Are there valid predictive prophecies?? (JasonG versus Robyn Banks) commentary

[dizzle]

Okay this thread is for commentary on the debate between JasonG and Robyn Banks on predictive prophecy located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=70330#post70330


Bottles are prohibited, face paint is encouraged.

Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

[Gavin]

This should be interesting. I wonder what prophecies JasonG will focus on. Daniel 9, anyone?

[Gavin]

Good opener Jason. Interesting calculations regarding Daniel 9. :thumb:

[stevencarrwork]

jason G writes ' Palm Sunday is four days before Passover.

Staying on task, because there is a lot of awesome information and several prophecies are being fulfilled here, we can see how Jesus rode into the city of Jerusalem on the 10th of Nisan. (He was crucified on Passover, on the 14th of Nisan.)'

Sunday = 10th
Monday = 11th
Tuesday = 12th
Wednesday = 13th
Thursday = 14th

Jesus was crucified on Thursday?

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I did these calculations quickly, so I may have made some errors.

JASONG:
Now, we see how the Bible has told us about the important events of the command to build the temple, Jesus' entry into Jerusalem and His subsequent crucifixion (or "cutting off"). Here is the math.

One week, in this context, equals seven years. This is a common, Hebrew occurrence.


POWELL:
Could you supply some examples of this?

JASONG:
Each week is a week of years (another Hebrew algorithm). Therefore, we have a math problem that looks like this:

69 weeks x 7 years x 360 days in a year equals 173,880 days.


POWELL:
A year doesn't equal 360 days, Jason, it's closer to 365.2422 days. So, perhaps this should be 69 x 7 x 365.2422 = 176,412 days which is 2532 days, or almost 7 years longer than your result. Does God know how long the year is on Earth? Should we use the year that astronomers tell us is right or should we use what the Bible tells us is right?

JASONG:
(Remember: Daniel 9:25 says, "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem, until Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.")

The Babylonian calendar of 360 day years was being used.


POWELL:
Who says the Babylonian's used a 360-day year? That would cause an unbearable seasonal drift. The seasons would be off by 5.2422 days each year (The "shortest day of the year" drifting by about 5 calendar days each year) or off by a whole 1/2 season (45 days) after only 8 1/2 years. Summer months and winter months would be reversed after only about 35 years. It would take another 35 years for everything to be back in sync, but the seasons would immediately begin drifting again.

Astronomically-savvy civilizations relying on a lunar system of twelve 29/30 day months or 354 day (normal) years that wanted their seasons to match their calendar months needed to add an extra intercalary month every third year or so for a (long) intercalary year of about 383 days. The average length of the year over many years is about 365.25 days per year. The Jews did this. The Babylonians did this.

http://www.polysyllabic.com/Babylon.html

(thanks to Steven Carr for posting this at II Errancy.)

Evidently, however, the Muslims didn't do this for some religious reason or other. I think it's because they wanted to appear to be more "pure" than the Jews in this one thing. The Muslims had to suffer with date-sensitive holidays occurring during different seasons on different years because of this peculiar religious attitude.

JASONG:
Daniel was in Babylon. Plus, at this time, the Jewish calendar and many other calendars were based on a 360 day, which is also called a "lunar year".


POWELL:
If anything is called the "lunar year" I would think it would be 254 days (12 months of on average 29.5 days each).

JASONG:
It's interesting to see that this prophecy is still fulfilled with other calendars and other ways of calculations!


POWELL:
It would be interesting if this were true.

JASONG:
At any rate, if you add the days between March 14, 445 B.C. and April 6, 32 A.D. you get 173,880 days.


POWELL:
Perhaps you should use Julian Day Numbers, Jason, so we can be more sure we're talking about the same day on planet Earth regardless of what calendar system we might be using.

JASONG:
This is an enormous and supernatural fulfillment of prophecy! Since God wrote it and it happened, any calendar (as long as you know the history and system of the particular calendar) will bring you to the same number of days.

For instance, here is the computation and fulfillment of this awesome prophecy on the Gregorian calendar.


POWELL:
The Gregorian system is good for this purpose because events in human history occurring in the month of, let's say, July can be expected to have been during a time of summer. The Julian calendar can't guarantee that because it gets seasonally off by 3 days every 400 years.

JASONG:
445 B.C. to 32 A.D. (476 years x 365 days) = 173,740 days

March 14 to April 6 = 24 days


POWELL:
If "from noon March 14 to noon March 15" is one elapsed day then "from noon March 14 to noon April 6" is 23 elapsed days (assuming March has 31 days).

JASONG:
Days In Leap Years = 116 days (119 - 3 = 116)

Total = 173,880 days

(A total of 476 years divided by four (a leap year every four years) gives 119 additional days. However, three days must be subtracted from 119 because centennial years are not leap years, though every 400th year is a leap year.)


POWELL:
This is close if the assumptions are correct. The tropical year is about 365.2422 days / year, but that's pretty close to the Gregorian assumption of 365.2425 days / year.

476 years x 365.2425 days/yr = 173.855.4 days
If you add 24 days this becomes 173,879.4 days.

JASONG:
Gabriel's prophecy, given to Daniel five centuries before it's fulfillment and translated into Greek three centuries before, was fulfilled to the exact day!


POWELL:
If you only add 23 elapsed days, apparently you could be off by 1.6 days.

More importantly, if you add an extra SEVEN YEARS suggested by the "true" or tropical length of the year then that would put the event around 39 A.D.

How much do you want to bet that if theologians believed that Palm Sunday was in 39 A.D. they would have used a 365.2425 year rather than a 360 day year to try to show fulfillment of prophecy? How much do you want to bet that if they thought Palm Sunday was in about A.D. 17 they would have assumed a "short" year of 12 lunar months (254 days)?

I should carefully check my results, but I'm in a hurry.

John Powell

[dizzle]

Ironically, I would agree with Robyn on some points. Using Daniel 9 to calculate down to the exact day is misplaced. The prophecy is not a prophecy of days but of weeks. Additionally, I would place the ending of the 69th week at the baptism of Jesus and with different start dates.

Now I would utterly disagree with Robyn on the idea that this is an ex eventu prophecy, and if it were, it is worse as an after the fact prophecy than any argument he produces against it being before the fact, and those are articulated in 9:24 and the whole Jubilee pattern of the prophecy. Screwing up an after the fact prophecy is pretty bad (and of course I reject that theory). The preterist rendering of this passage makes the most sense out of all the facts of the passage including the goals. More could be said, but unfortunately I am writing on the fly right now and with limited time.

[dizzle]

Robyn had kindly written me about my above post, so I wanted to clarify so that no one misunderstood. I am aware that Robyn maintains that Daniel 9 is an ex eventu prophecy that matches up perfectly with history, I deny that it does, especially with regards to verse 24 and the Jubillee imagery (to mention two reasons) so that I would say that if it is an after the fact prophecy it was written by someone pretty daft to mess it up. That is not Robyn's contention, that is mine. I hope that clears up any confusion.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
As I did rough comparisons in my mind after posting this, I realized I had made at least one error.

POWELL:
How much do you want to bet that if theologians believed that Palm Sunday was in 39 A.D. they would have used a 365.2425 year rather than a 360 day year to try to show fulfillment of prophecy? How much do you want to bet that if they thought Palm Sunday was in about A.D. 17 they would have assumed a "short" year of 12 lunar months (254 days)?


POWELL:
If 5 days long (365 vs. 360) changes the predicted year by 7 years, from 32 A.D. to 39 A.D., then 6 days short (360 vs. 354 not 254!) would be expected to change the predicted year by about 8 years, from 32 A.D. to perhaps 24 A.D.

I misprinted this erroneous number 254 earlier in the post.

USE OF JDN's NOT OPTIONAL:
Let me emphasize that, due to difficulties in converting between various calendar systems, any claim to prophecy fulfillment "to the day" like this in Daniel that does not indicate that the claimant used JDN's (Julian Day Numbers) to confirm the results is, in my opinion, immediately suspect.

John Powell.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Jason does not seem to fully appreciate the skeptic's position concerning prophecies that weren't "notarized" as prior to the fact.

If the Gospels were written during or shortly after A.D. 70 then for "Jesus" to prophesy of events in 70 A.D. doesn't really count.

Consider the following two examples, Jason.

Suppose a psychic publishes in October predictions claimed to have been made prior to 9/11. Would you feel any pressure to believe this if the predictions were not "notarized" as having been made prior to 9/11? You would be as skeptical of this as I would be.

Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that Mormons claimed that Joseph Smith prophesied in 1832 that the Civil War would begin in South Carolina "three decades later" in 1860. However, the earliest reliable record of that prophecy dates from 1860 or later. Would you feel any pressure to accept that as a fulfilled prophecy? What if Mormons of that time period "swear on their mother's grave" that he really prophesied that in 1832, despite the fact that only "doctored" journals of that time period indicate this? You would probably be almost as skeptical of this as the 9/11 example, although Mormons might be more willing to accept it. Actually, if such a prediction had been "notarized," it still would not be "wonderful" because back in 1833, South Carolina almost rebelled. To count as "wonderful," an essential feature is that the prophecy should be the kind of thing that a politically-savvy non-prophet could not have reasonably guessed.

Can you understand, Jason, why skeptics do not consider prophecy passages referring to events in 70 A.D. recorded in Biblical sources written then or later to be fulfilled prophecies?

Now, let me give you the "real" Mormon prophecy. I don't know how reliable the dating is, but Mormons claim that Section 87 was written in Dec 1832 which places it shortly before the near-rebellion of South Carolina in 1833.

D&C 87:
THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS

SECTION 87
Revelation and prophecy on war, given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, December 25, 1832. HC 1: 301—302. This section was received at a time when the brethren were reflecting and reasoning upon African slavery on the American continent and the slavery of the children of men throughout the world.

1—4, War foretold between the Northern States and the Southern States; 5—8, Great calamities shall fall upon all the inhabitants of the earth.

1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord concerning the wars that will shortly come to pass, beginning at the rebellion of South Carolina, which will eventually terminate in the death and misery of many souls;


POWELL:
When is "shortly come to pass"? According to the still unfulfilled prophecies of Revelation indicating that Jesus will come "soon," that could be thousands of years.

Evidently, Joseph correctly guessed South Carolina would be the first to rebel, which it did in 1860. Given that there were 11 confederate states, that would suggest Joseph beat the 1/11 odds. However, that's not really the case. Even back in 1832, South Carolina was the most rebellious. In fact, it almost seceded in 1833.

It would not require a prophet to correctly predict that there would be wars in the future and that people would die and suffer misery in them.

D&C 87:
2 And the time will come that war will be poured out upon all nations, beginning at this place.


POWELL:
One might think this is a prediction of future "world wars." Of course "all nations" is an exaggeration, not unlike Biblical hyperbole.

What does "beginning at this place" mean? Does it mean that wars coming after this war started by the rebellion of South Carolina will be world-wide wars or does it mean something else? One key to successful prophecy fulfillment is to be sufficiently vague.

D&C 87:
3 For behold, the Southern States shall be divided against the Northern States, and the Southern States will call on other nations, even the nation of Great Britain, as it is called, and they shall also call upon other nations, in order to defend themselves against other nations; and then war shall be poured out upon all nations.


POWELL:
I think this could have been predicted by a politically-savvy person in 1832. Notice it didn't explicitly say that Great Britain would fight on the side of the southern states, just that they would be asked to help. However, that seems to be the intent.

This verse suggests that after Great Britain is asked to join with the Southern States that "they" (Southern States? Great Britain?) will call on other nations to defend them. The "they" probably means that the Southern States will call on other nations to defend the Southern States from other nations (besides the Northern States). However, with some stretching, it could mean that Great Britain will call on other nations to defend Great Britain from other nations. Anyway, one thing seems clear: a lot more nations than just the U.S. North and South would be fighting in the war. It would not be merely a local conflict.

Evidently, Joseph Smith believed (falsely) that the first world war would be started by the American Civil War. He probably imagined that the war that would begin in the U.S. would soon (within a few years) thereafter see fighting in Europe and elsewhere. Post Civil War Mormons don't interpret it this way, of course. They suggest that Joseph was merely indicating that some time later (many decades) there would be world wars.

D&C 87:
4 And it shall come to pass, after many days, slaves shall rise up against their masters, who shall be marshaled and disciplined for war.


POWELL:
This happened to some extent, but there were a lot less slave revolts in the south than many people expected. It's something a non-prophet might predict, but be surprised when it didn't happen to the extent expected.

D&C 87:
5 And it shall come to pass also that the remnants who are left of the land will marshal themselves, and shall become exceedingly angry, and shall vex the Gentiles with a sore vexation.


POWELL:
The "Gentiles" are presumably the non-US nations. Again, Joseph Smith evidently believed that the U.S. conflict would spread to become a world war.

Post-Civil War Mormons probably interpret this to mean that the descendants of those who survived the Civil War would vex the nations of Europe in future wars.

D&C 87:
6 And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and chastening hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full end of all nations;


POWELL:
By giving this modern prophecy in terms of the "sword" rather than of "bullets" this wording encourages a re-interpretation of Biblical prophecies for the last days allowing for that kind of leeway. "Horses" become "tanks" if need be.

This suggests that noteworthy natural disasters will accompany the usual results of warfare: death by the "sword," famine, and plague.

As far as I know, the frequency and severity of natural disasters like earthquakes and lightning strikes were not significantly greater after 1832.

The end of the verse suggests that the end of nations will result from the conflict.

Evidently, Joseph Smith believed that beginning with the rebellion of South Carolina there would be a US civil war that would become a world war that would not end until the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

D&C 87:
7 That the cry of the saints, and of the blood of the saints, shall cease to come up into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth, from the earth, to be avenged of their enemies.

8 Wherefore, stand ye in holy places, and be not moved, until the day of the Lord come; for behold, it cometh quickly, saith the Lord. Amen.


POWELL:
Here is a prediction that the Lord will come quickly, so the righteous should "stand in holy places" (i.e., be at home or in the church or in the Temple, not in bars or other such places). This is not so different from people at the time of Christ being told to prepare for His Second Coming despite the fact that 2000 years later, He still hasn't arrived.

Why should we seriously prepare for a world-changing event that won't happen while we or any of our near relatives are alive?

It's one thing to warn us to be "good" to go to heaven and avoid going to hell. It's quite another to try to scare us to be good with "coming soon" predictions of the "End of the World " or the "Second Coming" if those won't happen for many 100s of years from now.

John Powell.

[dizzle]

Moderator's Note - Earlier in this thread Steven had brought up an offtopic issue which was edited. This issue has been brought up several times by various atheists yet not one has taken up my invitation to start a new thread on it in the appropriate areas instead of bringing it up in unrelated threads. I do not know what to make of this behaviour, so rather than assuming bad intentions, I have decided to move Steven's post to the appropriate area so that the issue can be discussed there, so that there is no excuse to keep sidetracking threads with it, and so that no one can say that I am trying to hide something. Here is the thread:

Steven's Question to Jason regarding an Errancy Post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=72191#post72191)

Thank you!!

[skepticbud]

Jason:
Having two fulfillments and “pushing” a fulfillment into the future are two, different things. However, the nature of many Bible prophecies are dual in nature. They have a present meaning and application and they also have a future one. This isn’t a problem, but it can become one if you a have an a priori bias or suddenly become “conveniently confused.”


If I was Robyn, I would pour all the battery acid I have into this wound of "whoops" apologetics, and maybe even borrow some more from the neigbors just in case. "Dual Fulfillment" is not even believed by some Christian scholars (see interpreter's bible on daniel 9).

Also, jason it appears will merely scoff at any and all bible commentators who disagree with his views of the cited so-called prophecies. Sorry Jason, unless you are willing to allow that Robyn can dispose of any scholar you cite by saying "well he's just a fundamentalist!", you are being unfair to kick the scholars she cites against you, under the rug, just because "they are liberals!". The accuracy of a commentator's opinion or interpretation is not gleaned from what general position he takes.

Also, you talk about "bias" as if the only people that have it are those who believe something different than you about bible prophecy. Sorry, everybody is biased. Citing bias accomplishes nothing. Are you biased in favor of the bible as god's word? See what I mean?


Jason:
I’ve been a Christian for over 20 years and I’m working on my Doctorate degree (Th. D.) with an emphasis in Advanced Prophetic Studies, but I’ve never heard any of those “theologians.”


if you were on your way to getting a ph.d, why didn't you guess that you should do your own research to find out who they are? And would you allow Robyn to dismiss any scholars you may cite, the way you dismiss hers? If she said "i've never heard of gleason archer or hal lindsey", would you drop that point and move on to something else?


A common atheistic device is to list aberrant scholars


What criteria do you use to judge a scholar "abberent"? The mere fact that he isn't a fundamentalist prophecy buff?

[stevencarrwork]

JasonG .....'A common atheistic device is to list aberrant scholars that are so liberal that they don't really believe the Bible (or know the Bible) and use their statements to help their cases.'

JasonG 'This is ad hominem gibberish.'

JasonG 'Interestingly, prophecies are often worded in such a way that they mean something significant to someone who is searching and studying, but something meaningless to someone who operates with bias and disdain.'

Wow, I've heard pretty much the same sentiments by astrologists!

JasonG 'Do you see any statements in the Tyre prophecies that indicate all of them must refer to Nebuchadnezzar?'

Has Jason seen any statement that indicated the name of Alexander?

And Jason has not checked the many web sites which state that the Jews used a calendar with intercalated months - not a 360 day calendar.

JasonG gives a Google search, and the very first page has this web site on JASONs OWN SEARCH

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/j4j-2000/html/reflib/dan9121.html

'There is no “prophetic year� of 360 days alluded to anywhere in the Bible. ' Jason gives websites which rebut his case!

And what does the other web site that Jason alludes to say 'Likewise, the 'normal' 360-day year of the Prophetic Calendar adds a 30-day leap month at regular intervals, with that year having 390 days.' 390 days, not 360.

That was from http://www.360calendar.com/

Why does Jason give web site references which do not support his case?

Belshazzar and Neb.

Jason quotes a web site which claims 'And in fact, Belshazzar was a blood line descendent of Nebuchadnezzar.' There is just no evidence for this, apart from a confused reference in Herodotus who thinks that both Nebuchadnessar and Nabonidus were actually called Labynetus.

Nabonidus overthrew Neb. Belshazzar was Nabonidus's son and was no relation to Nebuchadnezzar.

Jason will never produce any evidence that Belshazzar was related to Nebuchadnezzar , because there is none.

[WinAce]

Argumentum ad googlum... that's a new one.

Farrell Till had an excellent set of criteria that any prophecy must meet before being considered such, but I think he forgot to include falsifiability. Given how Bible prophecies generally have no cutoff date, use a variety of symbolic terms, and often have their plainest reading contradicting reality, I feel a way to know "this prophecy failed, there's no way to rationalize it away" is a must.

[DivineOb]

I had sort of hoped for a more substantive reply than "Nu-uh".

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Here are comments about four issues: Robyn's gender, quoting experts, going on to other prophecies, and the 360-day year.

THE GENDER OF ROBYN:
There seems to be some confusion. Is Robyn male or female? Given the anonymous nature of the Internet, perhaps we should invent acceptable neutral pronouns. I don't like "it." "His/her" is too long. Perhaps "hiser" would be acceptable.

QUOTING EXPERTS:
In a debate of this nature I support the position that on controversial topics one must do more than post the opinions of experts. On non-controversial issues, expert opinion does not need to be defended.

If either opponent quotes an expert and the other side accepts the opinion (say on the meaning of a Hebrew word) then that issue is resolved. If, however, either opponent denies the expert opinion as true then the issue becomes "controversial." At that point both sides should supply additional evidence and argument in support of their view. To argue further in support of the authority merely because it is an authority would be the fallacy of appeal to authority / argumentum ad verecundiam

Under these circumstances, you should defend the reasons for the experts to have those opinions, namely the evidence and arguments they used or could have used to come to those opinions. Robyn should do this with "his/her" experts and Jason should do the same with "his" experts, when the claims are controversial.

This principle of dealing with controversial claims by authorities is based on the assumption that educated debaters can understand the reasons experts came to the opinions they did. If they can't then perhaps the debaters should be considering a different topic.

To argue in reply to a denial of expert opinion by "but, you're not an expert" is an ad hominem. A valid argument is not less valid merely because the proponent is not an expert, nor is a valid argument more valid when proposed by the smartest woman in the world. How likely the listeners are to accept an argument may depend on the credentials of the proponent, but the validity itself is supposed to be independent of such concerns.

GOING ON TO OTHER PROPHECIES:
I think it would be a mistake for Jason to go on to other prophecies at this time in this debate. He should "stick to his guns" for at least one more post. Later perhaps in this debate, he could note the immovable disagreement about the three prophecies he presented and then suggest others for consideration.

I think Robyn did a better job than I would have done in supplying counter-evidence to Jason.

I think Robyn should supply additional details to his/her arguments. He/she should identify some of the historical events of Antiochus and sixth century Babylon that support the late writing of Daniel. Since this is not a debate specifically about Daniel, this should not be too extensive, but with links to more details.

I think Robyn has supplied enough counter-evidence on the 69 weeks prophecy as long as he/she defends against any of Jason's rebuttals.

360-DAY YEAR:
Robyn should pressure Jason to recant his claim that the Babylonians or the Jews used a 360-day socio-political year. The longer Jason holds on to this erroneous idea, the more significant this error will become.

As quickly as possible, Jason should use the passage in Revelation to argue that a "prophetic year" in the Old Testament is 360 days long. Jason should have used this from the very beginning. I think this is a weak argument, but it's probably the best he has. It's certainly better than affirming that the Jews or the Babylonians did not use intercalary months to keep the seasons matched to their calendar.

Perhaps Jason will claim that what he meant all along was NOT that the Jews or Babylonians used a socio-political 360-day year, that's ridiculous since everyone should know that they included intercalary months, but what he really meant was that the Jews during the days of Daniel and through out the Bible used a 360-day "prophetic" year.

This will appear to Jason's critics to be a face-saving maneuver rather than sincere, but it brings up another sticky issue. WHY would God use a time period that does not correspond to the length of the tropical year on Earth? This would have been a good opportunity for God to demonstrate His knowledge to pre-scientific people who didn't know exactly how long the year on Earth was to much better than about 1/4 of a day.

It makes sense that superstitious people, prophet wannabes, would think God would use 360-day years since that's such a "perfect" number.

The fact that God didn't take this opportunity to teach the true length of the year is evidence to me that the Biblical writers were coming up with these things on their own without significant help from an Omnibeing.

What is the length of the year on Earth, Jason? Did Daniel's God know this? If yes, why would God use something else?

While we're on the subject of man's wisdom versus God's wisdom as exemplified in the Bible, Jason, what "day" is the Bible referring to? Is it the "solar day" (spin period of the Earth relative to the Sun), the "sidereal day" (spin period of the Earth relative to the "fixed" stars), the year-average solar day (since the Earth's orbit is not perfectly uniform) or what? When God in the Bible says "day," which day was He referring to?

If you don't know, Jason, and if it matters and if the Bible isn't clear, perhaps you should ask God.

John Powell

[John Powell]

POWELL:
Jason still isn't using JDN's to support his "to the day" prophecy fulfillment of Daniel. This is a serious mistake in my mind.

I checked two different convenient Internet sites doing conversions between Gregorian, Julian, and Hebrew calendars. Although I don't know if either is accurate, they seem to be reasonably consistent with each other. I suggest Jason use them unless he can find better ones.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/calendar/

http://www.geocities.com/atkuala/astro/cal_conversion.html

I found these two sites to agree with each other on calculating Gregorian and Julian calendars, but the geocities site consistently gave one day earlier on the Hebrew Calendar for a given JDN for the times checked. This may be due to the fact that the Jewish calendar was based on observations of the New Moon which could be off by one day. These two calendar programs may be making slightly different assumptions on what a Jewish "new moon watcher" is likely to observe.

JASONG:
According to the scriptures, the command to rebuild Jerusalem was given in the "month of Nisan and the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes". This king was the King Artaxerxes Longimanus of Persia. The day when he gave the command to rebuild Jerusalem was March 14, 445 B.C.

History records Artaxerxes' reign as being from 465 - 425 B.C. Historians have also recorded that "The first of Nisan is a new year for the computation of the reign of Kings and for festivals", so we know that the decree to rebuild Jerusalem, which would have been a major decree, was issued on the first of Nisan. In 445 B.C., this day fell on March 14.


POWELL:
Jason evidently thinks Nisan 1 in 445 B.C. was Mar 14 in the Gregorian calendar. These sites indicate that that's not the case. Nisan 1 in that year would be Mar 7/8, JDN 1558958/9.

JDN 1558958
Gregorian Mar 7, 445 B.C. Wednesday
Julian Mar 12, 445 B.C.
Hebrew Nisan 1, 3316 (Fourmilab), Adari 29 (Geocities).

JASONG:
Staying on task, because there is a lot of awesome information and several prophecies are being fulfilled here, we can see how Jesus rode into the city of Jerusalem on the 10th of Nisan. (He was crucified on Passover, on the 14th of Nisan.) Palm Sunday was when Jesus publicly entered Jerusalem and proclaimed Himself to be king. This was April 6, 32 A.D. Here is the biblical account of this event.

. . .

For instance, here is the computation and fulfillment of this awesome prophecy on the Gregorian calendar.

445 B.C. to 32 A.D. (476 years x 365 days) = 173,740 days

March 14 to April 6 = 24 days

Days In Leap Years = 116 days (119 - 3 = 116)

Total = 173,880 days


POWELL:
Jason evidently thinks that Nisan 10 in 32 A.D. is April 6 on the Gregorian Calendar. These sites indicate that's not the case. Nisan 10 in that year would be Apr 7/8, 1732845/6

JDN 1732845
Gregorian Apr 7, 32 A.D. Wednesday
Julian Apr 9, 32 A.D.
Hebrew Nisan 10, 3792 (Fourmilab), Nisan 9 (Geocities).

If you subtract the JDN for Nisan 1 in 445 B.C. from Nisan 10 in 32 A.D. using either the Fourmilab or Geocities values, you obtain a difference of 173887 days.

Furthermore, Jason also seems to think that Nisan 10 in 32 A.D. falls on a Sunday as is desired to be "Palm Sunday" and to match the Exo 12:3 lamb scripture. These sites indicate that's not the case. Nisan 10 in 32 A.D. occurs on Wed/Thur.

Do you have some easy-to-use calendar sites that give you the results you want, Jason? Let me know so I can check them for consistency and accuracy. The only authoritative-sounding calendar programs I've checked contradict your claims.

Summary:

Jason seems to be incorrect on 4 significant claims.

1. Nisan 1 in 445 B.C. was Mar 14 on the Gregorian calendar.

2. Nisan 10 in 32 A.D. was Apr 6 on the Gregorian calendar.

3. Nisan 10 in 32 A.D. occurred on a Sunday.

4. The number of days from Nisan 1 in 445 B.C. to Nisan 10 in 32 A.D. is 173880.

I believe that Jason would have been less likely to make these mistakes if he had used JDN's.

John Powell

[DivineOb]

Jason,

If you're reading this... I'm not trying to attack you or be rude, but it seems from your posts that you think you are winning this debate, or at least holding even with Robyn. This is not the case... you are losing quite badly. I would advise you to

1) Spend more time writing your responses... you have 5 days, so spend 5 days

2) Introduce some new prophecies at this point. The thread is supposed to be about showing that at least one prophecy did occur, and, at this point, it is obvious that the best you can show is that these three prophecies 1) might be (genuine) prophecies and 2) might have been fulfilled, which still loses you the debate

3) Don't allow Robyn to introduce 'failed' prophecies for you to defend. Nothing against Robyn for doing so, but you are not under the obligation to discuss everything s/he brings up, and it simply takes away words from your responses

4) Stop insulting Robyn or making insinuations about her/his scholars... If you can demonstrate that they represent fringe views and you think that will help your case then post something showing that fact. But don't just 'throw something out there' insinuating that Robyn is listing fringe scholars, especially when s/he is listing mainstream ones.

Well, that's my best advice if you were looking to convince *me* that the bible contains fulfilled prophecies.

[dizzle]

I have not been following the arguments too closely due to a lack of time. I do however believe that Robyn has failed to show that Daniel 9 is ex eventu (Robyn is male by the way). It would be more accurate to the events he is trying to make it fulfill. The passage, verse 24, obviously speaks of ultimate Messianic redemption, the Jubilee imagery supports that fact, and Jesus affirmed both the abomination of desolation as future to Him (I am aware of Robyn's response to that, just find it unconvincing) and Himself as fulfillment of the Jubilee imagery. The prophecy is a joke as an after the fact prophecy, it would be more accurate.

So I reject Robyn's assertion. To me, if it is a failed propehcy (which of course I reject) it is a before the fact utter failure.

And the fact of the Gospels being allegedly written after 70AD of course I reject as well, but I can even accept that as long as I affirm they accurately record Christ's words which were definitely before the fact. Spoken or written, it was "said" before the fact. Holding has answered the Tyre issue thoroughly so I will not comment there.

[DivineOb]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the debate proposition, but I don't see why Robyn has to show that Daniel 9 is ex-eventu. Since Jason hasn't presented a coherent explanation of how it was fulfilled at all, doesn't Robyn 'win' by default?

[dizzle]

Hey DivineOB - you misunderstood me.. as I said I have not read the whole thing thoroughly and I am not interested in winning or losing. I have significant differences with both of them... more so with Robyn for sure, but I have differences with Jason.

I am not saying Robyn has to argue ex eventu, that is what he is in fact arguing, so that is why I addressed that issue. But sure, according to the parameters of the debate, Jason has the burden of proof to "win" but that is not my interest personally but rather the quest for the truth. Sometimes debates are "won" by the better debater, not necessarily the person with the truth.

[DivineOb]

Dee Dee,

Ok. I was just asking about the ex eventu issue because I find the Daniel 9 prophecy among the least convincing bible prophecies I've encountered (ranking up there with Isaiah 7:14), and I got the impression that you were saying that Jason's explanation for this prophecy was convincing, which I found surprising.

Anyway, there you go :P

[stevencarrwork]

You have to admire the brazen nature of Christians , who can lie in any and all circumstances.

jason G writes 'I remember how you misrepresented J.P. Holding's picture and research and was too dishonest to discuss it in your last post. Oh well, I guess this is what we get from atheists with agendas. You misrepresented Holding's research and tried to use it to prove your point when in reality, he has a similar position to mine! After you were called on it, you avoided the issue completely.'

Robyn did not link to Holding's picture and research. JasonG is simply lying.

Does anybody seriously think Holding would have a picture of Tyre on his web page? A picture of the city that Holding claims was never rebuilt? We know that Holding objects when sceptics give 'the fuller context'.

Perhaps Holding can give us this picture of his that Robyn is supposed to have linked to?

In
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_05_03.htm Holding writes '...and absurd moreso to suppose that modern sands in the same place detract from the fulfillment, as of course sands shift and blow about constantly, and would not be reckoned as being part of the city itself. Whatever Alex scraped away, dust would return to fill the void.'

JP (IIM) Holding wants to give the impression that there is dust and sand there now, just as some other people wanted to give the impression there were no American tanks in Baghdad.

Does anybody think Holding is going to have a picture like
http://www.tektonics.com/rebuilt_tyre.jpg on his site, after he has claimed that '... dust would return to fill the void'?


As for not answering charges , has Jason G ever answered the question of why a forged post appeared on Errancy , with a jcsm header and a route showing it came from San Francisco?

The only similarity between Jason and Holding is that both deny what people can see with their own eyes. Holding wrote on his web page about me contacting him, after one of his articles contained fabrications. He then posted on Theology Web a denial that errancy members contacted him about it.

Jason never even looked at the web pages he claims Robyn is misrepresenting , or he would never have lied about Robyn linking to Holding's site.

[stevencarrwork]

Jason G wrote in his first posting :'

'I've been a Christian for over 20 years and I'm working on my Doctorate degree (Th. D.) with an emphasis in Advanced Prophetic Studies, but I've never heard any of those 'theologians.' A common atheistic device is to list aberrant scholars that are so liberal that they don't really believe the Bible (or know the Bible) and use their statements to help their cases. This is weak.'

So Jason G thinks it enough to call them theologians in scare quotes, say he has never heard of them and dismiss them as aberrant.

In his last posting, Jason writes 'First, it is inappropriate for you to dismiss the theologians I mention out of hand. You admittedly know nothing about them. I've debated quite a bit, but you have shown me a new tactic that I won't forget (albeit a poor one): discrediting my sources out of hand while deifying your own sources.'

Poor Jason. Unable to remember what he writes, he vilifies his own posting!

Or perhaps Jason was annoyed that Robyn brought up Missler's belief in UFO's.

[dizzle]

Yesterday @ 08:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=78318#post78318)
DivineOb:

Dee Dee,

Ok. I was just asking about the ex eventu issue because I find the Daniel 9 prophecy among the least convincing bible prophecies I've encountered (ranking up there with Isaiah 7:14), and I got the impression that you were saying that Jason's explanation for this prophecy was convincing, which I found surprising.

Anyway, there you go :P

I do not want to be misunderstood. I find Daniel 9 extraordinarily convincing. I differ however from Jason in some points and would have argued it differently, but in the broader outline, Jason and I would be in agreement.

My whole point was that while I find it a very good prophecy, it would stink as an ex eventu prophecy of the event that Robyn is proposing.

[geebob]

I think the best thing that Jason could do at this point would be to admit that he is in over his head and that he can't do justice to the views that he is trying to defend. Or at least follow the advise of DOB and attempt a more conservative stance and instead of trying to defend every prophecy that Robyn attacks and just argue agianst Robyn's claim that there isn't even one.

Some of these arguements are absolutely horrendous! such as the following.

Is the same science that tells us we came evolved from dirt the science that is telling us about the moon in 32 A.D.? Are these the same evolutionists or am I missing something?

Since when were biologists involved biblical exegesis? What does this have to do with anything?


I also find refference to Robyn's position as atheistic distastful and desperate.

[Jason Gastrich]

advice

against

arguments

reference

distasteful

:eek:

Moderator Note - None of the debate participants are to participate in this thread until the debate is over. Thank you!!

[Woman]

I just find the whole thing almost painful to read.

I commend Robyn for maintaining a higher level of rhetoric, of course it's easier to do when one is winning.

I am very curious about the Jason/steven thing. It's too bad there isn't a simple and fair way to settle it.

My only advice to Jason would be to try to salvage some dignity by being gracious.

Also, isn't Tim Lehaye the "Left Behind" guy? :hrm:

[geebob]

I admit it. I'm something of a slob when it comes to spelling and occasionally outright coherence, (when I haven't reread what I wrote).

[geebob]

and occasionally outright coherence,

By which I meant "occasionally outright incoherent." :doh:

[Socrates]

Geebob:I also find refference to Robyn's position as atheistic distastful and desperate.This is an interesting revelation about Geebob's personal psychology, but not a relevant comment on the debate. I think this was actually a fair representation of Robyn's position for all practical purposes, given his hatred both of Scripture and moral absolutes, and his uncritical parroting of liberals.

Also, Robyn's arguments for the late-dating of the Gospels are more driven by an a priori bias against predictive prophecy, so should not be turned around and used as an argument against it.

[geebob]

...given his hatred both of Scripture...

Great! you're a psycologyst all around.

Whosoever believes in him shall not parish but have everlasting life.

I don't see that any of the major creeds rule out his view of scripture either. To the extent that you should make this a litmus test for the quality of ones faith, you are joining several apologists and theologians in creating a legalism of belief turning christianity into "worldview-anity" where ones faith is judged on how satisfactorily you think his beliefs can be defended from skepticism or something like that.

Also, Robyn's arguments for the late-dating of the Gospels are more driven by an a priori bias against predictive prophecy, so should not be turned around and used as an argument against it.

It seemed to me that it was driven by the reasonable and arguable notion that two of the Gospels made heavy use Mark and that Mark was given a date by an important early church father who lived very close to the time.

Quite frankly, I don't see why it really mattered though as Jason could have insisted that the Gospel's still faithfully recorded the words of Jesus via the oral traditions about Jesus that were around before the destruction of the temple.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

...given his hatred both of Scripture...

Geebob:Great! you're a psycologyst all around.Nope, I've just interacted with him.Whosoever believes in him shall not parish but have everlasting life.

I don't see that any of the major creeds rule out his view of scripture either. To the extent that you should make this a litmus test for the quality of ones faith, you are joining several apologists and theologians in creating a legalism of belief turning christianity into "worldview-anity" where ones faith is judged on how satisfactorily you think his beliefs can be defended from skepticism or something like that.Not at all. It's following James, because we can't see anyone's faith but can only see his works. Anyone who spends all his times plagiarising other websites, arguing for moral relativism, and against Biblical authority, and his supercilous attitude towards anyone who doesn't accept his radical liberalism and snide remarks about Jason's education (even though Robyn was "educated" in the backwater of New Zealand) is hardly showing the work of a Christian.

Also, Robyn's arguments for the late-dating of the Gospels are more driven by an a priori bias against predictive prophecy, so should not be turned around and used as an argument against it.

It seemed to me that it was driven by the reasonable and arguable notion that two of the Gospels made heavy use Mark and that Mark was given a date by an important early church father who lived very close to the time.Isn't it amazing -- making incredibly selective use of a church father who EXPLICITLY stated that Matthew was the first Gospel written.

It's more likely that since Jesus said the same things hundreds of times with minor variations, it was not hard to see why there are similarities and differences between the Synoptics. JP Holding proposes that John was trying to supplement Mark.

Fact is, the absence of mention of the Jerusalem destruction convinced even the liberal John A.T. Robinson that the NT was written before it happened. Matthew in particular never resisted a chance to show that Jesus fulfilled an OT prophecy in some way, sometimes by typology or application. So it's a conspicuous absence that there is not the slightest hint of "and it came to pass as Jesus prophesied".

I recommend the scholarly articles at http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02.html Quite frankly, I don't see why it really mattered though as Jason could have insisted that the Gospel's still faithfully recorded the words of Jesus via the oral traditions about Jesus that were around before the destruction of the temple.That is true, and Dee Dee pointed this out too.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 07:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80368#post80368)
Socrates:

Anyone who spends all his times... and his supercilous attitude towards anyone who doesn't accept his....snide remarks about... education (even though Robyn was "educated" in the backwater of New Zealand) is hardly showing the work of a Christian. Ach Bruder!

Socarates might want to know that Jason is a big fan of Kent Hovind.

[Lazy Agnostic]

It must be a little frustrating for Jason; he can't banish the people who show him his fallibility as he does in his own forum.

[Socrates]

LA: Any proof that Jason is a Hovind fan? It would be worrying if true, but not necessarily any reason to think that he hasn't trusted more reliable sources nearer his own speciality.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 07:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80705#post80705)
Socrates:

LA: Any proof that Jason is a Hovind fan? It would be worrying if true, but not necessarily any reason to think that he hasn't trusted more reliable sources nearer his own speciality.

He has stated so on his messageboard. For example, in this thread http://forum.jcsm.org/jcsmforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=860&SearchTerms=hovind he stated "Danny - Amen on Hovind! I've met him and seen many of his videos. He is a great man of God."

[geebob]

Not at all. It's following James, because we can't see anyone's faith but can only see his works. Anyone who spends all his times plagiarising other websites, arguing for moral relativism, and against Biblical authority, and his supercilous attitude towards anyone who doesn't accept his radical liberalism

It's not following James because Jason did not imply Robyn was an atheist on account of any of those (some of these things could be viewed in another light anyway-for example, he doesn't argue against biblical authority, he argues against how others interpret the authority of scripture). The discussions you've had with Robyn are not the issue here.

The term "atheism" was used in a derogatory fashion as the belief in the existence of God is not in any way the issue. And it was indicted against someone for specific reasons, (of which your list goes beyond) that have nothing to do with the issue of what makes a christian. A view that there are no succesful predictive prophecies does not bar one from being a Christian let alone indicate that he is an atheist. One may have issues with the coherence of such a view with Christianity and that is fair, but coherence is not an essential part of being a christian. I work with mentally handicapped folks and if they had to be coherent to be christians, they'd all go to hell.

and snide remarks about Jason's education (even though Robyn was "educated" in the backwater of New Zealand) is hardly showing the work of a Christian

If Robyn is right, I'd say he may be doing Jason a favor by either sending him in the direction of a better seminary or to have a more humble attitude about the education that he is recieving. Whether it is a christian thing for him to do, I would think depends more on whether he believes that what he is saying is the truth. He's very much right to inform others of the shortcomings of an educational system when that system is held up beyond it's capabilities to educate one to the current state of the studies it professes to train students in. If Robyn is misinformed, then he's making a mistake, a bad one, maybe irritating, but one hardly worthy for judging his faith.

Isn't it amazing -- making incredibly selective use of a church father who EXPLICITLY stated that Matthew was the first Gospel written.

I think it's just as amazing to conclude that his favor for rejecting polycarp on that (if that's what he said) all though trusting him for the date of mark is an a priori rejection of predictive prophecies. Robyn doesn't explain why he doesn't take this church father's word on that and to assume that it is merely for the purpose of bolstering his claim that there are no predictive prophecies is jumping the gun a bit.

as for the rest, it's interesting, I have no strong opinion on the dates of the gospel's and I am not defending Robyn's view. I'm against poor arguementation.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 02:49 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=80713#post80713)
DivineOb:“ Today @ 07:33 AM post located here
Socrates:

LA: Any proof that Jason is a Hovind fan? It would be worrying if true, but not necessarily any reason to think that he hasn't trusted more reliable sources nearer his own speciality.



He has stated so on his messageboard. For example, in this thread http://forum.jcsm.org/jcsmforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=860&SearchTerms=hovind he stated "Danny - Amen on Hovind! I've met him and seen many of his videos. He is a great man of God." Perhaps this should be moved elsewhere to let Jason participate.

Jason declares Kent Hovind to be "a great man of God"; Socrates sees him as less-than-honorable.[my guess as to Socrates' description]

Jason considers himself divinely-indwelt by the Holy Ghost to discern truth which is not apparent to others (e.g.: he claimed he "better translated" Numbers31 than all the accepted translations during his debate with Farrell Till on II Errancy). I presume that Socrates feels a similar claim to divine inspiration.

Why does the Holy Ghost let Christians down in such ways?

[doogieduff]

Sorry to jump in, I haven't read anything previous to this, but I have a question. When Nebuchadnezzar lost the battle against Tyre, God promised him Egypt in Ezek. 29:19-21. Well, this doesn't seem to have happened either...any thoughts?

[Socrates]

LA:Jason declares Kent Hovind to be "a great man of God"; Socrates sees him as less-than-honorable.[my guess as to Socrates' description]No, more like misguided and somewhat stubborn. I never questioned his basic honesty. I endorse this article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp

LA:Jason considers himself divinely-indwelt by the Holy Ghost to discern truth which is not apparent to others (e.g.: he claimed he "better translated" Numbers31 than all the accepted translations during his debate with Farrell Till on II Errancy).I won't just accept your version of events, especially where Feral McTill is concerned.I presume that Socrates feels a similar claim to divine inspiration.Not in the slightest. I rely on the grammatical/historical method and hard study. This doesn't of course preclude the fact that the Holy Spirit works through such means, but my arguments are always based on objective hermeneutical criteria, NEVER a subjective claim of special inspiration. You can see this throughout my posts on TWeb.

[Socrates]

Geebob:A view that there are no succesful predictive prophecies does not bar one from being a Christian let alone indicate that he is an atheist. One must question a person's faith if he denies predictive prophecy, since Jesus Himself claimed to fulfil so many. And it's perfectly reasonable to observe that Robyn is an atheist for all practical purposes. I.e. his view is essentially indistinguishable from atheism in that he denies that God has inspired Scripture or predictive prophecy.

[doogieduff]

I deny some prophesy as being fulfilled, yet I'm still a christian and strong in my faith. Is somebody going to answer my question about Nebuchadnezzar?

[geebob]

One must question a person's faith if he denies predictive prophecy, since Jesus Himself claimed to fulfil so many.

not at all, as there is a question as to what fulfillment ment for the New testament authors, as it is very arguable (as Robyn has argued), that there view of fulfillment was broader than how we view the concept.

perhaps you would argue that that view doesn't hold water. Fine. Christians don't have to understand everything about scripture. As a matter of fact, they don't. there is much in scripture that is mysterious to this day. Heaven forbid we are wrong about something! But I have a feeling that God is more merciful than that.

I.e. his view is essentially indistinguishable from atheism in that he denies that God has inspired Scripture or predictive prophecy.

now that is a flat out misrepresentation. He does not hold the same view of inspiration as others here, but he holds to the infallability of the scriptures.

And again, I see the legalism of belief slipping in here making standards for faith beyond God's.

[stevencarrwork]

Today @ 02:16 AM doogieduff:

When Nebuchadnezzar lost the battle against Tyre, God promised him Egypt in Ezek. 29:19-21. Well, this doesn't seem to have happened either...any thoughts?

I think you are quite correct, although you will have noticed that no Christian is going to answer your question.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Yesterday @ 09:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81468#post81468)
Socrates:


LA:
Jason considers himself divinely-indwelt by the Holy Ghost to discern truth which is not apparent to others (e.g.: he claimed he "better translated" Numbers31 than all the accepted translations during his debate with Farrell Till on II Errancy).

Socrates:
I won't just accept your version of events, especially where Feral McTill is concernedAsk Jason yourself. I expect he will avoid answering.

[geebob]

I think you are quite correct, although you will have noticed that no Christian is going to answer your question.

Some Christians don't have a problem with that notion. I almost don't. Robyn certainly doesn't.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 12:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=81669#post81669)
stevencarrwork:



I think you are quite correct, although you will have noticed that no Christian is going to answer your question.

I agree here, and thanks for somebody finally answering. It's sad how Christians blow off things which aren't congruent with their set of beliefs.

[John Powell]

JASONG (to Robyn):
Your friends (like Farrell Till and John Powell) have already, publicly stated that the prophecy is only off by three days.


POWELL:
You misinterpreted my words, Jason, and I'm quite sure you misinterpreted Farrell's too. :no:

Here's the context:

JASONG (to Robyn):
445 B.C. to 32 A.D. (476 years x 365 days) = 173,740 days

March 14 to April 6 = 24 days

POWELL:
If "from noon March 14 to noon March 15" is one elapsed day then "from noon March 14 to noon April 6" is 23 elapsed days (assuming March has 31 days).

JASONG:
Days In Leap Years = 116 days (119 - 3 = 116)

Total = 173,880 days

(A total of 476 years divided by four (a leap year every four years) gives 119 additional days. However, three days must be subtracted from 119 because centennial years are not leap years, though every 400th year is a leap year.)

POWELL:
This is close if the assumptions are correct. The tropical year is about 365.2422 days / year, but that's pretty close to the Gregorian assumption of 365.2425 days / year.

476 years x 365.2425 days/yr = 173.855.4 days
If you add 24 days this becomes 173,879.4 days.

JASONG:
Gabriel's prophecy, given to Daniel five centuries before it's fulfillment and translated into Greek three centuries before, was fulfilled to the exact day!

POWELL:
If you only add 23 elapsed days, apparently you could be off by 1.6 days.

More importantly, if you add an extra SEVEN YEARS suggested by the "true" or tropical length of the year then that would put the event around 39 A.D.


POWELL:
In a later post, I used two different calendar programs to output the JDN's for Nisan 1, 445 B.C. which you assumed was the beginning date for the prophecy and Nisan 10, 32 A.D. which you assumed was the ending date of the prophecy.

POWELL:
If you subtract the JDN for Nisan 1 in 445 B.C. from Nisan 10 in 32 A.D. using either the Fourmilab or Geocities values, you obtain a difference of 173887 days.


POWELL:
Even later, I noticed you were mistaken on some Hebrew to Gregorian assignments, but credit should be given to Robyn / Chris Ellwood or someone else for realizing that you probably adopted Anderson's Julian dates thinking they were Gregorian.

POWELL:
Summary:

Jason seems to be incorrect on 4 significant claims.

1. Nisan 1 in 445 B.C. was Mar 14 on the Gregorian calendar.

2. Nisan 10 in 32 A.D. was Apr 6 on the Gregorian calendar.

3. Nisan 10 in 32 A.D. occurred on a Sunday.

4. The number of days from Nisan 1 in 445 B.C. to Nisan 10 in 32 A.D. is 173880.

I believe that Jason would have been less likely to make these mistakes if he had used JDN's.


POWELL:
My conclusions appear to have been that

1. The number of solar days in 476 tropical years + 24 solar days is within a day of the 173,880 days Jason claimed. This is NOT a concession that the prophecy was fulfilled to within 3 days! It's not even a concession that the beginning and ending dates work. It's saying that if the assumptions are correct, including the outrageous 360-day year claim, then the number of days is correct to within about 1 day.

2. (69 x 7) tropical years after 445 B.C. would be 39 A.D. This IS a suggestion that the prophecy is at least 7 years off even if the assumed start date and "weeks of years" assumption is conceded. It rejects the 360-day year assumption.

3. The number of days between the assumed start and end dates, 1 Nisan 445 B.C. and 10 Nisan 32 A.D. is 173887 days, not 173880 days. This IS a suggestion that even if you allow for the beginning and ending Hebrew dates, the numbers are off from what was claimed by 7 days. Perhaps it was Robyn / Chris who suggested this additional error of 4 days beyond the erroneous 3 leap days used by Anderson was because Anderson miscalculated the time of the new moon.

4. You were wrong about the Gregorian dates for Nisan 1, 445 B.C. and Nisan 10, 32 A.D., and on what day of the week Nisan 10, 32 A.D. was.

Again, Jason, please don't claim that I am supporting the idea that Daniel 9 was fulfilled to within 3 days.

John Powell

[Jason Gastrich]

Powell,

If you could give a succinct answer, then you wouldn't be misunderstood and misquoted.

Till gave one sentence: "The best ones are those that used Julian Day Numbers to show that Anderson's count was off three days."

http://www.topica.com/lists/ii_errancy/read/message.html?mid=806227955&sort=d&start=19490

If you go there, you'll see Till's statement is a response to "Trent." This is the "Robyn" I'm debating. He went to Till for guidance.

JG

[DivineOb]

Jason,

Just so you know, you're aren't allowed to post in this thread until the debate is over.

That said, I don't see how it rescues anything if the dating is only off by three days... we're talking about the inerrant word of god here, and it already takes an incredible amount of textual and mathematical gymnastics to even get to the point where the prophecy is only off by three days...

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I'm sorry if I tempted you to violate the rules here, Jason. That was not my intention.

I know I tend to get verbose. I'm sorry. The succinct answer was given as the opening and ending statements of my post. The body of my post contained the long details.

Since I seem to have your attention, Jason, let me encourage you again to use JDN's for any prophecy claimed to be fulfilled "to the day."

Also, I think you should admit to the errors you made as you go on to present new prophecies for consideration. Remember that whether you fail personally does not mean God does not exist nor even that Biblical prophecies were not fulfilled.

I read some of what Robyn / Trent / Chris Ellwood wrote at II Errancy recently. You're right that he asked for some information about how Farrell had debated the Dan 9 issue in the past. However, it looked to me like he didn't really need that information to adequately rebut your claims.

Nevertheless, more importantly, I'm sure Farrell would confirm that it is NOT his contention that Daniel 9 was fulfilled to within 3 days. Rather he would say something like Anderson was 3 days off in his calculations even allowing for most of his flawed assumptions.

John Powell

[Lazy Agnostic]

I have no talent at conjuring conjectures concerning the intent of Scripture's original authors but I'm getter better at exegeting Jason's words.

JASON:
"Therefore, we must assume that you aren’t adding correctly. Nonetheless, for the sake of having YOU admit there is a prophecy that has been predictive and fulfilled in reality, we should move on because I’m convinced that YOU are very convinced that YOU are right and wasting any more time on this with you would be foolishness."

Which can be read to reveal: "<Oh no, I've let myself be bedazzled by someone else's number crunching again. I must resort to a painted-corner dodge>

[the dodge translated] "You know you're wrong---it's obvious to everyone here, of intellectual integrity, that you're wrong---I just can't, as a man who honors honesty, allow myself to offer tacit approval of such flagrant flouting of forthrightness.

"If you're next address to the topic is neither conciliatory nor acceding, I will declare an assaultful besmirching of my personhood and I will recalcitrantly and rightfully refuse to reply .

"I'm sorry, you (and your godless inculcators) have forced my hand. I will banish you with an unsubstantiated charge of continually refusing to respect others.

"You still have time to repair your relationship with God but I've now had enough."


The following was from Jason's forum, two months ago:

JASON:
This Hebrew word "forever" is better translated "concealed the vanishing point". A better translation is this: "One generation passes away and another generation comes, but the Earth stands and it's vanishing point is concealed." No, the Earth won't last forever.

REBECCA:
Please explain where you found l'olam means "concealed the vanishing point."

REBECCA continues:
From Stongs Concordance. OLAM
1) long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

a) ancient time, long time (of past)

b) (of future)

1) for ever, always

2) continuous existence, perpetual

3) everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity

JASON:
Rebecca - The Strong's Hebrew dictionary gave me the following definition:

"Olam" (H5769) - from "alam" (H5956); properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point;

I'm fairly certain this defintion was given because of the root word "alam" (and possibly because of the context, too).

"Alam" - A primitive root; to veil from sight, that is, conceal (literally or figuratively)

REBECCA:
Alam *ayin lamed mem* is translated as conceal. I checked 2 Hebrew dictionaries, Stongs and Hebrew Chaldee Lexicon - *olam ayin vav lamed* mem is translated time everlasting, eternity.

The deriviation from the root alam is "a hidden/concealed time" a time in the unknown future or past. The idea in the verse is that the earth/the land will abide until an unknowable/concealed time in the future.

JASON:
This word is used A LOT in the Old Testament. I just searched about 10% of it's occurences.

1 Samuel 27:8 reads, "And David and his men went up and raided the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites. For those nations were the inhabitants of the land from of old, as you go to Shur, even as far as the land of Egypt."

This word that is translated into "forever" in Ecclesiastes 1:4 is the same word that is translated into "old", here. I'm sure you can see that translating "olam" as "forever" would render this passage nonsensical. These people didn't live there forever. They lived there for a long time.

REBECCA:
Did you read my last post? I said "The derivation from the root alam is "a hidden/concealed time" a time in the unknown future or past.

The idea in the verse in Ecclesiastes 1.4 is that the earth/the land will abide until an unknowable/concealed time in the future."

The idea in 1 Samuel 27:8 "from of old" is from a hidden/unknowable time in the past.

This is a better translation than "concealed the vanishing point".

JASON:
Rebecca,
I see what you're saying now. Thanks for your exegetical input.

LA:
Does Jason's discussion with Rebecca have any bearing on the debate with Robyn?

[dizzle]

Jason, please note this notice placed at the beginning of this thread and in my prior notice to you earlier in this thread:

Please note that debate participants are not permitted to post in the comments thread for their particular debates until such debate is over. At that time, they are free to post and address any spectator commentary that they choose.

Thank you.

[geebob]

I haven't read Jason's post yet.

Robyn has posted some arguements that I pretty much disagree with now.

Matthew and Luke write 50 years after Jesus’ death. And they write both about the prediction and the fulfillment in the same book. Do you really think this is convincing proof of a prediction coming true, Jason? The same narrator asserts both ‘prediction’ and ‘fulfillment’!

why not. The question isn't the reliability of the author, it's on predictive prophecies. So assuming that the author is reliable which I do, and assuming that reliable means that if the author places something in the mouth of Jesus, it is because Jesus said essentially that at some point, we have an excellent example of prophecy and fulfillment. Of course that isn't proof to someone who won't accept those two assumptions, (I would assume that Robyn would accept the first but not the second) but that is a whole other ball game.

[geebob]

2nd post. scroll up.

I just realized why that might not work. An example of where the author puts words into Jesus mouth may not be what he actually said would be in the example of his last words. Most evangelicals are going to insist that he said all three, but the fact is that it is too reasonable that he didn't. And the explanation as to why the authors did this is that they were giving theological biographies.

Thus Jesus prophecy of his death and resurrection could be meant to convey the truth that he knew where he was going and what the plan was.

[DivineOb]

So I guess when Jason said "Would you mind telling us why you got such a similar site and decided to spoof Holding’s site?" after discovering that Robyn owned tektonics.com he thought it was wrong to do something like that... but, it didn't take long for him to change his mind and register http://theinfidelguy.com and point it to jcsm.org.

Shame... shame and hypocrisy...

[dizzle]

Well IIRC there was some talk here earlier about worldviews etcetera and the criteria for Christianity... well Robyn just denied the resurrection. He may have a nice "religion" but it ain't Christianity. So while Jason was incorrect in labeling Robyn as an "atheist" - he was not incorrect that Robyn is outside the faith. I am not trying to be insulting or demeaning.

And Robyn's objection on the "coming" of Christ was wrong, of course, coming from my preterist view. Jason was wrong on that point as well.

[Socrates]

Socrated:

I.e. his [Robyn Banx'] view is essentially indistinguishable from atheism in that he denies that God has inspired Scripture or predictive prophecy.

Geebob (post#43 ) replied: now that is a flat out misrepresentation. He does not hold the same view of inspiration as others here, but he holds to the infallability of the scriptures.Watch it bud before you accuse anyone of misrepresentation :fight: Robyn has OFTEN spruiked forth typical liberal nonsense accusing the Bible of errors. A while ago he got the worst of an argument against Jaltus, since Robyn was disputing Jaltus's correct contention that inspiration entails inerrancy. And in this debate, Robyn has spluttered www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=85728#post85728 :

Furthermore, you fall for the Fundamentalist False Dichotomy. The Fundamentalist False Dichotomy can only see two options for the question of inaccuracies in the Gospels: either the author is correct, or he deliberately lied. However, there is a further option – and one that disproves the Fundamentalist False Dichotomy. The author may have honestly believed in the inaccuracies he was writing, honestly accepting the traditions handed down to him, and honestly handing them on to other followers. For a person writing within a strong community such as the early church, this is clearly more likely. There was no “willful lie” by Luke. If these writers were martyred, as the later traditions assert, it is because the writers honestly (though incorrectly) believed what they were saying was correct.

One example in my own encounters was his persistent claim that the Bible teaches a flat earth and geocentrism. Of course he is dead wrong on the first, and on the second he is simply ignorant of elementary physics (reference frames) -- and he was incorrigibly ignorant so I stopped arguing the point.

I have a lot of experience in seeing through the mellifluous words of liberals. It also helps greatly to have studied Gresham Machen's Christianity and Liberalism (note the intentional contrast!) and Francis Schaeffer's The Great Evangelical Disaster (which showed that Biblical inerrancy is a watershed issue). Professing Christians who deny so many Christian doctrines, and this includes most dogmatic theistic evolutionists, can be shown up for the heretics they are with the right tightly worded questions. But I've seen it so often that asking those questions is almost superfluous because they have given themselves away much earlier.

And now Robyn has proven me and Jason right by denying the Resurrection. And just so Geebob doesn't falsely accuse me of misrepresentation again, Robyn plainly said www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=85728#post85728 "Yes, I deny that Jesus was resurrected." Dee Dee is right that denial of the Resurrection disqualifies anyone from being a Christian. What sez Geebob?

[geebob]

Dee Dee

Well IIRC there was some talk here earlier about worldviews etcetera and the criteria for Christianity... well Robyn just denied the resurrection. He may have a nice "religion" but it ain't Christianity.

He's way out of orthodoxy on that one. He's christian in the sense that there are christian cults, ie cults based on christianity, that you could not call bhudist or islamic, cults that consider Jesus central, but If what is meant by a christian is that God looks on him as one of his own, I'm not willing to make that judgment on what I deem as something that is clearly a mistake, even a serious one. Clear is in the sense of disagreeing with the what the traditional church has considered central. Admittedly, it may not be so clear from the historical and exegetical picture (exegetical from a more critical stance that does not hold to the more conservative views of infallibility) and that is not the sense that I mean.

But as I'm not willing to make that judgement against him, I am also not willing to make that judgement for him. It is a very serious break with orthodoxy even if he could defend it on historical grounds.

BTW, what is IIRC

So while Jason was incorrect in labeling Robyn as an "atheist" - he was not incorrect that Robyn is outside the faith.

If you're willing to give him the credit on luck. Robyn didn't deny the ressurection until this recent post and I don't consider that what he wrote before necessarily leads to his conclusion that there was no ressurection.


Soc,
A while ago he got the worst of an argument against Jaltus, since Robyn was disputing Jaltus's correct contention that inspiration entails inerrancy.

I participated in that discussion, if we are talking about the same one. I don't think Jaltus made his case as well as you think he did.

[Socrates]

DDW:

Well IIRC there was some talk here earlier about worldviews etcetera and the criteria for Christianity... well Robyn just denied the resurrection. He may have a nice "religion" but it ain't Christianity.

Geebob:He's way out of orthodoxy on that one. He's christian in the sense that there are christian cults, ie cults based on christianity, that you could not call bhudist or islamic, cults that consider Jesus central, but If what is meant by a christian is that God looks on him as one of his own, I'm not willing to make that judgment on what I deem as something that is clearly a mistake, even a serious one. Clear is in the sense of disagreeing with the what the traditional church has considered central. Admittedly, it may not be so clear from the historical and exegetical picture (exegetical from a more critical stance that does not hold to the more conservative views of infallibility) and that is not the sense that I mean. I am willing to make a judgment that Robyn is a liberal heretic not a Christian, because the Bible is very clear that the Resurrection is essential for the Christian faith. WFJs who take non-judgmentalism to a level way beyond the Scriptures are a large factor in why liberalism has taken over so many denominations. But Jesus was against only hypocritical judgment; He commanded righteous judgment (John 7:24).

DDW:So while Jason was incorrect in labeling Robyn as an "atheist" - he was not incorrect that Robyn is outside the faith.

Geebob:If you're willing to give him the credit on luck. Robyn didn't deny the ressurection until this recent post and I don't consider that what he wrote before necessarily leads to his conclusion that there was no ressurection.As I said, more experienced people can usually spot liberals.

I also think that Jason was not correct about Robyn being an atheist. Scratch further past Robyn's typical liberal obfuscations, and you'd likely find that he doesn't believe in God in any normal sense of a Creator distinct from His creation and who brought it into existence.

Soc:

A while ago he got the worst of an argument against Jaltus, since Robyn was disputing Jaltus's correct contention that inspiration entails inerrancy.

Geebob:I participated in that discussion, if we are talking about the same one. I don't think Jaltus made his case as well as you think he did.I don't think Robyn makes his case for liberal heresy as well as you evidently think he does. But you illustrate very well why Open Theism is generally regarded outside the evangelical tradition.

[dizzle]

Today @ 08:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86756#post86756)
geebob:

Dee Dee



He's way out of orthodoxy on that one. He's christian in the sense that there are christian cults, ie cults based on christianity, that you could not call bhudist or islamic, cults that consider Jesus central, but If what is meant by a christian is that God looks on him as one of his own, I'm not willing to make that judgment on what I deem as something that is clearly a mistake, even a serious one. Clear is in the sense of disagreeing with the what the traditional church has considered central. Admittedly, it may not be so clear from the historical and exegetical picture (exegetical from a more critical stance that does not hold to the more conservative views of infallibility) and that is not the sense that I mean.

I am sorry if this sounds really strong geebob but that is just plain messed up. The resurrection is core to Christianity as Paul make clear. If Christ is not risen, we are dead in our sins. He defeated sin and death. There is nothing even remotely resembling Christianity if the resurrection is removed. I don't care if such uses Christian terms or the Bible, a LOT of people do, and Muslims do accept the Bible to a point.

But as I'm not willing to make that judgement against him, I am also not willing to make that judgement for him. It is a very serious break with orthodoxy even if he could defend it on historical grounds.

Well Paul would be willing, and I follow Paul as he followed Christ. We are to be discerning. It is not just a break with "orthodoxy" it is a break from the underpinnings of the faith. Paul condemned as damned heretics Hymeneaus and Philetus for claiming that our resurrection was past, how much more so for claiming that Christ's never happened.

BTW, what is IIRC

Sorry, I just learned that one and am kind of over-using it.... it is "if I remember correctly."


If you're willing to give him the credit on luck. Robyn didn't deny the ressurection until this recent post and I don't consider that what he wrote before necessarily leads to his conclusion that there was no ressurection.

You may be right. I bet you he also denies the diety of Christ another issue that squarely places someone outside the faith. There is no salvation without the resurrection and without the deity of Christ. I say that unabashedly and from the mountaintops.

[dizzle]

Soc:

I also think that Jason was not correct about Robyn being an atheist. Scratch further past Robyn's typical liberal obfuscations, and you'd likely find that he doesn't believe in God in any normal sense of a Creator distinct from His creation and who brought it into existence.


I had not thought of that to be honest. Perhaps you are right, but that still does not make one an atheist. Any concept of "God" disqualifies someone from being an atheist unless it simply us or nature redefined as "God."

[Lazy Agnostic]

Dee Dee and Socretes,

I'm not good at following the veracity/soundness of debates. Could you speak to the points made; it seems to me Jason is not doing a good job. Would you agree?

[geebob]

Soc,

But Jesus was against only hypocritical judgment; He commanded righteous judgment (John 7:24).

And I'm against reckless judgement. My caution is for caution's sake and not because I have something against the notion of judgment.

I don't think Robyn makes his case for liberal heresy as well as you evidently think he does. But you illustrate very well why Open Theism is generally regarded outside the evangelical tradition.

:troll:


Dee Dee,

If Christ is not risen, we are dead in our sins.

I agree. What scripture are we specifically dealing with here?

If Christ is not raised from the dead, then we are dead in our sins. Christ has been raised from the dead, thus we may be saved. Now whether Robyn knows whether or not Christ has been raised from the dead, that is a different subject, and what that means for his salvation, that is a different subject.

I don't care if such uses Christian terms or the Bible, a LOT of people do,

certainly,
I heard a speaker at my college talk about the persecuted church. He said their main criteria was this. Do you love Jesus, and do you follow him. Perhaps Robyn respects Jesus as a great teacher and if that's all, then I have nothing more to say in his defence as a christian, and istead would say "repent and believe!" of course, as far as the topic is concerned, and other topics, if and when the man is right, he is right. Truth is truth even if an atheist utters it. (and that last comment isn't exactly meant to respond to the quote above, but I felt it is relevent over all, as Robyn has been in general mopping the floor with Jason).

Paul condemned as damned heretics Hymeneaus and Philetus for claiming that our resurrection was past, how much more so for claiming that Christ's never happened.

I would like to know more about their heresy because if there is a qualitative difference then I don't see that you could hold this so rigidly. That the resurection is over may be a reason to lose hope. ie The ressurection is over and you missed it. That Jesus is not raised from the dead does not necessarily lead to this. Yes Jesus is more important, but God is merciful and even if we are mistaken about him, as long as those mistakes do not interfere with his work in us, (such as severing our hope) our salvation is assured.

Keep in mind though, I agree that this is a serious error even if it could be demontrated to be founded on decent historical and exegetical concerns. It is against what the unified church held up central and I believe that the holy spirit was in that, thus I interpret scriptures through that lense.

[Socrates]

DDW:You may be right. I bet you he also denies the diety of Christ another issue that squarely places someone outside the faith. There is no salvation without the resurrection and without the deity of Christ. I say that unabashedly and from the mountaintops.And I would join you wholeheartedly. One can deny many things and be in error but still be a Christian. But these two are so foundational that one is outside the fold if one denies it.

And as Schaeffer pointed out, liberalism triumphed largely because conservatives did NOT follow the Biblical command of church discipline by throwing the liberals out of the Church. And of course, when liberals gained ascendency, we saw how "there's no one as illiberal as a liberal in power", e.g. they threw out the outsrtanding Conservative scholar Gresham Machen.

Therefore I will also opposed today's WFJs who fail to apply righteous judgment against rank heretics, thus contradicting Jesus's command in John 7:24.

Soc:

I also think that Jason was not correct about Robyn being an atheist. Scratch further past Robyn's typical liberal obfuscations, and you'd likely find that he doesn't believe in God in any normal sense of a Creator distinct from His creation and who brought it into existence.

DDW replied:I had not thought of that to be honest. Perhaps you are right, but that still does not make one an atheist. Any concept of "God" disqualifies someone from being an atheist unless it simply us or nature redefined as "God."I was using a wider meaning of the term, for one who denies the existence of a creator God.

Added: According to what Robyn tells me, "I believe that there is a Creator-God which is separate from existence, and transcends it", I have to say now that DDW was correct and I was not.

[John Powell]

GEEBOB:
I heard a speaker at my college talk about the persecuted church. He said their main criteria was this. Do you love Jesus, and do you follow him. Perhaps Robyn respects Jesus as a great teacher and if that's all, then I have nothing more to say in his defence as a christian, and istead would say "repent and believe!" of course, as far as the topic is concerned, and other topics, if and when the man is right, he is right. Truth is truth even if an atheist utters it. (and that last comment isn't exactly meant to respond to the quote above, but I felt it is relevent over all, as Robyn has been in general mopping the floor with Jason).

DDW:
You may be right. I bet you he also denies the diety of Christ another issue that squarely places someone outside the faith. There is no salvation without the resurrection and without the deity of Christ. I say that unabashedly and from the mountaintops.

SOCRATES:
And I would join you wholeheartedly. One can deny many things and be in error but still be a Christian. But these two are so foundational that one is outside the fold if one denies it.


POWELL:
Just as I would think it wrong to deny being theists or "believers in God" those who believe in Allah or Vishnu or Ra or Zeus merely because they do not believe in the true God or do not have a correct understanding of the attributes and such of God, likewise I think it wrong to deny the right to those who want to be called Christians merely on the argument that their beliefs about Jesus are wrong.

The definition for Christian that I currently prefer is

One who believes that the Jesus of the Bible is God or a god.

The primary reason that I like this definition is because it seems to INCLUDE everyone who wants to be included as a Christian (e.g., trinitarians, Mormons who believe Jesus is one of the Godhead, and JW's who believe Jesus is a significantly lesser deity) and EXCLUDES everyone who doesn't want to be called a Christian (e.g., Messianic Jews who believe Jesus was the messiah, but not deity; Muslims who believe Jesus was a prophet; others who believe Jesus was a great teacher even if they "love him and follow him," but don't think he was deity).

This definition allows for a person who believes that Jesus was God, but was not physically resurrected, to be a Christian. It also allows for someone who believes the Bible to be filled with errors about Jesus, yet Jesus was God, to be a Christian.

However, it does not allow for someone who believes Jesus was a mere mortal inspired by God to be called a Christian. That person would be a theist, however.

If Robyn wants to be considered a Christian, but does not consider Jesus to be God or a god then perhaps my definition is not advisable.

John Powell

[Socrates]

John Powell:likewise I think it wrong to deny the right to those who want to be called Christians merely on the argument that their beliefs about Jesus are wrong.Conversely, I think Christians have a right to say who their co-religionists are.(e.g., Messianic Jews who believe Jesus was the messiah, but not deity;FYI, the main organisations calling themselves Messianic Jews, e.g. Jews for Jesus and Ariel Ministries www.ariel.org DO believe in the deity of Christ.

[John Powell]

POWELL:
I was going on what only one or two websites were saying where the Messianic Jews were not wanting to be called Christians and were not believing that Jesus was God. I assumed this would be the case for all self-proclaimed Messianic Jews, otherwise they would likely call themselves "Christian Jews" or something like that.

You're right about this Ariel site. They even believe Jesus is part of the triune God.

I sent them an email.

I may have to revise my definition of Christian if they don't want to be considered Christians.

John Powell

[Socrates]

POWELL:I was going on what only one or two websites were saying where the Messianic Jews were not wanting to be called Christians and were not believing that Jesus was God. :hrm: They seem to be an aberration.I assumed this would be the case for all self-proclaimed Messianic Jews, otherwise they would likely call themselves "Christian Jews" or something like that.Not necessarily, because of the very thing we are talking about -- the negative connotations to many Jews because of people they consider as "Christians". So they avoid the term because of that. And since the Greek Christos is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "Messiah" (really Maschiach), the term "Messianic" is most understandable.You're right about this Ariel site. They even believe Jesus is part of the triune God. Yes, they are spot on.I sent them an email.

I may have to revise my definition of Christian if they don't want to be considered Christians. They would have no problem with that. The founder, Dr Arnold Fruchtenbaum, normally calls himself a Hebrew Christian, but also has no problem with being called a Messianic Jew.

[Socrates]

Soc:

A while ago he got the worst of an argument against Jaltus, since Robyn was disputing Jaltus's correct contention that inspiration entails inerrancy.

Geebob (post#59 ):I participated in that discussion, if we are talking about the same one. I don't think Jaltus made his case as well as you think he did.But GB, it didn't occur to me that you could have participated. Because now this earlier statement of yours puzzles me even more:(post#43 ) but he [RB] holds to the infallability of the scriptures.Seemed pretty clear from RB's obfuscations with Jaltus that there's no way he could believe in the infallability of the scriptures.

[DivineOb]

So did Robyn agree to extend the debate? If not, Jason is (once again) in violation of the rules by introducing significant new material into his closing post.

[dizzle]

I am waiting to see how this hashes out. If Robyn does not agree to extend the debate, Jason's post will be deleted, and he will need to craft an appropriate conclusion.

[dizzle]

Today @ 12:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=86953#post86953)
geebob:

Soc,



And I'm against reckless judgement. My caution is for caution's sake and not because I have something against the notion of judgment.



:troll:


Dee Dee,



I agree. What scripture are we specifically dealing with here?

John 14:6, Romans 10:9-10, 1 Cor 15:1-4, 14-19

If Christ is not raised from the dead, then we are dead in our sins. Christ has been raised from the dead, thus we may be saved.

Not if we deny it with full knowledge of what we are saying. I am not getting even into the inclusivism issue, for it does not apply here.

Now whether Robyn knows whether or not Christ has been raised from the dead, that is a different subject, and what that means for his salvation, that is a different subject.

Well that is the subject I was on. I without any hesitation disqualify from the Christian faith anyone who denies the resurrection and/or denies the deity of Christ.

certainly,
I heard a speaker at my college talk about the persecuted church. He said their main criteria was this. Do you love Jesus, and do you follow him.

And they are wrong. You cannot truly love the "real" Jesus, the Jesus of the Bible, and deny that He has been raised and is very God.

Perhaps Robyn respects Jesus as a great teacher and if that's all, then I have nothing more to say in his defence as a christian, and istead would say &quot;repent and believe!&quot;

Amen.

of course, as far as the topic is concerned, and other topics, if and when the man is right, he is right. Truth is truth even if an atheist utters it. (and that last comment isn't exactly meant to respond to the quote above, but I felt it is relevent over all, as Robyn has been in general mopping the floor with Jason).

I agree, a right comment is a right comment, no matter who says it.

I would like to know more about their heresy because if there is a qualitative difference then I don't see that you could hold this so rigidly.

There is not. For more information read my article at www.tektonics.org/hythere.html

That the resurection is over may be a reason to lose hope. ie The ressurection is over and you missed it. That Jesus is not raised from the dead does not necessarily lead to this.

Respectfully Geebob, Paul disagrees with you. Paul in 1 Cor 15 states that if Christ is not risen, neither are we. And with Hymenaeaus takes that logic in reverse to condemn them.

Yes Jesus is more important, but God is merciful and even if we are mistaken about him, as long as those mistakes do not interfere with his work in us, (such as severing our hope) our salvation is assured.

Verses please? We are judged by the light we have. Of whom much is given, much is required.

Keep in mind though, I agree that this is a serious error even if it could be demontrated to be founded on decent historical and exegetical concerns.

Which it is not and rips the very heart out of Christianity.

[Lazy Agnostic]

I really would like to see Socrates' and Dee Dee's opinions regarding how Jason handled himself on this debate.

[DivineOb]

Today @ 05:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87798#post87798)
Lazy Agnostic:

I really would like to see Socrates' and Dee Dee's opinions regarding how Jason handled himself on this debate.

I would too...

Do you guys really find it an amazing prophecy fulfilment that Jesus said no one could predict when he would return, and, after 2000 years, he's right on time?

[dizzle]

Today @ 12:59 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87798#post87798)
Lazy Agnostic:

I really would like to see Socrates' and Dee Dee's opinions regarding how Jason handled himself on this debate.

I have not read the whole debate but only selected portions that became necessary during my moderation duties so I could not give a fair appraisal. I have already commented that I would not have defended Daniel 9 in the same manner as Jason, nor would I have tied prophecies about Jerusalem to modern times. I am a preterist so my view of prophecy is going to be radically different from Jason's, and I am conservative orthodox Christian so my view of Scripture is radically different from Robryn's. In other words, I don't really have a horse in this race. I have not yet completely and thoroughly read through any Gym debate here, except, believe it or not, the one on trolling because my admin duties have just kept me too busy. I am planning on printing out the completed ones and giving them a thorough read and keeping them for future reference.

[dizzle]

Today @ 01:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=87806#post87806)
DivineOb:



I would too...

Do you guys really find it an amazing prophecy fulfilment that Jesus said no one could predict when he would return, and, after 2000 years, he's right on time?

I am a preterist. I did not thoroughly read that section because it would not interest me. However, even from a futurist view which I can still defend having once held it, your statement does not show a problem.

I know Robyn from other threads to be a very good debater. I would be surprised if he were not a very good debater in here, so if indeed he has dominated the debate, it would not surprise me in the least. However, of course, I can admit that and still say that Robyn is utterly wrong, but simply a much better debater. I once had a featured debate with a futurist, and many futurists voted for me winning the debate, not because they thought I was right, simply because I utterly manhandled my opponenet because I was a better debater.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Jason,
Overcome the urge to answer right away. Don't just assume the thoughts that pop into your head are from the Holy Spirit; that is what caused you to embarrass yourself in your "lost debate/found debate/edited debate" with Doug Krueger.

I'm not sure why Robyn agreed to extend this debate with you; he had already won it---perhaps he knew you would ignore the loss and claim victory if he were to walk away at the agreed-upon finish. He's given you another chance to display your dubious brand of exegesis, unabashed evasive tactics, ad hoc translations, and your Could-it-be-remotely-possible harmonizations---don't let us down, Jason.

[dizzle]

Well I have not read entirely again the whole posts... time is so limited, but from what I have seen Robyn is not doing well with Isaiah 53 whatsoever. This is an area I have debated myself, and his arguments are poor and lack depth and full of a priori assumptions. I find Robyn's a priori committment to NO predictive prophecy problematic and puzzling in light of his professed theism, which I am agreeing at this point is practical atheism though he acknowledges a "god" of some type. I can call a rock a donut but that don't make it so it if aint' even edible.

[Socrates]

05-17-2003 @ 09:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=99261#post99261)
Lazy Agnostic:

Jason,
....

I'm not sure why Robyn agreed to extend this debate with you; he had already won it---perhaps he knew you would ignore the loss and claim victory if he were to walk away at the agreed-upon finish. He's given you another chance to display your dubious brand of exegesis, unabashed evasive tactics, ad hoc translations, and your Could-it-be-remotely-possible harmonizations---don't let us down, Jason.

Nice elephant hurl, as we have come to expect from Lazy Agnostic. Won in whose opinion? Yours? As if that counts for anything. All I saw was Robyn's display of anti-supernaturalistic presupositionalism, which LA shares.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Which means it's all a matter of opinion---not anywhere close to "perfectly clear".

I am not anti-supernaturalistic; I just can't allow myself to sacrifice the Creator's gift of Reason on an altar of myth and superstition. If it were the work of an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful deity intent on edifying His precious creations we wouldn't need an avaricious, celebrity-preacher wannabe to explain it to us.

[dizzle]

Robyn has written me to complain about some of my commentary here (as he has several times for it apparenly disturbs him to be contradicted), but has corrected something that I said, and that is that I believe he has a priori committment to no supernatural prophecy. He says that he denied that in his opening post, so I will rephrase my statement to more accurately reflect this as I never intended to make an incorrect statement and have said repeatedly that I have not read this whole debate. Robyn may claim not to have such an a priori committment which he does in fact claim, but seeing his denial of some fairly blatant examples and his support of the most liberal of scholarship, IMHO (and I am entiteld to my opinion) I believe that is a statement without substance. Practically it all works out the same.

[dizzle]

Robyn appeals to authority ad nauseum and claims it trumps Jason's appeal to authority cause his scholars are the "majority" (and I dispute that but that is irrelevant to what I am saying). Jason cites Jesus as an authority to Robyn (who claims the name of Christ - but denies every cardinal doctrine of the faith), who brushes that off as weak. That is sickening sad.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Neither Robyn’s nor Jason’s citation of scholarly opinions are necessarily fallacious. Regarding the Appeal to Authority, Copi writes in Introduction to Logic, “This method of argumentation is not always strictly fallacious, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of his competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence.”

Robyn has pointed out that Isaiah explicitly identifies the servant with the nation of Israel, and explained how the imagery throughout chapter 53 is perfectly consistent with this. He’s answered all Jason’s text-based objections, at least through Round 9 (I haven’t yet had a chance to read Jason’s final post). Robyn’s citing of authorities is for the legitimate purpose of showing that these are not merely his private readings, but the dominant view of mainstream scholars in the field.

All this has forced Jason into the dubious defense that Isaiah 53 must be a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus, despite all the contrary evidence that Robyn has delineated, because Jesus and the NT writers say it is. This is not a legitimate appeal to authority because Jason hasn’t shown that these individuals were recognized hermeneutic scholars. Robyn’s argument that Jason’s “authorities” were using a loose hermeneutic is simply icing on the cake. All he has to do to win the debate is identify Jason’s tactic as fallacious.

Jason’s position is even more problematic when seen in terms of apologetics. Christian fundamentalists measure the truth of a claim by its correspondence to what God has revealed in the Bible. But lurking always below the surface is the problem of why we should believe the Bible in the first place. The most common attempted solution is: Because of all the valid predictive prophecies it contains. But by analyzing the text of these claimed prophecies to show why they’re not valid, Robyn has disarmed Jason of this rhetorical weapon. Instead of using fulfilled prophecy to establish the literal truth of the Bible, Jason has to assume the literal truth of the Bible (i.e. the infallibility of Jesus and the NT writers) in order to defend the claim that it contains fulfilled prophecy.

We "know" the Bible is true because of its fulfilled prophecy -- specifically Isaiah 53. We "know" Isaiah 53 is a fulfilled prophecy because the New Testament tells us so.

No one not already a fundamentalist has been given any reason by Jason (at least through Round 9) to believe the Bible contains any fulfilled prophecies, including Isaiah 53.

Robin Goodfellow

[Robin Goodfellow]

Today @ 12:12 AM
Jason G:

In order to demonstrate the congruent and coherent argument I’ve given for Isaiah 53, I encourage you to read my web page on it. It is extremely telling and easy to read. Link: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/Isaiah53.htm

Is this a legitimate debate tactic? It seems to me it gives an unfair advantage to those with websites, by freeing them from the 24K limit.

Robin Goodfellow

[Robin Goodfellow]

Today @ 12:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=108697#post108697)
Jason G:

Isaiah 53 is a biblical, predictive prophecy that came true in reality. If a person wants to assert otherwise, then they contradict Jesus Christ, all of the New Testament authors (except Jude’s omission

This raises some interesting questions.

Do fundamentalists consider it legitimate to even attempt an open-minded textual analysis of Isaiah 53 to ascertain whether it's a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus, since Jesus and the NT authors long ago settled the question?

Must fundamentalist Bible scholars arrive at this pre-ordained exegesis, regardless of the textual evidence?

If so, how unbiased could textual analyses of that chapter by fundamentalist Christian scholars be?

Robin Goodfellow

[Robin Goodfellow]

Browsing through Farrell Till’s errancy list postings, I stumbled across an old message Mr. Till reposted today. It seems relevant to this debate, and I hope it's not inappropriate to post it here. The “Dr. Price” Mr. Till refers to is a Dr. James Price, full Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Temple Baptist Seminary in Chattanooga, TN.

The post was originally part of a 1998 Internet debate between Dr. Price and Mr. Till on Isaiah 53. The debate ended when Dr. Price failed to answer one of Mr. Till’s posts.

Farrell Till:

While looking for materials that had been posted last year on the suffering-servant issue, I found the following posting that I am sending to the list again. It's relevance to the prophecy discussion now underway will be apparent.
***********************************
TILL
In the controversy over Isaiah 53, the biggest hurdle that Price must clear in order to prove that the suffering servant was Jesus of Nazareth is a criterion of valid prophecy fulfillment that he has said in other exchanges is "satisfactory." That criterion is that the person claiming prophecy fulfillment must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged prophetic statement meant what he is claiming that it meant. When applied to Isaiah 53, this criterion requires Price to prove that the writer of the text meant for this passage to refer to Jesus of Nazareth.

THIS CRITERION IS REASONABLE.

Such a requirement is reasonable, because one who alleges that a "prophet" was able to see years into the future and predict specific events should have the burden of establishing that such an accomplishment did indeed happen and that the prophecy claim is not just an expression of wishful thinking on the part of the claimant. Muslims, for example, claim that Muhammad was the prophet "like unto Moses" who was predicted in Deuteronomy 18:15: "Yahweh your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you shall heed such a prophet. This is what you requested of Yahweh your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said: 'If I hear the voice of Yahweh my God any more, or ever again see this great fire, I will die.' Then Yahweh replied to me: 'They are right in what they have said. I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their own people; I will put my words in the mouth of the prophet, who shall speak to them everything that I command. Anyone who does not heed the words that the prophet shall speak in my name, I myself will hold accountable.'" Dr. Price, however, would certainly not say to a Muslim, "Well, if you say that this prophecy was a prediction of the coming of Muhammad, I guess I have to believe it." He would instead demand that the Muslim show reasonable evidence that when Moses made this statement he was unquestionably referring to Muhammad.

The Muslim, of course, wouldn't settled for just a statement from Price that Muhammad could not have been this prophet because Acts 3:22-26 claims that Peter said that this prophet was Jesus. Such a rebuttal would merely pit Muslim tradition against Christian tradition. We can see, then, a major problem inherent in claiming prophecy-fulfillment. Fulfillment claims rest almost entirely on personal views and interpretations for which no real evidence can be given except that the claimant of prophecy-fulfillment would very much like for it to be the way that he wants it to be.

And so it is with Dr. Price's claim that Jesus of Nazareth was the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. The writer nowhere said that he was prophesying of Jesus of Nazareth. He nowhere said that he was prophesying of a "Messiah." He didn't even say that he was prophesying. Hence, Dr. Price's entire case rests upon a few statements in the NT where writers indicated their opinion that Isaiah 53 was speaking of Jesus, but none of them at any time made any attempt to show that Isaiah intended this chapter to refer to Jesus of Nazareth or even to a "Messiah." So Dr. Price's belief in this matter rests on a few unsubstantiated claims of NT writers.

THE AMBIGUITY OF OT PROPHECIES.

Unfortunately for prophecy-fulfillment buffs like Dr. Price, OT prophecies almost always turn out to be statements so vague that they can be made tomean just about anything that anyone wants them to mean. That's because the prophets of Israel were everything but dumb. They knew that specificity was a luxury they couldn't afford, because if they became too specific in their prophecies they ran the risk of being exposed as frauds. Even as vague as they were most of the time, their "prophecies" turned out to be dismal failures. This, by the way, is a position that I would gladly defend in a debate with Dr. Price either on the internet on in person at the seminary where he teaches.

If the prophets were truly guided by the omniscient, omnipotent Yahweh, there is no reason why they couldn't have been very exact in what they were predicting. In other words, if Isaiah meant for readers to understand that the "suffering servant" was Jesus of Nazareth, why didn't he say something like this: "Yahweh's suffering servant is a person who will be born 750 years from now. He will be born in the town of Bethlehem to a virgin whose name is Mary. Her husband's name will be Joseph, and a king by the name of Herod will try to kill Yahweh's servant by ordering the massacre of all male children in the town of Bethlehem. Yahweh will signal the birth of the servant by having daylight cover all the earth for seven days, and the testimony to this extended daylight will be recorded by scribes all over the world as a sign to all generations forever that Yahweh has fulfilled this prophecy." A prophecy that specific and the sign testifying to its fulfillment would be such that only a "radical skeptic" would be able to deny it. Priice cannot argue that specific prophecies like this were never made, because the Bible indicates otherwise. In 1 Kings 13, Yahweh sent a prophet to protest the idolatrous worship that king Jeroboam had instituted at Bethel. In protesting the altar that Jeroboam had erected, the prophet made a very specific prophecy.

>
13:1 While Jeroboam was standing by the altar to offer incense, a man of
God came out of Judah by the word of Yahweh to Bethel
> 2 and proclaimed against the altar by the word of Yahweh, and said, "O
altar, altar, thus says Yahweh: 'A son shall be born to the house of David,
Josiah by name; and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places
who offer incense on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.'"
> 3 He gave a sign the same day, saying, "This is the sign that Yahweh has
spoken: 'The altar shall be torn down, and the ashes that are on it shall be
poured out.'"
>

Notice the specific points of this prophecy: (1) A son would be born to the house of David who would be named Josiah. (2) He would sacrifice the priests of the high places on this same altar. (3) Human bones would be burned on the altar. (4) The altar would be torn down and the ashes on it poured out.

In 2 Kings 23:16-20, we read that every specific point in this prophecy was "fulfilled." Josiah, a king who had been born to the house of David, sacrificed the priests of the high places on Jeroboam's altar (v:20), burned on the altar humans bones from the sepulchres (v:16), killed all the priests of the high places on the altar and burned their bones too (v:20), and the altar itself was torn down and beaten to dust (v:15).

Now this is what I would call a specific prophecy that was "fulfilled" in all of its details. Unfortunately for prophecy buffs, the likelihood that the prophecy and the fulfillment were merely retrojections planted in the text are far greater than the possibility that such a prophecy was ever made and fulfilled. However, it does afford an excellent example of how prophecies could be and should be quite specific. I could cite other examples that were also specific, but this one is sufficient to make my point. We have to wonder why Yahweh would have taken such pains to have one of his inspired prophets utter a prophecy as specific as this one, which concerned only the destruction of an idolatrous place of worship, but in the matter of Price's suffering servant, whom he alleges to be the Messiah whom Yahweh would send to redeem the sins of the word, there was no specificity at all--only vague language written in poetic, figurative expressions that are subject to all types of personal interpretations. Yes, indeed, it is a big mystery.

This mystery, however, is a problem that Price must somehow resolve. If he thinks it is a "satisfactory" criterion to require that the meaning of prophecies be so clear that they cannot be misunderstood, then he needs to explain how we can know that Isaiah 53 meant what he claims that it meant.

Dr. Price is surely informed enough to know that anyone can go to the religious section of just about any university library and find commentaries that dispute everything he has said about the meaning of Isaiah 53. He well knows that many scholars who are believers in Christianity interpret the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 exactly as I do. Others will, of course, interpret it as Price does, and still others will interpret it even differently. The fact that no consensus on the meaning of the text exists is clear testimony to the fact that Price's claim does not meet the criterion of valid prophecy, which says that a valid prophecy will be one whose meaning is not in doubt.

This is as far as I have ever needed to take this matter, but I will continue in subsequent postings to show why there are good reasons to reject Price's major quibbles in this matter. Meanwhile, Price needs to take care of this detail or else admit that his case is unprovable.

Farrell Till
The Skeptical Review Online
http://www.theskepticalreview.com


Robin Goodfellow

[dizzle]

Robin generally we disallow multiple postings one after another, unless they are in response to different persons. This is a difficult call as no one has been really activiely participating lately and for certain three of your posts do seem to be directed to different "audiences" so I am letting them remain, but I ask that you please try to consolidate your posts, if it is the same day you can edit it to add additional thoughts.

[DivineOb]

So what happened to the first N prophecies Jason brought up? He decided he couldn't make the case for them? By my count he had on the order of 8k more space.

[WinAce]

Wow. I've seen people get their rears handed to them on a platter before, but this debate was a massacre. It's like the US invading a country whose military consists of sticks and rocks.

[Jason Gastrich]

Hello,

Since Robyn’s Round 10 post was so misleading and full of errors, I felt it was important that I respond to it. Here are his comments and my responses.

Robyn:
When he came to the last example, that of Isaiah 53, we received endless listings of extreme fundamentalist viewpoints and other minority viewpoints. When Jason was confronted with the fact that the reinterpretation of Isaiah 53 as ‘‘messianic’’ is a minority viewpoint both in Judaism, and in Christianity, he was conspicuously silent.[

Jason:
I do not believe that the Messianic nature of Isaiah 53 is a minority viewpoint. However, your assertion is indeed an ad hominem! This is the very thing you condemn me for. And you continually use this ad hominem which likely isn’t even true.

Robyn:
Every valid question Jason asked me about Isaiah 53 was answered.

Jason:
You may have answered every question (i.e. sentences with question marks), but you didn’t come anywhere close to answering or addressing all of the evidence I provided.

Robyn:
Jason argued back to front. The NT claim about the servant is what Jason is trying to prove, so he uses his conclusion to ‘‘support’’ his argument. It is circular, and a fallacious appeal to authority.

Jason:
This is a straw man argument and a blatant lie. As I stated in the beginning and the end of my Round 10 post, I proved that there were “valid, predictive prophecies that were fulfilled in reality.” This bogus assertion that I was trying to prove a NT claim is drivel and an attempt to sidetrack the reader from reality.

Robyn:
Secondly, and although Jason has never grasped this point, ‘‘fulfillment’’ in the New Testament is a much broader concept than ‘‘prediction coming true in reality’’. The NT writers may have all believed that Jesus ‘‘fulfilled’’ some deeper meaning of Isaiah 53. But that deeper meaning was ‘‘read into’’ the passage, instead of being ‘‘read out’’ of it. When Isaiah 53 is interpreted in context, it clearly refers to Israel.

Jason:
Well, this was what you were trying to prove, but I’m not convinced. If you could prove that even one of the New Testament authors that believed Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53 ALSO believed that Isaiah 53 referred to Israel, then maybe you’d have an argument. But they didn’t. And you don’t.

Robyn:
2. No valid argument from Rabbinical quotes

Jason still blindly asserts that all ancient Jewish authorities interpreted Isaiah 53 messianically. After having been provided with counter-examples from the LXX, Origen and a number of majority Rabbis, this is at best misleading. Jason earlier claimed that this minority rabbinical view was made ““with one accord.”” After I disproved this, he abandoned his claim, but still dishonestly claims that the rabbis ‘‘all knew”” that Isaiah 53 was messianic.

Jason:
I’m glad I can clear this up, now. I didn’t want to take precious time and space from the debate to do so.

In my research, I read this “one accord” statement on the Jews For Jesus web page. They were obviously using it within a certain context and weren’t referring to every, literal rabbi or commentator. Here is the whole quote:

“Our ancient commentators with one accord noted that the context clearly speaks of God's Anointed One, the Messiah. The Aramaic translation of this chapter, ascribed to Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel who lived early in the second century C.E., begins with the simple and worthy words:

‘Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men. (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad Iocum)’”
http://www.jewsforjesus.org/library/issues/02-05/Isaiah53.htm

Robyn:
The truth is that, using highly imaginative and speculative hermeneutical methods - not accepted today as being proper exegesis –– some rabbis read a messianic view into Isaiah 53 (a chapter which makes no mention of a messiah at all). These minority rabbis even interpreted the servant as the messiah, but attributed his pains and sufferings to Israel! Such a loose method of interpretation has been rightly rejected today, because it cannot discover the context of a passage.

Jason:
This is the thrust of your argument. However, you failed to cast enough doubt on the major, NT authors, the greatest Christian theologians who ever lived and the most prominent Rabbis. Plus, you couldn’t address the point by point method of exegesis that myself and many other scholars used to reveal this as a Messianic passage referring to Jesus Christ.

Robyn:
3. The context of Isaiah 53 supports the identification of the servant with Israel

As he has done all debate, Jason merely asserts that Isaiah 53 is messianic. But when asked, he couldn’’t point to a single messianic word in Isaiah 53 –– because there is none. But I provided many reasons to demonstrate that the context concerned Israel.

Jason:
Even elementary Bible students know that Jesus Christ has many names. If we apply this loose exegetical method (i.e. Jesus had to have been called “Messiah” in Hebrew and “Messiah” in Greek in order for this prophecy to be talking about Him) is wanting and poor.

Robyn:
http://www.tektonics.com/prophecy/the_servant.html

Jason:
I’m happy that you took the time to put your words on a web page. At least you believe them. I’m not very happy that you have to mimic another, Christian web page and leech from their notoriety. Additionally, this looks like more of the poor exegesis you used during the debate, so that’s not very encouraging.

Robyn:
- His Christian quotes were either without content, or merely assertions that Isaiah 53 applied to Jesus. My detailed exposition of Isaiah 53 demonstrated that it applied to Israel instead.

Jason:
Right. But you never gave us a reason to believe your apologetics over the NT Bible authors or the best theologians and rabbis that ever walked the planet. Yes, some liberal scholars that you know believe like you do, but what does this prove?

If you think that credibility wasn’t a factor in this debate, then you are sorely mistaken. First, you have very little credibility and this is important to keep in mind. You have admitted that you do not believe in Jesus Christ! Additionally, it is painfully obvious that you desire to use all of your energy and all of your theological training to discredit the scriptures and avoid salvation through Jesus Christ. You’re not fooling anybody.

I debated an unbeliever that could be considered an atheist. I debated someone with a sincere desire to be a fool and tear apart the most meaningful scriptures for his own desires, evidenced by many actions, including his pathetic web site that is a lame attempt to make a parody of a quality, Christian ministry.

Revelation 3:16-20 reads, “So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked—18I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.”

- You are lukewarm because you sit on the fence. You have “head knowledge” of the gospel. You’ve read it. You think it’s interesting. But you won’t believe it and trust Christ.

2 Peter 3:3-6 reads, “scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, 4and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.’ 5For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, 6by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.”

- Can you say that you believe Jesus Christ is returning? Can you say that God created everything in the beginning? If you can’t, then you need to repent because you don’t believe the Bible. Others should identify you and tell you to repent, too. You’ve been fingered!

2 Timothy 3:5 reads, “(in the last days some will) have a form of godliness but deny its power. And from such people turn away!”

- Ah, yes. Can you have godliness if you don’t have salvation? Well, you can appear to have godliness. You can mimic people with godliness. You can even have a form of godliness. However, without the Holy Spirit within you, you are on the way to Hell and without eternal life. The scriptures say that we are to turn away from these kinds of people. Perhaps it is because they won’t listen. Or perhaps it is because they will “know” that their exegesis is so wonderful (that they can reduce the scriptures to a document that doesn’t save anybody).

Matthew 7:15-20 reads, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”

- Whoa! Ravenous wolves. Sheep’s clothing. Know them by their fruits. Please tell us about your fruit, Robyn. Is your parody site the result of your relationship with Jesus Christ?

If you can’t see yourself in those scriptures, Robyn, then I don’t know what to tell you. You are the one that we were warned about - not simply because you reject Isaiah 53 as Messianic, but because you reject the Messiah. Stop masquerading as someone who has repented from their sins and trusted Jesus Christ for salvation.

Robyn:
6. I only cited mainstream Christian scholars.

Jason:
To you, mainstream scholars are scholars that the majority of Christians in the world’s strongest country wouldn’t read. Here is a book recommendation for you. Try reading, “Major Bible Themes” by Dr. John Walvoord and Dr. Chafer. No, they aren’t people who bend the scriptures to make them say homosexuality is honorable, but they are two, awesome men from the greatest seminary in the world. You’ll even find a statement of beliefs on their institution’s web page!!! This would be a new thing for you because the authors that you quoted were either involved with schools that were too embarrassed or foolish to post their statement of beliefs or they were trying to trick people into thinking they might believe the saving gospel of Jesus Christ . . . kind of like you do.

Here is another challenge for you, Robyn. Post a Statement of Beliefs on your web page. Please let me know if you’ll do this and post a link for us to read. You’re bold enough to post your Isaiah 53 “findings,” but I wonder if you’re bold enough to give a clear statement of your beliefs and your real name . . . Robyn/Emtage/Brendon Jackson/etc/etc/etc.

Robyn:
7. Jason is prejudiced against the hermeneutics used by NT writers

Jason makes a false dichotomy by saying that the NT writers must either subscribe to his Western Modernist reading, or that they must be wrong. He can’’t accept that the NT writers had a broader and looser view of ‘‘fulfillment’’ than what we do. His view is extremely prejudiced, and reveals his superficial knowledge of hermeneutics. This is quite sad.

Jason:
Whoa! Haha. This is a huge stretch. Against the NT writers’ hermeneutics? The NT writers (and Jesus) that I mentioned all identified Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of Isaiah 53! YOU are inventing a scenario for them and they didn’t mention your scenario. No NT author mentioned that Isaiah 53 was referring to Israel! How can you say I ignored something? You invented something! The scriptures don’t support it, though, so I hope nobody buys it. I surely don’t.

Robyn:
Jason argues in a circle again, with a fallacious appeal to authority, while ignoring the wider NT meaning of ‘‘fulfillment’’. The quotes from the NT actually support my case: because they demonstrate that the NT writers employed a loose interpretation of ‘‘fulfillment’’, as described by D Senior and Richard Hays (quoted supra).
Jason:
Yikes. Here you go, again. First, you repeat your straw man argument (a.k.a. lie) from above. I don’t have a circular argument because I wasn’t proving a NT claim. I was proving a predictive prophecy was fulfilled in reality. So, stop being the wolf in sheep’s clothing and deceiving the young ones. Just speak the truth, Robyn.

Now, for the third time, you have invented an explanation that suits your needs. None of the NT writers shared your viewpoint!!! Yet, you claim they primarily supported your claim and only partly supported “my” claim! It was “their” claim! And they don’t believe or agree with you.

Robyn:
What I can’’t understand is how anyone who takes the time to read Isaiah 40-55, and in particular Ch 53, can come to the conclusion that it refers to anything but Israel. I can only include that they have failed to take off their ‘‘NT lens’’, and never attempted to discover the context of Isaiah 40-55.

And Jason actually admitted above that he did this. Thank you for finally conceding.

Jason:
I gave you a sound, exegetical method. You interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament. You use the New Testament to understand the Old. You don’t do it the other way around because it wouldn’t make sense to interpret and understand God’s “better” and “new” covenant through the lens of the old. The Old was a foreshadowing of the new. It was symbolic of the new covenant. Therefore, it is unwise and a poor exegetical method to try and understand the new by looking at it through the lens of the Old. It’s new!

Hebrews 8:6 and 13 reads, “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”

Robyn:
you have to provide a fairly convincing reason why Jesus is the referent when only the present and immediate future are in view.

Jason:
This is ridiculous. This makes you look like you didn’t even read my last 3 posts. It also makes me think you haven’t read the Bible. Try reading over my posts, again. I listed, point by point, the scriptures from Isaiah 53 that correlated to Jesus Christ! I listed each NT writers’ words about Isaiah 53 and how it referred to Jesus Christ! And you want to assert that there wasn’t a fairly convincing reason why Jesus was the referent? No wonder you think you won the debate! You are delusional.

You are welcome for the debate. It was my pleasure. I really enjoyed researching Isaiah 53. It was an awesome, predictive prophecy that was fulfilled by my Lord and Savior - Jesus Christ. Hallelujah!

Serving Him,
Jason Gastrich

[Lazy Agnostic]

Wow, Jason; I'm speechless.

Wow

Yikes

Whoa

[Rusty T]

I'm concerned about the practice of continuing a debate in the debate commentary. Now all Robyn has to do is address your points in here and we're at it all over again. I'm probably in a "minority opinion" myself on this one - just my $.02.

As far as the debate goes - I think it's important to actually consider that for the NT writers - as well as for many more interpreters of scripture, "fulfillment" may have different layers of meaning. The question is faith. We as Christians believe by Faith that Jesus is the Messiah, and as such, he is the light that shines on the revelation of God given in the past. We also have to believe that He and His disciples had the authority to correctly interpret scripture (credit goes to JP for pointing that out to me). This is a question of Faith. I do not know that it is possible to exegetically determine that the passage in Isaiah is a reference to Jesus. However, hermeneutically I believe it is possible - from a Christian perspective of course. I know that this is unacceptable to skeptics.

tizzi

[Squircifer]

Today @ 02:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=120141#post120141)
Lazy Agnostic:

Wow, Jason; I'm speechless.

Wow

Yikes

Whoa

Me too. It seems as this is a standard practice for Jason. He gets whipped in a debate, and cannot allow that to happen, so he posts another rebuttal to set things straight.

I personally believe his post should be deleted, and a warning given. This is not very christ like is it?

[Robyn Banks]

tizzidale:
I'm concerned about the practice of continuing a debate in the debate commentary.
Me too. And having set out my position convincingly in the debate, I have no need or desire to prolong the debate in this way. From reading Jason's attempt to continue the debate, it is clear that he has learned nothing, and does not have the requisite skill to argue his position adequately. However, I am sure some readers have learned something about the meaning of the bible passages I examined.



tizzidale:
... However, hermeneutically I believe it is possible - from a Christian perspective of course. I know that this is unacceptable to skeptics.
Actually, I quite agree with you.

The way I see it, a Christian hermeneutic which interprets the Old Testament through the lens of the Christ-event is an entirely valid means of interpretation. And I have no argument against Christians who acknowledge that they are interpreting the Old Testament in this eisegetical way.

However, if Christians also claim that this Christian hermeneutic is mere 'exegesis', they would be quite incorrect. Sensus Plenior, typology, allegory and other types of Christian interpretation of the Hebrew scriptures are not 'exegesis'. These other methods of interpretation are dialogic, and mutually exclusive of being able to prove a linear prediction coming true at a later time.

When one goes from context of the Old Testament to Christ-event, there is no correspondence. When one also reinterprets the Old Testament scriptures in light of the Christ event, there is all the correspondence you want there to be.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

Squircifer:
Me too. It seems as this is a standard practice for Jason. He gets whipped in a debate, and cannot allow that to happen, so he posts another rebuttal to set things straight.
I have no objection if debate-participants use this forum in the manner intended - to dialogue with some of the commentators. I won't be, but I have no objection to this proper use. But to attempt to misuse this forum to prolong a debate is highly unethical. If Jason had any good points, he had 10 rounds of debate to make them. He has already acted unethically to prolong the debate, by linking a summary to his website. I took him up on his challenge, and provided a website summary as well. But given the level at which he debates, I have no need or desire to continue some kind of de-facto debate with him.



[i]Squircifer:[/i
I personally believe his post should be deleted, and a warning given. This is not very christ like is it?
It is not very Christ-like. I mean, unlike Jason - Christ never returned.

:lol:

[AVmetro]

Actually, there is nothing I can do if Jason G. wishes to post his comments here. It may be unethical in the opinon of some but it's not against the rules. The participants are allowed to post in the commentary section following the end of the debate. Robyn's option is, of course, to simply refuse to participate in the continuation of a discussion based on the now completed debate.

[Robin Goodfellow]

Jason:
Yes, some liberal scholars that you know believe like you do, but what does this prove?


It may be true, Jason, that his scholars are liberal and yours fundamentalist. But should we discount his or yours for that reason alone?

You act as though you truly believe debating is that simple. It’s not. Effective debaters tailor their arguments for neutral parties in the audience rather than those who already agree with them.

Jason:
First, you have very little credibility and this is important to keep in mind. You have admitted that you do not believe in Jesus Christ!


The exclamation point here suggests you think this argument is devastating. Do you see that you’re making the same mistake as above? How impressed would you be if a Muslim debater tried to dismiss his opponent by accusing him of not believing in Muhammad? A neutral audience member would think, “What does that have to do with whether the other debater is right or wrong on whether this prophecy was fulfilled?”

These arguments of yours are utterly useless for convincing anyone except those who were already convinced before you opened your mouth. Does that sound like effective debating to you?

Jason:
Can you say that you believe Jesus Christ is returning? Can you say that God created everything in the beginning? If you can’t, then you need to repent because you don’t believe the Bible. Others should identify you and tell you to repent, too. You’ve been fingered!


Jason, how would you evaluate this from the sort of debate perspective I described above?

To me, it sounds as though you’re so frustrated by your opponent’s arguments that you’ve abandoned debate entirely in favor of preaching -- and the worst kind of preaching for debate purposes: Preaching that consists of nothing but unsupported assertions. Do you think your argument here would persuade a neutral audience? How does it advance your claim that Isaiah 53 was fulfilled?

I'm not going to continue in this vein, but if you reread your post, I think you'll be surprised how many of your arguments repeat this same mistake.

Jason:

Robyn:
you have to provide a fairly convincing reason why Jesus is the referent when only the present and immediate future are in view. ”


Jason:
This is ridiculous. This makes you look like you didn’t even read my last 3 posts. It also makes me think you haven’t read the Bible. Try reading over my posts, again. I listed, point by point, the scriptures from Isaiah 53 that correlated to Jesus Christ! I listed each NT writers’ words about Isaiah 53 and how it referred to Jesus Christ! And you want to assert that there wasn’t a fairly convincing reason why Jesus was the referent? No wonder you think you won the debate! You are delusional.


Jason, I don’t think that’s accurate. I couldn’t find any listing of scriptures correlating with Jesus in your final post. There were some in your previous two posts, but Robyn answered them. I'll repost the relevant sections here:

Round 8

Robyn:

Jason:
(1) The Messiah (also called the “Servant”) was to be despised and rejected by His fellow Jews.


ROBYN
You keep referring to ‘the Messiah’. Where is ‘the Messiah’ mentioned in Isaiah 53? Please provide the reference. Or will you admit that ‘the Messiah’ is not mentioned in Isaiah 53?

Jason:
Isaiah 53:3-5 reads, “He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him…How could the entire Jewish people by despised and rejected by the entire Jewish people?


ROBYN
You misunderstand who the speaker is, Jason. The servant Israel has just been described as surprising the nations, because Israel has risen from its despised status to an exalted status (Isa 53.15). It is the figure of ‘the nations’ who is the speaker of Isaiah 53.1ff. As the Oxford Commentary on the Old Testament points out, “The nations and kings who were so amazed by what was referred to in 52.15 are now given voice.” From the description of the amazement of the nations and kings as third parties in 52.15, Isaiah then has the nations speak in Isa 53.1ff.

In support of this interpretation, David Clines points out the smooth transition from 52.15 to 53.1. Clines then comments that “in 52.15 peoples and kings “see” and “ponder” a sight they have never seen before and a message never heard before, while in 53.1 “we” remark on how incredible is what “we” have heard and what has been seen.” Clearly the same sentiment is being expressed: first in the third person, secondly in the first person.

As North points out:

“At the end of Ch52 the amazement of the Gentiles is foretold. It is entirely natural, then, that what immediately follows should embody their judgement upon the Servant. Any other supposition disturbs the sequence of the passages, and destroys its artistic symmetry.”

“from the beginning the Servant’s primary commission was to the Gentiles, and it was to be successful (42.4, 49.6). We expect that the last word from the human side will be that of the Gentiles, as the final word of all is from Yahweh Himself (53.11f). It would be strange if the Gentiles had nothing to say, and that they have not, unless they are the speakers here.”

Jason:
(2) He would be put to death following a judicial proceeding.

Isaiah 53:7 and 8 reads, “He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.”

How could this happen to the entire Jewish people?


ROBYN
All of that could, and in fact did happen to Israel.

As already shown, the metaphor of Israel being led as a lamb to the slaughter is used elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is a commonly accepted metaphor for Israel. And they accepted their exile humbly, being led away in the thousands. It was interpreted as a judgement from God by Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Deutero-Isaiah alike.

In verse 8 the nations finally acknowledge that it was their own nations' sins which inflicted the suffering on Israel. It was they that caused Israel’s afflictions. When Israel's exile finally ends, the nations will marvel at a people who survived the expulsion from "the land of the living." This expression used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to refer to Israel's exile (e.g., Ezek 26.20). The Israelites were ‘cut off’ from the Promised Land while they dwelt in exile.

The description of ‘deaths’ in Isaiah 53 refers to their expulsion, exile and imprisonment among the Babylonians. The description may be compared to the Psalms which refer to acute suffering, and which have similar hyperbolic expressions. For example, in Psalm 88 a sufferer near death is described as already cut off from the land of the living, and laid in the grave. In Jonah 2 the drowning man cries for help from the “belly of Sheol.”

Jason:
(3) He would be guiltless.

Isaiah 53:9 reads, “And they made His grave with the wicked—But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth.”

Were the Jewish people guiltless? ”


ROBYN
Actually, the word you translated ‘death’ is plural: ‘deaths’. It should read: “But with the rich at His deaths.” The author is referring to the singular ‘servant’ using a plural form of the noun bemotaw. Why? Because the author of Isaiah 40-55 regards the ‘servant’ as a collective: as Israel. The plural simply does not make sense if applied to Jesus.

You claimed all ancient Jewish commentators “with one accord” identified the servant with the messiah. But you were in error. For example, Lippmann (15c) comments on the plural form of ‘deaths’ and notes that “a single man cannot die more than once.” And Abarbanel points out that ‘lamo’ in verse 8 (‘themselves’) is used “in order to render it clear that the individual mentioned throughout is not some isolated man, but the whole nation collectively.” Two more ancient Jewish commentators who disagree with you, Jason. Care to revise your statement about “with one accord,” yet?

Isaiah 53.9 does not call the servant ‘guiltless’. Jason should read the Bible carefully. The verse notes that the servant had done no violence, nor practiced deceit. Violence and deceit were understood as actions which rebounded on the person who committed them: Judges 9.24, Psalm 7.17. The author was noting that this was not the cause of Israel’s suffering.


Round 9

Robyn:

Jason:
Isaiah 53:7 "He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

How many have been charged and been innocent and not defended himself? ”


ROBYN
Israel was led into exile after the fall of Jerusalem, without the ability to offer further resistance. She was emasculated, and made silent before her captors. This is the referent of these words. Israel was robbed and plundered, and “trapped in holes and hidden in prisons” (Isa 42.22). She was bowed over in submission so that her oppressors might walk over her (Isa 51.23).

And all of this punishment at the hands of the nations is described as being innocent: “without cause.”

Even though elsewhere the poet of Isaiah 40-55 describes the exile as a punishment from God, he also maintains that the nations had “no cause” to punish Israel. The Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians had taken YHWH’s servant Israel “without cause.” YHWH speaks that, “Long ago, my people went down into Egypt to reside there as aliens; the Assyrian, too, has oppressed them without cause. Now therefore what am I doing here, says YHWH, seeing that my people are taken away without cause?” (Isa 52.4-5). And although YHWH’s name is profaned by the nations (Isa 52.5), he will soon act to make his name known (Isa 52.6), by returning to Jerusalem (Isa 52.8-9) in the sight of all the nations (Isa 52.10). YHWH’s servant Israel will be raised up and exalted (Isa 52.13) – in front of the very nations that had previously despised her (Isa 52.14-15). And so in Isa 53.1 we come to the speech of the kings of the nations, who exclaim “Who has believed what we have heard?” when they witness the despised servant Israel returned to the land of Israel! The arm of YHWH (Isa 52.9) has acted strongly to return the Israelites to Zion (Isa 52.11). And so the kings of the nations exclaim: “And to whom has the arm of YHWH been revealed?” (Isa 53.1). And what follows is the rich poetic description of the once despised and exiled nation of Israel, and her restoration to glory in Zion in front of the nations.

There is perfect correspondence between the story of exile and restoration in Isa 40-55, and the poem of the servant in Isa 53. Context. Context. Context.

Jason:
Isaiah 53:9 "He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any decide in his mouth."
Jesus was crucified between two thieves, but was buried in the tomb of one of the richest men. ”


ROBYN
Isaiah 53.9a is Hebrew parallelism. The servant was buried in a grave with the wicked who were rich. The wicked and the rich are the same persons, just as ‘grave’ and ‘death’ are the same. The riches of the wicked Babylonians are described throughout Isaiah 40-55, and are predicted to be handed over to the servant Israel. YHWH would “strip kings of their robes” and give Israel “treasures of darkness and riches hidden in secret places” (Isa 45.1 & 3). This wealth of Israel’s captors would become her own (Isa 45.14). It is clearly the rich yet wicked idol-worshipping Babylonians who are in view here.

Yet, in the Gospel account of Jesus there is no grave with the wicked-rich. You are forced to destroy the meaning of the Hebrew parallelism (which refers to one group of persons, not to two) in order to reinterpret it into the story of Jesus’ crucifixion and burial. In fact, if you honestly take the passage literally, Jesus’ death was between the wicked, and his grave in a rich disciple’s grave – the very reversal of what you attempt to prove.


ROBIN GOODFELLOW
Jason, if I’ve missed any passages correlating with Jesus that you posted but Robyn didn’t answer, could you post them here?

I should add that, even though it seems to me you have some weaknesses as a debater, I also think you have some strengths.

On another subject, I can understand why the recently-rehabilitated Robyn and his newfound partisans are upset with Jason. First, there was a natural assumption that the tenth round would end the debate in general, not just in the boxing ring itself. Second, Jason's behavior in this thread is strikingly reminiscent of his unfair tactics vis-à-vis Doug Krueger.

But in the Krueger case, Doug has no capacity to make his own “closing statement” available to the same audience. And Jason refuses to assist Doug with that.

Here, on the other hand, it’s well-understood that anything we post can be rebutted by anyone else, indefinitely. My impression is that, even before the debate ended, I could have posted here a point-by-point rebuttal of any of Jason’s rounds. (If I'm wrong, I hope someone will correct me.)

Would that have been unethical? I can’t see that it would. And, now that the debate has ended, it seems to me both participants should have the same rights I do.

I’m not completely sure how it works on this board, but on the Internet in general, the reality is that if you don’t want your opponent to have the last word, you have to be a stud. Being a stud means being willing to make whatever sacrifices are necessary to post -- perhaps on one small issue -- day after day, month after month, year after year, if necessary -- even if you completely refuted your opponent the first day.

Farrell Till is a stud. Legendary Usenet UFO skeptic “Twitch” was a stud for years on sci.skeptic. Dave Horn was a stud on talk.origins for a long time. Pastor Dave is a fundamentalist stud on alt.bible.

I’m not a stud.

Robyn made a significant contribution to my understanding of several “prophecies,” especially Isaiah 53. He dominated Jason in the ring. But he hasn’t convinced me that Jason is being unethical in this thread.

[John Powell]

Robin Goodfellow:
Neither Robyn’s nor Jason’s citation of scholarly opinions are necessarily fallacious. Regarding the Appeal to Authority, Copi writes in Introduction to Logic, “This method of argumentation is not always strictly fallacious, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of his competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence.”


POWELL:
Since the same can be said about appeals to concensus opinion and appeals to majority opinion, Robin, does that mean that those aren't always fallacious either?

What does "fallacious" mean to you? What does "fallacious" mean to Copi? To most people "a fallacious argument" is one that fails to achieve deductive validity. Copi apparently uses the term differently, to mean merely "erroneous thinking" or something like that.

Is the following a fallacious argument in your opinion?

1. EA is an expert authority on subject S.
2. EA has opinion O about subject S.
therefore,
3. O (i.e., O is true)

If this isn't a syllogism that fairly represents what Copi is suggesting about appeals to authority being non-fallacious, then what syllogism is?

John Powell

[Jason Gastrich]

Hi John,

How have you been? I see that you received the member of the month last month! Congratulations.

Right now, it looks like my wife and I won't be coming to Utah this month. We will have to meet you another time, though.

Mr. Fellow,

I didn't do anything inappropriate with the Krueger debate. I'm perfectly allowed to add my comments in a separate MP3 file and upload them to my server. The simple fact that you, Doug and some atheists complained and called this a "tactic" says a lot about you.

Before Bill O'Reilly (or insert another commentator here) makes a public comment about a debate or news item, does he have to call the parties involved and give them time on his show? Of course not.

During my debate with Doug Krueger, I gave him a closing statement. I didn't even have a closing statement! Therefore, Doug was given more time to summarize his points than I was given. I was very generous with the time I gave him to summarize his points, so you cannot say I was unfair.

If you want to adhere to this silly standard, then you need to contact all of the people who do this. Right? You need to contact Reggie Finley (the Infidel Guy from infidelguy.com) and tell him that he isn't allowed to comment about any of the past debates on his shows unless he airs audio clips with equal time given to the people he is addressing.

You need to contact Farrell Till and tell him that he is not allowed to comment on his debate with Kent Hovind without offering HIS web space for Kent to comment.

There can't be a double standard and the only way for your absurd, ad hoc rule to work is for you to have a double standard as it suits you. If you honestly think I must use my recording equipment, web space, bandwidth, time and money to promote Doug Krueger's opinions, then you are insane.

Anyhow, since you want to bring this ridiculous situation up, I have no interest in chatting with you about my debate with Robyn. However, if you wish to choose a subject and engage in a formal, 1 on 1 debate, then I would consider it. Is there a subject that you'd like to debate?

Thanks very much to all of the TWeb members and visitors that made my debate with Robyn one of the most popular TWeb debates ever! Glory to God.

Serving Him,
Jason Gastrich

[John Powell]

JASONG:
Hi John,

How have you been? I see that you received the member of the month last month! Congratulations.


POWELL:
Many thanks.

JASONG:
Right now, it looks like my wife and I won't be coming to Utah this month. We will have to meet you another time, though.


POWELL:
I was wondering about that. Thanks for telling me. I hope we can hook up at a later time.

I'm sure the wishes of Robyn, Till, and others are not overly important to you, Jason, but I wanted to give you what moral support I can. If they thought the debate about Biblical prophecies between you and Robyn would be NECESSARILY over after the formal rounds were over then they were either fooling themselves or trying to fool their audience. Perhaps this is primarily part of their efforts to give the impression that Robyn won that particular debate and doesn't need to defend his position with you anymore for the rest of eternity.

Evidently, there are quite a few who think Robyn won that particular formal debate (me included, of course my bias probably has colored my decision), but that's by no means the universal opinion. These things are rather subjective. It's important to remember that one can lose a debate yet still be right.

Furthermore, of course Robyn can honorably bow out as anyone can, but then Robin would probably have to consider Robyn to be excluded from the ranks of the higher honor of "studhood."

If that's something you want to be then you're on the right path. I think I want to be a stud by that definition.

John Powell
Stud wannabe.

[Jason Gastrich]

Hey John,

Thanks for your message.

Shadow Mountain is still going to Manti, Utah to minister to some Mormons at a Mormon pageant. My wife and I were going to take 7-8 days and go there and a few other places. However, I think we'll just stay in San Diego. I'll email you when we will be in your neck of the woods, though, and I hope you do the same if you ever come to SD.

So, you think I'm remotely interested in the comments of the people you mentioned, above? Hmmm. Nope! In fact, I'm no longer reading the posts at ii_errancy. The only person I'm interested in speaking to is Till and that's simply because I want to debate the Land Promise with him.

Till has visited my new discussion board - Discuss Biblical Inerrancy at http://inerrancy.com - and posted in the Proposal section, but the debate is still pending. It will probably begin next week.

I understand that you think I lost the debate with Robyn. Thanks for citing your bias, too. I'm not sure if the majority thought I won or loss. All I can do is cite a handful of people from ii_errancy and 2-3 people from here that think I lost. And a handful of people that I know from JCSM that thought I won.

The greatest thing that came from that debate is my Isaiah 53 research paper. I did hours of research and took the very best sources and compiled them and commented on them. My site is now one of the best places on the web to find convincing information about this prophecy being fulfilled. In short, I learned a lot and provided a wonderful, coherent page for seekers (and my hits tracker indicates 150+ visits and daily visitors to that page).

So, yeah. I really can't stomach the 4-5 people that continually post on ii_errancy and bash me and the Bible. It makes no sense for me to even read what they have to say any more.

JCSM gets over 5,000 unique visitors each month. I make new web pages each week. I'm getting my Ph.D., writing a weekly devotional message and counseling people all of the time. I'm almost sorry I spent so much time on ii_errancy because I have access to hundreds of thousands of people that actually want to know the truth and I should be investing my time and energy in them. Glory to God.

Anyhow, thanks for your post and I wish you the best. I'd be happy to elaborate or continue this with you if you wish.

God bless,
Jason Gastrich

[Robin Goodfellow]

Yesterday @ 06:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122582#post122582)
John Powell:

Robin Goodfellow:

Neither Robyn’s nor Jason’s citation of scholarly opinions are necessarily fallacious. Regarding the Appeal to Authority, Copi writes in Introduction to Logic, “This method of argumentation is not always strictly fallacious, for the reference to an admitted authority in the special field of his competence may carry great weight and constitute relevant evidence.”


John Powell:
Since the same can be said about appeals to concensus opinion and appeals to majority opinion, Robin, does that mean that those aren't always fallacious either?


Can the same be said of appeals to majority opinion? I wouldn’t normally think so, John. Are you considering some special circumstance?

John Powell:
What does "fallacious" mean to you? What does "fallacious" mean to Copi? To most people "a fallacious argument" is one that fails to achieve deductive validity.


Unless they’ve taken logic, that’s the impression most folks would probably have, yes.

John Powell:
Copi apparently uses the term differently, to mean merely "erroneous thinking" or something like that.


“Erroneous reasoning” is actually standard among logicians.

Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy:
“Any error of reasoning....The main division is into formal fallacies in which something purports to be deductively valid reasoning but is not, and informal fallacies in which some other mistake is made.”


John Powell:
Is the following a fallacious argument in your opinion?

1. EA is an expert authority on subject S.
2. EA has opinion O about subject S.
therefore,
3. O (i.e., O is true)

If this isn't a syllogism that fairly represents what Copi is suggesting about appeals to authority being non-fallacious, then what syllogism is?


Good question.

Irving M. Copi:
An inductive argument...involves the claim, not that its premises give conclusive grounds for the truth of its conclusion, but only that they provide some grounds for it....Inductive arguments may...be evaluated as better or worse, according to the degree of likelihood or probability which their premises confer on their solutions.


Here’s what Copi seems to be telling us:

EA is an expert authority on subject S.
EA has opinion O about subject S.
Therefore we should give serious consideration to the prospect that O might well be true.

If we had no more information relevant to opinion O than that it was held by expert EA, we’d be justified in concluding that O is probably true. “But,” Copi cautions, “adding new premises to the original pair can serve either to weaken or strengthen the resulting argument.”

For example, if the information is added that EA is a meteorologist and opinion O is that it will rain in my city ten days hence, the argument would be weakened. If, on the other hand EA is a physician and O is his formal diagnosis of malaria, the argument is strengthened.

If we were to find out that most experts in the field disagree with EA, that would weaken the argument. If we were to learn that EA was committed by religious faith to opinion O, that, too, would weaken the argument.

Robin Goodfellow

[Robin Goodfellow]

Yesterday @ 08:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122647#post122647)
Jason G:

I didn't do anything inappropriate with the Krueger debate. I'm perfectly allowed to add my comments in a separate MP3 file and upload them to my server. The simple fact that you, Doug and some atheists complained and called this a "tactic" says a lot about you.


Well, I don’t know that it does.

I’m actually sorry I brought this up, because the issue doesn’t deserve the bandwidth it’s gotten. I was trying make a point about why errantists found your posting so objectionable, and I didn’t stop to consider that the remark would naturally spark a reaction from you. My bad. Now I feel compelled to defend my position, and we’re off again. Where will it end?

Jason:
Before Bill O'Reilly (or insert another commentator here) makes a public comment about a debate or news item, does he have to call the parties involved and give them time on his show? Of course not.


I agree. But let’s explore the analogy a bit further. Although I’m a liberal, I like O’Reilly, and I’ve watched his program probably a couple dozen times.

When debating an adversary, O’Reilly will often say at the end of the segment, “I’ll let you have the last word. Go ahead.” That’s classy, and I respect him for it. It also tells me he’s confident of his position and of his effectiveness presenting it.

But sometimes, after this gesture, O’Reilly will interrupt the guest and take the last word himself; not to correct some falsehood, but just to make his own final statement. When that happens, I wind up thinking he’s so concerned about his opponent’s effectiveness that he gauges it expedient to cast aside his facade of classiness, just to deny that individual the final say. Having seen this, I respect O’Reilly less.

Is it an “unfair tactic”? I’m not sure I’d go that far. But consider a hypothetical case. If, after a making a show of giving his guest the last word, O’Reilly ushered him off camera and then returned alone to make an extended critique, I would consider that both cowardly and unfair.

I’ll grant you it is a grey area. Most talk-show hosts would think nothing of debating a guest for an hour, then savaging him behind his back for hours or days. And if the guest expects this, he might not consider it unfair.

Much depends on reasonable expectation. If Jesse Jackson were to come on O’Reilly’s show, it could reasonably be expected that O’Reilly would continue to hammer him afterward, since that’s what he normally does when Jackson is nowhere near the show.

In contrast to this is the former Firing Line with William F. Buckley. This long-running program was originally a one-on-one informal debate, not unlike your sessions with Doug. I can’t imagine Buckley helping himself to an extended “closing statement” after his guest’s departure, and I personally would have considered it unfair and thought less of Buckley for it.

Jason:
During my debate with Doug Krueger, I gave him a closing statement. I didn't even have a closing statement! Therefore, Doug was given more time to summarize his points than I was given. I was very generous with the time I gave him to summarize his points, so you cannot say I was unfair.


I don’t know that I’d consider it “generous” to limit Doug to thirty to sixty seconds for a summary he has to compose on his feet, then give yourself twenty minutes, with days to prepare.

When Doug completed his arguments on your show, he ended on a point you wanted to challenge. But, since the debate had already gone on for an hour and a half, you suggested that this could be the subject of your next debate with him. Here’s what was said at that point:

Debate Transcript Jason v Doug Round 2:

Jason: “Can you go ahead and give me a little thirty-second or one-minute closing statement?”

Doug: “Sure. Go ahead.”

Jason: [Chuckling at the misunderstanding.] No, no, no. I was asking if you can.”

Doug: “Oh, you want me to provide one?”

Jason: “Well...yeah, if you want to sum up your arguments in thirty seconds or a minute, please do, and we can keep this on the tape for everyone to hear, and I can do a little summary too, I suppose.”


Doug thereupon produced a closing summary of about forty seconds. For reasons best known to yourself, Jason, you opted not to. But in the context of the conversation, it seems as though a minute or so for your statement would have been pretty fair. Even if you did give yourself more time to prepare it, if you had simply uploaded a two-minute closing statement afterward, you and I wouldn’t be having this conversation now.

Jason:
If you want to adhere to this silly standard, then you need to contact all of the people who do this. Right? You need to contact Reggie Finley (the Infidel Guy from infidelguy.com) and tell him that he isn't allowed to comment about any of the past debates on his shows unless he airs audio clips with equal time given to the people he is addressing.


There’s some merit to this, and I can understand why you sincerely believe you were fair. But there’s also a difference in expectation.

If a talk show typically featured some one-on-one debate but also much criticism in monologue form, a reasonable guest would expect that he might be subject to the latter after the former. But if, like Firing Line, the format were strictly a debate on even terms, that would create another expectation entirely.

Here’s another illustration. A newspaper might publish editorials representing only one side. As long as other media were making a balance of viewpoints available, that wouldn’t necessarily be considered unfair. But suppose the newspaper had always given equal space to the opposing view. Then, one day, it editorialized against Mayor Gastrich, giving the mayor only half as much space. I think most readers would consider that unfair and wonder why the paper seemed suddenly afraid to give full space to the mayor.

Jason:
You need to contact Farrell Till and tell him that he is not allowed to comment on his debate with Kent Hovind without offering HIS web space for Kent to comment.


I don’t think either expect that from the other. However, suppose, after the debate was over, Hovind happened to leave the room before most of the audience did. If Till then returned to the podium for a final unopposed rebuttal, I’d consider that unfair.

Jason:
There can't be a double standard and the only way for your absurd, ad hoc rule to work is for you to have a double standard as it suits you. If you honestly think I must use my recording equipment, web space, bandwidth, time and money to promote Doug Krueger's opinions, then you are insane.


Well, I respectfully disagree on the question of my sanity.

If you think debate on equal terms would promote your opponent’s positions rather than your own, you might want to consider retiring from the debating business. It certainly doesn’t evidence a surplus of confidence about your opinions and your ability to present them.

It sounds like I may actually have a higher opinion of your debating skills than you do, Jason.

Jason:
Anyhow, since you want to bring this ridiculous situation up, I have no interest in chatting with you about my debate with Robyn.


I actually think far too much time has been wasted bickering about those twenty-minutes of yours. I don’t agree with what you did, but it’s not that significant. I only brought it up because I think it’s part of the reason you’re being attacked for your earlier posting in this thread. As far as I’m concerned, you and I can just agree to disagree about it and move on to other things -- such as whether I missed any passages in Isaiah 53 correlating with Jesus that Robyn didn’t answer.

Did I?

Jason:
However, if you wish to choose a subject and engage in a formal, 1 on 1 debate, then I would consider it. Is there a subject that you'd like to debate?


You must be hard up. Not five sentences ago, you announced to the entire board that I was insane. Are we to visualize you prowling the halls of mental institutions in your lonely quest for debate partners?

Because I prefer discussion to debate, Jason, you’re more likely to see me on the tennis court than in the boxing ring. I just don’t have the time for it these days, though. If my situation should change, I might ask you to step onto the court with me and bat some issues around, if you really want to.

Robin Goodfellow

[Lazy Agnostic]

06-13-2003 @ 11:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=122647#post122647)
Jason G:

Mr. Fellow,

I didn't do anything inappropriate with the Krueger debate.

During my debate with Doug Krueger, I gave him a closing statement. I didn't even have a closing statement! Therefore, Doug was given more time to summarize his points than I was given. I was very generous with the time I gave him to summarize his points, so you cannot say I was unfair.

Jason, after the debate with Doug (in which you did poorly) you announced it had been lost; it wouldn't be available for the public to hear. That news was met with more than a little cynicism.

You later made the claim that you were making a tape to summarize the debate from memory---and just after finishing this summary (which smoothed over your poor debate performance) the debate was suddenly found.

Given your history of less-than-straightforward tactics, incredulity is to be expected.

[Mikeb]

It seems to me this whole argument is a bit pointless. Doesn't it seem more likely that an a posteriori selection process was in effect with regard to biblical prophecies? I mean every prophet in the Bible warns against the false prophets of his time. We must assume that there were, at any given time, loads of prophets with prophecies that predicted almost everything. I'm sure that in Jeremiah’s time many prophets assured the people that the neighbor to the north was no threat to god’s chosen nation, and that the Temple of Solomon would last forever. Unfortunately the scrolls containing these pollyannaish predictions were overlooked by the priests being hustled out of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar’s troops. I’m sure the same thing happened to most of the writings of all the “false prophets,” the prophets whose predictions proved wrong.

Is this process of elimination any different than our modern process of determining the utility of scientific theories. Copernicus replaced Ptolemy and Einstein Newton because the latter theories predictive abilities were found by time to be limited.

I don’t have a problem with accepting the obvious conclusion that people with great historical, political, and moral understanding, like Jeremiah et al, were able to understand the forces at work in the history of the Hebrew Nation and predict the outcome. The ones who were correct like Jeremiah were preserved, and the others were proven by history to be “false prophets.” The prophets who were canonized were proven over the long history of the Hebrew Nation, they didn’t suddenly pop into canon overnight.

[Robyn Banks]

Mikeb:
Is this process of elimination any different than our modern process of determining the utility of scientific theories. Copernicus replaced Ptolemy and Einstein Newton because the latter theories predictive abilities were found by time to be limited.
Essentially, the two types of prediction (scientific predictions and Hebrew prophetic predictions are the same). Each set of predictions are made by faith, by people recognised as authoritative by a religious order.

Robyn Banks

[Mikeb]

Robyn Banks

Correct, but were they deemed authoritative before or after their predictions were proven correct? I'm pretty sure that that it was after in both cases. If Einstein's predictions hadn't proved useful, then his works would have been disgarded. Likewise, if Nebuchadnezzar had not attacked, Jeremiah's works would have ended up on the scrap pile of history.

So is faith and authority pre or post proof? Post I think. Natural selection works in the relm of ideas also.

[djconklin]

Essentially, the two types of prediction (scientific predictions and Hebrew prophetic predictions are the same).

I suspected that you expected Biblical prophecy to be of a type that it is not. The above confirms that suspicion. Biblical prophecy (being written in a Senitic culture and not a Western scientific culture) does not predict a person's name _and_ a specific date _and_ a specific event. In Biblical prophecy (as fas I recall) only Cyrus is mentoned by name. Alexander the Great is recognized as being the horn on the goat that tramples the Media-Persian empire even tho' he is not named. Note also that no dates are associated with either of the aforementioned individuals.

[djconklin]

RB: Anyone with a passing familiarity with contemporary scholarship on Matthew and Luke would be aware that they are usually dated to the mid-eighties of the first century AD. This is some fifteen years after the destruction of the Second Temple.

Theodor Zahn, a classicist and NT scholar, who wrote a commentary on Matthew back in 1903, wrote that: "Mt would hardly have written v. 23 if the escape of the Christians [to Pella] had already taken place at the time of his writing. Our gospel is written before A.D. 66." (Das Evangelium des Matthaus (Leipzig/Erlangen, 1903; 4th ed., 1922; repr. Wuppertal/Zurich, 1984), p. 407. Quoted by Thiede and D'Ancona, Eyewitness to Jesus: Amazing New Manuscript Evidence About the Origin of the Gospels. (Doubleday, 1996): page 12.)

Abel, on page 147 of his article "Who Wrote Matthew? (NTS 17 (1970-1): 138-52)," points out that the references to the Temple tax indicate that it was written "some time prior to A.D. 70." Wink, ("Jesus and Revolution: Reflection on S.G.F. Brandon's Jesus and the Zealots," Union Seminary Quarterly Review 26 (1969): 37-59; see page 50, note 41, also points to the payment of the Temple tax (Matt. 17: 24-7) as evidence that it could "only have arisen _while_ the Temple was still standing" (emphasis added).

Orchard and Riley are prepared to date Matthew as early as 43 A.D. (The Order of the Synoptics. (Macon, 1987); cited by Thiede and D'Ancona, page 173 note 12.). John Wenham, (Redating Matthew, Mark and Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem. (IVP, 1992): page 241), notes that Eusebius' Chronicon puts "the publication of Matthew's gospel in 41." He further notes, page 239, that dates "like these in the 30s [referring to Cosmas of Alexandria (died c. 550) put Matthew's writing "during the persecution which followed the death of Stephen ..."] and 40s ... were favoured by many orthodox scholars right down into the nineteenth century." He then states that those who favored the 60s are based on the common but erroneous interpretation of Irenaeus. Sloyan suggests that "Matthew assumes throughout his gospel that the message about Christ [had] been preached to the Jews in Palestine, who have refused it" (Is Christ the End of the Law?. (1978), page 54). That means that Matthew could have been written as early as the mid-30's. Wenham, (page 304, note 45) , notes the following sources and dates:

T. H. Horne (Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, (London, 1823): IV. 227, 229) opts for 37 or 38 and cites Baronius, Grotius and Wettstein as favouring 41 'after Eusebius', Cave = 48, Benson = 43, Owen (inventor of the Griesbach theory) and Tomline = 38, Townson = 37.

These dates are close to what the prologue to Theophylact's commentary which says that Matthew wrote eight years after the Ascension, or 38 A.D. (Martin Hengel, Studies in the Gospel of Mark. Trans. by John Bowden (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985): page 6).

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I think Robyn is wrong, but Robyn is the clear debate winner.

[djconklin]

Yesterday @ 03:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=353812#post353812)
Theonomy:

I think Robyn is wrong, but Robyn is the clear debate winner.

There are people who excell at debating. That attribute, however, does not mean that they have their facts straight.

When I was in high schooI was asked to at least think about joining the debate team. I attended one meeting and was almost immediately turned off by it. It turned out that they wanted me to pick a side one an issue and debate for that position. My thought was "Shouldn't we try to find out what is the correct answer for the issue at hand and then defend that?" Unfortunately, many debaters could care less for the facts which is why they frequently run when presented with some facts they know nothing about.

[Robyn Banks]

Mike B:
Is this process of elimination any different than our modern process of determining the utility of scientific theories. Copernicus replaced Ptolemy and Einstein Newton because the latter theories predictive abilities were found by time to be limited.

Robyn Banks:
Essentially, the two types of prediction (scientific predictions and Hebrew prophetic predictions) are the same. Each set of predictions are made by faith, by people recognised as authoritative by a religious order.

djconklin:
I suspected that you expected Biblical prophecy to be of a type that it is not. The above confirms that suspicion.

The above does not "confirm that suspicion", except in your own Fantasy. You create a strawman in your own head, Conklin. You fail to read or to understand, again.

My comment was that both scientific and Hebrew prophetic predictions are essentially the same in that each set of predictions are made by faith, by people recognised as authoritative by a religious order. The 'same-ness' has to do with the fact that predictions are made by faith, and that they are made by people recognised as authoritative within a religious community. This has nothing to do with predicting dates and times: your strawman.


djconklin:
Biblical prophecy (being written in a Senitic culture
What is a 'Senitic' culture? A culture of old people??? :rofl:



djconklin:
and not a Western scientific culture) does not predict a person's name _and_ a specific date _and_ a specific event.
Why are you making this non sequitur? Why are you stating the obvious? Are you incapable of reading and understanding what I write?


djconklin:
In Biblical prophecy (as fas I recall) only Cyrus is mentoned by name.
There is no predictive prophecy about Cyrus in the Bible.


djconklin:
Alexander the Great is recognized as being the horn on the goat that tramples the Media-Persian empire even tho' he is not named.
The horn is further identified as the first king of the Greek Empire, which is undoubtedly Alexander (Dan 9.21).


djconklin:
Note also that no dates are associated with either of the aforementioned individuals.
What is the relevance of this, except to demonstrate your inability to read what I write? Is this yet another attack on a strawman from you, Conklin?

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

djconklin:
many debaters could care less for the facts
Fortunately, I care deeply for defending the truth that there are no predictive prophecies in the Bible which came true in reality. And that is why I chose to accept Jason Gastrich's challenge in the first place.

I acknowledge that Gastrich's debating skills are poor, but I also had the advantage of defending the side of Truth.

Robyn Banks

[djconklin]

djconklin:
Biblical prophecy (being written in a Senitic culture

RB: What is a 'Senitic' culture? A culture of old people???

It means I hit the 'n' instead of the 'm' and you couldn't figure that out. Your sarcasm doesn't mask your ignorance very well so you might as well drop it and try acting like a mature adult.

djconklin:
In Biblical prophecy (as fas I recall) only Cyrus is mentoned by name.

RB: There is no predictive prophecy about Cyrus in the Bible.

Your ignorance of what consititutes prophecy in the Semitic culture is showing, again. In regards to Cyrus, your igorance of the Bible is showing again; see Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1.

RB: My comment was that both scientific and Hebrew prophetic predictions are essentially the same in that each set of predictions are made by faith, by people recognised as authoritative by a religious order. The 'same-ness' has to do with the fact that predictions are made by faith, and that they are made by people recognised as authoritative within a religious community.

Then you understand nothing about scientific predictions, nor those of the Bible; neither are based on faith and in the Biblical world they were not always made by people who were considered "authoritative within a religious community." In many cases, the prophet (Hosea and Jeremiah, for examples) was someone who was attacking the establishment for their abuse of power and not following the will of God as they sometimes claimed to be doing.

[Robyn Banks]

It means I hit the 'n' instead of the 'm' and you couldn't figure that out.

'Senitic culture' :rofl:

Why are you resurrecting this old thread, Conklin? Bored??





Your ignorance of what consititutes prophecy in the Semitic culture is showing, again.

Despite your absurd accusations, my conception of prophecy in Semitic culture is very good. And I also have a good idea of what constitutes prophecy in Senitic culture. :hehe:




In regards to Cyrus, your igorance of the Bible is showing again; see Isaiah 44:28 and 45:1.

Before you make accusations of ignorance, I suggest you check what I said again. To refresh your memory: "There is no predictive prophecy about Cyrus in the Bible."

And this is true. Predictive prophecy must be written before the events they predict, in order to be 'predictive. Deutero-Isaiah was not written before the events it refers to.

In regards to Cyrus, your igorance of the Bible is showing again, Conklin.





Then you understand nothing about scientific predictions, nor those of the Bible; neither are based on faith and in the Biblical world they were not always made by people who were considered "authoritative within a religious community." In many cases, the prophet (Hosea and Jeremiah, for examples) was someone who was attacking the establishment for their abuse of power and not following the will of God as they sometimes claimed to be doing.

Nonsense. You understand nothing about scientific predictions, and nothing about those in the Bible.

Hosea and Jeremiah appear in the Hebrew Bible - a Persian collection of documents. They are recognised as prophetic by the ruling religious community at this later time. You confuse the fictional stories about 'the establishment' in the prophetic books, with the actual reality of 'the establishment'.


Robyn Banks

[Rusty T]

I just wanna know whatever happened to JasonG?

[Robyn Banks]

I just wanna know whatever happened to JasonG?

He stopped showing up here after a while. In the meantime, he stood against Arnold Swartzenegger in the California Election (he lost). He continues with all manner of very poor internet pop-apologetics.

Robyn Banks

[Robyn Banks]

both scientific and Hebrew prophetic predictions are essentially the same in that each set of predictions are made by faith, by people recognised as authoritative by a religious order. The 'same-ness' has to do with the fact that predictions are made by faith, and that they are made by people recognised as authoritative within a religious community.




neither are based on faith and in the Biblical world they were not always made by people who were considered "authoritative within a religious community."

Science is 100% based on faith - faith that the future will be like the past; faith that what happens here is what will happen there; faith that one experiment shows something more than that one experiment; faith in logic, especially mathematics; and faith in the system of science itself. Like all religions, it excludes those who dare deviate too far from received dogma.

The white-robed high priest in the holy inner sanctum (laboratory) conducts the holy rituals (experiments), the same as reading the entrails of sheep, to determine what the universe is like in the present, in the past, and in the future, and here on Earth and there on Mars and there in Alpha Centuri. Then his finding, put into the holy language of mathematics, becomes an article of faith for the faithful flock, until the next holy ritual reveals something different. As a member of the priesthood, his words may appear in the sacred journals (only those initiated as priests may have articles published; reports from persons outside the priesthood are called anecdotes).

[A patient saying his tummy hurts is anecdotal; when his doctor writes it down, it becomes scientific evidence; when his doctor publishes, and another doctor cites it, it has reached the status of a scientific fact.]
"Science has sometimes been said to be opposed to faith, and inconsistent with it. But all science, in fact, rests on a basis of faith, for it assumes the permanence and uniformity of natural laws - a thing which can never be demonstrated."
- Tyron Edwards

Less than 1% of the universe over 1% of time has been observed, yet Science claims to know the laws of the universe everywhere for all time. This is predictive prophecy, based on faith.
"The pursuit of science is just as irrational and emotional in its motives and just as intolerant in its daily practices as any of the traditional religions it has taken over from. It is not enough for it that it claims that its myths alone are true; it is the only religion which has the arrogance to claim that it is not based on any myth at all but on Reason alone, and whose mixture of intolerance and amorality is presented as tolerance."
- Survivre, No. 9, Aug/Sept 1971


Hope that helps.

Robyn Banks

[djconklin]

'Senitic culture' :rofl:

Why are you resurrecting this old thread, Conklin? Bored??

It's all on the same post -- so how can it be an old thread? Can't you tell the difference?

Despite your absurd accusations, my conception of prophecy in Semitic culture is very good. And I also have a good idea of what constitutes prophecy in Senitic culture.

You haven't proven it so far.

Before you make accusations of ignorance, I suggest you check what I said again. To refresh your memory: "There is no predictive prophecy about Cyrus in the Bible."

To refresh your memory: you don't know what constitutes prophecy in Semitic culture.

Predictive prophecy must be written before the events they predict, in order to be 'predictive. Deutero-Isaiah was not written before the events it refers to.

There is no evidence that there ever was such a thing as Deutro-Isaiah -- latest research into Isaiah reveals the unity of the text. Your knowledge of the field is old and faulty at best.

In regards to Cyrus, your igorance of the Bible is showing again, Conklin.

I cted actual the source of a Semitic prophecy -- all you show is your typical juvenile behavior.

Nonsense. You understand nothing about scientific predictions, and nothing about those in the Bible.

Before turning away from the field of science I had studied it for a numbers of years at the collegiate level and have continued follow selected elements in the field since then -- when my cousin was working on his biology doctorate he once remarked that I knew more about the field than he did when he started it.

Hosea and Jeremiah appear in the Hebrew Bible - a Persian collection of documents.

Hosea, in particular, had nothing to do with Persia.

They are recognised as prophetic by the ruling religious community at this later time. You confuse the fictional stories about 'the establishment' in the prophetic books, with the actual reality of 'the establishment'.

And yet Daniel which was supposedly written in 164 B.C. was immediately recognized by the Maccabees as an authoritative source. Hmmm. Which whopper would you really care to defend? Can you please at least try to be consistent?

[djconklin]

Science is 100% based on faith - faith that the future will be like the past; faith that what happens here is what will happen there; faith that one experiment shows something more than that one experiment; faith in logic, especially mathematics; and faith in the system of science itself. Like all religions, it excludes those who dare deviate too far from received dogma.

Interesting perspective that reveals your prediliction to redefine the terms to fit your artificial standards so as to win the argument (which is your real interest). If you had done the above previously we could have mnot wasted time and simply pointed out that that is NOT the sense in which "faith" is used to describe behavior (which is the level it must work at) in the religious community.

No scientific literature that I have ever read would ever use the word "faith" in the sense that it is used in the religious community (no matter how accurate your description above might be, see Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions for instance).

Loved the quotes! Keep 'em coming! But, next time do try to provide the bibliographic detail (we've been over this before -- one would have thought that you would have learned either from getting chewed out here or from reading scholarly literature what to do when citing someone) that is necessary to request them through ILL. On the Survivre article I need the title of the article and the author of that article. On the Edwards quote I need its source.

[Robyn Banks]

Interesting perspective that reveals your prediliction to redefine the terms to fit your artificial standards so as to win the argument (which is your real interest).

This has long been my view, and it was exactly what I meant earlier on in this thread. I earlier wrote something substantially similar on Jason Gastrich's inerrancy board in August 2003.




Loved the quotes! Keep 'em coming!

Good - weren't they?




But, next time do try to provide the bibliographic detail (we've been over this before -- one would have thought that you would have learned either from getting chewed out here or from reading scholarly literature what to do when citing someone) that is necessary to request them through ILL. On the Survivre article I need the title of the article and the author of that article. On the Edwards quote I need its source.

I thought you would have learned: this is an internet board. :rofl: I don't share your citation fetish.

Robyn Banks

[djconklin]

DJC: But, next time do try to provide the bibliographic detail (we've been over this before -- one would have thought that you would have learned either from getting chewed out here or from reading scholarly literature what to do when citing someone) that is necessary to request them through ILL. On the Survivre article I need the title of the article and the author of that article. On the Edwards quote I need its source.

RB: I thought you would have learned: this is an internet board. :rofl: I don't share your citation fetish.

It's not a fetish; it is the mark of a professional and a courtesy. But then, I also forgot who I was talking too, mea culpa!

[Robyn Banks]

It's not a fetish; it is the mark of a professional and a courtesy.

Right - it is done in the 'profession', within 'professional' literature. Not on an internet board.

[djconklin]

Right - it is done in the 'profession', within 'professional' literature. Not on an internet board.

I do it all the time; it is quite easy once one actually learns how to do it. It becomes a force of habit to reveal one's sources. BTW, I also said "courtesy" not just "professional" and I used the latter in a different sense than what you posted.

Perhaps the reason you dilly-dally in providing your source is because you didn't actually read the article and merely cut and pasted an interesting quote. The second one can be found at http://www.errantyears.com/1998/jun98/000590.html

Tyron Edwards seems not to be a scientist but did edit a cyclopedia of quotations and made some of his own:

If you would thoroughly know anything, teach it to others. - Tryon Edwards

The great end of education is to discipline rather than to furnish the mind; to train it to the use of its own powers, rather than fill it with the accumulation of others. - Tryon Edwards

Accuracy of statement is one of the first elements of truth; inaccuracy is a near kin to falsehood. - Tyron Edwards

Facts are God’s arguments, we should be careful never to misunderstand or pervert them. - Tyron Edwards

[covakid]

If you look at these words from Jesus through his messenger Jennifer, they may seem harsh.



But today’s culture there seems to be a lost sense of God; it is because there is a lost a sense of sin?



"The sin of the century is the loss of the sense of sin." Pope John Paul II



Sin, is not sin to ones self, but it effects the whole society, for we all are united within Christ's body; for we are all in communion



Sinfulness involves more than a purely personal act. Each time I sin, I interfere with God's presence and action within the believing community of which I am a part. I center myself in isolation from that community and turn away from God. (Disobedience was the first sin of man).



Our society has moved away from living the commandments and taken up living in sin.



May 23 2003 11:10 am

Words from Jesus - When you see the signs:

http://www.wordsfromJesus.com



My child, my people of America will pay for their sinfulness. When you see the signs know that this is the coming of the Antichrist. When the Antichrist comes to power you will be tested. All who truly believe in me will be brought closer to me through these times. All who truly believe in my will have to suffer. The antichrist will tempt you for he will promise you things that will seem to make the road easier. Do not be deceived my people, for this is a trap to bring you under his control. America is on its way into eternal fire for many do not see how their sinfulness has added wounds to my most sacred heart. They do not realize how the killing of my little innocent ones is truly the greatest sin.



My people are truly ruining my creation; they are trying to rely on man's ways and not my ways.



My people must be willing to change their sinful ways. The only way to be with me is to follow the way of the cross. I have given my people this time to repent and come closer to me. How the sins of so many continue to pierce me.



Please dear child love even your worst enemy. Love those who have hurt you and bring them closer to me. Please dear child this is the time to prepare for when you see the antichrist come to power look to me for I will show you the way. Look to me and I will reward my faithful in my kingdom.



Tell my people, that time is truly short. Tell my people to trust in my endless mercy. I will shake this earth and my people will awaken. There is no time to waste. Continue to pray, continue to trust in me and I will reward you in my kingdom.



Be at peace for I will help you. You are on a mission dear child to assist me to save souls. Continue to suffer for so many are lost in this world. Go forth and have peace.





June 6th 2003 12:05pm

Words from Jesus - Great sign coming out of the east:

http://www.wordsfromJesus.com



My child, when you see the great sign coming out of the east, know that there will be little time for my people to prepare. When you see the sign appear in the sky, my people this world will no longer be as you have come to know it.



My child, tell my people that the sign is soon to come, let my people know that the hour is upon them.



My people are soon to see their souls the way I see them, and so many are not prepared. Just as a family prepares to have a gathering of family and friends, it takes time and preparation, but remember there is only so much time to prepare.



I am calling each one of my people, I am calling all who are willing to come and serve me to have a place at my table in heaven. I have laid the tools out before my people, pick up your tools dear people and put them to work. If you leave a tool lay out and not use it and care for it, it becomes rusty and dull and will not work the same way as if you have taken care of it.



Your soul always needs to be cleansed and nurtured or it will not be prepared to meet me. Take time to be with me as I am calling each of you to give me all of your fears and worries. I have molded each one of you in my own image and likeness, please dear people do not waste this time for when you see the sign, you must be prepared.



Please dear child go forth and share these messages, go forth and assist me in this mission you have been chosen to do. Do not fear the things of this world, but focus on the kingdom and I will reward all my faithful in the end. Go forth for I am Jesus, and continue to trust in me





July 29th 2003 10:28 am

Words from Jesus - Listen to my commandments:

http://www.wordsfromJesus.com



My child, man and woman were created in my own image and likeness.



My people man and woman were created to engage together through marriage to be open to the life I bring forth. Man does not engage with man nor woman with woman, for then life cannot come forth.



My people listen to my commandments and read the gospel. Man must leave his mother and father and cling to his wife and the two shall become one with me. Man does not cling to another man nor woman to another woman.



My people do not alter my plan do not alter my creation. This world is about to see it's greatest trials and suffering because too many are trying to control nature. Too many live their ways and do not listen to my commandments. Thou shall not kill thou shall not commit adultery. These two are the greatest sins because too many of my little innocent ones are being killed.



Too many of my people are engaging outside of marriage. Wake up dear people do you not realize where your soul is headed. You are being easily influenced by the evil one and the way of the cross is your only way to heaven. Each day examine your actions and turn to me for strength for only I can lead you in the right way. Satan is furious and trying harder then ever to deceive you and make you fall in his trap.



Do not become deceived dear people because eternity is forever. You must come to me for strength. Come spend quiet time with me and continue to thank me each new day for your gifts and be open to my plan for you are each called to fulfill your mission. You are each called to serve not to be served. I continue to tell you now is your time of preparation for this world is about to see its hour of judgment.



Go forth now my child and share these words with my people and let the world know I exist. Continue to call upon my mother for she is here to assist you. Go forth now and do as I have asked and remember I am with you every time you share these words for I am Jesus now be at peace.





September 12th 2003 11:35 am

Words from Jesus - My people, you are not to step ahead of me.

http://www.wordsfromJesus.com



My child, when you see the sign appear in the sky, know that the time of the tribulation is here.



My people my commandments speak the truth. You are to love your neighbor as yourself so you to must love one another and forgive those that have hurt you, just as I love and forgive you. So many people are engaging together in ways that are not pleasing to me.



My people, women are not to engage with woman and man is not to engage with man for I cannot bring forth life.



My people, there are so many young innocent souls that are being raised in homes with two woman or two men. These children are being deceived by bad fruit and in time will only fall into the same trap.



My people, from man I formed woman and the two are to become one with me. It is only by the engaging of man and woman through the union of marriage that life can come forth. So many of my people are trying to alter the life I bring forth, but my people, you are not to step ahead of me. You are to be open to life for you do not realize how many souls are waiting to fulfill their mission. Each time a mother rejects her child is another soul that was not permitted to fulfill their mission.



My people, you must reserve your bodies for marriage, for marriage is the giving of ones self to their spouse. So many today do not reserve their bodies for their spouse. You must not use your body in a way that will tempt another’s soul into grave sin, for it is by reserving your body that you are allowing your soul to stay clean and pure.



My people wake up for you have begun to see the signs, and the time is coming when you will see your soul the way I see it. And for many the sight of their soul will be unbearable.



My child, go forth and speak these words to my people and let the world know I exist. Open your hearts to me dear people for I am the way, I am the truth and the only way to heaven is by picking up your cross and following me. Now go forth and do as I have asked, and peace be with you.





September 23rd 2003 8:05 am

Words from Jesus - My chosen sons, you must set an example to your flock:

http://www.wordsfromJesus.com



My child, go forth and deliver this message to my chosen sons.



My chosen sons, you must set an example to your flock, for it is by guiding your flock in a way that is pleasing to me that will help keep them focused on the kingdom. You must follow the direction of my son the Holy Father, for I continue to guide him so he can lead my people, lead my chosen sons.



My chosen sons many of you have become luke-warm to the teaching and laws of my church. Too many of your flock do not understand the significance of my commandments. Too many of your flock need tending to. You have allowed the world to step over and influence you. You must stand firm and speak the truth. For there are many who have gone before you and have given up their lives all in my name.



My chosen sons, you must stand up for life, for so many of my innocent ones do not have a voice. You must be their voice dear sons, for this is all part of being my disciples. You must not alter my church to the ways of the world. You must take time and listen to my people; you must not keep yourself busy with unnecessary work, for your work is to tend to my people. Do not fear what the world around you will say, for each one of my chosen sons will be held accountable.



Now go forth-dear chosen sons and prepare your flocks, for now you too will face much persecution for the hour is upon you, for it is important that you prepare now. Be on guard and armor yourselves, for the evil one is furious and will continue to tempt you. Satan wants to destroy my church and he continues to try and deceive each one of my chosen sons, for he knows your areas of weakness. But it is through prayer that you will be given much strength.



My chosen sons, teach my people the commandments, teach my people the significance of penance, and teach my people how they are each given a mission. Go forth and show love to my people, for if you are truly one of my disciples, you will go out and do good works and witness my love to the world.



Now peace be with you my chosen sons, for my hand is upon each one of you, for I have called each one of you by name to be one of my disciples.





November 6th 2003 2:55pm

Words from Jesus - the ways of the world are bad fruit

http://www.wordsfromJesus.com.



My child, Tell my people not to alter these messages to the ways of the world. For each and every word has a special meaning.



My messages are each given to you so this world can prepare for the hour ahead. Each word is a piece of the puzzle and when you leave out a piece of the puzzle you do not get the full picture.



My people, this is the hour and just as I gave Adam and Eve the direction not to eat of the bad fruit I am again telling you that the ways of the world are bad fruit and will only lead you to the fires of hell.



My people listen to the messages and do not alter them for the words will speak to you in a way that will bring you closer to me, closer to the kingdom.



My people, it is those of you who chose to alter my words are the same ones who pick and chose my commandments. You are not the final judge I am. These messages my people speak the truth that your lives are not pleasing to me. Those of you who spend your time altering my words are the ones wasting your opportunity to prepare and you will become the lost sheep in the night.



My people, listen to Your Shepherd for these words are for all my flock. These words are for the world, for all mankind. You are seeing a rise in your storms and earthquakes and yet so many of you are sitting and waiting for more to come. If you are sitting and waiting then you will not be prepared for when I shake this earth. If you are becoming luke warm to the evil around you, then you are not truly living the way of the cross.



My people to many today have no respect for life, for so many of my people kill their brothers and sisters out of hate that they do not realize how the mission of that soul was not completely fulfilled. Part of your mission my people is to nurture and cleanse your soul. Do not become the lost sheep in the night, rather follow the path of the saints and live your faith so you can join Your Shepherd in the kingdom.



My people persevere and join hands and unite yourself with the cross.



My child, continue to write these messages for the world, for I bring these words for all my people because I love each one of you. Now go forth and continue to do as I have asked and remember to trust in me for I am Jesus now go forth in peace.



December 25th 2003 7:45pm

Words from Jesus - get down on your knees and repent; repent of your sins

http://www.wordsfromJesus.com.



My child, the battle is on, the battle is on, for I come to bring these messages for the world just as I came and died on the cross for all mankind.



My people the hour is drawing closer and these messages are to help guide you through these events that are about to unfold. You have begun to see the division in My church for to many of My chosen sons have fallen to the ways of the world. For as I have told you, priests will be against priest and nun against nun. You will see countries that have enormous power fall into ruins and the rise of the antichrist. My people prophets foretold you the coming of the Messiah and My messengers all around this world are writing these messages to help prepare you for the awakening you will endure.



My people do not become luke-warm to these events going on around you, for greater trials and sufferings will come your way and you must not be like the foolish man that is caught off guard.



My people there are millions of souls that are suffering in this world; you do not realize how many rejected souls there are.



My people go out and be the shining light of My love, for even I befriended my worst enemies. Many will mock and many will criticize, and each time people mock and criticize you, you are sharing in My scourging at the pillar. Each time you suffer unjustly you are sharing in the wounds of My Passion.



My people thank Me for this gift, for this gift is bringing you closer to Me and is helping you prepare for times ahead. Those of you who claim to have your fame and fortune and do not have your share of sufferings are the ones who need to have your lives more pleasing to Me.



It is time to get down on your knees and repent; repent of your sins for just as I came on this earth on Christmas day to fulfill My mission, the day came when My mission on earth was fulfilled. I had fulfilled the plans of My Father in heaven. You are only given one life, one soul and your mission on earth will one day come to an end and you must be prepared to meet Me. For it is only those that are in the purest of white, that I will present to My Father in Heaven.

My child, continue to fulfill your mission and write My words, now go forth and have peace.



January 29th 2004 6:59pm

Words from Jesus - so many of you remain in such grave sin

http://www.wordsfromJesus.com



My child, go forth and write this message for My people.



My people, open your heart to Me, open your heart to My words. You have seen how hatred and division have torn this world apart. You have seen wars amongst My people and how so many of My young people are willing to sacrifice their lives all in the name of hate. These young people do not realize when they chose this decision of ending their own life they are called to stand before Me. This is just the beginning of an even bigger war that is taking place, there is a great spiritual battle going on as well.





My people look around this world how these various people call themselves holy and then go out and kill themselves and others around them and they say they do this for Me for love for peace.



My people read the gospel message for love and peace only come when you live the gospel message. Love and peace come when you rid yourself of the world and pick up your cross. When you come to know the depth of My love for you , you will in turn show that love to others.



My people as I have told you, your hour is now, the day is upon you when the world will be restored with peace. The world will be cleansed of its filth for the greater survival of humanity. Every source that brings forth evil will be washed away and cast into the fires of hell for all eternity.



My people your greatest trials and sufferings are upon you, and you will witness My wrath awakening this earth for I have pleaded with you My people, yet so many of you remain in such grave sin. This world will have the greatest awakening since the beginning of creation. Now is a time to prepare for your moment of preparation is coming to an end.



Now go forth My people and prepare for you do not realize the awakening you will endure. Now go forth for the time is at hand



http://www.wordsfromjesus.com/illumine.gif

Hey there - this post seemed to have nothing to do with the thread. PM me if you wish me to send you the text to post in a more suitable thread or to start a new thread.