For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe

Author: PGA2.0 ,

Posts

Total: 353
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,147
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
I start with the case of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation. These prophecies all concern the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and judgment of the Mosaic Covenant people for their apostasy, per Deuteronomy 28 and the curses thereof. 

You have a few goals (as I see it, but you can add more). 
1) Establish that it is REASONABLE and LOGICAL to believe these prophecies were written AFTER the EVENT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. 
OR
2) Show that the events do not apply to the 1st-century audience of address and the timeline. 
AND
3) Show that the OT does not predict the same event, the destruction (once again) of the city and temple and the coming Messiah.
OR
4) That the OT documents were also written after the fact.

Let us see who has the more reasonable case. 

I could also direct the scope in a different direction by analyzing each of our worldviews and the foundations they rest upon to which is more reasonable and logical, but I will save that for another thread, another discussion, and another day. 

Peter
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 979
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @PGA2.0
I think you're get ahead of yourself.

1) Were these verses written before the destruction of the temple? If so, how do you know? What do scholars who consider these verses critically make of them and why?


keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
Dating a piece writing is impossible when one doesn't have the actual document.   I could write a 'prediction' of WW1 on a piece of paper today, put the date June 1910 on it in a thousand years how could any one tell if I wrote it fresh or if I'd copied a now lost document from 1910?

Unless you are prepared to accept things like magic and the supernatural, if a document mentions an event with 'uncanny' accuracy then it was written after the event, and that is all there is to it.

Of course it is impossible to prove a document isn't a genuine prophecy - but that's a given.  However,  we don't live in a world of magic and supernature so that is all the 'proof' against prophesy needed.


ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,748
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @keithprosser
Since we have real documented cases that qualify as prophesy, would you call all of them coincidence?

However,  we don't live in a world of magic and supernature so that is all the 'proof' against prophesy needed.
Self-serving logic. No christian I've ever met believes in magic. You slap your self-defined word on the convo and then declare yourself correct. Convenient no?
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,754
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @ethang5
Self-serving logic. No christian I've ever met believes in magic.

I agree, and getting sick of this silly strawman and worthless statement. It's basically a cheap shot at Theists. I would like to see Keith be a bit more realistic. That's the game I guess though....make the opposition appear stupid and absurd whatever it takes. 
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,754
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
--> @keithprosser
However,  we don't live in a world of magic and supernature so that is all the 'proof' against prophesy needed.

No, we do not live in a world of "magic" but in case you haven't noticed Keither....we sure do live in a world where "some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" (supernatural) come into play. Our experience transcends the physical boundaries and has for as long as humans have existed. You can label whatever you like, but it's just an experience that reflects reality beyond that which you perceive with your eyeballs. 

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,147
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne


I think you're get ahead of yourself. 

1) Were these verses written before the destruction of the temple? If so, how do you know? What do scholars who consider these verses critically make of them and why?

I have included that scenario in the argument if he chooses to address it. See below:

1) Establish that it is REASONABLE and LOGICAL to believe these prophecies were written AFTER the EVENT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. 




SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 979
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @PGA2.0
I have included that scenario in the argument if he chooses to address it. See below:

1) Establish that it is REASONABLE and LOGICAL to believe these prophecies were written AFTER the EVENT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. 

You are avoiding your burden. If you believe prophecy is fulfilled, then you necessarily need to establish the verses (where this alleged prophecy is found) were written before the events they are said to predict.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 979
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @EtrnlVw
What is this "force beyond scientific understanding" of which you speak and why must we label it as "supernatural". Supernatural refers to something above nature, and if there is a force science doesn't understand, it is still an unwarranted leap to say this alleged force is above nature and not natural. 


SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 979
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @EtrnlVw

I agree, and getting sick of this silly strawman and worthless statement. It's basically a cheap shot at Theists.

There is functionally no difference between 'prophesy' and 'magic'.

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,147
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @keithprosser

Dating a piece writing is impossible when one doesn't have the actual document.   I could write a 'prediction' of WW1 on a piece of paper today, put the date June 1910 on it in a thousand years how could any one tell if I wrote it fresh or if I'd copied a now lost document from 1910?


I'm asking for him/you to prove the reasonableness and logic of the late date as opposed to an early date for Matthew Mark, Luke, and Revelation since they all contain the Olivet Discourse as seen through the different authors.

There is both internal and external evidence to look at. 

There are enough NT manuscripts from the original language (24,000 plus), many from an early age, to confirm whether the documents have gone through lots of redactions and variations, or not.

Regarding the OT, The Dead Sea Scrolls confirmed much of the wording of the earliest copies of Isaiah. Before their discovery, the earliest copies we had were around 1,000 years later. You can compare the change in wording, the variants, and the change in meaning here: 


Is it reasonable to believe Isaiah had been copied with accuracy?


Unless you are prepared to accept things like magic and the supernatural, if a document mentions an event with 'uncanny' accuracy then it was written after the event, and that is all there is to it.


I don't accept the magic scenario, but why are you not willing to accept the supernatural? Is it a bias of yours?

Of course it is impossible to prove a document isn't a genuine prophecy - but that's a given.  However,  we don't live in a world of magic and supernature so that is all the 'proof' against prophesy needed.
The biblical prophecies regarding the Olivet Discourse are specific to a particular date and time. They speak of the coming destruction of the city and temple. That happened in AD 70. 

I'm asking for the most reasonable and logical explanation based on the evidence available.

Is that reasonable?

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,147
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @EtrnlVw
Self-serving logic. No christian I've ever met believes in magic. - ethang5

I agree, and getting sick of this silly strawman and worthless statement. It's basically a cheap shot at Theists. I would like to see Keith be a bit more realistic. That's the game I guess though....make the opposition appear stupid and absurd whatever it takes. 
 
I find a few common tactics. One, assert Christianity a myth, or a magic show or assert Jesus is not a real historical person. Two, tell us our faith is blind or lacking evidence, thus unreasonable. Three, attack the Christian/belief as moronic and stupid. At all times avoid discussing the evidence or reasonableness of the faith.

I do not follow a blind faith, nor an unreasonable faith. The evidence is both reasonable and logical.

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,147
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne
I have included that scenario in the argument if he chooses to address it. See below:

1) Establish that it is REASONABLE and LOGICAL to believe these prophecies were written AFTER the EVENT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. 
ME

You are avoiding your burden. If you believe prophecy is fulfilled, then you necessarily need to establish the verses (where this alleged prophecy is found) were written before the events they are said to predict. - YOU

No, I already listed the prophetic verses - the Olivet Discourse as written in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Revelation. I believe that Revelation is John's version of the Discourse. (That is a topic for another time)
 
Luke 21:5 And while some were talking about the temple, that it was adorned with beautiful stones and votive gifts, He said, As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down.
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

The Discourse speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem. Nowhere in the NT are we ever told of the already destruction. For a people steeped in OT ritual, this is highly significant. Their whole life revolved around temple worship and animal sacrifice via the priesthood. We continue to see the mention of this ritual system throughout the NT as still in existence. We continue to see/understand the priesthood in operation. We continue to see the warnings to escape from the come wrath, the day of the Lord, the end of the age.

We KNOW that in AD 70 the city and temple were destroyed by the Roman armies that had surrounded the city. We know that the OT people operated under the Mosaic Law and covenant. After AD 70 this covenant and its laws can no longer be met. We know that there is no more animal sacrifice, no more priesthood, no more temple, and that the curses of Deuteronomy 28 have been poured out on this people, as per the numerous warning in the OT and NT, which meets with the statement, "days of vengeance" and great distress upon the land and people so that everything yet unfulfilled would be fulfilled.

If you dispute the NT was written after the fact, or prophecy inserted after the fact, then provide proof/evidence that this was done. Otherwise how reasonable are your assertions?

As Christians, we have ancient manuscripts that record these prophecies. What is the earliest evidence you have that states they were inserted after the fact?

As Christians, we have testimony from eyewitnesses and artifacts  (i.e., Josephus; the destruction of the city) that state these things will happen/happened. What evidence do you have that state otherwise, from an early date? 

The OT looks forward to the time of the Messiah and God's judgment for unfaithfulness. What evidence do you have these OT documents were written after the fact (i.e., the destruction of city and temple and punishment on this OT people)?



PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,147
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne

What is this "force beyond scientific understanding" of which you speak and why must we label it as "supernatural". Supernatural refers to something above nature, and if there is a force science doesn't understand, it is still an unwarranted leap to say this alleged force is above nature and not natural.  -SkepticalOne
Ah, yes, the "unwarranted leap!"

The Bible reveals this Being that is beyond nature/the natural. Is that unreasonable?

IMO, it is an unwarranted leap for those who only think within the box called "Nature." They don't want to think of anything that science cannot prove ("If I can't see it, I won't believe it."). Yet, from a naturalistic worldview, they can't warrant a sensible explanation for existence, for life from inanimate matter, plus energy over time. They can't demonstrate via science how from mindless matter comes conscious beings. They can't explain the purpose and MEANING they continually find in a supposedly meaningless universe. They don't have the grounds of morality. They can't explain why the necessary ingredients for science - the uniformity of nature (hence natural laws/constants) can operate by unintentional chance happenstance. They don't have the grounds for certainty. 

But, I divert from the topic at hand.

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 979
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @PGA2.0
Nowhere in the NT are we ever told of the already destruction

The Olivet Discourse describes the destruction of the temple, yes? 


If you dispute the NT was written after the fact, or prophecy inserted after the fact, then provide proof/evidence that this was done. 


I've not made a claim - you have.  Can you show the Olivet discourse was recorded before the destruction of the temple? 


we have ancient manuscripts that record these prophecies
What manuscripts? What prophecies?


As Christians, we have testimony from eyewitnesses and artifacts  (i.e., Josephus; the destruction of the city) that state these things will happen/happened. What evidence do you have that state otherwise, from an early date? 
The destruction of the temple is not in dispute. The fact that it happened does not lend credence to an early or late date for the gospels in which the Olivet Discourse is found.


What evidence do you have these OT documents were written after the fact (i.e., the destruction of city and temple and punishment on this OT people)?

I don't assume the destruction of the the temple in 70AD was a judgement from a god or that it was predicted in the OT as you do. Without those assumptions, the question is a non sequitur.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 979
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
The Bible reveals this Being that is beyond nature/the natural. Is that unreasonable?

I don't think the Bible *reveals* a being beyond nature.  To think that it does is to accept the Bible as claim and evidence.  That is unreasonable. 


[...] from a naturalistic worldview, they can't warrant a sensible explanation for existence, for life from inanimate matter, plus energy over time. They can't demonstrate via science how from mindless matter comes conscious beings. They can't explain the purpose and MEANING they continually find in a supposedly meaningless universe. They don't have the grounds of morality. They can't explain why the necessary ingredients for science - the uniformity of nature (hence natural laws/constants) can operate by unintentional chance happenstance. 
Actually, they can, but you don't like the answers.  ;-)


They don't have the grounds for certainty. 
They don't have grounds for *absolute* certainty, but reasonable certainty works just fine.  ;-)
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @ethang5
Almost all believe in magic they just call it miracle, it's the same thing.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,147
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne

Nowhere in the NT are we ever told of the already destruction. - ME


The Olivet Discourse describes the destruction of the temple, yes? - Skep1

That is not what I put forth in my statement. What I said was nowhere in the NT are we told of the (that) ALREADY DESTRUCTION. The destruction has NOT taken place in any NT gospel or epistle, or Revelation.


If you dispute the NT was written after the fact, or prophecy inserted after the fact, then provide proof/evidence that this was done.  - ME



I've not made a claim - you have.  Can you show the Olivet discourse was recorded before the destruction of the temple? - Skep1

I'm offering you to put forth evidence if you think my claims are unreasonable (hence the word, "IF"). If you want to debate my claim then I am willing to put forth my reasoning, and I expect you to offer a counter-argument. If you are unwilling to do this why would I waste my time on someone  who is hell-bent on proving me wrong no matter where the evidence leads

I can give a good, logical, rationale why it is reasonable to believe it was recorded before the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70. I do not believe you can give good reasons why it was not, based on the evidence available to us today.

we have ancient manuscripts that record these prophecies - ME

What manuscripts? What prophecies? - Skep1


The OT and NT manuscripts.

As Christians, we have testimony from eyewitnesses and artifacts  (i.e., Josephus; the destruction of the city) that state these things will happen/happened. What evidence do you have that state otherwise, from an early date? - ME

The destruction of the temple is not in dispute. The fact that it happened does not lend credence to an early or late date for the gospels in which the Olivet Discourse is found. - Skep1
Good, you don't dispute the destruction in AD 70. That is one hurdle out the way.

Yes, it does lend credence to an early date. What do you think the later dating is based upon? Answer me that, then I will continue.  


What evidence do you have these OT documents were written after the fact (i.e., the destruction of city and temple and punishment on this OT people)? - ME


I don't assume the destruction of the temple in 70AD was a judgement from a god or that it was predicted in the OT as you do. Without those assumptions, the question is a non sequitur. - SKEP1

Naturally, you do not, since you are a skeptic. You reject the biblical authority and replace it with your own. 

I will have to give you a number of OT passages that tell the reader otherwise. I start with Daniel 9:24-27. I would also refer you to the curses of Deuteronomy 28 that God promised for disobedience. In fact, Daniel 9:1-26 is all about the Mosaic law curses Babylon inflicted on Israel in 586 BC. After that judgment, God gives Israel (Daniel's people) a period of 490 from the issuing of the decree to rebuild the city and temple until He once again brings judgment on Israel for their transgressionsIsrael and brings in everlasting peace. There are six specific things in verse 24 that would take place before Jerusalems destruction. 

So, I have established two OT verses that speak of the destruction of Jerusalem for disobedience. FACT. I establish that from the OT records we have available they confirm what I say. Show me otherwise, not by ASSERTION, but by proof/evidence.  

Daniel 9:26 (NASB)
26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.


First, the city and sanctuary have to be rebuilt, then the end comes like a flood AFTER the Messiah is killed. One other consideration for you; none of this means anything after AD 70. With the destruction of the city and sanctuary, no prophecy is RELEVANT to a Mosaic Covenant people, for the very reason that they no longer exist in a covenant relationship with God. They can no longer follow the Mosaic Law of atonement after AD 70. A Messiah is to come to an OT covenant people. That is not possible after AD 70. 

Deuteronomy 28 Consequences of Disobedience
15 “But it shall come about, if you do not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you:

16 “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country.
20 “The Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and rebuke, in all you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken Me.
52 It shall besiege you in all your towns until your high and fortified walls in which you trusted come down throughout your land, and it shall besiege you in all your towns throughout your land which the Lord your God has given you.

So, in AD 70 God brought the Roman army against Israel as a consequence for killing His Son and rejecting Him. It was a divorce decree and God took a new bride for Himself. The covenant found its fulfillment in Jesus Christ and a new and better covenant was made with these people and anyone else who would believe.

disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @EtrnlVw
we sure do live in a world where "some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" (supernatural) come into play.


No WE don't. That is your fantasy.



disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @PGA2.0
Sho me the evidence that supports the genesis creation story.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,147
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne
The Bible reveals this Being that is beyond nature/the natural. Is that unreasonable? - ME


I don't think the Bible *reveals* a being beyond nature.  To think that it does is to accept the Bible as claim and evidence.  That is unreasonable. 


That is its teaching. There are thousands of statements that are attributed to God. Whether you believe it or not depends on what you base your ultimate authority, as some subjective, relative being who can't know with certainty, or Someone who is necessary for us to have certainty at all. 

[...] from a naturalistic worldview, they can't warrant a sensible explanation for existence, for life from inanimate matter, plus energy over time. They can't demonstrate via science how from mindless matter comes conscious beings. They can't explain the purpose and MEANING they continually find in a supposedly meaningless universe. They don't have the grounds of morality. They can't explain why the necessary ingredients for science - the uniformity of nature (hence natural laws/constants) can operate by unintentional chance happenstance. - ME

Actually, they can, but you don't like the answers.  ;-) - SKEP1


Mere assertions!  (^8
They can't.
It is all based on your worldview slant. Why would I believe you as my ultimate authority? And you don't like my answers, either. 

How can a mindless, purposeless, chaotic, irrational, impersonal, unintentional process give certainty, give meaning (yet we continue to find meaning in a supposedly meaningless universe; we continue to find laws, mathematical laws that give information in which we do science by)? It is your ASSUMPTION that they can. BS. 

We discover laws because there is a Lawgiver, an intentional Being behind the universe. We discover meaning and purpose because an intention Mind gives the universe and humanity such meaning and purpose. To attribute all this to chance is idiotic. It's idiotic. Chance can do nothing. You continually give anthropomorphic qualities to "Nature"  and "Chance." Chance does not have any ability to do anything. It is a mathematical principle mindful beings use to determine likely probabilities. 



They don't have the grounds for certainty. - ME



They don't have grounds for *absolute* certainty, but reasonable certainty works just fine.  ;-) - SKEP 1
How can something be certain unless it is absolute?

Certain: known for sure; established beyond doubt

You mean "reasonably confident." 

Now, back to the topic at hand.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,147
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @disgusted
Different and complicated subject. 

What is more reasonable, Creator or chance? (Hint, there is no reason to chance - so why do you continually find reasons from it?)

What is more reasonable, conscious being come from other conscious beings (that is all we ever witness) or that conscious beings somehow arise from inanimate, lifeless, non-conscious matter?  

What is more reasonable, to believe that meaning comes from the meaningless or that a necessary meaningful Being gives meaning to all other beings? Why would you continually find meaning in a meaningless universe?

Why would reasoning beings come from the unreasoning? 

What is more reasonable, that 2+2=4 is a universal, absolute, unchanging truth, or that it can change - that 2+2 can equal something other than 4?  If that truth does not depend on you or me believing it, then it must depend on an absolute, universal, unchanging Being for the reason that if it is not a fixed truth that depends on mindful beings discovering then 2+2 can mean anything. 2+2=4 is a concept and depends on being to know it. 

What is more reasonable, that chance happenstance can create uniformity of nature - natural laws - that are sustainable and discoverable, or on blind, indifferent chance for their being?

Can you answer these questions? How will you answer them? Let me see, even though they are off-topic.

So, if you want to believe something despite the unreasonableness of it, that is your problem, not mine.  
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @PGA2.0
You are claiming that there is evidence proving the contents of the book to be truth.
In order that you support this claim show me the evidence that supports the genesis creation story.
If you can't then your bible doesn't contain truth and can be summarily dismissed by me and no longer used by you to support your claims.
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,748
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
--> @PGA2.0
Can you answer these questions?
Not if 4 years of watching his drive-by posts are any indication.

How will you answer them? Let me see, even though they are off-topic.
Don't hold your breadth.

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 979
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @PGA2.0
What I said was nowhere in the NT are we told of the (that) ALREADY DESTRUCTION.
If the destruction had already happened and the Olivet discourse was being presented as prophecy, then it stands to reason the author would not record the destruction of the temple as part tense.


The fact that it happened does not lend credence to an early or late date for the [...] Olivet Discourse

Yes, it does lend credence to an early date. 

How so?


I'm offering you to put forth evidence if you think my claims are unreasonable
I'm offering challenge to your claims. I do not need to provide evidence to do this.


I will have to give you a number of OT passages that tell the reader otherwise

Daniel was written written in the 2nd century BC, and the "prophecy" it records is actually history. It is also thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future but of his own. As to the passage from Deuteronomy, it speaks of "towns" (plural). I fail to see how this can be the temple (singular). It seems to me, this passage tells believers they can not get away from the wrath of god (not in the city not in the country) and has nothing to do with 70AD.