YouTube argument with intelligent Christian
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-11-2013, 06:34 AM
YouTube argument with intelligent Christian
Someone on YouTube said "How do you know that your logic is true? Also, how do you know that there is no God, based on that logic?"

I responded with "How do you know that your bible is true? Also, how do you know there is a god based on that bible?" not expecting a response back.

He responds by saying "What personally convinced me that the Bible is true is it's scientific and prophetic accuracy. For example, it predicted the exact day that Jesus would ride a donkey into Jerusalem, thousands of years in advance. It also predicted the establishment of the new Jewish state of Israel (to the year) thousands of years in advance. There are only two out of dozens that have been fulfilled, and to chaulk it up to coincidence would simply be denial.

Aside from that, the Bible answers (almost) all of my questions concerning the world today, as well as my concerns about the afterlife. No other book on the planet has such information, but the problem is, people have been taught to believe that it's nothing but an outdated book of myths written by stupid ancient people, therefore they don't read it in it's proper context, which is historical narrative. Yes, it's scientifically as well as historically accurate but it's not a science book. You must have a mature perspective of science and history to understand it's proper context, as well as an open mind. As a former atheist (and extremely skeptical) I had to first open my mind to the possibility of my being wrong and the Bible being true before I could actually look at it for what it really is, the living word of God Himself. There's no other way to explain the information in that book."

I just said "Well as a former Christian who has read the Bible and studied it immensely in my 22 years on this planet, I still have to call bull." because the first example he gave about Jesus riding into Jerusalem is very circular (it is true because the Bible says it is) but the second example he gave about Israel is stumping me. I have heard that before and do not believe it to be true. A lot of things are predicted and fiction and then happen (or we can SAY that these events were predicted but really we're just connecting dots that aren't there).

Where is that verse anyway? I want to know exactly what it says so I can decide for myself what it may or may not predict.

Sorry if this was really long.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-11-2013, 10:12 AM
RE: YouTube argument with intelligent Christian
It's from Ezekiel 4. And it seems we have different definitions of "intelligent." Tongue

If you do a bunch of hand-waving and number twisting, and gloss over the part where "Israel will be at peace with its neighbors," sure; but if one is all apologetic and shit, one can do that with the whole text. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like houseofcantor's post
28-11-2013, 10:41 AM
RE: YouTube argument with intelligent Christian
Welcome. I found this, if it helps.

From here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/f...phecy.html

There is a far more sensible explanation for the discrepancy in Matthew's version of this story and the other synoptic accounts than the far-fetched, how-it-could-have-been scenarios that Bible inerrantists resort to. Unfamiliar with the structure of Hebrew poetry, Matthew simply misunderstood the parallelism in the original statement of Zechariah, so this resulted in a misquotation:

Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt, the foal of an ass (Zech. 9:9, ASV).
Parallel emphasis was used extensively in Hebrew literature, and that was all that Zechariah was doing in this text. The ass was a colt, the foal of an ass, and this was all that Zechariah meant. Certainly, he did not mean for his readers to understand that this king (whoever he was) would ride on both an ass and her colt, as Matthew interpreted the statement to mean. (Incidentally, this mistake constitutes implied proof that whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew was non-Jewish and therefore unfamiliar with a Hebraic literary form that the real apostle Matthew would probably have known had he been the actual writer.) The misinterpretation resulted in an absurdity that is missing from Mark's and Luke's versions of the story, because they correctly understood the original statement.

There are far too many examples of parallel emphasis in the Old Testament to look at all of them, but a few will illustrate how ridiculous it is to attribute divine inspiration to a writer who was unable to recognize how it was used. Zechariah himself used it frequently. "And it came to pass in the fourth year of king Darius," he wrote, "that the word of Yahweh came unto Zechariah in the fourth day of the ninth month, even in Chislev" (7:1, ASV). Obviously, the ninth month was Chislev, and Chislev was the ninth month; the two were the same. Elsewhere, he wrote, "And they of Jerusalem shall yet again dwell in their own place, even in Jerusalem" (12:6, ASV). Their own place was Jerusalem, and Jerusalem was their own place. The two were the same.

This technique was by no means stylistically unique to Zechariah; it occurred throughout the Old Testament. Here are just a few of many examples that could be cited:

And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even the ten commandments (Deut. 4:13, ASV).
Yahweh hath rent the kingdom out of thy hand, and given it to thy neighbor, even to David (1 Sam. 28:17).

Thou also, son of man, take thee a tile, and lay it before thee, and portray upon it a city, even Jerusalem, and lay siege against it (Ezek. 4:1-2).

In each case, it is easy to see that the statement introduced with "even" is parallel to the statement before it. The two are the same. It was simply a Hebraic literary device employed to emphasize. Had the Greek author of "Matthew" understood this, he would not have misinterpreted Zechariah's statement and put Jesus into the absurd posture of riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys.

The fact that Matthew made this error and the fact that neither Mark nor Luke in telling the same story claimed that the event fulfilled prophecy are sufficient to discredit the claim that this was a prophecy fulfillment. After all, both Mark and Luke also attributed prophecy fulfillment to certain events in the life of Jesus, as well as Matthew did, so if the triumphal entry was indeed a fulfillment of something a prophet had predicted, wouldn't they, writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, have known this and so informed their readers? Wouldn't they have been just as interested as Matthew in letting their readers know that Jesus had fulfilled the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testaent? To say no in answer to these questions would be to say that Mark and Luke and the Holy Spirit lacked common sense.

Besides all these problems with Matthew's claim that the "triumphal entry" fulfilled prophecy, there is the contextual one. When Zechariah's statement is examined in context, it becomes evident that Matthew, as he did in so many other instances, ignored original intention and pulled an Old Testament verse out of context to make it appear that an event in the life of Jesus fulfilled prophecy. As noted in a verse from Zechariah (7:1) quoted above, the prophet claimed that inspiration from Yahweh had come to him in the "fourth year of king Darius." This would have been during the postexhilic era when the Jews were concerned with rebuilding Jerusalem and their sacred temple. Much of what Zechariah wrote was intended to inspire confidence in the people who had set themselves to completing a difficult task. The chapter in which Zechariah wrote of a king riding on an ass, even a colt, the foal of an ass, predicted a general humiliation of the surrounding nations who were traditionally hostile to Israel. The prophet predicted that Yahweh would destroy Tyre and that she would be "devoured by fire" (v:4). The Philistine strongholds of Ekron, Ashkelon, and Ashdod would be cut off and become uninhabited (vv:5-7). Through the prophet, Yahweh promised to "camp around [his] house" (v:8) so that armies could no more pass through (v:8).

It was within this context that Zechariah spoke of Zion's king who would come riding on an ass, even a colt, the foal of an ass, because, quite naturally, in times of oppression and adversity a Hebrew prophet would predict the coming of a deliverer to save Yahweh's people. So this statement was made to instill confidence in the people of that generation, to assure them that they would succeed in their task and that Yahweh would protect them from their adversaries. To apply this to a man who would not live until five centuries later is to misapply it as flagrantly as did Matthew in twisting Isaiah 7:14 to make it appear that it was speaking of a woman who would bear a son 700 years in the future. Such was the desperation that New Testament writers were driven to in their attempts to prove that Jesus was the Messiah the prophets had spoken about.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like evenheathen's post
28-11-2013, 12:37 PM
RE: YouTube argument with intelligent Christian
I know it's harsh, but I'm seriously starting to think there are no "intelligent Christians". Well, in general, no "intelligent religious people". If someone is actually intelligent (I have smart friends who are somehow religious) are either not very religious, or they don't admit that they doubt their religion. That's usually because of fear. My best friend is not very religious but she does believe in God and still says that she believes because she was "brought up this way".

Sorry for not answering your question but the title just made me want to say this.

"Behind every great pirate, there is a great butt."
-Guybrush Threepwood-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like undergroundp's post
28-11-2013, 12:41 PM
RE: YouTube argument with intelligent Christian
Why, exactly, do you think that this particular Christian is intelligent? Blink

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Vosur's post
01-12-2013, 08:25 AM
RE: YouTube argument with intelligent Christian
"YouTube argument with intelligent Christian"

STOP IT RIGHT THERE ! you know its youtube+Religion.. you CANNOT possibly have a resonable arumgnet now!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2013, 11:37 AM
RE: YouTube argument with intelligent Christian
(28-11-2013 06:34 AM)carasaurus_wres Wrote:  He responds by saying "What personally convinced me that the Bible is true is it's scientific and prophetic accuracy.

Lol. Tell him that Pi doesn't equal three, and we've known this for thousands of years.


(28-11-2013 06:34 AM)carasaurus_wres Wrote:  For example, it predicted the exact day that Jesus would ride a donkey into Jerusalem, thousands of years in advance.

Yes, except he has no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a book. Using prophecies to prove the Bible is circular logic. It's trivially easy to write one book, then to write a second book later and "fulfill" all the prophecies in the first book.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
02-12-2013, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 02-12-2013 12:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: YouTube argument with intelligent Christian
(02-12-2013 11:37 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(28-11-2013 06:34 AM)carasaurus_wres Wrote:  He responds by saying "What personally convinced me that the Bible is true is it's scientific and prophetic accuracy.

Lol. Tell him that Pi doesn't equal three, and we've known this for thousands of years.


(28-11-2013 06:34 AM)carasaurus_wres Wrote:  For example, it predicted the exact day that Jesus would ride a donkey into Jerusalem, thousands of years in advance.

Yes, except he has no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a book. Using prophecies to prove the Bible is circular logic. It's trivially easy to write one book, then to write a second book later and "fulfill" all the prophecies in the first book.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of "failed" prophecies. The prophecy was NOT that there would be a SECULAR DEMOCRATIC state, but the Kingdom restored BY THE MESSIAH. None of that ever happened. NONE of the messianic prophecies came to pass. It's easy enough to write texts that make it appear that certain texts are "fulfulled", (the gospels were invented). There was no trial. The Sanhedrin was NEVER once in history called into session on Passover weekend. No Jewish historian ever recorded a "spontaneously torn" temple curtain, (which would have been a monumental event in Jewish history), or hundreds of zombies walking around jerusalem, (or any empty tombs or "split rocks" .. per Matthew's resurrection event).
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies
The most important fact, however, is, that using "fulfilled prophecy" is contrary to the very nature of the texts in question. They were NOT "predictions". That's a simplistic, ignorant, uneducated, "presentist" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_...nalysis%29
view of a certain type of ancient literature (common ALL over the ancient Near East) that was NEVER intended (as "prediction"), and ignorance of the role of a "prophet" in ancient Israel. NO mainline Biblical scholar buys into that crap.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid257278
He's using it as confirmation bias. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
There is no way anyone can say exactly what day Jebus "rode into Jerusalem". There is no way anyone can even prove he even existed. The gospels can't even agree on what day or what time he died. There is no way anyone can sort out the Jebus in the gospels from the one the Jew Philo was preaching right BEFORE the time Jebus, who dies for their sins and rose from the dead, (or any of the other rising and dying gods, were said to be active, doing all their miracles).

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-12-2013, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 02-12-2013 12:12 PM by Elesjei.)
RE: YouTube argument with intelligent Christian
(02-12-2013 11:37 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Yes, except he has no evidence that the Bible is anything other than a book. Using prophecies to prove the Bible is circular logic. It's trivially easy to write one book, then to write a second book later and "fulfill" all the prophecies in the first book.

That's partly why prophecy doesn't count for anything. Our only evidence for the fulfillment of prophecies is in a book written by people who were very familiar with Jewish scriptures. It's easy to distort or invent a story to make someone appear to be a messiah when you have read the scriptures with the "prophecies''.

Even if some of them came true, what about all of the ones that weren't fulfilled? I'd consider that evidence against the messiah.

And then, prophecies are always vague, and they usually predict events that are in no way supernatural or impossible. If it is prophesied that ''an empire will fall" and then an empire falls, that's evidence of nothing. Such an event being part of a prophecy does not make it impossible to not occur as part of the fulfillment of a prophecy. Empires fall all the time.

So, we have a book about a man who supposedly fulfilled a few prophecies out of dozens, and that is somehow incontrovertible proof that the Bible is the word of God.

But this part made me laugh; " Yes, it's scientifically as well as historically accurate..."

If something can be destroyed by the truth, it might be worth destroying.

[Image: ZcC2kGl.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-12-2013, 09:06 PM
RE: YouTube argument with intelligent Christian
It isn't at all about YOUR LOGIC being true or not, it's about his total lack of any supporting evidence for his claims.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: