Dishonest Apologetics

[Angie_Baskin]

Hi ‘not so evil Agnostic’ You may be interested in looking at 'what this man’s journey has revealed to him and to those who have read his autobigraphy. His name is Dr.Francis Collins MD PHD. He is a physician and geneticist. He was until recently the Director of the National Humane Genome Research Instituite. The Mapping of the Human Genome was his most notable accumplishment. In his book & audio book “The Language of God” he tells how he went from Athiest to Agnostic to Christian by processing through scientific reason & argument. What he has to tell is fasinating and compelling and would appeal to a like mind like yours. Just Google his name & it comes up. My husband, (an analytical thinker) swears by him and the way he has arrived at his present beliefs. Also, he being a strong believer in evolution and knowledgable in evolutions theory, concepts & proclaimers, has light to shed on mico & macro evolution and the moral law. Check him out. Always with Love Angie

 

[twb1621]

Based on the reasons given for why Mary and Joseph were in Bethlehem, and some of the apparent contradictions with the historical evidence, this strikes me as something added to the narrative in order to fulfill this prophecy and I’m doubtful that he actually was born in Bethlehem.

What contradictions? If a person questions something that is not a contradiction and their are no contradictions biblically. If you refer to lineage, those answers follow. It is not at all unreasonable to believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Regardless of what one believes to be the actual reason for them going there. It is enough to know that because of the religious significance of Bethlehem to the Jews, Both Mary and Joseph with their families would have gone there numerous times as was custom. Also, Joseph was from Bethlehem and his heritage was in Bethlehem. No one can say for certain that a census was not called at that time either. So this is a mute point. If one doesn’t believe the census was the reason it certainly is feasible that Joseph determined this is where he wanted Jesus to be born because of the holy significance of the town and Who Jesus was.

 

[twb1621]

I have some issues with inconsistencies in the genealogies of Jesus. Also, isn’t tribal membership only conveyed from father to son through a blood relationship?

Tribal membership doesn’t apply to Jesus but let me offer you this information.

“…The idea that birth narratives as different as those of Matthew and Luke could go back to a common source boggles the mind. It would have been most interesting to see Mason even begin to attempt to outline the contents of such a source. Matthew, as we have seen, did not generate events on the basis of prophecy. On the contrary, he used prophecies to bring out the meaning of events otherwise attested. There is no hint that [Micah 5:2](http://javascript:OpenBibleRef() was of any importance for Luke. It is implausible, therefore, to infer that he derived his choice of Jesus’ birthplace from this prophecy. Nor did he derive it from Matthew, whose version of the childhood of Jesus he did not know. The one option left is that Luke knew it for a fact.
One concluding observation: Mason claims that “establishing some kind of connection with David might have been critical for a messianic figure…in Jesus’ time.” He writes: “A birth in Bethlehem, King David’s place of origin, would naturally cement Jesus’ Jewish messianic affiliation.” But during Jesus’ lifetime, belief that he was the Messiah did not require seeing him as the son of David (and therefore did not benefit from any connection with Bethlehem). In this period, the Davidic Messiah was not the only type of Messiah hoped for. Priest, prophet and teacher figures were also expected.[7](http://javascript:OpenNote() It would have been much easier for a contemporary to have fitted Jesus into any one of these categories. (Remember, his mother was related to Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron, the first priest [Luke 1:5](http://javascript:OpenBibleRef(), 36 None of these other messianic categories had any connection with Bethlehem. In consequence, Jesus could have been thought of as a Messiah without any reference to Bethlehem.
Furthermore, of the many different categories of Messiah, that of Davidic Messiah would have been the least likely match for Jesus in the eyes of his contemporaries. Indeed, Jesus’ behavior was the antithesis of that of a son of David, who was expected to be a warrior king who would rule with supreme authority. This hope is expressed most vividly in the first-century B.C. Psalms of Solomon.”
Source: Biblical Archeology Review:

http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/nativity-03.asp

both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all they needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy from the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one’s descent. (See Lu 1:5; 2:3-5; Ro 11:1.) Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

1. Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.

Also answered in the writings of the following;
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/nativity-03.asp

 

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

I sympathize with your position … and, yes, I am sure it is frustrating for you. But, you know, as I evaluate where we have come from through these almost 1,000 posts - I honestly think most of the difficulties you have expressed are self inflicted.

This is one thing that I find really frustrating. It seems like a lot of people assume that everyone who disagrees with them must be willfully ignoring the truth. Some Christians think atheists only disbelieve because they want to live in sin, and some atheists think Christians only believe because they are too weak minded to face the truth and want the comfort that belief in God provides. I don’t think either of these accurately reflect why most people believe or disbelieve in God. I think people believe what they do because that’s where they think the evidence leads.

No easy answers here - but, in looking back you appear to be vacilating between some points for God some points for No-God. Back and forth, back and forth… and while cogent arguments have been presented for God - you simply dismiss them because you do not think they work. There is this indecision when arguments are given as to why Atheism fails to answer the questions that coinsidence or good luck seem to resolve.

From what I have read of your posts, you are of normal intelligence and, for whatever reason, seem to have not quite made up your mind. So, be it - as I see this situation, you are a potential Christian And, I think I will leave it at that - along with telling you that you are in my prayers. Who knows what the future holds? Not only are you a potential Christian - but, make that a potential Catholic!

As I appreciate the situation, you are responsible for the choices you make. If you hang around atheistic sites (this ‘Freedom From Religion’ is a classic distortion of taking what the US’s Founding Fathers (who were truly God fearing and God loving men) saw with the English King and the Church of England - and simply turing it on its head! ) you will simply pick up more of their view of life. That quip about not being surprised about laying down with dogs and then getting fleas… is quite true.

Ultimately, we are all evaluated on our honesty in this life (and the next). I think you can be honest by looking for Something to explain creation and the repeating patterns and laws we have found in nature - besides chance. Try crossing a busy street with your eyes closed - and leaving the potential for injury and death to chance! No way!! And, why - well, “That’s crazy!” would be one thought that some would find coming immediately to their minds. Yet, this entire universe just happened? I don’t think so. You job is to arrive at your own honest evaluation and conclusion and then live your life accordingly.

God bless

God bless.

 

[twb1621]

This is also something that seems like a later addition to the Jesus story. Matthew 21 has Jesus riding two animals while the rest have him riding one. This seems like it could have been due to a misunderstanding of the passage from Zechariah when trying to work prophecy fulfillment into the story of Jesus’ life.

According to John, Jesus rode in on an Ass’s colt. It is believed that because some texts were written in Hebrew and some in Greek, this may have been the cause for confusion in interpretation. It is more conceivable that John’s words are correct but either way the prophecy was fulfilled.

I don’t know much about this prophecy, but it doesn’t seem incredibly unlikely that someone claiming to be a messiah would end up being tortured to death.

Not unlikely

I also don’t know this prophecy very well. Was there really 7 and 62 weeks between a decree to rebuild Jerusalem and the coming of Jesus?

.

how Daniel 9:24-26 was fulfilled
All of these events later happened, in the same order in which they are described in Daniel 9:24-26:

1. After the Medo-Persians had conquered the Babylonian empire about 2540 years ago, they ruled a vast empire that included the land of Israel. About 2446 years ago (about 445 BC), Persian king Artaxerxes gave permission to the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem, which was still in ruins after having been destroyed earlier by the Babylonians.
2. The Jews rebuilt the Temple and the city of Jerusalem.
3. Then, in about 33 AD, Jesus entered Jerusalem as the Messiah who had been promised by Old Testament prophets. But, many people rejected Jesus as the Messiah and He was crucified by the Romans.
4. About 40 years after Jesus was crucified, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. (The Temple has not been rebuilt since then).

**How Daniel 9:24-26 was “Fulfilled to the day” according to scholars such as Josh McDowell **
First, McDowell, and other scholars, separate the prophecy into three parts:

1. The “7 sevens” in Daniel 9:25.
2. The “62 sevens” in Daniel 9:25.
3. And the 70th “seven” in Daniel 9:27.

Then, they combine the first two periods for a total of 69 “sevens.” They combined the first two periods because it is at after the completion of those two periods that the anointed one appears, and that’s what we are trying to calculate - when the anointed one was supposed to appear.

Next, they interpret the “sevens” as “seven years” or periods of seven years, rather than a period of seven days or seven weeks or seven months. Part of the reason that this is interpreted as “years” is because of the reference to “years” in Daniel 9:2. (Daniel 9:2 refers to the “seventy years” prophecy that Jeremiah spoke of in Jeremiah 25).

**The mathematics of calculating Daniel 9:24-26 and the issue of the 360-day “prophetic” calendar **

At this point, we’re adding the 7 “sevens” and the 62 “sevens” for a total of 69 “sevens”. And we are interpreting the 69 “sevens” to mean 69 periods of seven years, for a total of 483 years. So, we are saying that there would be a period of 483 years from the time that a decree is given to rebuild Jerusalem to the time that a Messiah is to appear.

How Daniel 9:24-26 was “Fulfilled to the day” according to scholars such as Josh McDowell

---

continued at;
aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm

Many renditions are available

 

[twb1621]

It doesn’t seem that unlikely that someone who claimed to be the messiah would be seen as dangerous by the ruling powers and would be killed (regardless of whether he really was the messiah). Most of this is stuff that someone who wanted to appear to be the messiah (or thought he was the messiah), could easily fulfill. Except of course the resurrection, but I don’t think the evidence of that is strong enough to make the supernatural explanation more likely than some of the natural ones.

.

Someone who is merely attempting to pass himself off as something he is not is, according to natural human instinctive reaction most inclined to admit or reconcile to the punishers rather than continue submitting to such torture. A person can do things in an attempt to appear as a person described but it would be less than credible to say the least that the reactions of those around Him would follow descriptive prophecy as well. To think that is just denial, period.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi ‘not so evil Agnostic’ You may be interested in looking at 'what this man’s journey has revealed to him and to those who have read his autobigraphy. His name is Dr.Francis Collins MD PHD. He is a physician and geneticist. He was until recently the Director of the National Humane Genome Research Instituite. The Mapping of the Human Genome was his most notable accumplishment. In his book & audio book “The Language of God” he tells how he went from Athiest to Agnostic to Christian by processing through scientific reason & argument. What he has to tell is fasinating and compelling and would appeal to a like mind like yours. Just Google his name & it comes up. My husband, (an analytical thinker) swears by him and the way he has arrived at his present beliefs. Also, he being a strong believer in evolution and knowledgable in evolutions theory, concepts & proclaimers, has light to shed on mico & macro evolution and the moral law. Check him out. Always with Love Angie

Thanks for the recommendation. I have definitely heard of Dr. Collins due to his work on the genome. I also heard recently when Obama appointed him NIH director. A lot of atheists were upset by the appointment, but as long as someone’s religion doesn’t cause them to do bad science, I don’t think it should matter what religion he is. I’ve also read an interview he did, and he generally seems like a pretty reasonable person. The one thing I most remember though is that the thing that finally persuaded him to believe was seeing a waterfall in three parts. That seems a little silly to me, but I guess if reason gets you incredibly close to belief, one thing like that could tip the balance. I’m interested in finding out what some of his more substantive reasons for belief are. I guess that’s one more book I should add to my ever growing list of things I want to read.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

What contradictions? If a person questions something that is not a contradiction and their are no contradictions biblically. If you refer to lineage, those answers follow. It is not at all unreasonable to believe Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Regardless of what one believes to be the actual reason for them going there. It is enough to know that because of the religious significance of Bethlehem to the Jews, Both Mary and Joseph with their families would have gone there numerous times as was custom. Also, Joseph was from Bethlehem and his heritage was in Bethlehem. No one can say for certain that a census was not called at that time either. So this is a mute point. If one doesn’t believe the census was the reason it certainly is feasible that Joseph determined this is where he wanted Jesus to be born because of the holy significance of the town and Who Jesus was.

I wasn’t saying that it was completely unreasonable to believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If you have reason to believe that Jesus is the son of God, it makes sense to also believe that he fulfilled that prophecy. But I think that if you look at it impartially, it is more likely that he was born in Nazareth. I’m not claiming to know for sure where Jesus was born, and your suggestions are definitely possible even if they seem pretty unlikely. My point was that if it is doubtful whether Jesus fulfilled a specific prophecy, that prophecy doesn’t help establish his divinity.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Tribal membership doesn’t apply to Jesus but let me offer you this information.

“…The idea that birth narratives as different as those of Matthew and Luke could go back to a common source boggles the mind. It would have been most interesting to see Mason even begin to attempt to outline the contents of such a source. Matthew, as we have seen, did not generate events on the basis of prophecy. On the contrary, he used prophecies to bring out the meaning of events otherwise attested. There is no hint that [Micah 5:2](http://javascript:OpenBibleRef() was of any importance for Luke. It is implausible, therefore, to infer that he derived his choice of Jesus’ birthplace from this prophecy. Nor did he derive it from Matthew, whose version of the childhood of Jesus he did not know. The one option left is that Luke knew it for a fact.

I disagree. There is also the possibility that it was long part of the oral tradition. It seems likely that either Jesus claimed to be from Bethlehem or that this got added to the story very early on. The apostles wouldn’t know for a fact where Jesus was born (since I don’t think they were there to witness it) but would figure it must have been Bethlehem since that’s what the prophecies said.

One concluding observation: Mason claims that “establishing some kind of connection with David might have been critical for a messianic figure…in Jesus’ time.” He writes: “A birth in Bethlehem, King David’s place of origin, would naturally cement Jesus’ Jewish messianic affiliation.” But during Jesus’ lifetime, belief that he was the Messiah did not require seeing him as the son of David (and therefore did not benefit from any connection with Bethlehem). In this period, the Davidic Messiah was not the only type of Messiah hoped for. Priest, prophet and teacher figures were also expected.[7](http://javascript:OpenNote() It would have been much easier for a contemporary to have fitted Jesus into any one of these categories. (Remember, his mother was related to Elizabeth, a descendant of Aaron, the first priest [Luke 1:5](http://javascript:OpenBibleRef(), 36 None of these other messianic categories had any connection with Bethlehem. In consequence, Jesus could have been thought of as a Messiah without any reference to Bethlehem.
Furthermore, of the many different categories of Messiah, that of Davidic Messiah would have been the least likely match for Jesus in the eyes of his contemporaries. Indeed, Jesus’ behavior was the antithesis of that of a son of David, who was expected to be a warrior king who would rule with supreme authority. This hope is expressed most vividly in the first-century B.C. Psalms of Solomon.”
Source: Biblical Archeology Review:

http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/nativity-03.asp

both Matthew and Luke achieved their objective, and that was all they needed to do. To prove that Jesus was descended from Abraham and David, it was not necessary to make a new genealogy. All they had to do was copy from the public tables that the nation fully accepted regarding the lineage of David and of the priesthood and all other matters requiring proof of one’s descent. (See Lu 1:5; 2:3-5; Ro 11:1.) Even if there was an omission in these tables, it did not detract from what these Gospel writers intended and indeed accomplished, namely, presenting legally and publicly recognized proof of the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah.

1. Why do the genealogies of Jesus Christ as given by Matthew and by Luke differ?

The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

Both Matthew and Luke signify that Joseph was not Jesus’ actual father but only his adoptive father, giving him legal right. Since Jesus was not the natural son of Joseph but was the Son of God, Luke’s genealogy of Jesus would prove that he was, by human birth, a son of David through his natural mother Mary.

Also answered in the writings of the following;
http://www.bib-arch.org/online-exclusives/nativity-03.asp

I’ll check out the link.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

According to John, Jesus rode in on an Ass’s colt. It is believed that because some texts were written in Hebrew and some in Greek, this may have been the cause for confusion in interpretation. It is more conceivable that John’s words are correct but either way the prophecy was fulfilled.

Okay, I was just saying that the differences between the passages make me think that it was likely added to the story later on.

how Daniel 9:24-26 was fulfilled
All of these events later happened, in the same order in which they are described in Daniel 9:24-26:

1. After the Medo-Persians had conquered the Babylonian empire about 2540 years ago, they ruled a vast empire that included the land of Israel. About 2446 years ago (about 445 BC), Persian king Artaxerxes gave permission to the Jews to rebuild Jerusalem, which was still in ruins after having been destroyed earlier by the Babylonians.
2. The Jews rebuilt the Temple and the city of Jerusalem.
3. Then, in about 33 AD, Jesus entered Jerusalem as the Messiah who had been promised by Old Testament prophets. But, many people rejected Jesus as the Messiah and He was crucified by the Romans.
4. About 40 years after Jesus was crucified, the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. (The Temple has not been rebuilt since then).

**How Daniel 9:24-26 was “Fulfilled to the day” according to scholars such as Josh McDowell **
First, McDowell, and other scholars, separate the prophecy into three parts:

1. The “7 sevens” in Daniel 9:25.
2. The “62 sevens” in Daniel 9:25.
3. And the 70th “seven” in Daniel 9:27.

Then, they combine the first two periods for a total of 69 “sevens.” They combined the first two periods because it is at after the completion of those two periods that the anointed one appears, and that’s what we are trying to calculate - when the anointed one was supposed to appear.

Next, they interpret the “sevens” as “seven years” or periods of seven years, rather than a period of seven days or seven weeks or seven months. Part of the reason that this is interpreted as “years” is because of the reference to “years” in Daniel 9:2. (Daniel 9:2 refers to the “seventy years” prophecy that Jeremiah spoke of in Jeremiah 25).

**The mathematics of calculating Daniel 9:24-26 and the issue of the 360-day “prophetic” calendar **

At this point, we’re adding the 7 “sevens” and the 62 “sevens” for a total of 69 “sevens”. And we are interpreting the 69 “sevens” to mean 69 periods of seven years, for a total of 483 years. So, we are saying that there would be a period of 483 years from the time that a decree is given to rebuild Jerusalem to the time that a Messiah is to appear.

How Daniel 9:24-26 was “Fulfilled to the day” according to scholars such as Josh McDowell

---

continued at;
aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm

Many renditions are available

It still seems more likely to me that it was meant to refer to weeks rather than seven year periods. For one thing, it’s more normal to speak of time in terms of weeks then in terms of seven year periods. For another thing, it seems to be typically translated as weeks, not years. So I’ll try to find out if McDowell has good reasons to go against the traditional interpretation. I’ll look into this a little bit more.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Someone who is merely attempting to pass himself off as something he is not is, according to natural human instinctive reaction most inclined to admit or reconcile to the punishers rather than continue submitting to such torture. A person can do things in an attempt to appear as a person described but it would be less than credible to say the least that the reactions of those around Him would follow descriptive prophecy as well. To think that is just denial, period.

Well if someone thinks that they are the messiah, they would make sure to do all the things that the messiah was supposed to do. Also, I don’t think we can be certain that Jesus could have avoided being executed by reconciling with the punishers. In order for the actions of those around him to constitute prophecy fulfillment, we’d have to be confident that the actions we’re talking about actually happened.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

I sympathize with your position … and, yes, I am sure it is frustrating for you. But, you know, as I evaluate where we have come from through these almost 1,000 posts - I honestly think most of the difficulties you have expressed are self inflicted.

I’m not sure what you mean by self-inflicted, but I definitely do have a tendency to try to make sure an argument is solid before I give it too much credence.

No easy answers here - but, in looking back you appear to be vacilating between some points for God some points for No-God. Back and forth, back and forth… and while cogent arguments have been presented for God - you simply dismiss them because you do not think they work. There is this indecision when arguments are given as to why Atheism fails to answer the questions that coinsidence or good luck seem to resolve.

From what I have read of your posts, you are of normal intelligence and, for whatever reason, seem to have not quite made up your mind. So, be it - as I see this situation, you are a potential Christian And, I think I will leave it at that - along with telling you that you are in my prayers. Who knows what the future holds? Not only are you a potential Christian - but, make that a potential Catholic!

I don’t think you or I can know for sure which arguments work or don’t work. There are undoubtedly objections and counterarguments to those objections that we have not considered. So I don’t think you can be sure that the arguments I rejected actually are valid, just as I can’t be certain that there aren’t ways of addressing some of my objections. But I will study some of the more plausible arguments in more detail to see if they really do work.

I wouldn’t say that I haven’t made up my mind. I’m definitely still an atheist, I just recognize that I could change my mind at some point. If I find out that one of the arguments for God’s existence actually does work and stands up to scrutiny, I’ll no longer be an atheist.

Thanks for your prayers. If I do become a Christian, I can’t be sure I’d be a Catholic, since I haven’t examined all the different denominations enough. But it definitely seems pretty likely. And I’m sure I’ll have no shortage of people on this site to help me make up my mind.

As I appreciate the situation, you are responsible for the choices you make. If you hang around atheistic sites (this ‘Freedom From Religion’ is a classic distortion of taking what the US’s Founding Fathers (who were truly God fearing and God loving men) saw with the English King and the Church of England - and simply turing it on its head! ) you will simply pick up more of their view of life. That quip about not being surprised about laying down with dogs and then getting fleas… is quite true.

Other than the Easter Challenge page, I haven’t really spent much time on that site. I do go to some atheist sites, but I try to focus on those that aren’t afraid to point out bad arguments atheists make or good arguments that believers make (I particularly like Common Sense Atheism). I have also gotten into listening to a lot of online lectures by Christian apologists. So I guess you could say that I try to lay down with everyone.

Ultimately, we are all evaluated on our honesty in this life (and the next). I think you can be honest by looking for Something to explain creation and the repeating patterns and laws we have found in nature - besides chance. Try crossing a busy street with your eyes closed - and leaving the potential for injury and death to chance! No way!! And, why - well, “That’s crazy!” would be one thought that some would find coming immediately to their minds. Yet, this entire universe just happened? I don’t think so. You job is to arrive at your own honest evaluation and conclusion and then live your life accordingly.

God bless

God bless.

At this point my honest evaluation is that there probably is no God. All I can do is use the reason that I was born with to try to figure out what is true. But I do believe that if the traditional Christian view of God is correct, he would have set things up so that an honest search for the truth would eventually lead to the realization that there is some sort of God.

Well this thread has passed the 1,000 post mark so it’s probably about to be closed. Thank you to everyone who took part in the thread. I’ve really enjoyed our discussions, and I’ve learned a lot over the course of this thread.

 

[twb1621]

I wasn’t saying that it was completely unreasonable to believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. If you have reason to believe that Jesus is the son of God, it makes sense to also believe that he fulfilled that prophecy. But I think that if you look at it impartially, it is more likely that he was born in Nazareth. I’m not claiming to know for sure where Jesus was born, and your suggestions are definitely possible even if they seem pretty unlikely. My point was that if it is doubtful whether Jesus fulfilled a specific prophecy, that prophecy doesn’t help establish his divinity.

What makes it doubtful for you?

 

[twb1621]

I disagree. There is also the possibility that it was long part of the oral tradition. It seems likely that either Jesus claimed to be from Bethlehem or that this got added to the story very early on. The apostles wouldn’t know for a fact where Jesus was born (since I don’t think they were there to witness it) but would figure it must have been Bethlehem since that’s what the prophecies said.

I’ll check out the link.

By this opinion, you would have to suspect that Jesus as the Messiah was made up by not only Jesus in later years but His mother, joseph, family and everyone who knew or lived near them since His conception and birth. This would include those in the temple when He was presented including simeon and everyone who lived around Him as He grew or the whole claim would have been blown out of the water.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

anEvilAtheist
*
So I guess you could say that I try to lay down with everyone.*

Don’t lay down with dogs, or you’ll get up with fleas.

 

[twb1621]

Well if someone thinks that they are the messiah, they would make sure to do all the things that the messiah was supposed to do.

First, he would have to be mental to believe that if it wasn’t the case and to believe it would change anything once He was dead. And this still doesn’t offer assurance that the people around Him would do as prophecy dictated.

Also, I don’t think we can be certain that Jesus could have avoided being executed by reconciling with the punishers.

See you are not thinking it through. In all likelihood He couldn’t but once the torture begins, man through extreme pain and suffering will try to end the suffering, whether by begging for mercy, agreeing to concessions or what have you.
Actually, It would have served the pagan community and the Jewish community for that matter much more effectively to give Him reprieve if He admitted deceit or conceded to their wishes. So in all probability He would have obtained reprieve at least for the time being. If He could not live up to what He promised and taught the disciples, including returning from the dead which is the point He almost lost them for their own fears, they would not have gone completely against their fears and accepted the fate they knew would eventually come.

In order for the actions of those around him to constitute prophecy fulfillment, we’d have to be confident that the actions we’re talking about actually happened.

That is a matter of recorded History but you are not accepting that. You do however accept the events written in recorded History regarding many other topics with no real proof of the events described. So what is the difference that leads you to accept the word of those yet none of those we are discussing?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

By this opinion, you would have to suspect that Jesus as the Messiah was made up by not only Jesus in later years but His mother, joseph, family and everyone who knew or lived near them since His conception and birth. This would include those in the temple when He was presented including simeon and everyone who lived around Him as He grew or the whole claim would have been blown out of the water.

I’m not sure what you mean by “Jesus as the Messiah was made up by not only Jesus”. But by the traditional accounts, he was only in Bethlehem for a very short period. So if Jesus was not originally born in Bethlehem, Mary may have been the only person who would have known (and we don’t have anything written by her or any other witnesses). I think it’s hard to know what actually happened, but there’s good reason to doubt that he was born in Bethlehem. Jesus’ birth in Nazareth seems like a popular, and possibly the majority, view of modern historians.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

anEvilAtheist
*
So I guess you could say that I try to lay down with everyone.*

Don’t lay down with dogs, or you’ll get up with fleas.

But how do I know which ones are the dogs? I’ve heard quite a lot of bad, and in some cases dishonest, arguments from Christian apologists.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

First, he would have to be mental to believe that if it wasn’t the case and to believe it would change anything once He was dead. And this still doesn’t offer assurance that the people around Him would do as prophecy dictated.

Are all people who develop false beliefs “mental” in your opinion? There are plenty of people who think they are on a divine mission who are otherwise pretty normal. If Jesus actually claimed everything the gospels claimed he claimed, then he would have a false belief, but he wouldn’t necessarily need to be crazy in all respects.

See you are not thinking it through. In all likelihood He couldn’t but once the torture begins, man through extreme pain and suffering will try to end the suffering, whether by begging for mercy, agreeing to concessions or what have you.

Actually, It would have served the pagan community and the Jewish community for that matter much more effectively to give Him reprieve if He admitted deceit or conceded to their wishes. So in all probability He would have obtained reprieve at least for the time being.

I still don’t think we can assume that they would have given him a reprieve. But even if they would have, if Jesus was convinced that he was the messiah, he may have gladly accepted his fate. It’s not terribly rare for people that are condemned to die for their beliefs to willingly face death. And I don’t think we can even be sure that Jesus didn’t cry out for mercy. He supposedly said “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” How do we know that he didn’t also beg for mercy? I don’t think that doing so would mean that he definitely couldn’t have been the messiah. It may have been seen as indicating how forsaken he felt at that moment. And even when a messiah claimant does something way more extreme, such as Sabbatai Zevi’s conversion to Islam, they still manage to keep some of their most loyal followers.

That is a matter of recorded History but you are not accepting that. You do however accept the events written in recorded History regarding many other topics with no real proof of the events described. So what is the difference that leads you to accept the word of those yet none of those we are discussing?

It depends on the type of source. When the source is religious literature of unknown authorship, I don’t think you should assume that it is accurate (just as you probably believe about the religious documents of other religions). Those elements of recorded history that I am confident in have far more evidence than exists for the supernatural elements of Jesus’ life. There are some historical claims that I think are more likely true than false for which there is no more evidence than exists for the miracle claims of Jesus. However, as I’ve said before, I think it’s unreasonable to be equally accepting of all claims, no matter how incredible they are. I wouldn’t need much evidence that your favorite color is red (just you saying that it is would be enough to make it more likely than not), but I would need a lot more evidence before I believed that you had a dragon in your garage.

 

[twb1621]

I’m not sure what you mean by “Jesus as the Messiah was made up by not only Jesus”. But by the traditional accounts, he was only in Bethlehem for a very short period. So if Jesus was not originally born in Bethlehem, Mary may have been the only person who would have known (and we don’t have anything written by her or any other witnesses). I think it’s hard to know what actually happened, but there’s good reason to doubt that he was born in Bethlehem. Jesus’ birth in Nazareth seems like a popular, and possibly the majority, view of modern historians.

The apostles attest to their knowledge or belief based on what they were familier with that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. That had to originate from Mary and Joseph and anyone else who may have had some knowledge which means Mary and Joseph must have lied themselves or the apostles lied and Mary and Joseph went along with it based on your opinion. Highly unlikely considering Bethlehem was a religious center for the Jews and travel there was frequent by many many people.
You don’t think any of the reasons or stated are good reasons?
Then what is the good reason you refer to leaning otherwise if not just your trouble in believing?