My naturalistic assumptions do not make atheism unfalsifiable.  First you would have to give me some good evidence to accept the existence of supernatural phenomena, and then you would have to give me some good evidence for the existence of gods.

Ha! The fact that prophecies ARE evidence for the supernatural, and at the heart of the issue evidence for God, shows how circular and insulated philosophical naturalism (atheism) is if you want to assume some naturalistic explanation.

Until i have been presented with any such evidence, my naturalistic assumptions are fairly reasonable.

Not when you want the evidence for the supernatural to be naturalisticly assumed, then complain said evidence for the supernatural doesn't exist, and then think the naturalistic assumption is justified. As I said it's completely circular logic which makes atheism unfalsifiable.

Weasel out of addressing the point however you want.

I've already given you your bone on the matter. It doesn't change the fact that your arguement is contradicting and transparently question begs that naturalistic interpretations MUST be applied. On the contrary from your above statements you seem to think your justified in your logical fallacy.

i would have thought it fairly common-sensical that a prophecy can very easily contain elements which are specific (which can motivate action and/or revisionism) and other elements which are vague (which invite post-hoc interpretation).

If it contains elements that are specific, then the prophecy is thus specific. If there are no specifics then you can say it's vague. Not both at the same time.

You seem to be insisting that all parts of the Daniel prophecy are of an equal level of specificity, and therefore cannot be separated on that criteria, which is probably deliberately incoherent.

No, just insisting that if it has parts that are evidently specifc then it is indeed a prophecy that can be recognized to come to pass or not. As such post-hoc interpretation is out, and as far as "motivate action" goes it really depends on what exactly is prophecied. A prophecy regarding a specific bloodline can't be fullfilled by just anyone.

Your refusal to address the potential problems with even ONE of these "350 prophecies" gives me a good idea of exactly how robust they are.  Nice talking to you.

Problably because the ONE prophecy your criticizing says 'Messiah will appear at this time'. That still leaves the issue of what to look for in identifying the Messiah which is what's covered by other prophecies like "Root of Jesse" from Isaiah. Again, that seems to narrow the scope down that we have specifics to look for, and means not just anyone can fullfill the role if they aren't from Jesse's bloodline. And that's just TWO prophecies.

The prophecies were all to be taken cumulatively. As such a "potential problem" that can't apply to the cumulative total isn't a problem at all. Rather it just looks like nit-picking from a question begging belief.

Happy Spring Festival!  

Happy Easter!

EB

You're not even fun to debate with.
I'd rather deal with somebody who tries to have a conversation.

I get that a lot. I usually take it as encouraging evidence that I did well in the discussion.

Well this is what I get for not following up on a thread promptly.

A couple of things to RG.

First of all, RG, you are simply not being honest with the facts if you deny the rock bottom historic reality that up until the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Judaism intertwined with a sacrificial system that virtually defined it.  Your protestations that Judaism was rabbinic prior to this I am afraid suffers on a number of levels.  In the first place, I specifically indicated that rabbinism had begun prior to this point, so your attempt to 'correct' me is really not reasonable.  But we must understand why rabbinism began before this point- on account of a number of diasporas the Jews were deprived of the ability to follow through on many of the priestly requirements.  Second of all, your attempt to categorize the rabbinism we are speaking as like what we see out of Moses is a desperate stretch.  Indeed, on that basis we could list just about anyone and any religion that has influential members who transmit teachings as 'rabbinic.'  Heck, you could say that parents are 'rabbinic' as all but the worst of them teach their children.

My problem with your analysis is quite simply that it borrows 100% from the writings and understandings of Judaism as it came to be after the fall of 70 AD.  It obviously follows that if a person is a Jew after the rise of Christianity they are a Jew because they have rejected Jesus and Christianity's claim that he is the Messiah.  Hence my assertion that I find it pointless to discuss the point with a Jew or a Noachide (granted, you are the only Noachide I've ever encountered   ) unless they are willing to confine themselves to pre-Christian Jewish material, with exceptions as reason might require.

To one of your questions: 

"As I understood it, you said they were written to REFUTE Christian claims. Which position do you want to take?  "

No, you understand incorrectly.  That is not what I said.  It isn't even close to what I said.  If you'd like to produce what I wrote that led you to think that feel free.  I specifically cited the DSS because most, if not all, of the material pre-dates 70 AD, was probably 100% independent of the 1st century Christians, and, hidden as it was from the world for thousands of years, immune from the persistent chattering from skeptics and Jews alike that Christians 'tampered' with the Tanakh.  Obviously, Constantine never had his nasty paws on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

In short, RG, unless you are willing to constrain yourself to 1st century and pre-1st century Jewish sources, I see no value in discussing this question with you.  Nor do I find your arguments against Jesus' messianic status to be in the least persuasive.

The sole question of import here is what the Jews of the 1st century expected of the Messiah, not the Jews of the 20th century who obviously have a different view.  Unfortunately for you, the Jews of the 1st century and the Jews of the 20th century have wildly different notions about what it meant to be a believing Jew.

"The contemporary accounts of his life are fairly bereft of these sort of claims"

Are you sure?  Or are you giving yourself an out by labeling it only as 'fairly bereft' granting that at least one or two passages from those accounts would fit into this expectation of Jesus' purpose and mission?  But wouldn't even one passage render your objection void?

25 "Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree  to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,  the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.' It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble.

With streets?  You say they're going to rebuild a city with streets?  Can you be any more generic?

I think you misunderstand the text.  It isn't just 'a city.' first of all.  It is Jerusalem, a specific city.  If you look above I have bolded the pertinent part you have misconstrued.   The point here is that the prophecy is claiming that Jerusalem will be rebuilt, but not in peace.   The fixing of the decree is generally derived from the book of Nehemiah.  I think you might be helped if you sat down and read the book of Nehemiah from chapter 1 to 6 in particular.  (Read the whole thing if you're so inclined.    )

It is also worth pointing out that this prophecy came to Daniel while the Jews were in captivity thousands of miles from their homeland.  Even the notion that they would return to Israel would have been amazing to them, let alone the idea that they would rebuild Jerusalem.  Most skeptics, since they know there isn't a God, simply argue that Daniel must have been written after Jerusalem was rebuilt, because after all, prophecy can't happen. 

"Also this whole "Annointed one" business - Jesus and his supporters are the only ones who influenced the way he dovetails into that description, therefore desire to fulfill the prophecy could explain these events just as well as the supposed divineness of the prophecy."

I think you're straining, here.  You seem to be forgetting one very important aspect of the issue which is why Jesus would have had any supporters in the first place.  Remember, please, that the 1st century was filled with people claiming to be 'Messiahs' and these people, while often attracting quite a following, ended up DEAD at the hands of the Romans and the followers dispersed.  The NT includes some examples but they are also referenced in the writings of Josephus as well which escapes your next objection that we only have the NT as a source on this.

That leaves two questions which I think you, as an honest investigator of truth, should seek to understand.  1.  Why was it that it was only during this period of Jewish history that people were running around claiming to be Messiahs (that's just the Hebrew for 'anointed one')  and not much earlier and not much after?  2.  If Jesus died like all these other 'false' messiahs why did a new religion that revolutionized the world spring up from him and not them?  A third point I think is reasonable given your hypothesis- 3.  If this sort of post hoc reasoning is so self-evidently likely why is there no record of it being applied to any of the other dead messiahs (evidenced, for example as I allude in #2 that no religions were spawned from them).

What I'm suggesting, DB, is that your own spin on the affairs sounds like a little bit of wishful thinking.    If the Jews of that era were so bent on twisting any and all prophecies to fit their man it should follow that this policy was endemic.  What would it mean if in fact your argument applied only to the Christians and no other?  I think it would come across as special pleading, but that's just me. 

""Cut off" is interestingly non-specific."

lol, sounds like killed to me. 

"If the prophecy had stated that Jesus would be crucified then it might have a little more weight,"

Sure.  And if the prophecy had said that the name of the Messiah was George than every Jewish male born in the 1st century would have been named George.  The key to an epistemologically robust prophecy is not merely its exactitude but also its resistance to contrivance by those who might try to apply the prophecy to themselves, don't you agree?

Granted, you need a little help in arranging your own crucifixion but it is easy to see how if it was known expressly that the Messiah would have been crucified (one wonders if the the person who wrote Daniel (who I presume to be Daniel) even had a word available to describe it, writing when they did) the Messiah-wannabees would have been bending over backwards in their fanaticism to get themselves crucified. 

In short, you must admit that too much specificity can actually diminish the power of a prophecy.  Sure, the prophecy might accurately predict the crucifixion of a man named George early in the 1st century but if a thousand men named George are crucified it might be a trick to sort them out, no?

""Cut off" could just mean rejected."

heh if that's the way you want to play it.  Seems like a reach to me. 

Can you point me to any part of the prophecy which could not have been equally well fitted by the twin mechanisms of Jesus and his supporters aligning their actions to the timeline provided by Daniel, and his supporters retrospectively claiming that he had done the things which were prophecied, but all in a mystical and totally unnoticable way?  i wait with bated breath.

I think I understand what you're asking for now.  It appears that I have already given you precisely what you asked for.  This prophecy predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of sacrifice at a particular time.  Jerusalem is destroyed and sacrifice comes to an end at the time predicted.  Is the bloody decimation of the Jewish people and their city mystical or physical?  Did Jerusalem fall unnoticed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(70)

I guess you can breathe easier. 

EB,

The fact that prophecies ARE evidence for the supernatural, and at the heart of the issue evidence for God, shows how circular and insulated philosophical naturalism (atheism) is if you want to assume some naturalistic explanation.

Sorry, are we still talking about the prophecies which you refuse to substantively discuss on account of my naturalistic bias?  You're saying that they're the evidence which might cure my bias?  And i'm the one who's being circular?

If it contains elements that are specific, then the prophecy is thus specific. If there are no specifics then you can say it's vague. Not both at the same time.

If you're allowed to point at different parts of a prophecy to show how they have individually been fulfilled, then surely i am allowed to do the same in order to demonstrate how else they could have been fulfilled.  That is all i was doing, not (as you seem to think) dismissing it for being both too specific AND too vague at the same time.

...if it has parts that are evidently specifc then it is indeed a prophecy that can be recognized to come to pass or not.

Of course, but there are ways that a prophecy/prediction can be fulfilled other than by supernatural means, and i don't think it is unreasonable to examine them.  Unless you have a supernatural bias.

A prophecy regarding a specific bloodline can't be fullfilled by just anyone.

Not if they are who other people say they are.

------------------------------------------------------------

SJ,

Nice of you to drop in.  

Are you really suggesting that the Jews of Jesus' time would not have known about the book of Daniel?

No, i was being rhetorical.  i am fully aware that they would have known about it, which opens the door to speculation about what portions of the Daniel prophecy could have been fulfilled by people's expectations and influenced actions.

A prophecy sealed in the earth for thousands of years and then dug up after the event and found to have correctly predicted people's behaviour would be free of such examination.  Y'see what i mean?

i think you do, because you implicitly acknowledge it when you talk about how the period was swarming with people claiming to be the messiah, many of whom attracted gatherings of followers, and many of whom were put to death by the Romans.  Why is this - because people knew about the prophecy, obviously.  You go further by suggesting that if the prophecy stated that the messiah would crucified then people would have been queuing up for it (which would have been a sight to see), and that if it stated that the messiah's name would be 'George' - why not 'Brian'?   - then half of the male babies around that time would have been given that name.  You make my point for me - people will actively work to fulfill prophecies, both at the time spoken of and retrospectively.  This is an important fact.  

After all, we wouldn't want to be decieved into thinking that a prophecy was fulfilled supernaturally when it might only have been fulfilled by people just being people.

Here's a question for you - what about all the other so-called messiahs?  What has happened to their stories and teachings?

Ah, i've just noticed that you touched on this point later:

Why was it that it was only during this period of Jewish history that people were running around claiming to be Messiahs (that's just the Hebrew for 'anointed one')  and not much earlier and not much after?

The prophecy?  History influenced by prophecy in a non-supernatural way, in other words.

If Jesus died like all these other 'false' messiahs why did a new religion that revolutionized the world spring up from him and not them?

History is written by the winners.  How do we know that no other religions sprung up from these men, whoever they were?  What we can be certain of is that they didn't survive in any significant degree.  Why might that be, i wonder?

If this sort of post hoc reasoning is so self-evidently likely why is there no record of it being applied to any of the other dead messiahs (evidenced, for example as I allude in #2 that no religions were spawned from them).

i recall our friend Paul encouraging the burning of the odd subversive book during his travels.  Do you think there might have been any wider suppression of budding religions by the newest big fish in the pond?

"People who believe we are living in End Times behave in ways which make a global conflict which might bring about the end of human life significantly more likely."

Just as an aside, I think we must concede that the operative word here is 'might.'  The people you are referencing are nowhere near being able to bring about the end of human life like those who invented the atom bomb, control its deployment, and are even at this very moment continuing research into biological weapons, etc.  In short, it seems to me that the people who actually ARE paving the way for the potential destruction of human life are almost devoid of anyone believing we live in the End Times.  These are scientists, politicians, and the like.

As you say, this is an aside, but it isn't only me who has been severely concerned by the close proximity to the White House over the last eight years of people who would actively welcome military conflagration in the Middle East as an inevitable prelude to the Apocalypse and/or rapture.  The US is not alone in this - you mentioned people of similar inclinations in the Iranian leadership.  Well, that bothers me too.

Re: what Jesus did

"He 'put an end to sin'?"

I will grant that this will be best reconciled within the framework of the Christian understanding and that as far as you, the atheist, is concerned, might appear inadequate.

Thank you.

"Do we really think that Jesus brought everlasting righteousness?"

Yes, I really think that Jesus brought everlasting righteousness.  I think you fail to understand precisely what Christianity is claiming.

And i think you're missing my point.  All the NT writers knew of the Daniel prophecy, and will have believed that Jesus was the fulfillment of it, therefore it is hardly surprising that this is what Christian doctrine claims (in a totally unfalsifiable way) that Jesus did.  i would be astonished if there was any deviation from the prophecy on this point.

If the life and death of Jesus actually heralded a significant and measurable increase in the amount of 'righteousness' in the world (defined however you like), then perhaps i would be more impressed.

The prophecy says that the anointed one will bring in everlasting righteousness and that is precisely what Christianity claims that Jesus did.

Obviously.  Because the writers of Christian doctrine had read the prophecy, and no one can prove things one way or another until after they're dead, so those writers could say whatever they wanted on this point.

How about we just stick to what the prophecy says.

Good idea.  Because i want to move on to the dating thing.

So, Jerusalem was rebuilt, as predicted in the prophecy.  Yay for the power of positive thinking, i say.

You know that there are people in Jerusalem now who believe that the building of the Third Temple is imminent, and who are genetically testing children for the 'blood of Aaron' (who knows how) and confining them to platforms raised specifically so that they dont contaminate themselves by touching the ground ("Kooks" seems a wholy appropriate word).  They also have a cornerstone ready, and a few years ago some hardliners were arrested fairly far into a plot to demolish the Al-Aqsa mosque with explosives.  If this all comes to pass, will it be because of the prophecy, or because people believed the prophecy?

Now then.

Sacrifice ended in c. 70 AD with the destruction of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. This was about 35 years after Jesus' death and resurrection c. 30 AD.  That would be the middle of a 'seven' which on my presentation would be a period of 70 years.  I personally find it beyond coincidence that the explosive growth of a whole new religion occurs at about the time frame Daniel 9 proposes and then 35 years after- almost precisely in the 'middle of a seven' sacrifice comes to an end.

Now i am puzzled.  To quote you, "Bible scholars agree that the sevens referred to here are periods of seven years".  Seven years, not seventy.  The middle of a seven would be three and a half years.

i think you are seriously overstretching in order to incorporate the destruction of Jerusalem in this prophecy.  What it actually says is:

26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed.

Still sounds like an apocalyptic prophecy to me, however, that's just my interpretation so i wont argue it.  What it does definitely say is that the annointed one will be 'cut off' (whatever you consider that to mean) after sixty-two sevens.  In other words, after 434 years, or 428 years and a bit if we apply your Jewish mathmathics to the figure.  Neither of those figures correlates terribly well with Jesus dying in 30AD from a prophecy in 444BC.  Please correct me if i am in error.

Ah, i've just spotted where our sums diverge.  It says in the previous verse that "from the issuing of the decree" [presumably the ostensible date of the Book of Daniel - 444BC] until "the annointed one comes" [which i would take to mean the birth of Jesus], will be "seven sevens and sixty-two sevens", making a grand total of 69 sevens.  If you interpret the annointed one "coming" as Jesus entering Jerusalem as an adult that's ok, but you must agree that it could equally have applied to his birth.

Here we have the vagueness, you see.  Verse 26, taken alone, indicates a different time frame to verse 25.  Again, this is different from verse 24, which gives a figure of seventy sevens.  That would be 483 Jewish years, which does not by any stretch of the imagination get us to the destruction of the temple in 70AD (i reckon it barely takes us to 39AD).  Did God miscount?

27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.'  In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him."

What this says is: For a period of seven years (not seventy) there will be some sort of covenant, but in the middle of that covenant "He" will put an end to sacrifice and offering.  You say that No one thinks that it is Anointed One who sets up the abomination that causes desolation, but in the context of the prophecy that's pretty much what it looks like.  Whatever, if you prefer to think that the "He" is God, then clear it up.  When precisely did God confirm a covenant for seven years and then do a bunch of other stuff (including, apparently, destroying the Second Temple) half way through?

Now, I would just like to mention that I noticed in your phrase by phrase analysis that you skipped several.  Now why would you do that?  :)

Limited lifespan.

Is it that 'to atone for wickedness' comes too close to specificity even for you so you preferred to focus on the phrases where you thought you could exploit some perceived ambiguities.    Is it not the case that even you know full well that what Jesus is said to have accomplished is an atonement for the sins of the whole world, past, present, and future?

The specificities do not bother me in the least, because they are entirely intangible and could have been heavily influenced by the prophecy itself.  The fact that Jesus is "said to" have done these things is entirely unimpressive, since there is no way that i can actually verify that he did do them.  People who want the prophecy to apply to Jesus say that he did them.  Big deal.

So did you notice my new tagline?  

Well this is what I get for not following up on a thread promptly.

don't do it again.

Question for RG.

If Jesus was late for the prophecies of the OT to be true, then what happened to those prophecies? How come they haven't come true yet?

And obviously if you are honestly seeking evidence, then evidence of the supernatural will indeed cure your bias of philosophical naturalism. That's how rational thinking and examination works, DB.

No True Scotsman fallacy.    Well played sir.

It seems you have operated without open-minded investigation for so long, you've forgotten how truly following the evidence (rather than assuming the answer a priori) works.

Nope, sorry.  You are applying statements i made regarding individual parts of the prophecy to the entire prophecy.  Rather as if i were to say that the cushions of my couch are too big and the legs are too small, only for you to leap out from behind some rhetorical rock and shout, "What?  You say your couch is too big AND too small!?  That's a contradiction!".  Not an impressive counter-argument.

A faulty analogy as it's the individual parts of a prophecy that allow it to be classified as generic or specific while the parts you sight in your analogy have nothing to do with the couch's size. It's more analogious to saying it's big enough to fit three people, yet it's length allows only one person to sit down on it.

You're missing the point.  When i say 'fulfilled in a natural way' i mean that the fact of the prophecy being made and known about influenced events to unfold in favour of its fulfillment. For instance, if i tell my wife that she is going to fail to get a job that she is interviewing for (which would be kind of mean of me), and, wracked with doubt and abruptly lowered self-confidence, she does not get it, does that make me a prophet, or just an ass?  My prophecy would have been fulfilled, but not because i am divine, but because of the effect of me making it.

That only goes when you can sight it as a direct influence and was the direct reason it was fullfilled. If she does not get it for some totally unrelated reason then you can't say it's self-fullfilling (though I wouldn't qualify it as 'divine' simply because it's a fifty-fifty prediction on an already scheduled event). I doubt you can say a prophecy where it says the Jews will be let back into Jerusalem and has the Temple destroyed later had any influence when it's a completely foreign power that fullfills these events.

Depends on your usage of the word "fulfilled".  Things have allegedly happened which some people claim to have been foretold in prophecy.  i don't think that examining those claims implicitly admits anything, but perhaps you feel differently.  The linear and unidirectional nature of Time compels me to examine these two sorts of prophecy differently - read into that what you will.

Which is another reason your contradicting. Your claims of it being self-fullfilling fall short as it necesitates everyone understanding just what is being prophecied, like understanding what not getting a job means, and must admit the prophecy was fullfilled - she didn't get the job. Thus you can't say it was self-fullfilling if you're not going to admit it was fullfilled and understood before-hand by the ones fullfilling it. And you can't claim post-hoc interpretation as it also must admit things did indeed happen but the context of a prophecy is too generic that anything can fit.

So either admit things did indeed happen (no "allegedly" to it) as they were foretold (no "claim" as one can't self-fullfill something that indeed wasn't foretold) which you argue is the only reason it happened, or you can dispute it didn't happen as it was foretold (you seem to be trying to do this with the dating issues).