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children!
[15] Forsaking the right way they have gone astray...
[17] These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm; for them the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved.
[21] For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them.
[22] It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.

The author of 1 John makes a similar complaint.

1John.4
[1] Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
[2] By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
[3] and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

Paul also admits that forged letters purporting to be from him had been circulating among his congregations.

2Thes.2
[1] Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren,
[2] not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
[3] Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition,

The situation got so bad that Paul was eventually forced to somehow mark his genuine letters, so that his followers could identify which were the genuine letters and which might be forgeries.

2Thes.3
[17] I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.

Paul was also forced to settle doctrinal disputes among his congregations, because they couldn't agree among themselves what it was that they were supposed to believe.

1Cor.1
[10] I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.
[11] For it has been reported to me by Chlo'e's people that there is quarreling among you, my brethren.
[12] What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."
[13] Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

1Cor.3
[3]...For while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh, and behaving like ordinary men?
[4] For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apol'los," are you not merely men?
[5] What then is Apol'los? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.

There never was one genuine Christianity Harvey, even in the very early days.
I'm afraid that you have been sold an illusion of something which never actually existed.
You really need to educate yourself about the origins and history of your own religion Harvey before you go around accusing other people of being nuts.

DingoDave said...

Dear Harvey, it might be helpful for you to read this.

'Student of early Christianities'

Karen L. King doesn't want to rewrite the Bible. But she does want people to take another look at the parts that got left out.
King, the Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the (Harvard) Divinity School, is the author of a new book, "What Is Gnosticism?"
(Harvard University Press, 2003), which offers a provocative look at Christianity during its formative centuries and the heterogeneous array of groups, doctrines, and beliefs that all claimed to be inspired in some way by Jesus.

Karen King emphasizes that early Christianity was marked by an enormous diversity of beliefs and practices, including what we now call Gnosticism, and that 'orthodox' Christianity was simply more successful at defining itself and pushing the other groups to the periphery.

At the beginning, each of these groups claimed to represent the true Christianity, although they disagreed over basic issues. It wasn't until later that one group succeeded in labeling the others as heretics and driving them out of the fold...
"Now this one group defines itself as orthodox, and all the rest get lumped together as heretical. Modern scholars then divide them up into two groups, Jewish Christians if they stay too close to Judaism, and Gnostics if they seem to reject Judaism and move toward Greek philosophy and mysticism. It gives each an identity and a unity they never actually had."

While King questions the existence of an early Christian sect identifying itself as Gnostic, her research does show that a wide diversity of groups flourished in the early Christian era.

The picture contradicts long-cherished assumptions that early or "primitive" Christianity possessed a salutary purity and simplicity. She points out that the church's earliest formulations of belief such as the Nicene Creed (325) did not take place in a vacuum.
"The Nicene Creed is a guard against heresy. Every one of its statements is formulated to oppose other views that were prominent at the time."
If such doctrinal diversity existed among early Christians, how is it that the version of the religion we call orthodox eventually vanquished its rivals? While the answer is extraordinarily complex, King believes a crucial factor was the influence of one man - the emperor Constantine...
"Constantine picked the kind of Christianity that best suited his political needs," King said. "He had a huge influence on the subsequent development of the religion."
Now the bishops were able to combat their rivals and destroy their writings with the power of the state to back them up. No wonder the Nag Hammadi monks decided to bury their manuscript collection.

The manuscripts had come from a nearby early Christian monastery and apparently had been buried by monks in the fifth century to prevent them from being found by church authorities engaged in suppressing heresy. What was particularly astounding was that some of these works had been known previously only through the polemical writings of early church authorities. Now scholars had a chance to read the actual texts these "orthodox" writers were condemning.

The orthodox defenders denounced these ancient heresies as being influenced by paganism, embodying the idea that spiritual salvation results from the acquisition of secret knowledge imparted by Christ to his disciples. Other "Gnostic" beliefs include the idea that the God of the Old Testament is actually an inferior deity who seeks to ensnare humans in an evil world of matter, and that Christ was a supernatural being who did not really suffer and die on the cross.

"Gnosticism is a blanket term that covers a lot of early Christian movements. There wasn't a distinct religion called Gnosticism. It only existed as a tool of orthodox identity formation."
"Are those choices that were made in the fourth and fifth centuries the right ones for Christians living today? Maybe we should go back and look at those early choices."
Students who are committed to particular Christian traditions sometimes find King's probing, questioning attitude toward scripture disturbing. For them she has a message that is part reassurance, part challenge.

"I'm not trying to take the canon away from them, but to bring it to their attention. I believe that if these texts are important to you, then you need to know what theological controversies and political events shaped them, and who decided that they should be authoritative for you."

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/07.17/15-gnostic.html

DingoDave said...

Harvey Burnett wrote:

-"Anyway, 100% of BOTH my congregations have read the HOLY and PROPHETICALLY ACURATE Bible cover to cover."

Sorry Harvey, but I don't believe you.

-"The passage you just quoted (and many others like it) clearly states that Yahweh intentionally manipulates people and events in order to bring about a portion of his will."
"I used to study your answeres when I thought you at least had something to offer...but this is plain ole STUPID!...no response other than Hmmmmm! is justified"

Are you seriously suggesting that the Bible doesn't claim that Yahweh meddles with the course of human history? You either haven't read your Bible very carefully, or you are lying again Harvey.
The Bible clearly states that Yahweh regularly and enthusiastically meddled with the course of history. It is claimed that he manipulated, governments, heads of state and even entire nations into doing his bidding. It is also claimed that he was accustomed to harnessing the forces of nature, wild animals, and even micro-organisms to do his bidding, and to carry out portions of his will.
If you don't believe me, then just read the following passages.

Lev.26
[21] "Then if you walk contrary to me, and will not hearken to me, I will bring more plagues upon you, sevenfold as many as your sins.
[22] And I will let loose the wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle, and make you few in number, so that your ways shall become desolate.
[23] "And if by this discipline you are not turned to me, but walk contrary to me,
[24] then I also will walk contrary to you, and I myself will smite you sevenfold for your sins.
[25] And I will bring a sword upon you, that shall execute vengeance for the covenant; and if you gather within your cities I will send pestilence among you, and you shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy.

Isa.10
[5] Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger, the staff of my fury!
[6] Against a godless nation I send him, and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

Isa.13
[4] Hark, a tumult on the mountains
as of a great multitude! Hark, an uproar of kingdoms, of nations gathering together! The LORD of hosts is mustering a host for battle.
[5] They come from a distant land, from the end of the heavens, the LORD and the weapons of his indignation, to destroy the whole earth.
[17] Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them, who have no regard for silver and do not delight in gold.
[18] Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb; their eyes will not pity children.

Isa.46
[9] ...I am God, and there is none like me,
[10] declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, "My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,"
[11] calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.

Jer.5
[15] Behold, I am bringing upon you
a nation from afar, O house of Israel, says the LORD. It is an enduring nation, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose language you do not know, nor can you understand what they say.
[16] Their quiver is like an open tomb, they are all mighty men.
[17] They shall eat up your harvest and your food; they shall eat up your sons and your daughters; they shall eat up your flocks and your herds; they shall eat up your vines and your fig trees; your fortified cities in which you trust they shall destroy with the sword."

Jer.25
[8] "Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: Because you have not obeyed my words,
[9] behold, I will send for all the tribes of the north, says the LORD, and for Nebuchadrez'zar the king of Babylon, my servant, and I will bring them against this land and its inhabitants, and against all these nations round about; I will utterly destroy them, and make them a horror, a hissing, and an everlasting reproach.

Jer.29
[17] `Thus says the LORD of hosts, Behold, I am sending on them sword, famine, and pestilence, and I will make them like vile figs which are so bad they cannot be eaten.
[18] I will pursue them with sword, famine, and pestilence, and will make them a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, a terror, a hissing, and a reproach among all the nations where I have driven them,

Jer.30
[24] The fierce anger of the LORD will not turn back until he has executed and accomplished the intents of his mind.

Ezek.5
[17] I will send famine and wild beasts against you, and they will rob you of your children; pestilence and blood shall pass through you; and I will bring the sword upon you. I, the LORD, have spoken."

Jer.48
[44] He who flees from the terror shall fall into the pit, and he who climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For I will bring these things upon Moab in the year of their punishment, says the LORD.

Jer.49
[5] Behold, I will bring terror upon you, says the Lord GOD of hosts, from all who are round about you, and you shall be driven out, every man straight before him, with none to gather the fugitives.

Jer.50
[9] For behold, I am stirring up and bringing against Babylon a company of great nations, from the north country; and they shall array themselves against her; from there she shall be taken. Their arrows are like a skilled warrior who does not return empty-handed.

Lam.2
[17] The LORD has done what he purposed, has carried out his threat; as he ordained long ago, he has demolished without pity; he has made the enemy rejoice over you,and exalted the might of your foes.

Ezek.28
[7] therefore, behold, I will bring strangers upon you, the most terrible of the nations; and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of your wisdom and defile your splendor.
[8] They shall thrust you down into the Pit, and you shall die the death of the slain in the heart of the seas.
[10] You shall die the death of the uncircumcised by the hand of foreigners; for I have spoken, says the Lord GOD."

Ezek.32
[3] Thus says the Lord GOD: I will throw my net over you with a host of many peoples; and I will haul you up in my dragnet.
[4] And I will cast you on the ground,on the open field I will fling you,and will cause all the birds of the air to settle on you, and I will gorge the beasts of the whole earth with you.
[5] I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcasses.
[6] I will drench the land even to the mountains with your flowing blood; and the watercourses will be full of you.
[11] For thus says the Lord GOD: The sword of the king of Babylon shall come upon you.
[12] I will cause your multitude to fall by the swords of mighty ones, all of them most terrible among the nations...and all its multitude shall perish.
[15] When I make the land of Egypt desolate and when the land is stripped of all that fills it, when I smite all who dwell in it, then they will know that I am the LORD.

Amos.6
[8] The Lord GOD has sworn by himself (says the LORD, the God of hosts): "I abhor the pride of Jacob, and hate his strongholds;
and I will deliver up the city and all that is in it."
[9] And if ten men remain in one house, they shall die.
[14] "For behold, I will raise up against you a nation, O house of Israel," says the LORD, the God of hosts; "and they shall oppress you from the entrance of Hamath to the Brook of the Arabah."

Hab.1
[6] For lo, I am rousing the Chalde'ans, that bitter and hasty nation, who march through the breadth of the earth, to seize habitations not their own.
[7] Dread and terrible are they; their justice and dignity proceed from themselves. O LORD, thou hast ordained them as a judgment; and thou, O Rock, hast established them for chastisement.

There are more where these came from, but I think that I have made my point.
I would have thought that by now you'd have learned that empty handwaving cuts no ice with me Harvey.

Unknown said...

Mr. Harvey Burnett: Thank you for your comments.

You wrote: “…Theological Fatalism which is ot the best way to approach the subject…”

I disagree. Taken in context the entirety of applicable attributes associated with what Abrahamic religionists predicate regarding the “God” they imagine leads only to hard deterministic fatalism. But HDF is not true, and that implies the Abrahamic “God” defined as the “God” of classical theism (GCT) does not exist. This is a form of valid modus tollens.

If p then q
~q
therefore ~p

If GCT then HFD
~HFD
~GCT
***************
You wrote “1- “God” is omniscient.”

You “God” does not exist. Consider.

1. To believe that a theistic creator deity exists and is responsible for reality, the believer must imagine their deity was in some timeless fashion akin to "before" existence alone in a timeless, non-spatial, void without anything. That is alone as a consciousness, conscious of nothing or only itself without time, space, energy, location, dimensions, fields, concepts, knowledge, symbols, perceptions, physical natural law, logic or matter. Believers imagine that their deity was a primordial, immaterial, non-spatial, consciousness that wished existence to instantiate.

2. Consciousness is an irreducible primary.

3. Consciousness at the most common denominative rung on the ladder of complexity consists of awareness of existence.

4. Consciousness of consciousness necessarily requires primary consciousness to first obtain as awareness of existence.

5. Prior to existence there could not have been anything to be aware of.

6. Without anything to be aware of, there could not have been any awareness.

7. Without awareness there could not have been any consciousness.

8. From 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 there could not have been a primordial consciousness prior to existence.

9. Creator “God”s are defined as primordial consciousness.

10. From 8 and 9 Creator “God”s cannot exist.
*********************************

You wrote “2- Since “God” is omniscient, he is also infallible.”

GCT is defined as a transcendent being and is of necessity also a-temporal and a-spatial. It is also defined as immutable and immaterial. To be immutable is to not be able to change in any way. To be immaterial is to be other than mass, energy, fields, potentials, wave functions, photons, neutrinos, or particles, and consequently, to lack sensory perception. Time and space are necessary for causation. To be a personal being as implied by the use of the pronoun “he” requires causation and the possibility of changing in response to stimuli. GCT cannot do this by virtue of its basal attributes. GCT cannot be subject to or exert causation because it is a-temporal and a-spatial. GCT cannot sense existence because is does not have sensory awareness. Even if GCT could sense existence, it cannot change because it is immutable. For these reasons, it cannot be a personal being.

You wrote” 3- If “God” has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event, then, 4- you will freely choose this based on your free will, not obligation or lack of choice about the event., 5- You still have free will to engage in event; “God” merely knows your choice before you make it.”

This assumes the calculation model of omniscience. GCT cannot calculate precise future outcomes form a given state of affairs using the uniformity of nature since it is immutable, a-spatial, and a-temporal. Any of the three conditions are sufficient to prevent GCT from engaging in calculations. To calculate outcomes of states of affairs requires identity, causality and the ability to change. GCT has none of these necessary properties. The only view of omniscience compatible with immutability, a-temporality, and a-spatiality is that of complete and full magical-mystical “God” just knows” knowledge of a fixed concrete future. That implies HFD.

You wrote “You are not obliged to make choice 'A' anymore than choice 'B'. If you were going to change your mind, “God” would have seen that also, so you still have full free will in all matters.”

Again this assumes the fallacious calculation model of omniscience. Your case therefore falls flat on its face.

You wrote “… even if “God” chose to not see the future. Seeing …”

If GCT were to exist, could it willingly stop being “the supreme being” if it desired to do so? Could it lay aside its basal attributes and no longer be “God” while still existing? Is not GCT defined so that it is a necessary being in any possible world? Yes, by definition, it cannot stop being “God”. It cannot lay aside its ineffability and be non-transcendent anymore than it can stop being omnipotent. Thus GCT cannot choose to not know the future. By definition it must be omniscient all the time. Likewise it must be always be immutable, non-spatial, and a-temporal which, ironically, precludes GCT from making choices.

Regarding “Seeing”, since GCT does not have sense organs, it cannot sense existence. Thus GCT cannot see, hear, feel, taste, smell, or sense any natural physical phenomenon. It cannot “see” the future. If it were to exist, it could only “know” the future via its magical-mystical-“God just knows” omniscience and then only if the future were to be a concrete already existing reality. It is just as logically impossible for GCT to make a square circle as it is for it to sense reality. To sense or manipulate reality is not a genuine task relative to GCT.

You wrote “The demise of free will would only logically come if “God” made His knowledge public in regard to the free will choice of individuals; this would alter future free will and make it an obligation.”

Again your view of omniscience is that of a calculator. GCT’s defined attributes prohibit this. Ironically, those same attributes, being self-contradictory, necessitate GCT not exist. The primal error driving all the rest in your world view is that of primacy of consciousness thinking. My hero, Ayn Rand, wrote:

“The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).

The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.” - "The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made," published in "Philosophy: Who Needs It", 24.

Leonard Peikoff concisely stated the fundamental axioms.

“It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms [existence, consciousness, and identity]. Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. “Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.” - "The Ominous Parallels", 303.

Ayn Rand through her fictional character John Galt elaborated on the axioms.

“Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.” - Galt’s Speech, “For the New Intellectual”, 124.

The primacy of consciousness fallacy is characterized by purposeful disregard of evidence proving "God" belief invalid. Those asserting primacy of consciousness will strive for arbitrary ideas to proclaim "God" belief "true". Their "God" belief is not rooted in a commitment to reasoned proper thinking, rather its an emotional commitment. Reason is a casualty, cast away as if useless flotsam, in their desire to enshrine the arbitrary. Theism's worldview does not encourage the believer to look for facts in reality in order to discover and support truth. Instead, it encourages the believer to make things up, to avoid the facts of reality, and proclaim the imaginary true irregardless of reality.

It is beyond the scope of this comment response to launch into a discussion of metaphysical primacy. I will try my hand a blog post on that subject in the future. If you are interested, I recommend Dawson Bethrick’s Incinerating Presuppostionalism blog and Anton Thorn’s The Issue of Metaphysical Primacy

You wrote “An understanding of omniscience must be joined with an understanding of “God”'s omnipresence in time.”

“God's” failure to know indexical facts while simultaneously it being the case that it is logically possible for “God” to “know” what I know about what I am going to do and where I'm going to go and when I am going to do so renders omniscience incoherent. See “The Non-Existence of God” by Nicholas Everitt, p289-300; and see “Against Omniscience: The Case from Essential Indexicals” by Patrick Grim published in “The Impossibility of God”, p.349-378. It is beyond the scope of this response to discuss a just treatment of the argument against “God” from indexicals. However, I will find time to write on that subject in the future. There are equally dissonate problems with omnipresence. First a transcendent being cannot exist in space or time, but an omnipresent being must exist everywhere in space. From that it is clear that no being can be both. You may wish to appeal to boundary crossing from a transcendent realm to reality. For the same reason that a being cannot both be everywhere in space and nowhere in space at the same time while not being in time at all, so too it is impossible for a relation or relational attachment to cross in time from spatial reality to a timeless non-spatial realm or visa-versa.

See Jeffrey Grupp’s paper God's Spatial Unlocatedness Prevents Him from Being the Creator of the Universe: A New Argument for the Nonexistence of God Grupp's argument is very salient to the question of boundary crossing behavior. The essential section of Grupp's argument is in part 2 where he wrote:

"I do not know of any explanation of how, exactly, a wholly spatially located entity and a wholly spatially unlocated entity can be involved in an unmediated attachment. An unmediated attachment between a wholly spatially located entity and a wholly spatially unlocated entity appears impossible for the following reasons. An unmediated attachment between a wholly spatially located and a wholly spatially unlocated item would require either that the wholly spatially unlocated entity 'reach across' the realms in order to be at a place and to thus involve an unmediated attachment to the wholly spatially located entity, or vice versa. Since a wholly spatially located entity cannot fail to be at a place, a wholly spatially unlocated entity then must indeed 'reach across' to the wholly spatially located entity, in order to involve an unmediated attachment to the wholly spatially located entity. Since the wholly spatially located entity can only be at a place, the wholly spatially unlocated entity must become wholly spatially located, and must somehow be at a spatial place, if it is to involve an unmediated attachment to the wholly spatially located entity. Similarly, a wholly spatially located entity would have to 'reach across' the realms in order to become spatially unlocated, if they are to involve an unmediated attachment to a wholly spatially unlocated entity. However, how this occurs is not only unexplained, it is also apparently self-contradictory (impossible): in order that such an unmediated attachment occur between a wholly spatially located entity and a spatially unlocated entity, either a wholly spatially located entity must not be spatially located (not be at a spatial place), or a wholly spatially unlocated entity must be spatially located (be at a spatial place). But by the definition of 'spatially unlocated,' what is wholly spatially unlocated cannot be at a spatial place lest it be spatially located; and by the definition of 'spatially located,' what is wholly spatially located cannot fail to be at a place lest it be spatially unlocated. If the realm crossing intermediary (the relation, causes) is indeed a connection between God and the entities of the universe, the realm crossing intermediary apparently involves such impossible features. " p.14-15

Grupp is saying that a transcendent being not located in a space-time Universe or not located in any sort of spatial space-time realm cannot communicate or interact with anything that actually exists in a spatial space-time Universe because a relation between a state of nowhere-ness in some other realm an a state of somewhere-ness in this realm cannot possibly obtain, for exemplification of the relation in either realm would require not only some conveniently (but unwarranted) presumed boundary crossing action but that the relation's complementary other exemplification would have to be of the same nature. But this is impossible, for nowhere-ness cannot be somewhere-ness and somewhere-ness cannot be nowhere-ness. Grupp's argument is very strong because all the theistic believer can do in response is to whine something about magic or mystery. They cannot shoulder a burden of proof. Considering the total lack of valid evidence for the supernatural it becomes apparent Grupp's argument explains why nowhere and no place throughout human history is there a valid instance of the supernatural. This explanatory power and the conservative nature (no ad hoc assumptions) of Grupp makes his argument effective in refuting the notion of a God.

Grupp's argument has further usefulness. The god of classical theism is necessarily defined as the one and only possible creator of any possible universe in any possible world. Hence, if it is not impossible for a universe in some possible world to come about by natural causes or uncaused at all, then GCT does not exist. Grupp's effort is to show why (based on the impossibility of a "Being" located in a non-space-time transcendent non-location interacting or communicating or relating to anything that does exist and is located in a space-time spacial universe) GCT can fail to be the creator of a space-time (spacial) universe since a transcendent GCT must be able to relate in an unmediated attachment to some existent in a spacial space-time universe. Since it is not impossible for GCT to fail to be the creator of all possible universes in all possible worlds, then GCT as defined by classical theism does not exist.

Mr. Burnett may contest that it is a mystery as to how his “God” can exist or do anything, yet he will predicate his faith upon the hope of mere possibility. Grupp pulls the rug from beneath such predications. How do theists account for the method whereby their god communicates and enters into causal relationships across the boundary between the non space-time, non-spatial, non-existent realm of the transcendent and physical, spatial, existence of space-time reality. Such boundary crossing is clearly impossible in light of Grupp's unrefuted argument. So how could a transcendent being affect conditions in a space-time universe? This is the essential question Grupp addresses. Theism has a burden of proof in this regard. If theism wishes to be taken seriously, it must answer with good explanations that have explanatory power and scope.

Secondly, the thing people of faith imagine as “God” cannot both be omnipresent and a personal being. To be a personal being is to have a specific identity. To have a specific identity necessitates an existent be subject to causality and have a particular location. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere and hence have no particular location. To be everywhere is a violation of identity and causality, and the uniformity of nature. Since “God” can only do what is logically possible in consideration of its basal attributes, it cannot both be a person and omnipresent. Thus, GCT cannot exist. Something else might, but if so it isn’t GCT, nor would it violate primacy of existence.

You wrote “If “God” knows all events—past, future, and present—then He would know all events and decisions an individual would make though from the individual’s perspective those events and decisions have not yet occurred.”

In your earlier writing, you appeared to be presuming the calculator model of omniscience. That is a fallacy. Lacking sensory perception and any ability to think or process information, the thing imagined as “God” is only capable of knowing in the sense of magically-mystically always having had known that which exists relative to it. However, as the “God” in question cannot think by virtue of its immutability and transcendence, it could not consciously be aware of what it “knows” in the same sense that a medicinal leech is aware of the water in which is swims.

You wrote “Since, according the Christian theology, “God” is atemporal (existing outside of time) “God” knows from creation the entire course of one's life, all the actions in which he will partake, and even whether or not that individual will accept his divine authority.”

No being can exist unless it is in time and in space. “God” cannot be a person, nor can it be consciously aware of knowledge. However, it reads as if you accept the doctrine of predestination. Are you a Calvinist? If so why are you wasting your time arguing online with people who do not believe in your “God”? For to accept predestination is to assert that HFD obtains. Que Sera-Sera.

You wrote “There is a vast difference between Predestination, Fatalism and Chance (or Fortune).”

Oh really, Prov. 16:4, John 12:40, Romans 9:18-22, 2 Thess. 2:11-12 shows that false. Que Sera-Sera.

You wrote “Fatalists teach that there is a blind, impersonal force, back of which there is no Divine purpose or any other, and over which none has control—not even “God”—and that things happen in this world and are swept along by this blind power. This is Fatalism.”

GCT is so defined. You can escape that by redefining “God”. Much like ancient idol worshipers, who when they wished to change their “God” simply added or subtracted features from their idol or statue, you too can simply imagine a “God” with some property or other that makes it all O.K. If you do so, however, you will be confessing that your alleged religious revelations were always at best lacking or simply false. What confidence could then be placed in your new “revelation”?

You wrote “The bible in no manner teaches that “God” is impersonal or a "force" and is very much involved within his creation. redemption through HIS Son Jesus is the epitome of that interraction.”

Yahweh, the “God” of the Bible is an anthropomorphic being with a personality much like an ancient near eastern despotic ruler or king. It is truly one of the most vile and pure evil characters in all of fictional literature. The depth and scope of mental illness lodged in the sick minds responsible for creating Yahweh is almost incomprehensible. Yet if you predicate your religious faith on the “God” of the Bible, you also must accept the cosmology of the Bible including a flat, stationary, earth set upon pillars over the Tehom. You must accept the Raqiya crystalline dome of the sky and that the sun, moon, planets, and stars are small two dimensional objects moving about on the inner surface of the Raqiya. To believe in the God of the Bible, Yahweh, a person has to say behavior such as that exhibited in 1 Samual 15:2-3 or Judges 21:7-23 is good. The believer must praise Yahweh for creating evil as in Isaiah 45:7, Amos 3:6, 2 Kings 6:33 and celebrate pure evil in Lam.3:38. To believe in Yahweh is to believe in Rahab and Leviathan the chaos monsters exiled to the Tehom, in El Elyon and the host of elder gods overthrown by Yahweh and in a legion of silly things.

See is Heaven the Sky by Robert M. Price and Reginald Finley; See The Flat Earth Bible by Robert J. Schadewald ; See EVOLVING INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE'S "COSMOLOGICAL TEACHINGS"--OR--DOES THE BIBLE TEACH SCIENCE? by Edward T. Babinski; See The God Murders

You wrote “Thanks Got help 4 me.” Like the priests of Baal in 1 Kings 18, you can pray and cry to your “God” till you are exhausted. You can have the help of thousands of fellow believers. You could do all sorts of bizarre rituals to invoke your “God”, but it can do nothing. For it does not exist. Consciousness does not have primacy over existence. Existence cannot be modified, amended, changed, manipulated, created or destroyed by any form of consciousness.

I've now written all I care to on these subjects. I shall in my next response argue to defend Sandoval's thesis and a naturalistic view of prophecy. Thank you Mr. Burnett for communicating with me on these issues. Of course, I do not take anything written in the blog against me personally. I'm positive that you are a good an decent sort of person. We simply disagree on issues of philosophy and religion. That's a good thing, for it would be a dull blog if all were in agreement.

DingoDave said...

Robert_B wrote:

-"Yahweh, the “God” of the Bible is an anthropomorphic being with a personality much like an ancient near eastern despotic ruler or king... Yet if you predicate your religious faith on the “God” of the Bible, you also must accept the cosmology of the Bible including a flat, stationary, earth set upon pillars over the Tehom. You must accept the Raqiya crystalline dome of the sky and that the sun, moon, planets, and stars are small two dimensional objects moving about on the inner surface of the Raqiya... To believe in Yahweh is to believe in Rahab and Leviathan the chaos monsters exiled to the Tehom, in El Elyon and the host of elder gods overthrown by Yahweh and in a legion of silly things."

I couldn't agree with you more Robert.
The god of the Old Testament is portrayed as being nothing more than some kind of celestial superman with magic powers who lives in his Heavenly palace, located somewhere just above the clouds, surrounded by his divine council and his Heavenly army.
In fact for the majority of the Old Testament (which comprises 2/3 of the Bible) Yahweh is not even portrayed as being omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. He is portrayed in a vulgar and thoroughly anthropomorphic manner. He did not possess absolute for-knowlege, and he even had to rely on his angelic emmissaries to keep him upated about what was going on down here on Earth. He could be taken by surprise, and was prone to throwing childish tantrems when he didn't get his way.
It's only by completely ignoring the passages in the Bible which describe him this way, that modern day Christians can continue to delude themselves that they are worshipping an omnimax being who knows all and sees all.
If more Christians would only take the time to read their Bibles, then I think we'd find that there would be a lot more atheists in the world.
Of course the peddlars of this bronze age superstition, don't often encourage their gullible flocks to do this, and so what we generally find is a woefull level of Bible illiteracy among most Christian communities, including their priests and pastors.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Robert_b~ "I've now written all I care to on these subjects. I shall in my next response argue to defend Sandoval's thesis and a naturalistic view of prophecy. Thank you Mr. Burnett for communicating with me on these issues. Of course, I do not take anything written in the blog against me personally. I'm positive that you are a good an decent sort of person. We simply disagree on issues of philosophy and religion. That's a good thing, for it would be a dull blog if all were in agreement."

[Now THAT'S fantastic and well appreciated. You have outlined your case well and I hope I have done the same enough for individuals to see and assess the differences in position for themselves. Thank you for your courtesy and kindness.]

Dingo~ I refuse to argue anything about your fantasy of alternate Christianities first century. I have a wealth of information on the subject and know the opposing confused arguments such as yours. No matter what you think you know (so far as biblical quotations) they do not support your assertions, but I'll argue that in another post which I'm sure will be picked up here.

Bart W and I went round with that issue and Pharisees in Galillee long ago...so been there, done that...

C-Ya round the way...Dingo.

DingoDave said...

Harvey Burnett wrote:

-"Dingo~ I refuse to argue anything about your fantasy of alternate Christianities first century. I have a wealth of information on the subject and know the opposing confused arguments such as yours. No matter what you think you know (so far as biblical quotations) they do not support your assertions, but I'll argue that in another post which I'm sure will be picked up here."

Harvey, once again you have just proved the point that when a religious fanatic is presented with overwhealming evidence which contradicts one of his cherished assumptions, then he merely closes his eyes, sticks his fingers in his ears and shouts "La La La, I can't hear you".
On the other hand, if you do have a "wealth of information" on the subject which would refute what I've been saying, then please feel free to share it with us. Why be so coy about it? The reason you refuse to argue your case is because you simply have no case to argue. You know it, but you're just not honest enough to admit it.

I also notice that you have not addressed the issue of alternate Christianities in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries either. Why is that I wonder? Is it perhaps because you know that you have no case to defend there either? Paul and the other New Testament authors I quoted, accused their rivals of preaching "another gospel". If that doesn't prove that their were alternate Christianities being preached during the 1st century, then I don't know what would. What is it that you think all those New Testament authors were complaining about, if not alternate Christianities?

And what do you make of the disputes and rivalry between Paul and the Jerusalem apostles over the issue of whether the Jewish law should still be adhered to? Would you classify Jewish Christianity and Pauline Christianity as alternate Christianities, or would you prefer to sweep that inconvenient little fact under the rug as well?
Come on Harvey, pony up or risk losing whatever credibility you may have ever had.
Did you read the article I posted by Karen King, the 'Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical History' at Harvard Divinity School? Would you accuse her of being a "RADICAL INTERNET...home spun atheist", and an "extemist fanatic" as well? You appear to accuse anyone who disagrees with your particular narrow theological viewpoint as being an "extremist fanatic". Have you considered the possibility that it might be YOU who is actually the extremist fanatic, and not the people who disagree with you?

You appear to be virtually impervious to evidence and reason Harvey. My only hope is that others who might read this thread will not be as stubborn and impervious to reason as you are. I know that you make your living by deceiving your gullible flock, but you can be honest with me, because I'm not one of them.
Please stop your empty handwaving and actually provide some evidence to back up your case, if you can. By the way, if you happen to notice a guy standing in the corner who's face looks like it's turning blue, then that will be me holding my breath waiting. : D

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Mr. Dingo Dave: thank you for your kind words and statement of agreement in the message you wrote regarding my assertion of a package deal of belief in Yahweh, as known in the Jahwist source and as Elohim in the Elohist and the Priestly source.

I admire your learning and knowledge in these matters. As a student of Abrahamic mythology, I can only wish for more time to study. The vast number of interesting books fills many libraries. I recently bought Mark S. Smith's volume, "The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel". I've only sampled a small portion, but from what I've so far read, this is a classic. It even has footnotes rather than end or chapter notes. I love foot notes, and Smith edited his bibliography info into the notes. I don't have to flip to the back to see the name of the book or article in reference. He cites many erudite sources. I look forward to reviewing this book. It promises to be fun.

Unknown said...

Mr. Harvey Burnett, Mr. J.L. Hinman, Mr Dingo Dave and other readers: Greetings, I hope all are well and feeling fine. I wish you and your families a happy holiday. Stay safe and do have fun.

It should be pointed out that a statement of unsupported assertion can be refuted by a counter unsupported assertion. To win in this discussion, it is necessary to actually make arguments that support one's assertions. So far Mr. Burnett and Mr. Hinman have not done so. To refute their positions all that is necessary is to pose a counter assertion. Doing so causes both assertions to cancel each other out.

In my first defense of Chris Sandoval's essay, showing that the author of Hebrews in Heb. 8:7-13 took Jeremiah 31:31-34 out of context, twisted the text, and misquoted the text to make it say something not intended by the original Jeremiah writer, I wrote:

(A)“Modern Christians and Messianic Jews wrongfully interpret Biblical passages using mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism as did the ancients who fabricated the texts.”

In my haste to complete the response essay last weekend, I failed to adequately support and defend the foregoing statement. In the current essay, I will correct that oversight with an additional supporting argument and a brief review of the main points from my first defense of Sandoval's essay.

To defend my prior assertion (A) and render it an ontologically established claim, I have to show that using “mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism” is a wrong way to interpret Biblical scripture. To establish use of that technique is wrong, I must define what is meant by “wrong”. In this case, I am using “wrong” to indicate not in accordance with the reality of what the original author actually meant. I must also establish that if the Abrahamic God were to exist, it would not piggy-back hidden enigmatic mystical symbolism on a plain reading of the text.

In my earlier response essay, I used criteria from the Argument to the Best Explanation as described by Richard Carrier's citation of C. Behan McCullagh from “Justifying Historical Descriptions”, 1984. Without explicitly rejecting supernaturalism and the possible existence of some sort of a God, and by adopting the idea that the ancient Hebrew prophet Jeremiah was concerned with the immediate prospects of the Jews getting out of Babylonian detention and back to Judea and Israel, it was demonstrated that a straight forward plain sense reading of the text had greater explanatory scope and power, was more plausible , less ad hoc, and disconfirmed by fewer accepted Jewish beliefs than a reading governed by “mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism”. That demonstration coupled with the use of the principle of analogy, (from the example of a misapplication of Jeremiah 31:15 to Matthew 2:18 showing that the Matthean writer took Jeremiah's prophecy at 31:15 out of context, stripped it of its intended meaning and then used it to fabricate a fictional story element), established that it is not in accordance with the reality of what Jeremiah wrote to use or interpret his text via mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism.

My failure to establish that if the Abarahamic God were to exist, it would not piggy-back hidden enigmatic mystical symbolism on a plain reading of the text, however, was a weakness in the response essay. To alleviate that shortcoming, I propose the following argument from the foundational attributes of the Abrahamic God.

Since the ancient Old Testament prophet Jeremiah was concerned with problems endemic to his own time and situation, there is a burden of proof on those who wish to claim Jeremiah was actually concerned with events in a distant future or that the Abarahamic God, if it were to exist, would actually piggy-back hidden enigmatic mystical symbolism on a plain reading of the text. This is a heavy burden. One that I doubt Christianity can convincingly shoulder. The following argument in no way assumes God or the supernatural can or cannot or does or doesn't exist.

First, the ancient Hebrew prophets were often involved in some dire situation where life of death of Israel or one of the kings was on the line. Jeremiah was no exception. The context of Jeremiah 31 is as I discussed in my earlier response essay, and that is evidence that Jeremiah did not intend to include hidden enigmatic and esoteric symbolic meaning into his text.

Secondly, it was noted that other New Testament writers were concerned with distorting and decontextualizing Jeremiah's prophecies. This is evidence that Jeremiah only intended his writing to apply to the concerns of his own situation and time. If there really was a secondary meaning in Jeremiah's text, then why did the New Testament sectarian writers have to distort and decontextualize to obtain it? The answer lies in the hermeneutics used by the first century New Testament writers. Willem Surenhuis [Surenhuys, Surenhusius (c.1664-1729), a Dutch Christian scholar of Hebrew, known for his Latin translation of the Mishnah] ferreted out and wrote concerning the exegetical-hermeneutic rules used by the first century Rabbis and the Apostle Paul in construction of their religious midrash after a lengthy survey of Talmudic literature.

The following is cited from George Bethune English in his book “The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old".

“1. The first rule is--"reading the words of the Hebrew bible, not
according to the points placed under them, but according to other
points substituted in their stead," as is done by Peter, Acts iii. 3; by
Stephen, Acts vii. 43, and by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 54; 2 Cor. viii. 16,
and Heb. iii. 10; ix. 21; xii. 6.

2. The second rule is--"changing the letters, whether those letters
be of the same organ (as the Hebrew grammarians speak,) or not,"
as is done by Paul, Rom. ix. 33; 1 Cor. xi. 9; Heb. viii. 9, and x. 6;
and by Stephen, Acts vii. 43.

3. The third is--"changing both letters and points," as is done by
Paul, Acts xiii. 41, and 2 Cor. viii. 15.

4. The fourth is--"adding some letters, and taking away others."

5. The fifth is--"transposing words and letters."

6. The sixth is--"dividing one word into two."

7. The seventh is--"adding other words to those in the text, in
order to make the sense more clear, and to accommodate it to the
subject they we upon."

8. The eighth is--"changing the order of words."

9. The ninth is--"changing the order of words, and adding other
words."

10. The tenth is--"changing the order of words, adding words,
and retrenching words," which, (says he) is a method often used
by Paul. Of the application of all these rules, he gives examples
taken from the New Testament.”

George Bethune English commented on Surenhuis. “It is not necessary to make many observations upon these rules, they speak for themselves most significantly; for what is there that cannot be proved from the Old Testament, or any other book, yea, from Euclid's Elements! or even an old almanac! by the help of "altering words and sentences; adding; retrenching; and transposing, and cutting words in two," as is stated above by a learned and good man, and sincere Christian who found out, and brought forward, these rules, as the best means of getting the authors of the New Testament out of a difficulty, which had long shocked and grieved their best friends."

The Project Gutenberg EBook of "The Grounds of Christianity Examined by Comparing The New Testament with the Old", last page of chapter V, by George Bethune English (Sorry - no page numbers in the ascii text d/l. This is not an example of a fallacious implementation of argumentum ad verecundiam because there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true.)

If the plain sense of Jeremiah did not express what was deemed necessary for the purposes of the New Testament writers, they simply changed the text to suit themselves. Subsequently, they followed the example of the first century Rabbis. They imagined and pretended there were hidden enigmatic and esoteric symbolic meanings to be mined from the Old Testament text. They did this because there was not any secret information concealed in the text. To get some, they simply lied and forged what was needed.

Third, since each mystical minded exegete employs a differing method of esoteric analysis, they cannot help each arriving at differing opinions regarding religious principles. This prompts the following question. If the Abrahamic God is perfectly moral, perfectly just, perfectly fair, perfectly rational, and perfectly reasonable, and if a person's eternal fate is at stake depending on what they believe about the ancient Hebrew prophets, then why would the Abrahamic God allow a dizzying diversity of opinion to obtain regarding that upon which all human eternal life depends? If our eternal fate depends on getting it right, why would the Abrahamic God not make it perfectly clear to all humanity what the texts actually say? To allow many differing opinions to be ascertained from employment of mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism or to have allowed the New Testament writers to use the rules discovered by Willem Surenhuis to distort the ancient Hebrew prophets is most unfair, most unjust, most irrational, most unreasonable, and consequently most immoral.

Use of the term “most” is justified since the eternal fate of all humanity, allegedly, hangs in the balance. God would be most unfair and unjust to allow this because by so doing he violates his own good pleasure. If it is the will of Abrahamic God that all human beings be saved, then it is necessary that it carry out its will. For on the Abrahamic God worldview, whatever an omnipotent being wills obtains. Being perfectly rational and reasonable, the Abrahamic God would be keen to follow the principle of final causation. Whatever means most appropriate in pursuit of an end would be employed, and those means would necessarily be rational and reasonable. So by both “God's Good Pleasure” and “Final Causation”, the Abrahamic God would act to ensure all men were saved by having accurate knowledge of what the ancient Hebrew prophets actually said. The best way of accomplishing that is by transferring consistent uniform meanings from the plain sense of the text as the ABE and Principle of Analogy indicated. To do otherwise and allow mystical esoteric and enigmatic symbolic interpretations to rule religious life would be most immoral. But if the Abrahamic God exists, it cannot fail to be perfectly moral, perfectly just, perfectly fair, perfectly rational, and perfectly reasonable. If it were to exist and did fail to exemplify all the allegedly revealed attributes that define it as “God”, then it would no longer be “God.” Since “God” is defined as a necessary being, if it did exist, it must exert all of its powers all the time. “God” cannot stop being “God”. Therefore, if the Abrahamic God exists, it is impossible for there to be any valid meaning derived via mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism from the ancient Hebrew prophets. The attributes of the Abrahamic God of classical theism entail a set of necessary behaviors that preclude and prohibit mystical muddle headed misapplication of Jeremiah 31 to Hebrews 8 or any other O.T. - prophetic or liturgical text whose context is about something in O.T. - times and situations to the N.T.

The immediately previous argument is substantively enhanced by noting that if it is the case that the Abrahamic God exists, and if it were to allow mystical esoteric and enigmatic symbolic interpretations of scripture, then there would be many interpretations of religious scripture. Christianity (and perhaps Judaism and Islam) assert logic proceeds via act of “creation” from the nature of its God to reality. By allowing many interpretations of religious scripture to obtain, the Abrahamic God would be violating the Law of Identity. Things have particular natures that are intrinsic thereunto that provide definitional attributes for the thing. So it is with the meanings of scripture. For the Abrahamic God to do otherwise would mean it violates its alleged revealed nature. This cannot occur, if the Abrahamic God exists, the definitional attributes of the Abrahamic God of classical theism entail a set of necessary behaviors that preclude and prohibit mystical esoteric and enigmatic symbolic interpretations of religious scripture. Only the plain sense meaning of the text of an O.T. - prophecy or bit of liturgy can obtain, if the Abrahamic God exists.

To summarize:

20.The ancient Hebrew prophets were concerned with events of their own situation and time. They had no concern for the far distant future.

21.The ABE and Principle of Analogy discussed in my first response essay showed a straight froward plain sense reading of the text yielded better understanding of what the ancient prophet was actually writing.

22.Willem Surenhuis' discovery of the hermeneutic rules used in fabrication of the New Testament documents serves as evidence the N.T. writers intentionally twisted and distorted what the Old Testament writers penned. (That reminds me of Jer 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made {it} into a lie. )

23.If the Abrahamic God exists, the definitional attributes of the Abrahamic God of classical theism entail a set of necessary behaviors that preclude and prohibit mystical esoteric and enigmatic symbolic interpretations of religious scripture.

When we examine Jeremiah chapter 31, we can easily discern straight forward and plain sense meanings of what Jeremiah was writing about. The content of Jeremiah's intended meaning does not include information about Jesus of Nazareth, Christianity, or a new covenant . That is because, if it does exist, the Abrahamic God never had any intention of establishing a new covenant that would include abrogation of the Mosaic law, justification before the Abrahamic God by means of human sacrifice, and institution of sacred consumption of blood. But Jeremiah clearly did intend to project meaning about return from exile and supernatural writing of the Mosaic law into the hearts of Jews as the text clearly affirms.

In my next response I will address rebuttals offered by Mr. Burnett to my first defense of Sandoval's essay at infidels.org. I hope to have that ready to post by Sunday night. Please accept my apologies for the tardiness of these replies. My schedule is full, and finding time to respond is sometimes difficult.

Best Regards and Wishes

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Dingo~ "also notice that you have not addressed the issue of alternate Christianities in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries either. Why is that I wonder?"

[Dingo...Point to ONE refrence in Ms. King's article that she refers to ALTERNATE FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANITIES...Where is it DINGO?

You won't find it will you...as much as you want to believe that she asserts it you don't, neither does she even infer it.

Gnosticism and competetitors of Christianity arose in SECOND CENTURY...About a quarter of the way through BUT they WERE NOT recognized as Christian...THEY TRIED TO HIJACK, but they were unsuccessful and their doctrines flourished and were never organized into a cohesive brand...

Get a LIFE Dingo and come to your senses!

YOU ARE A LIAR! YOU ARE A SENSATIONALIST...YOU ARE A RADICAL...HOME SPUN...INTERNET WANNA BE ATHEIST SCHOLAR...

I have no problem with an atheist as long as they don't EMBELLISH, CREATE FANTASIES like you and set forth. I appreciate reasonable alternative arguments and theories they foster research and learning...You READ what you want to read INTO EVERYTHING to support your false assertions and what you read DOES NOT EXIST OR STAND UNDER EXAMINATION!

I will NOT go further into this because the thread is SUPPOSEDLY about biblical prophecy...

But I'll do this for you...I'LL open a thread on MY site or we can go to T-WEB and get it on Dingo...Let's do it you CLOWN!

One or the other tomorrow and we'll expose your FRAUD and STUPIDITY for what it really is...How about it?

Don't even think about backing down now...since I'm such a "handwaiver"...]

Peace!

DingoDave said...

Harvey Burnett wrote:

-"Dingo...Point to ONE refrence in Ms. King's article that she refers to ALTERNATE FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANITIES...Where is it DINGO?
You won't find it will you...as much as you want to believe that she asserts it you don't, neither does she even infer it."

What are you raving on about Harvey? I never claimed that Prof. King's article specifically referred to alternate 'first century' Christianities. It discusses EARLY alternate Christianities in a general manner.

-"Gnosticism and competetitors of Christianity arose in SECOND CENTURY...About a quarter of the way through BUT they WERE NOT recognized as Christian...THEY TRIED TO HIJACK, but they were unsuccessful and their doctrines flourished and were never organized into a cohesive brand..."

"There are numerous references to the Gnostics in second century proto-orthodox literature. Most of what we know about them is from the polemic thrown at them by the early Church Fathers. They are alluded to in the Bible in the pastorals (spurious Paulines of 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus), for example 1 Tm 1:4 and 1 Tm 6:20, and possibly the entirety of Jude. Ignatius of Antioch writes against them as well as Docetism, a doctrine closely related to Gnosticism that stated that Christ was pure spirit and had only a phantom body.
Second Clement is a document aimed at refuting early second century Gnosticism. Marcion was the most famous of the Gnostics, and he established a "canon" of the Pauline epistles (minus the pastorals) and a "mutilated" Luke (presumably considered so because it lacked proof-texts such as Lk 22:43-44). Justin Martyr mentioned him c. 150 CE, and Irenaeus and Tertullian wrote against him extensively in the late second century (in Against Heresy and Against Marcion, respectively)...
Some scholars have theorized that Gnosticism has its roots in pre-Christian religions, instead of being merely an offshoot of Christianity."
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

1Tim.1
[3] As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,
[4] nor to occupy themselves with myths and endless genealogies which promote speculations rather than the divine training that is in faith;

1Tim.6
[20] O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you. Avoid the godless chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge.

What KNOWLEGE would that be Harvey? Are you aware that the Greek word for 'knowlege' is GNOSIS?

2Tim.1
[14] guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.
[15] You are aware that all who are in Asia turned away from me, and among them Phygelus and Hermogenes.

2Tim.2
[8] Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel,
[14]Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.
[15] Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
[16] Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,
[17] and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus,
[18] who have swerved from the truth by holding that the resurrection is past already. They are upsetting the faith of some.
[23] Have nothing to do with stupid, senseless controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.
[24] And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to every one, an apt teacher, forbearing,
[25] correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth,
[26] and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

2Tim.3
[1] But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress.
[2] For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy,
[3] inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good,
[4] treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,
[5] holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people.
[6] For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses,
[7] who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth.
[8] As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith;
[9] but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.
[12] Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,
[13] while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.
[14] But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it

There's that word GNOSIS again.

2Tim.4
[1] I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
[2] preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.
[3] For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings,
[4] and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.
[5] As for you, always be steady, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfil your ministry.
[14] Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will requite him for his deeds.
[15] Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message.
[16] At my first defense no one took my part; all deserted me. May it not be charged against them!
[17] But the Lord stood by me and gave me strength to proclaim the message fully, that all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion's mouth.
[18] The Lord will rescue me from every evil and save me for his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Tit.1
[7] For a bishop, as God's steward, must be blameless; he must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain,
[8] but hospitable, a lover of goodness, master of himself, upright, holy, and self-controlled;
[9] he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it.
[10] For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially the circumcision party;
[11] they must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for base gain what they have no right to teach.
[12] One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons."
[13] This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
[14] instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth.
[15] To the pure all things are pure, but to the corrupt and unbelieving nothing is pure; their very minds and consciences are corrupted.
[16] They profess to know God, but they deny him by their deeds; they are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good deed.

There's that pesky word GNOSIS yet again.

Tit.3
[9] But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile.
[10] As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him,
[11] knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Jude.1
[3] Beloved, being very eager to write to you of our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
[4] For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
[5] Now I desire to remind you, though you were once for all fully informed, that he who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.
[6] And the angels that did not keep their own position but left their proper dwelling have been kept by him in eternal chains in the nether gloom until the judgment of the great day;
[7] just as Sodom and Gomor'rah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.
[8] Yet in like manner these men in their dreamings defile the flesh, reject authority, and revile the glorious ones.
[9] But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you."
[10] But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.
[11] Woe to them! For they walk in the way of Cain, and abandon themselves for the sake of gain to Balaam's error, and perish in Korah's rebellion.
[12] These are blemishes on your love feasts, as they boldly carouse together, looking after themselves; waterless clouds, carried along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted;
[13] wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars for whom the nether gloom of darkness has been reserved for ever.
[14] It was of these also that Enoch in the seventh generation from Adam prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with his holy myriads,
[15] to execute judgment on all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against him."

Here Jude quotes from the book of 'Enoch', and 'The Assumtion of Moses'. Both of which were later condemned as being heretical, and were subsequently suppresssed and destroyed by the early church authorities.

Do these passages paint a rosy picture of harmony and unity among those early Christian communities and churches Harvey, or do they paint a picture of bitter divisions and (gasp) "alternate Christianities", including gnostic teachings? We'll have to let the readers decide that for themselves. If these passages represent harmony and unity, then I'll be buggered sideways and hung with a wire rope. (there's a bit more cussin' for you Harvey, I wouldn't want to disappoint you). They just serve to blow your empty assertions even further out of the water. Are your arms getting tired from all that handwaving yet Harvey?

-"YOU ARE A LIAR! YOU ARE A SENSATIONALIST...YOU ARE A RADICAL...HOME SPUN...INTERNET WANNA BE ATHEIST SCHOLAR...I have no problem with an atheist as long as they don't EMBELLISH, CREATE FANTASIES like you and set forth. I appreciate reasonable alternative arguments and theories they foster research and learning...You READ what you want to read INTO EVERYTHING to support your false assertions and what you read DOES NOT EXIST OR STAND UNDER EXAMINATION!"

Woo Hoo! Way to go with that snappy comeback Harvey. That was more like a 'full body wave' than a hand wave. I'm beginning to worry about your blood pressure though. Be carefull that you don't to blow a gasket. By the way, I'm still waiting for you to share your "wealth of information" with us about how there was one unified Christianity during the first century.
Come on Harvey, I can't hold my breath forever you know. (taps foot ; turns even bluer)

-"I will NOT go further into this because the thread is SUPPOSEDLY about biblical prophecy...But I'll do this for you...I'LL open a thread on MY site or we can go to T-WEB and get it on Dingo...Let's do it you CLOWN! One or the other tomorrow and we'll expose your FRAUD and STUPIDITY for what it really is...How about it? Don't even think about backing down
now...since I'm such a "handwaiver"..."

I'll admit that we have strayed from the original topic somewhat, but you did no better in defending that topic either. You remind me of a punch-drunk boxer who refuses to stay on the mat even after receiving several knockout blows. You are flailing about wildly now Harvey, and still missing the target with every swing of your fists.
And why would I want to start a new thread on some other website? If I did that, then I'd just have to repeat myself all over again. Besides which, I'm having too much fun watching you blindly flail about to leave now. Get them to come here if you're so keen. That way they'll be able to see just how pitifull your apologetics has been throughout this entire discussion.

DingoDave said...

Here's another little snippet that I came across while researching the origins of Gnosticism.

"Gnosticism traces its roots back just after the beginning of the Christian Church. Some researchers state that evidence of its existence even predates Christianity. Whichever the case, the error of gnosticism had affected the culture and church of the time and possibly even a earned a mention in 1 John 4."
- Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry www.carm.org

1John.4
[1] Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
[2] By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
[3] and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of [the] antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.

Would you accuse the 'Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry' of being 'LIARS...SENSATIONALISTS...RADICALS...and HOME SPUN...INTERNET WANNA BE ATHEIST SCHOLARS...' as well Harvey?
Do they 'EMBELLISH and CREATE FANTASIES' like you accuse me of doing?
Do they 'READ what they want to read INTO EVERYTHING to support their false assertions and does what they read NOT EXIST OR STAND UNDER EXAMINATION'?

Or could it be that it's actually YOU who is guilty of doing all these things?

Unknown said...

Greetings All. It is my hope everyone is well and feeling good. I'm pleased and honored to be able to communicate on this blog with such a high quality group of well educated people.

In this response I will address some of the rebuttals against my earlier points. A concerted effort will be made to keep on topic of defending Chris Sandoval's case against the alleged prophecy of Jeremiah 31:31-34. A number of closely related ancillary issues foundational to Sandoval's disproof have been identified and attacked by Mr. Burnett, and I will focus on those issues. First, however, I beg leave to respond to several lesser issues.

Mr. Burnett accused me of engaging in an ad hominem against Mr. Hinmen. When I criticized the Christianized former Jews Mr. Hinman was basing his faulty argument form authority upon by comparing them to Christianized former Jews I had encountered, I was not criticizing Mr. Hinman. My counter to his argument from authority was not then ad hominem. Just as truth is an absolute defense in all cases of slander and liable, so too truth is an absolute defense from charges of ad hominem attack. In truth, it is absolutely known beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity and theism/deism in general are false. Those holding false religious beliefs who refuse to discard such beliefs when confronted with evidence sufficient to refute the belief are delusional. If a person allows a delusional belief to motivate and control their life, they are border line psychotic. The Christianized former Jews I had encountered in my own personal experience were, in my assessment, delusional and most certainly failing to contain or compartmentalize their false religious belief. Therefore, I was not making an ad hominem attack. But if Mr. Hinman's feelings were hurt by my reference, I apologize and assure him that I have no ill will towards him. As for Christianized former Jews, I have nothing but contempt for them. They dishonor and mock the memory of all Jews past who have suffered at the hands of Christian religious fanatics. I will not apologize to those rascals.

In the same passage, Mr. Burnett suggested I am a racist and anti-Semite. To be a racist, a person must first believe the false idea of “races.” I do not accept such foolishness. There are no races or sub-species of Homo Sapiens. All Homo Sapiens are genetically related by virtue of common ancestry. The minor phenotypic differences between ethnic groups are do to minor, but distinctive, genotype differentiation. Those labeled as “Semites” enjoy use of one of the Semitic languages as their native tongue. Why I, or anybody else, would dislike a person because of their native language eludes me. Jewish people on the other hand are those who practice the religion of Judaism and are not an ethnic or language group. Some Jews are indeed Semites. Many, nonetheless, are not. Jewish religious practitioners hail from all ethnic groups. As for the Israelis, I, being an Objectivist, admire them in general and think them far more moral than the Arab Semites. The Israelis have built a dandy and good civilization, while the Arabs in general have not. For these reasons, I reject and categorically deny Mr. Burnett's charges.

In regards to the ancient hymn found in Philippians 2:6-11, I think it plain that the text actually indicates the initially unnamed hero is awarded the name or title “Jesus” only after performing the salvific act thus implying early belief in a cosmic superlunary logos-Christ rather than a human “Jesus of Nazareth.” This is a complicated issue and should be a main topic blog post. After the next several blog essays to which I am already committed, I'll do one on the hymn. For now, I suggest we agree to disagree. Is that fair?

Mr. Burnett indicated he thought the “Documentary Hypothesis” refuted. I disagree. To be refuted an idea must be proven to be false or erroneous. Proven means to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument. Truth means the true or actual state of a matter or conformity with fact or reality. Since the sources nor the authors of the ancient documents in question are available for inspection, the actual state of the matter and facts of reality cannot be ascertained. The only hints available casting light on the origins issue of the Pentateuch/Torah are those intrinsic to the texts themselves. It is likely that we will never know for certain the origins of the first five books. But its certain the fictional character Moses had nothing to do with it. The following comes from Wikipedia.

While it is true that Wellhausen's “Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels” is no longer the definitive formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis, modifications and addendums to the DH, notably by Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth, who argued for the oral transmission of ancient core beliefs - guidance out of Egypt, conquest of the Promised Land, covenants, revelation at Sinai/Horeb added plausibility. The modern defenders of the DH are alive and well especially in the United States, where William H. Propp has completed a two-volume translation and commentary on Exodus for the prestigious Anchor Bible Series from within a DH framework, and Antony F. Campbell and Mark A. O’Brien have published a "Sources of the Pentateuch" presenting the Torah sorted into continuous sources following the divisions of Martin Noth. Richard Elliott Friedman's "Who Wrote the Bible?" (1987) and "The Bible with Sources Revealed" (2003) were in essence an extended response to Whybray.

Alternative challenges to the DH are the supplementary and fragmentary hypothesis. Roger Norman Whybray (1923-1997) was a Biblical scholar and specialist in Hebrew studies. His fragmentary hypothesis is expounded in his book “The Making of the Pentateuch” (1987), Whybray examined the evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis, the dominant hypothesis on the origins of the Pentateuch for more than a century, and concluded that it was insubstantial. His alternative proposal was that the Pentateuch was essentially the work of a single author who drew upon multiple sources and disregarded, or was ignorant of, modern notions of literary consistency and smoothness of style and language. The book remains the most complete critique to date of the documentary hypothesis by a mainstream biblical scholar. The supplementary hypothesis is championed by John Van Seters (born 2 May 1935 and is a notable scholar on the Ancient Near East.) His book “Abraham in History and Tradition” (1975) was one of the seminal publications in its field, arguing that no convincing evidence existed to support the historical existence of Abraham and the other Biblical Patriarchs or the historical reliability of the book of Genesis. The book undermined both the Biblical archaeology school of William F. Albright, who had argued over the previous fifty years that the archaeological record confirmed the essential truth of the history contained in Genesis, and the "tradition history" school of Martin Noth, which argued that Genesis contained a core of valid history passed down through oral tradition prior to the composition of the written book itself.

Van Seters went on to put forward his own theory on the origins of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the bible, Genesis/Exodus/Leviticus/Numbers/Deuteronomy), arguing that they had been composed as additions and revisions of a single original document composed by an author writing in the 6th century BC. This "supplementary hypothesis" has become one of the three models now discussed by scholars considering the question of Pentateuchal origins (the other two being the "documentary hypothesis" and the "fragmentary hypothesis"). - Wikipedia

Scholarly opinion is a mixed bag. Whichever of the D or S or F hypothesis eventually emerges dominate will be bad news for Abrahamic fundamentalists, for all are fatal to the idea that Moses wrote the Pentateuch/Torah. There is yet another idea that has gained some following. Ezra is identified in the Talmud and Ezra 4 as the guy who rewrote the Torah after the Babylonian Exile. There are hints to this in Nehemiah chapter 8. This is speculative, but it does make sense. http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/01/who-wrote-bible.html

Mr. Burnett's rejection of the DH and characterization of it as “refuted” ignores the reality of scholarly investigation and debate regarding ancient history. This was pointed out in my first defense of Sandoval's essay when I cited Richard Carrier on the Argument to the Best Explanation.

“The reality is that for much of history, especially ancient history, it is not common for any theory to be so successful as this. Historians always deal in probability, but they get knee deep in uncertainties far more than any other scientist or investigator. Thus, what is reasonable to believe is, in general, what is ‘most probable', not just what is ‘practically certain', since such confidence can rarely be had for claims about ancient history. But the ABE still serves the historian here, too: while no theory in many cases can win on all six criteria, very often one theory can win on enough of them, and by a large enough margin, as to be the most credible, possibly even the only credible theory. The relative credibility of two theories, in other words, rests in proportion to their relative success on the criteria of the ABE. For instance, based on an ABE one might correctly say that theory x is very likely and theory y rather unlikely, therefore it is more reasonable to believe x over y.” - Richard Carrier, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html#Method

In response to Mr. Burnett's statement: “Walter Bauer’s debunked and thoroughly rejected theory of alternate Christianities. Please stick to the issue at hand...You argument that there is no such thing as biblical prophecy.”, I should clarify that I am defending Chris Sandoval's argument that Jeremiah 31:31-34 was a failed prophecy. As a part of that defense, I made eight main points. They were:
1.Argumentum ad verecundiam is a fallacy and cannot establish a true conclusion.
2.That the Christian worldview itself is deeply flawed and is incapable of supporting reality based exegetical reasoning.
3.If prophecy were actually real, then the resultant incoherence of Christianity due to hard deterministic fatalism would render Christianity paradoxical.
4.That the Argument to the Best Explanation triumphs over mystical exegetical hermeneutics or esoteric symbolism to interpret Biblical texts by virtue of the ABE's basal confirmation of the reality of what an author actually wrote.
5.The principle of analogy is a useful tool allowing the exegetical inquirer to ascertain mischievous similarities interjacent to related midrashic passages fabricated for fictional narrative.
6.The context of Jeremiah 31:31-34 is determined by examination of parallel passages from Jeremiah. The prophet's intended context supports and is in harmony with the conclusion.
7.The fact that Jeremiah's prophecy failed is fatal to Christianity's presuppositional affirmation that its fantasy God structures and vivifies a supporting soma of doctrines and reveals the fallacy of the Hebraic writer.
8.The overall context of the exilic Jewish religious culture centered around a commitment to the never ending and eternal covenant of the Mosaic law. Assumptions to the contrary are ad hoc fallacies and are disconfirmed by generally accepted truths of 6th century BCE Judaism.
I defended all these points and an made four additional point in my second response and defense of Sandoval that entailed:
9. The ancient Hebrew prophets were concerned with events of their own situation and time. They had no concern for the far distant future.

10.The ABE and Principle of Analogy discussed in my first response essay showed a straight froward plain sense reading of the text yielded better understanding of what the ancient prophet was actually writing.

11. Willem Surenhuis' discovery of the hermeneutic rules used in fabrication of the New Testament documents serves as evidence the N.T. writers intentionally twisted and distorted what the Old Testament writers penned. (That reminds me of Jer 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made {it} into a lie. )

12.If the Abrahamic God exists, the definitional attributes of the Abrahamic God of classical theism entail a set of necessary behaviors that preclude and prohibit mystical esoteric and enigmatic symbolic interpretations of religious scripture.

No where did I argue “... there is no such thing as biblical prophecy...”. There most certainly was and still is Biblical Prophecy. It is a literary technique used to retroject known history anachronistically into a narrative set in the past such that a fictional or historical-fictional character can be employed to announce the “prophecy.” This is done to create a sense of submission to authority, comfort and directive purpose in the reader. Authors of Biblical and pseudepigraphical or apocryphal religious literature use the technique of “prophecy” to validate their exhortations, narratives, moral, doctrinal or political teaching. This should not be confused with my case that the “supernatural” is impossible. Part of my case is that magic foreknowledge or “supernatural” calculation of the future cannot exist.

In response to you claim of “refutation” of Walter Bauer's hypothesis, I point out there is not sufficient historical evidence to ascertain definitively what the actual origin of Christianity was. Thus Bauer can only be supplanted by something that seems more plausible to some group of scholars. However, it is well known that a variety of early sects expressed what later became Christianity. In defense of that I suggest this url http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/beginnings.html and Bart D. Ehrman's book “Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew”. The Wikipedia article is informative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_heresy#Recent_views_on_heresy_in_early_Christianity

“Traditionally, orthodoxy and heresy have been viewed in relation to the "orthodoxy" as an authentic lineage of tradition. Other forms of Christianity were viewed as deviant streams of thought and therefore "heterodox", or heretical. This view was dominant until the publication of Walter Bauer's Rechtgläubigkeit und Ketzerei im ältesten Christentum ("Orthodoxy and heresy in ancient Christianity") in 1934. Bauer endeavored to rethink early Christianity historically, independent from the views of the church. He stated that the early church was very diverse and included many "heretical" groups that had an equal claim to apostolic tradition. Bauer interpreted the struggle between the orthodox and heterodox to be the "mainstream" Roman church struggling to attain dominance. He presented Edessa and Egypt as places where the "orthodoxy" of Rome had little influence during the second century. As he saw it, the theological thought of the Orient at the time would later be labeled "heresy". The response by modern scholars has been mixed. Some scholars clearly support Bauer's conclusions and others express concerns about his possible bias. More moderate responses have become prominent and Bauer's theory is generally accepted. However, modern scholars have critiqued and updated Bauer's model.” - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Christianity

Robert M. Price has a great reading list: http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/study_list.htm

In regards to Mr. Burnett's claim that “...that atheists like to argue as many points at one time as possible so that they can divert attention when their argument fails...” It has been my observation that theists are the evasive ones who shirk their burden of proof. I merely choose to respond to what I deemed the most egregious points. However, in future discussions with Mr. Burnett, I will stay on topic.

Now on to a defense of Sandoval's claim and the reality that Jeremiah's 70 years prophecy in no way was fulfilled. If it can be shown Jeremiah 25:1-14 was not fulfilled, then that is strong evidence Jeremiah 31:31-34 was in no way fulfilled, and there was no prophecy of a new covenant to come.

A good case for the 70 years prophecy is found at http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2seven97.html

A truly masterful deconstruction and actual refutation of the fundamentalist Christian case for the 70 year exile was undertaken by Mr. Farrel Till at the following urls.

1st response http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2bad97.html and

2nd response http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4null97.html

Taken together, Mr. Till crafts a slam-dunk, air tight case against predictive prophecy in Jeremiah 25:1-14. First, it is necessary to have a set of criteria by which an alleged prophecy can be examined and determined if it was actually fulfilled. Mr. Till provides a such a set of criteria in his first response.

“In order to prove--and I mean PROVE, not just surmise--prophecy fulfillment, one would have to establish four things:

(1) the claimant of a prophecy fulfillment is properly interpreting whatever text he is basing his claim on,

(2) the prophecy was made BEFORE and not after the event that allegedly fulfills the prophecy,

(3) the prophecy was made not just BEFORE an event but far enough in advance of it to make educated guesswork impossible, and

(4) he event that allegedly fulfilled the prophecy did in fact happen.” [1]

Mr. Till begins by correctly pointing out that Christianity cannot demonstrate (2) for the text at issue. Till uses a long example from the Book of Mormon to illustrate “prophecy” as a retrojected literary device. His observation that the ancients could easily have interpolated the alleged prophecies is unanswered. Till provides an example of a retrojected anachronistically back dated alleged “prophecy” in

I Kings 13:2 “He cried against the altar by the word of the LORD, and said, "O altar, altar, thus says the LORD, 'Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name; and on you he shall sacrifice the priests of the high places who burn incense on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.' "

The proffered fulfillment is found at 2 Kings 23:17-19.

2Ki 23:17 Then he said, "What is this monument that I see?" And the men of the city told him, "It is the grave of the man of God who came from Judah and proclaimed these things which you have done against the altar of Bethel."
2Ki 23:18 He said, "Let him alone; let no one disturb his bones." So they left his bones undisturbed with the bones of the prophet who came from Samaria.
2Ki 23:19 Josiah also removed all the houses of the high places which {were} in the cities of Samaria, which the kings of Israel had made provoking the LORD; and he did to them just as he had done in Bethel.

This obvious example of fabricated prophecy could very well be analogous to the case in Jeremiah. Can Christianity show Jeremiah 25:1-14 and 29:4-14 not to be equally retrojected and anachronistically back dated fabricated “prophecy”?

Mr. Till provides a further example of retrojected and anachronistically back dated fabricated “prophecy”.

“Another example much like this one can be found in Joshua 6:28, where Joshua pronounced a curse upon anyone who would rebuild Jericho: "Cursed be the man before Yahweh who rises up and builds this city Jericho. With the loss of his firstborn will he lay the foundation thereof, and with the loss of his youngest son will he set up the gates of it." Well, guess what? That's right. Centuries later, a man named Hiel the Bethelite rebuilt Jericho, and "laid the foundation with the loss of Abiram his firstborn, and set up the gates thereof with the loss of his youngest son Segub, according to the word of Yahweh, which he spoke by Joshua the son of Nun." It's in the book (1 Kings 16:34).
Impressive? Hardly, except to people who are gullible enough to believe about anything. With no extrabiblical records from contemporary times to corroborate tales like these, it is more likely that such stories as these were written to give the appearance of prophecy fulfillment than that the prophecies were spoken and fulfilled exactly as claimed.” [2]

Next Mr. Till calls attention to the textual differences between the Masoretic and Septuagint versions of Jeremiah. “Jeremiah 27:19-22; 33:14-26; 39:3-14, and 48:45-47 in the Masoretic text are missing completely from the Septuagint, and, as we will see, the Septuagint did not have some of the very statements in chapter 25 on which Dr. Price is basing his argument for biblical prophecy fulfillment. In the Septuagint, chapter 32 is chapter 25:15-18 of the Masoretic version, chapter 34 is 27:1-19 of the Masoretic, chapter 40 is 33:1-14 of the Masoretic, and so on through more than 30 other changes in organization. In the face of such variations and omissions as these, who can honestly deny that substantial tampering with the text of Jeremiah was done after the Septuagint was completed?” [3]

Till cites Joseph A. Fitzmyer, professor emeritus of New Testament at the Catholic University of America said this about these discoveries [version of Jeremiah in Septuagint] at Qumran:
In some cases, especially 1-2 Samuel, Jeremiah, and Exodus, the fragments brought to light forms or recensions of biblical books that differed from the medieval Masoretic tradition. For instance, one text turned out to be a shorter form of Jeremiah, previously known only in its Greek version in the Septuagint. It now seems that the fuller form of Masoretic tradition represents a Palestinian rewording of the book ("The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible: After Forty Years," America, October 31, 1987, p. 302, emphasis added).
This is devastating to Christianity's case for the 70 years prophecy in Jeremiah. Under the uncomfortable observation made by Fitzmyer no trust can be placed that the textus recptus is faithful to what may have been penned in the 6th century.
Mr. Till scores by comparing the Septuagint and Masoretic text of Jeremiah (s)25:1-13 and (m)25:1-14. Observing that the Septuagint version of the prophecy lacks mention of Babylon or Nebuchadnezzar is very damaging to Christianity's case.
“The best way to show the extent to which the Hebrew text of Jeremiah has been compromised would be to compare with the Septuagint version the Masoretic passage in which Dr. Price thinks he has found a prophecy that was made 70 years before its fulfillment. Here is the Septuagint version of Jeremiah 25:1-14 in the Masoretic version, where Dr. Price claims he has found an amazing prophecy. The citation has been taken from Brenton's translation of the Greek text:
The word that came to Jeremias concerning all the people of Juda in the fourth year of Joakin, son of Josias, king of Juda; which he spoke to all the people of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, In the thirteenth year of Josias, son of Amos, king of Juda, even until this day for three and twenty years, I have both spoken to you, rising early and speaking, and I sent to you my servants the prophets, sending them early; (but ye hearkened not, and listened not with your ears;) saying, Turn ye everyone from his evil way, and from your evil practices, and ye shall dwell in the land which I gave to you and your fathers, of old and for ever. Go ye not after strange gods, to serve them, and to worship them, that ye provoke me not by the works of your hands, to do you hurt. But ye hearkened not to me.
Therefore, thus saith the Lord; Since ye believed not my words, behold, I will send and take a family from the north, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants of it, and against all the nations round about it, and I will make them utterly waste, and make them a desolation, and a hissing, and an everlasting reproach. And I will destroy from among them the voice of joy, and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, and the voice of the bride, the scent of ointment, and the light of a candle. And all the land shall be a desolation; and they shall serve among the Gentiles seventy years.
And when the seventy years are fulfilled, I will take vengeance on that nation, and will make them a perpetual desolation. And I will bring upon that land all my words which I have spoken against it, even all things that are written in this book.
Actually, this is only the quotation of 25:1-13, because the Septuagint has no verse 14. It is just one of the many passages missing from the Septuagint that are in the Masoretic. For convenience in comparing the two version, I will quote in its entirety the Masoretic-dependent version that Dr. Price cited in his article. The sections enclosed in asterisks (*) are either different from or missing in the Septuagint.
The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakin the son of Josiah, king of Judah (*which was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon*), which Jeremiah the prophet spoke to all the people of Judah and to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem saying: "From the thirteenth year of Josiah even to this day, this is the twenty-third year in which the word of the Lord has come to me; and I have spoken to you, rising early and speaking, but you have not listened. And the Lord has sent to you all his servants the prophets, rising early and sending them, but you have not listened nor inclined your ear to hear. They said, `Repent now everyone of his evil way and his evil doings, and dwell in the land that the Lord has given to you and your fathers forever and ever. Do not go after other gods to serve them and worship them, and do not provoke me to anger with the works of your hands; and I will not harm you.' Yet you have not listened to me," says the Lord, "that you might provoke me to anger with the works of your hands to your own hurt.
"Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: `Because you have not heard My words, behold, I will send and take *all the families* of the north,' says the LORD, `*and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, My servant,* and will bring them against this land, against its inhabitants, and against these nations all around, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, a hissing, and perpetual desolations. Moreover I will take from them the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones and the light of the lamp. And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve *the king of Babylon* seventy years. Then it will come to pass, when seventy years are completed, that I will punish *the king of Babylon and* that nation, *the land of the Chaldeans, for their iniquity,' says the LORD;* `and I will make it a perpetual desolation. So I will bring on that land all my words which I have pronounced against it, all that is written in this book, *which Jeremiah has prophesied concerning all the nations. (For many nations and great kings shall be served by them also; and I will repay them according to their deeds and according to the works of their own hands.)*'"
One thing immediately obvious in comparing these two versions is that Nebuchadnezzar and the nation of Babylon were not even mentioned in the 3rd-century B. C. Septuagint version. Where the 9th-century Masoretic text has Jeremiah dating this prophecy in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and the "first year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon," the Septuagint made no mention of Nebuchadnezzar and put the date of the prophecy only at the "fourth year of Joakin [Jehoiakin]" (v:1), and in verse 8, where the Masoretic has Jeremiah predicting that Yahweh would send "all the families of the north" and "Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon" against Judah and its inhabitants and "utterly destroy them," the Septuagint said only that Yahweh would send "a family from the north" against Judah. The Masoretic has Jeremiah predicting that the people of Judah would "serve the king of Babylon seventy years," but the Septuagint said only that they would "serve among the Gentiles seventy years." These variations indicate that when the Septuagint was completed in the 3rd century B. C., the translators were working with a Hebrew text that didn't even mention Nebuchadnezzar in this prophecy. Between then and the 12 centuries that separate this version from the earliest Masoretic text, some editor(s) evidently altered this passage to make it appear that Jeremiah had made a specific prediction about Nebuchadnezzar's part in the conquest and captivity of Judah.” [4]

Next Mr. Till shows several further places between the Septuagint and Masoretic, Textus Receptus, where Nebuchadnezzar was interjected into the text and notes that in the 3rd century BCE “the Hebrew text said only that the Lord would give Sedekias [Zedekiah] and the people of Jerusalem into the hands of their enemies, but somewhere between then and the 9th century A. D., the text was altered to make Nebuchadnezzar the specific enemy into which Judah would be delivered. In the 3rd century B. C., this verse read that Yahweh, speaking in the first person, would not spare them or have compassion on them, but 12 centuries later the text had been changed to a third-person narrative that had Nebuchadnezzar specified as the one who would not spare them or have mercy on them.” [5]

With this and further evidence from differences between Septuagint vs. Masoretic versions of Jeremiah, its plain criteria (2) cannot be established for Jer. 25:1-14.

Next Mr. Till debunks the 70 years itself by first noting that the Septuagint prophecy of "serve among the Gentiles seventy years," is not set in a context where it is possible to establish a chronology from the Septuagint text.

“THE SEVENTY YEARS: The evidence does suggest that the 3rd century B. C. Hebrew text contained a seventy-year prophecy, because the Septuagint said that the people of Judah would "serve among the Gentiles seventy years," but it isn't chronologically possible to establish a seventy-year exile for the Judeans who were taken into captivity during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Both the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles recorded the captivity, and even with the most generous interpretation of these records, the captivity cannot be stretched beyond 67 years, and a maximum of 60 years is a more likely interpretation. The Babylonian Chronicles, written on cuniform tablets, are in the British Museum, and the Jewish account of Judah's defeat and subsequent captivity is, of course, recorded in the Bible (2 Kings 24-25; 2 Chron. 36). The chronological information in the biblical text is tedious to wade through, but the following quotation from Eerdmans Bible Dictionary ("Exile," 1987, pp. 361-362) presents an easy to follow summation of the biblical record:
DEPORTATION OF JUDAH: Far more significant [than the deportation of the Northern Kingdom] was the exile of Judah, the southern kingdom (the tribes of Judah and Benjamin). Because they had been able to preserve a margin of autonomy following Sennacherib's siege of Jerusalem in 701 (2 Kings 18:13-19:37 par[allel] Isa. 36-37), the people of Judah believed that they could regain their freedom from the crumbling Assyrian Empire, in dissolution since the fall of Nineveh in 612. But Judah had to face another powerful foe, the Neo-Babylonian Empire, whose capable leader, Nebuchadnezzar II, quickly defeated Judah's ally and overlord, Egypt, at Carchemish in 605.
According to 2 Kings 24, Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem in 598 and, following capture of the city, exiled to Babylon King Jehoiachin, his family, the nobles, a large number of valiant soldiers (a smaller number is given at Jer. 52:28), and craftsmen. Nebuchadnezzar also seized the temple treasure as booty (2 Kgs. 24:11-16; 2 Chr. 36:6; Dan. 1:1-2). The Babylonian monarch made Zedekiah his vassal in Jerusalem, and when Zedekiah refused to pay tribute, Nebuchadnezzar returned to Judah in 587, besieged the city again, and finally leveled it. He took the remaining Jewish rebels, except for the very poorest, to his capital (2 Kgs. 24:20-25:17; 2 Chr. 36:15-21; Jer. 52:3-16). A third deportation took place ca. 581 following the murder of Gedaliah, whom Nebuchadnezzar had appointed governor over Judah (2 Kgs. 25:22-26; Jer. 41:2-3). (Meanwhile a sizable number of Hebrews had taken refuge in Egypt [Jer. 43:5-7].)
Unlike their northern counterparts, the people of the southern kingdom RETURNED IN 538 when Cyrus the Achaemenid, who had conquered Babylon the preceding year, issued an edict that anyone who wished to assist in building a sanctuary for Yahweh in Jerusalem could go there (2 Chr. 36:22-23).”

Mr. Till responds to the assertion that the alleged “prophetic” clock started in 605 by noting that even in the Masoretic Textus Receptus Jer 25:1 “The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the people of Judah, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah (that was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon),” indicates when the prophecy came to Jeremiah not when the 70 year countdown clock started. Note 25:1a where it says “... concerning all the people of Judah...”. This clearly means the prophetic utterance applies to the entire population of Judah.
Observe Jer 25:9 “behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,' declares the LORD, 'and {I will send} to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these nations round about; and I will utterly destroy them and make them a horror and a hissing, and an everlasting desolation.” Its quite clear again that the intended meaning is that the prophetic count down clock starts from the razing of Jerusalem in 587 or 586. The key independent clause “...I will utterly destroy them and make them a horror and a hissing, and an everlasting desolation.” is the primary condition that is listed in the alleged prophecy. Christian apologist wish to rationalize a starting count down from 605 BCE, but the Masoretic text says different, and the Septuagint text is silent. Its quite obvious Mr. Burnett and Christian apologetics in general are lying and misrepresenting what they call the Word of their God.

The Masoretic prophecy entailed that the entire population of Judah would serve the king of Babylon for 70 years. It was not till 587 or 586 till the majority of the Judean population was deported. The entire population was never absent from Judah. In Jer 25:11 is read: “'This whole land will be a desolation and a horror, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” The span of time from 587 to 539 when Cyrus' army conquered Babylonia was 48 years. Even if we could legitimately start the prophetic countdown from 605, Jewish servitude to Nebuchadnezzar would only be 66 years. The conditions necessary to fulfill the prophecy are:
Entire population of Judah deported. Jer. 25:1, 25:9, and 25:11 (This did not happen.)
Judah an everlasting desolation and horror. 25:9, and 25:11 (This did not happen.)
No more grinding of grain in Judah. Jer. 25:10 (The survivors and remaining refuges had to have had some agriculture going on or they could not have remained alive to have conflict with the returning exiles.)
Make the Land of the Chaldeans an everlasting desolation. Jer. 25:12 (This did not happen. Babylon continued as a city for many centuries after these incidents.)
Serve the king of Babylon, Nebuchadnezzar, 70 years. Jer. 25:11 (605 to 539 is 66 years. 605 to 538 is 67 years. 587 to 538 is 49 years. The Jewish deportees did not serve Nebuchadnezzar 70 years.)
It was not a condition for the fulfillment of the prophecy in Jer. 25:1-14 that the exiles be returned home after 70 years. Jer. 25:13 is referring to Babylon and not the Judeans. Jeremiah 25:1-14 is a classic case of a failed and fake prophecy.

Mr. Till's article continued: “Dr. Price tried his best to get 70 years by dating the captivity from 605 B.C. and the issuance of Cyrus's decree in 536 B.C., but even then he could get only 69 years, which he said I would probably quibble about (an indication that he was well aware of a problem in the way he had calculated the beginning of the captivity). As stated in Eerdmans summation above, Nebuchadnezzar first captured Jerusalem in 598 B.C., at which time he took King Jehoiachin, his family, and some nobles and soldiers back to Babylon, but it wasn't until his destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. that he took captive "the residue of the people" who had been left in the city and "the residue of the multitude" (2 Kings 25:10). So even if we accept Price's dating of Cyrus's decree at 536 B.C., this would leave only a maximum of 62 years of captivity (598 minus 536 = 62). Dr. Price tried to sneak 605 B.C. by us as the beginning of the captivity, but Jeremiah said only that the word of Yahweh, through which this "prophecy" had presumably been revealed, had come to him in the "first year of Nebuchadnezzar"; he did not say that the captivity would begin that same year. Nebuchadnezzar became king in 605, but it wasn't until 598, seven years later that he made Judah a vassal state and took some captives to Babylon, so this is when the exile actually began.”
(Robert B wrote: It should be noted that the alleged early deportations are only attested from Biblical texts Daniel 1:1-6; cf. 2 Chronicles 36:6-7; also 2 Kings 24:10-16. These are in dispute. Daniel dates from the second century in the time of the Maccabean-Hasmonean struggle against the Seleucid empire 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles are attributed to Ezra in the 5th century. His interest in harmonizing texts to create a corpus of Jewish religious literature would have been his prime concern. Little of no trust can be placed in these Biblical proof texts.)
Mr Till continued: “Dr. Price claims that the Babylonian Exile ended for the Jews in 563 B. C., but the Babylonian Chronicles date Cyrus's conquest of Babylon at what would have been October 16, 539 B. C. (New Bible Dictionary, Inter-Varsity Press, 1994, p. 258). Second Chronicles 36:22 states that Cyrus issued his decree in the first year of his reign, so if Dr. Price's inspired word of God is historically accurate, the Jewish exiles were given their freedom to return to Judah in 539 B. C. Eerdmans dates the return to Jerusalem of a "great number" of exiles at 538 B. C. ("Dispersion," p. 286), as it also did in the quotation above. If this date is accepted as the end of the exile, its maximum duration could have been only 60 years. This is hardly a minor discrepancy, and one would think that a prophet speaking by the inspiration of an omniscient, omnipotent deity could have been more exact.
Dr. Price, of course, knows the precarious position he is in on this matter, because after taking us through calculations beginning with the date the prophecy was allegedly written and ending with his 536 B. C. date (in order to get 69 years so that he could claim the prophecy "fulfill[ed] the requirement of around number"), he then went on to say that some "have regarded the seventy years to begin with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 586 B. C. and to conclude with the completion of the second temple in 516 B. C." In other words, Dr. Price seems to be arguing that if his first interpretation of the prophecy is unsatisfactory, maybe the second one will be more palatable so that "(i)n either case the interval of seventy years was fulfilled" (p. 3, this issue). So which was it? Did the captivity begin in 605 B. C., when Nebuchadnezzar came to power, and end in 536 B. C. for a length of 69 years that can be rounded off to 70, or did it begin in 586 B. C. and end in 516 B. C., even though waves of exiles had returned to Jerusalem more than 20 years before the second temple was completed? Dr. Price seems to regard Jeremiah 25:8-14 as an amazing example of prophecy fulfillment, but after taking us on a long and winding road to arrive at a strained interpretation of a 69-rounded-off-to-70-year captivity, he ends up telling us that this may not be the right interpretation of the prophecy after all. Maybe Jeremiah meant that the captivity would begin 19 years after Price's first date and end 20 years after the first exiles had actually returned from Babylon. As if this were not wishy-washy enough, after stating his alternative interpretation, Dr. Price went on to say, "The truth is that these ancient dates cannot be established with rigorous precision." Well, pardon me, but if the dates cannot be established with rigorous precision, how can Dr. Price claim that even the "central detail" of the prophecy (the 70 years) was fulfilled. What he seems to be saying is that he knows that Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy was fulfilled even though the dates of the fulfillment "cannot be established with rigorous precision." Needless to say, I'm not impressed, and I suspect that critical-thinking readers won't be either.
THE "FIGURATIVE ELABORATION OF GOD'S JUDGMENT: In the same context with Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy, there are some other predictions (vs:15-38) that by no stretch of the imagination anyone can claim were fulfilled. Jeremiah listed various nations that Yahweh would "send the sword" among so that they would "fall and rise no more" (v:17). Some of these nations have ceased to exist, but there is no historical evidence to justify believing that Yahweh's judgment had anything to do with their demise. Others in the list, Egypt and Arabia, still exist, and Gaza has recently "risen again." The prophecy said that Yahweh would "call for a sword upon ALL the inhabitants of the earth" (v:29). He said that "evil shall go forth from nation to nation" and "a great tempest will be raised up from the uttermost parts of the earth" and "the slain of Yahweh shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth." He further said that "they [the slain] shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried" but would be "dung upon the face of the ground" (vs:32-33). Dr. Price can find nothing in history that any remote stretch of imagination can claim as fulfillments of these ravings of the Hebrew mystic Jeremiah. Knowing full well that he couldn't produce evidence of fulfillment for this part of the prophecy, Dr. Price resorted to a preemptive strike and declared that the "rest of chapter 25 contains a figurative elaboration of God's judgment of Judah and the surrounding nations in poetic terms" but that "(s)uch figurative language is not to be interpreted beyond the reasonable way Jeremiah's ancient readers would have understood it" (p. 3). Of course, the "reasonable way" that Jeremiah's "ancient readers" would have understood it is the way that Dr. Price wants it to be understood in order to eliminate a serious problem from the text, but such smorgasbord tactics are unacceptable. If Dr. Price is going to buy the biblical inerrancy doctrine, he will have to buy the whole bill of goods that go with it. He just can't pick and choose the parts he wants and dismiss the troublesome parts as just unimportant, "figurative" trivia that are "irrelevant to the main issue[s]."
There is much more that could be said about Dr. Price's claim of prophecy fulfillment, but the points I have made are sufficient to establish that there are no good reasons to see Jeremiah 25 as an example of fulfillment. Dr. Price cannot show that Jeremiah ever even made a prediction that the Judeans would be taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar, and he can point to nothing that fulfills any of the details that he tried to dismiss as just irrelevant "figurative" language. If he wishes to respond to my rebuttal, he may do so in a later issue.” [6]
In review, the prophecy from Jeremiah 25:1-14 fails all the criteria for a fulfillment of prophecy.
First, the claimant of the prophecy fulfillment is not properly interpreting whatever text he is basing his claim on. Christian apologist routinely claim the return of exiles as a condition of fulfillment. The text of Jer. 25:1-14 does not list return of the exiles as a condition of fulfillment. Thus Christian apologists are knowingly making a false assertion (as perhaps is Mr. Burnett) when they insist return of the exiles was a condition of fulfillment. Instead the prophecy would have been fulfilled if the entire population of Judah was in servitude to Nebuchadnezzar for 70 years. This did not happen. Jeremiah 25:1-14 fails the first criteria.
Second, the prophecy was not made BEFORE and was made after the event that allegedly fulfills the prophecy. This cannot be established as the Septuagint text does not include any reference to Babylon or Nebuchadnezzar. It appears post Septuagint Jewish scribes forged the Jeremiah 25:1-14 references to Babylon and Nebuchadnezzer. Jeremiah 25:1-14 fails the second criteria.
Third, the prophecy was made just BEFORE an event but far enough in advance of it to make educated guesswork impossible. By claiming the prophetic countdown clock started in 605 BCE when "The Word of the LORD” came to Jeremiah, the apologetic community asserts the prophecy was made at the same time it was starting to be fulfilled. Jeremiah 25:1-14 fails the third criteria.

Forth, The event that allegedly fulfilled the prophecy did not in fact happen. In no way did the deportees serve Nebuchadnezzar for 70 years, nor was the entire population of Judah deported. (Jer. 25:1, 25:9, and 25:11), nor was Judah an everlasting desolation and horror. (25:9, and 25:11), nor did agriculture come to and end in Judah (Jer. 25:10), nor was the Land of the Chaldeans an everlasting desolation.(Jer. 25:12). Jeremiah 25:1-14 fails the forth criteria.
Jeremiah's prophecy at 25:1-14 was then and is now a complete failure. This is not at all what is expected if an actual supernatural magic God is responsible for the text, but it is just what is expected if the ancient Jewish scribes and priests are the ones who cooked the books to make it look like there was magic in them there sacred words

[1] “A Bad Example of Prophecy Fulfillment” by Farrell Till, 1997 / March-April, “The Skeptical Review Online”
[2] ibid.
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] ibid.
[6] ibid.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Link to Farrel Till's second response showing Jer 25:1-14 an unfulfilled prophecy.

This essay was better and stronger than his first.

DingoDave said...

Excellent post Robert. A thoroughly enjoyable read.

I have long been an admirer of Farrell Till and his 'Skeptical Review', and have read most of his stuff including the material you quoted. His argument is watertight, and I would like to see the S.R. made compulsory reading for all Christian apologists and seminary students. He possesses an incredibly erudite mind, and a vast wealth of Biblical knowlege. I particularly enjoyed watching him destroy the the lame apologetics of that insufferable blowhard, Robert 'no links' Turkel (aka James Patrick Holding). His ruthless demolitions of Turkel's absurd arguments are truly beautiful to behold.
Have you read his refutation of Jesus' incorrect statement about David and 'Abiathar' the high priest in his article 'What men with David?', and his subsequent debate with Turkel about it? Another excellent article is 'Why Didn't They Know?' in which Till discusses Jesus' numerous alleged prophecies about his death and resurrection to his disciples, which his disciples apparently 'forgot' all about until the resurrected Jesus reminded them about it. Till makes the point in this article, that according to the Bible, just about everyone else in Jerusalem remembered Jesus making these predictions, EXCEPT his own disciples. It's pure comedic brilliance. Here's an exerpt from the article.

"It seems, then, that just about everyone who had been associated with Jesus knew that he was supposed to be resurrected except the apostles. Jesus had apparently entrusted the furtherance of his important cause to a bunch of dimwits who couldn't understand plain language. Even the enemies of Jesus understood that he had predicted his resurrection. After Jesus had been put into the tomb, they came to Pilate to ask that precautions be taken to prevent a staged fulfillment of the prediction:

The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, "Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, 'He has been raised from the dead,' and the last deception would be worse than the first" (Matt. 28:62-64, NRSV).

So the women remembered that Jesus had predicted his resurrection, the disciples at Emmaus remembered it, and the enemies of Jesus remembered it. Everyone apparently remembered it except Jesus's own handpicked apostles. That's a little hard to believe."
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4know91.html

This is yet another glaring example of Bible prophecy being written after the fact, and clearly demonstrates that if Jesus was ever crucified and resurrected at all, then nobody was expecting it to happen, including Jesus himself. : D

Anonymous said...

Robert_B said, "In truth, it is absolutely known beyond a shadow of a doubt that Christianity and theism/deism in general are false."

Oooooo....Umm, Robert, are you certain you want to make this kind of claim?

Christianity (at least its more conservative and fundementalist forms) can certainly be disproven by simply refuting the bible. But deism and theism tend to regard god as unknowable, undefinable and/or unimaginable. How can you substanciate "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that something that is inconceivable could not possibly exist?

You also said, "Those holding false religious beliefs who refuse to discard such beliefs when confronted with evidence sufficient to refute the belief are delusional."

Are you suggesting that that there are true religious beliefs? Could you list what they are?

If you are not, then aren't you classifying anyone who isn't an atheist as being either ignorant or insane?

And what exactly would sufficient evidence be? Sufficient by whose standards?

Sorry, but these types of statements tend to make me cringe.

DingoDave said...

Tigg13 asked Robert_B:

"aren't you classifying anyone who isn't an atheist as being either ignorant or insane?"

Dear Tigg, someone can be delusional without being insane.

The dictionary definition of the word delusion is;
▸ noun: a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea ("He has delusions of competence").
▸ noun: (psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary.

If someone has been deceived or coerced into believing a false idea, then one could say that he is deluded or delusional, without implying that he's insane in the technical sense. Ignorant perhaps, but not insane.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Dingo~ You forgot to post this from that site you so readily quoted...I wonder why?

“The danger of Gnosticism is easily apparent. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind and we would still be lost in our sins.

There is debate whether or not this is a Christian heresy or simply an independent development. The evidence seems to point to the later. Nevertheless, the Gnostics laid claim to Jesus as a great teacher of theirs and as such requires some attention. It is possible that 1 John was written against some of the errors that Gnosticism promoted."

Part of the article you DON’T quote from CARM. Especially this part,

“There is debate whether or not this is a Christian heresy or simply an independent development. The evidence seems to point to the later.”

Why not mention that Dingo? Because it won’t allow you to grandstand...come on over here and show me what you got...you, biblically illiterate, historic revisionist. The biblical illiterate part shouldn't bother you...cause you hate it anyway...RIGHT?

Let's go you Anti Christ Advocate, that wishes you could be a CHRISTIAN!

Here's the link...
http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/christianities-just-an-atheist-skeptic-wet-dream-pt1/

Excuse me Robert_b~ I appreciate the info. I'll look it over and if it warrants a response I'll get back. Once again I appreciate your courtesy and at least addressing issues on point with the topic.

Thanks....

Let's go Fido...I'm waitin' for ya! By the way..you're both delusional and in sane...and I mean that in the nicest possible way!

DingoDave said...

Harvey Burnett wrote:

-"Dingo~ You forgot to post this from that site you so readily quoted...I wonder why?
“The danger of Gnosticism is easily apparent. It denies the incarnation of God as the Son. In so doing, it denies the true efficacy of the atonement since, if Jesus is not God, He could not atone for all of mankind and we would still be lost in our sins...Nevertheless, the Gnostics laid claim to Jesus as a great teacher of theirs and as such requires some attention". Part of the article you DON’T quote from CARM. Especially this part, “There is debate whether or not this is a Christian heresy or simply an independent development. The evidence seems to point to the later"...Why not mention that Dingo?”

Dear Harvey, you continue to shoot yourself in the foot. It's like watching a slow motion train wreck.
I didn't mention it because it's irrelevant to my argument.
I've already quoted a Bible passage which proves that 'heresy' (read 'alternate Christianity') was prevalent even in the very early chuch, but because you seem to have reading comprehension problems I'll quote it again for you.

1John.4
[1] Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
[2] By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
[3] and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of [the] antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already.
[4] Little children, you are of God, and have overcome them; for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.
[5] They are of the world, therefore what they say is of the world, and the world listens to them.
[6] We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

This passage states that there were many 'false prophets' professing to be Christians, who were teaching early church congregations that Jesus had not really 'come in the flesh'. This is 'heresy', plain and simple. These people were known as 'Docetists'.

"In Christianity, Docetism (from the Greek δοκέω [dokeō], "to seem") is the belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die. This belief treats the sentence "the Word was made Flesh" (John 1:14) as merely figurative. Docetism has historically been regarded as heretical by most Christian theologians"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

-"Let's go you Anti Christ Advocate, that wishes you could be a CHRISTIAN! Here's the link..."
http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/christianities-just-an-atheist-skeptic-wet-dream-pt1/

Where did you get the idea that I wish to be a Christian Harvey? Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. I have no more desire to become a Christian again, than to have red hot needles poked into my eyes.
What are YOU waiting for Harvey? Why don't you send your people over here? Why not post a link on your website directing them to this thread if they are interested? I know why you won't do it, because it would expose them to ideas which might rock their faith. And that is something that you would never allow to happen. As the shepherd of your flock, you have a responsibility to mislead them about these matters.
I have read both your articles, and they contain nothing but more frantic handwaving. All you have done in these articles is to arbitrarily define any alternate early Christianities out of existence. And you neglected to tell your flock that the official 'orthodox' Chrisitian creed wasn't formulated until the fourth century.

You wrote:
"In a recent exchange with a die hard anti-Christ advocate on an atheist web site, the issue was raised that the New Testament itself reflects evidence of alternative Christianities."
and
"The New Testament does not identify alternate beliefs and worship to(of) idols or “Christ myths” as Christian."
and
"There remains no evidence for competitive brands of Christianity although there is plenty of evidence that heretics were targeting the church as early as first Century AD."

In the same article you quoted the following Bible passages;

“If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting”(2 John 10).

1 Tim. 4:1-2~ “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;”

2 Tim. 3:13~ “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;”

Romans 16:17-18: ~ Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.”

Gal. 1:6-9~ “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”

Immediately after quoting these passages you wrote; "There remains no new testament textual evidence or otherwise that the church suffered from varying brands of Christianity within itself."

?????? : / : O Words cannot express my utter amazement that you could write such a thing with a straight face. Can you see how ridiculous your words sound when compared with the Bible verses you yourself just quoted? You truly HAVE mastered the art of 'lying for Jesus' Harvey. I stand in awe of your talents.

You ended you second article with the words;
"Christianity has not survived because of a conspiracy. It has survived because it is built on a TRUE foundation and a rock called Jesus also know(n) as God With Us. Now that’s the Truth RUTH!"

Then I guess that the church didn't really need to torture and burn all those heretics and apostates for all those centuries. Give me a break Harvey! What planet are you living on? Surely you don't think that I'm as gullible as your flock of 'sheeples' do you?

-"Let's go Fido...I'm waitin' for ya! By the way..you're both delusional and in sane...and I mean that in the nicest possible way!"

I'm still waiting for you to share your "wealth of information" with us about how there was one unified Christianity during the first century. Come on Harvey, I'm still holding my breath you know. (continues to tap foot ; continues to turn even bluer)

You wrote;
Historical and Biblical scholar William Barclay further states: “It is a simple truth to say that the New Testament books became canonical because no-one could stop them from doing so.”-'The Making Of The Bible'
And;
The late New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger also wrote extensively about the canonization of scripture: ”The church did not create the canon but came to recognize, accept, affirm, and confirm the self-authenticating quality of certain documents that imposed themselves as such upon the church” - 'The Canon Of The New Testament' pg. 287

These are ridiculous bald faced lies Harvey. The Biblical canon was decided upon by numerous councils of bishops, and took centuries to finalise. In fact it's STILL not finalised, because various sects of Christianity even to this very day, still have different canons of scripture which they view as being 'inspired'. Ever heard of the 'apocryphal' books of the Bible Harvey? Get yourself a copy of the Catholic Bible, or an Eastern Orthodox Bible, or a Coptic Bible, and you'll see what I mean. But I guess you'd just define those denominations as not being 'true Christians', thereby sweeping yet another problem under your rug of denial.
I'm afraid that quoting bald faced liars doesn't help your case any Harvey.

These articles of yours "don't so
much fly, as plummet... Talk about the blind leading the blind!... Trouble is, sheep are very dim, and once they get an idea into their heads, there's no shifting it." : D
-Monty Python; Flying Sheep sketch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myViXR6r03g

Anonymous said...

Dingo, please forgive my poor choice of words. I'm afraid my experience with such things has been limited to being on the receiving end of such descriptions.

(And believe you me, when you're on the wrong side of the door that doesn't unlock at night, the subtle differences between delusional and insane tend to loose their importance.)

In any case, Robert is still implying, I believe, that atheists are the only people qualified to discern what is true and what is not, at least where deism/theism is concerned.

If I'm wrong, I apologize.

If I'm right, I would like an explanation.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

Dingo~ Just when I think we had established a rapport you have to go and show how silly you really are...Got some more for ya!

http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/christianities-just-an-atheist-skeptics-wet-dream-noteable-questions-comments/

Don't be scarred we don't bite!

Get back atchya Robert_b.

Thanks.

Unknown said...

Greetings Mr. Dingo Dave and Mr. Harvey Burnett and other readers

Thank you for reading my scribblings. I appreciate your perspectives; and even though I may strongly disagree, I respect all honest truth seekers.

While I keyboard this message, the date is July 11, 2008. Over the past several busy days, a few thoughts occurred within me that may be further supportive of Chris Sandoval's hypothesis that Jeremiah 31:31-34 was not a clairvoyant prediction of a new covenant between the imaginary god of the Abrahamic religions and Homo Sapiens and Farrel Till's supporting case that the 70 years prophecy was not fulfilled. Although I think the case as I have defended thus far is firm, there is always room for additional positive consideration.

My local library did not have a history of Israel textbook used in Bible College or Seminary near east history classes, but the local Half-Price Book store did. This very large book superstore in Dallas is a large fairly well supplied library. They allow readers to study at work tables so long as they reshelve the books. Half Price Books had onhand a copy of “A History of Israel” by John Bright, 3rd ed., Westminster Press 1981, ISBN 0-664-21381-2. In the section discussing the Exile, Bright does not support or make the claim that the 1st deportations happened in 605 BCE.

I located and browsed “A Survey of Israel's History” by Leon J. Wood, 1986, ISBN 0-310-34770. This book advertises on its rear cover that it was used in Bible College and Seminary history classes. What I found interesting was that Wood fails to assert that the first deportations occurred in 605 BCE. He does mention, however, on p.322 that the poorest people who cultivated the soil were left in Judea after the Babylonians razed Jerusalem. This is indicated in 2 Kings 25:12 “But the captain of the guard left some of the poorest of the land to be vinedressers and plowmen.” (NASB).

It is interesting to observe that Jer. 25:10 specifically “prophecies” in Jer 25:10 that: “Moreover, I will take from them the voice of joy and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the millstones and the light of the lamp.” (NASB) because the phrase “sound of the millstones” implies a cessation of grain agriculture. It seems intuitively obvious that the majority of the Judean population would have been amongst the poorest of the land, thus these people would have of necessity been obliged to engage in grain agriculture as is indicated by the assertion in 2 Kings 25:12 that they were “plowmen.” If the surviving Judean “poorest of the land” were working as vinedressers, then its reasonable to surmise they were also engaged in wine making and trade. They would have traded for necessities including lamp (olive) oil. Thus 2 Kings 25:12 falsifies Jeremiah 25:10 in two senses.

In the religion section was a full set of “The Interpreter's Bible”. I'd like to have the full set, but my budget will not allow such a stretch. Edited by George Arther Buttrick, the 1956 edition (in very good condition for a 50 year old book) was published by the New York Abingdon Press. Volume five discusses Jeremiah. The Interpreter's Bible editorial board also failed to support the idea that the first deportations occurred in 605 BCE. They stated: “The Babylonian exile actually lasted from 598(or 597) to 538 BC. If the view expressed above is correct, the figure comes from the Deuteronomic editor writing circa 550 BC during the time of the exile”. 598 to 538 is only 60 years.

Regarding Jeremiah 25:1-14, the editorial board reports: “Originally, 25:1-14 was a threat of destruction upon Judah, without mention of the precise agent of destruction. The additions, which are contained in the M.T., but not the LXX, were made after the Babylonian exile were over, or near the end of the exile. The purpose was to connect 25:1-14 with 25:15-38 and to soften the threat against Judah.”

This is very pertinent to the discussion at hand about Chris Sandoval's hypothesis that Jer. 31:31-34 was not a clairvoyant prophecy of a new covenant featuring human sacrifice, abrogation of the Mosaic Law, and ritual symbolic consumption of blood. The Interpreter's assessment means that Jer. 25:1-14 fails one of the criteria necessary to recognize a fulfilled prophecy. That being that the alleged prophecy was actually made sufficiently prior to the prophetic event so that a fulfillment could not be reasonably inferred from then current states of affairs. That the difficulty inherent between the Masoretic Text and Septuagint recognized by the Interpreter's editorial board exists means Christians are not justified in citing Jer. 25:1-14 as an example of a fulfilled prophecy. Thus the whole prophetic context of Jeremiah is that of failed prophecies. This is in keeping with the failure of Jer. 31:31-34.

In a link I posted to Farrel Till's article about the Exile, he notes that Jeremiah's letter to the deported exiles in Jer. 29:1-14 was composed after “(This was after King Jeconiah and the queen mother, the court officials, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, the craftsmen and the smiths had departed from Jerusalem.)” Jer 29:2 (NASB). This deportation, according to the Babylonian Chronicles occurred in the Month of Kislîmu (November/December) of 598. This date is vouched for in 2Ki 24:12 “Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he and his mother and his servants and his captains and his officials. So the king of Babylon took him captive in the eighth year of his reign.” (NASB) This confirms the 70 years prophecy was issued shortly after the time of Jeconiah's surrender in 598 (or 597).

The Babylonian Chronicles do specify that Nebuchadnezzar was quite busy in 605 BCE defeating the Egyptian army at the Battle of Carchemish and Battle of Hama|Hamath and assuming the throne of Babylonia(7 September 605). After that King Nebuchadnezzar returned to the campaign. The Babylonian Chronicle reports:

12. In the accession year Nebuchadnezzar went back again to the Hatti-land and until the month of Šabatu (January/February 604)
13. marched unopposed through the Hatti-land; in the month of Šabatu he took the heavy tribute of the Hatti-territory to Babylon.
14. In the month of Nisannu (March/April) he took the hands of Bêl and the son of Bêl and celebrated the Akitu festival.
15. In the first year of Nebuchadnezzar [604/603]in the month of Simanu he mustered his army
16. and went to the Hatti-territory, he marched about unopposed in the Hatti-territory until the month of Kislîmu. (November/December)
17. All the kings of the Hatti-land came before him and he received their heavy tribute.
18. He marched to the city of Aškelon and captured it in the month of Kislîmu.(November/December)
19. He captured its king and plundered it and carried off spoil from it.
20. He turned the city into a mound and heaps of ruins and then in the month of Šabatu (January/February) he marched back to Babylon.

Hypothesizing that King Nebuchadnezzar secured his recent gains by cementing new tribute and trade relations with his new vassal cities and states accords with how a rational warrior king would behave. By the principle of analogy such a hypothesis has more explanatory scope and power and is less ad hoc than to assume the new king marched his substantial army 400 miles across rough terrain to besiege Jerusalem. As the Chronicle notes, after sacking Askelon, the Babylonians went home. Later in the Chronicle, the fall of Jerusalem is specifically mentioned. If King Nebuchadnezzar had messed with Jerusalem while occupied with Askelon, why would not the Babylonian scribe have reeded such event into the clay? Besides, the clay tablet itself must have been completed within a short time span or it would have dried out. The scribe must have made his record in one or at most a few sessions. Therefore, it seems likely the scribe would have followed the precedent he demonstrated by specifically naming the major prizes taken by his King. But that the scribe did not specifically name Judah as a victim of his King's campaigns in 605 BCE or 604 BCE is evidence against dating the first deportations from 605 BCE.

Thus the 70 year prophecies of Jeremiah 25 and 29 failed, for service to the King of Babylonia ended when Babylonia was conquered in 539 and when the exile came to an end in 538. Thus the whole prophetic context of Jeremiah is that of failed prophecies. This is in keeping with the failure of Jer. 31:31-34.

Of late, I've been reading George Bethune English's book “The Grounds of Christianity Examined”. In Chapter 12, English discusses the alleged prophecy of Jer. 31:31-34 and its citation by the author of the epistle to the Hebrews in Heb. 8:7-13. Here he argues that God did not intend to abrogate the Mosaic Law, but instead wished to inscribe the Law into the hearts of the Jewish people so they would obey. Bethune had an elegant and artful writing style, so tis worth quoting him at length.

“The quotation brought forward in the Epistle to the Hebrews, to prove the abrogation of the Mosaic Law, and the substitution of a new one, is taken from Jer. xxxi. 31, &c.--“Behold the days
come saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Judah. Not according to the covenant which I made with they fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them
out of the land of Egypt, (which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord.) But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days
saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people; and they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, saying
know the Lord, for they shall all know me from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord, for I will forgive their iniquity, and will remember their sins no more.” Upon this passage
the author of the Epistle observes “in that he saith ‘a new covenant,’ he hath made the first old;” and he sagely concludes “now that which decayeth, and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away!!”
and takes the quotation to be a prophecy of the abolition of the old law, and the introduction of the Gospel Dispensation.

Now, I would observe on his reasoning, in the first place, that, allowing for a moment his interpretation of the prophecy to be correct, (i. e., that it signifies the abolishment of the old, and an introduction of a new law) the prophecy, at any rate, cannot refer to Jesus, or the Gospel; for so far from having been fulfilled in the time of Jesus, or his Apostles, it has not been fulfilled to this day; for certainly God has not yet made a new covenant with the Jews, to whom the prophecy refers, nor has he yet “put his law in their hearts;” nor “caused them to walk in it;” neither has he yet “forgiven their sins, or forgotten their iniquities,” since they are even now suffering, the consequences of them.

I will now retract what I granted, and assert that the prophet did not mean an abolition of the Mosaic, and the introduction of a new, law; for though the prophet speaks of a new covenant, he says nothing of a new law; but on the contrary, asserts that this new covenant would be effectual to make them obey the law. God promised to put his law within their hearts (not out of remembrance, as the catechisms say;) and in this alone this covenant differs from the one entered into at Mount Sinai. For, then, though the law was given them, it was not “put within their hearts,” but they were apt, to their own control, to obey it, or not, being assured, however, that happiness should be the reward of obedience, and death and excision the punishment for revolt and disobedience. And you will moreover observe, that, notwithstanding what is here called a new covenant, nothing is here said of the abrogation of any former covenant, or constitution, or of any new terms, that would be required by God on the part of
the Israelites. The prophet, by expanding his idea, sufficiently explains his whole meaning, which is evidently this, viz.: That God would make a new, and solemn promise to the Israelites, that they
should be no more out of favor with him; that their hearts would be hereafter so right with God, that in consequence of it, they would continue in the quiet possession of their country to the end of time;
and all this is intimated by Moses, in the quotation from Deuteronomy, quoted in the last chapter.

Thus is the passage perfectly consistent with those in the Old Testament, which affirm, (whether right or wrong is not my concern) the perfection and perpetuity of the Mosaic Law. “Remember,” are the last words of the last of the prophets, Malachi,--“Remember the Law of Moses, my servant which I commanded unto him in Horeb, with the Statutes, and Judgments.” Also in the Psalms:--“The Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The Testimony of the Lord is faithful, bringing wisdom
to the simple. The Precepts of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart, and enlightening the eyes.” “The works of his hands are Truth, and Judgment. All his Precepts are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever: being done in Truth and Uprightnes”

George Bethune English - “The Grounds of Christianity Examined” (This book is on the Project Gutenburg.org website and is a free download.)

English was educated as a Congregationalist minister at Harvard Divinity School. He left Christianity after studying an argument against Christianity originally penned by a Jewish Rabbi Issac ben Abraham of Troki. My argument that the Mosaic Law was an eternal covenant that was to be enhanced by the writing of the Law into the heart of the Jew is supportive of Bethune's own argument. If Jeremiah actually said the words recorded in 31:31-34, then Bethune's understanding is most likely what the ancient prophet intended. Chris Sandoval is vindicated.

Unknown said...

Rabbi Isaac ben Abraham of Troki composed the “Chizzuk Emunah” in 1593, the year prior to his death. Isaac's argument against Christianity was the deciding factor in George Bethune English's deconversion from Congregationalist Minister to theistic gentile Judaism. The late Dr. Richard H. Popkin spent the last months of his life researching Bethune and Rabbi Issac and their books. Dr. Popkin's work is available in “Disputing Christianity” from Prometheus books. The “ Chizzuk Emunah” is available on Google books as “Hizuk Emunah (romanized Form): Or, Faith Strengthened”
By Isaac ben Abraham Troki, Moses Mocatta.

The following text comes from “Hizuk Emunah (romanized Form): Or, Faith Strengthened”
By Isaac ben Abraham Troki, translated by Moses Mocatta, printed (not published) in 1851. Here in Chapter XXIX, Rabbi Isaac points out that Jeremiah 31:31 is not a prophecy of a new Christian covenant featuring abrogation of the Mosaic Law. This argument supports my earlier posts in support of Chris Sandoval's essay published on Infidels.org.

Chizzuk Emunah

It is also interesting that Voltaire, ever a thorough anti-Jew, admired Rabbi Isaac's argument with these words: "Not even the most decided opponents of religion have brought forward any arguments which could not be found in the 'Fortification of the Faith'
by Eabbi Isaac."

**************************************
CHAPTER XXIX.

JEREMIAH xxxi. 31, " Behold the days come, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah." The Christians assert that the prophet Jeremiah here foretold the giving of a new law for the people of Israel — viz., the Gospel of Jesus of Nazareth.

Refutation. — Scripture does not allude here to the substitution of a new law for the old one, but merely the making of a new covenant, a covenant independent of the law. Thus we find in the history of Phineas (Numbers xv. 12), " Behold I give him my covenant of peace." The covenant thus made could not possibly mean the emission of a new law intended for Phineas alone. In Leviticus xxvi. 42, we meet with a like mention of a covenant, "And I shall remember my covenant with Jacob, my covenant with Isaac, and also my covenant with Abraham will I remember," etc. From this mode of expression, nobody would venture to infer that the Almighty gave a special law to each of the patriarchs. Covenants also are made between man and man. Thus we find, in Genesis xxi. 32, " They two [Abraham and Abimelech] made a covenant with each other." Returning now to the true sense of the verse at the head of this chapter, we find that the Almighty has reserved for Israel the bestowal of a new covenant of protection when they shall be restored to their land, a covenant which, unlike the former one, will never be dissolved.

On that account the prophecy continues (in Jeremiah xxxi. 31 and following verses), that the
future covenant will not be according " to the covenant I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke," etc. After this introduction, the prophet proceeds, " But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people." These quotations suffice to show, that the Almighty had not intended to issue a new law, but to impress His ancient divine law on their hearts, that it never should be forgotten throughout all time. The reader, on referring to chap. xix., will find that we demonstrated there the perpetuity of the divine law as it was given on Sinai ; consequently the promulgation of a new law supplanting the former cannot possibly take place.
*******************************