This document is a review of Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". The review is produced by James Meritt. Below is a posting introducing it followed by the review itself. Path: christian Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian From: jmeritt@ajax.mitre.org (James W. Meritt) Subject: Re: The Word of God... Organization: Mitre Corporation Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article btodorof@hmc.edu (Brian D. Todoroff) writes: }A great book on the subject of the reliability of the communication of }the Scriptures through the ages as well as the Protestant Canon vs. }other scriptures and canons is "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by }Josh McDowell. It has a great deal of information and citings of }research, both secular and Christian. An interesting book even if you }arn't questioning. No. It is a bad book. It has a great deal of false information, and displays a variety of logical fallacies. _Evidence_That_Demands_a_Verdict_ is a book that presents "historical evidences for the christian faith". It is produced by the Campus Crusade for Christ, Inc and was prepared by a Magna Cum Laude graduate of Talbot Theological Seminary. Since I'm a lot better with logic and the scientific method than languages and history, I will primarily be concerned with the massive logical flaws present, though I will include other items. The entire text is rife with circular reasoning, attempts at incremental confirmation, pleading to authority, and insufficient set definition, but there are many other logical errors. Please do not assume that just because it isn't mentioned here as an error I believe that it is correct. He also made up his own outline format. I'm going to try to keep his organization. Lines beginning with "}" are direct quotes taken from the book. The material I present is either written by me, or by someone on USENET, a mailing list, or email. Where appropriate, I asked their permission to quote. Look upon them as "witnesses" for Josh's "verdict". Since his title seems to indicate SOME judicial standpart, using "verdict", I believe that this will show that it is either wrong, unconfirmed, debateable, or biased. Thus, it "demands" no such thing. Given the wide press this book gets, I expected better. }SECTION I. THE BIBLE - I TRUST IT } Chapter 1. The Uniqueness of the Bible (p 13) } The bible is unique (p 15) Michael L. Siemon points out: "Any "uniqueness" in this nonsense is the same as someone's appearing in the Guiness Book of Records for collecting a few more bottletops than anybody else. Insofar as it is true, it is a ground for INCLUDING the Bible as yetanother (if in some respects a statistical outlier) of a class." } in its continuity (p 16) Very odd, considering that there are blocks that stick out like a sore thumb. Ruth, for instance. And then there is: >God good to all, or just a few? PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fa- thers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. >how many stalls and horsemen? KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen. CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. >folly to be wise or not? PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that in- creaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. 1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent." } order of creastion Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition: Day 1: Sky, Earth, light Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!) Day 3: Plants Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids) Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.) Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time) Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did) Note that there are "days", "evenings", and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim", which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods". In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good". The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes: Earth and heavens (misty) Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth) Plants Animals Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib) >righteous live? Ps.92:12: "The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree." Isa.57:1: "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart." >years of famine II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee? I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; >moved David to anger? II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah. I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel. >God be seen? Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9 God CAN be seen: "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23) "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11) "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30) God CANNOT be seen: "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18) "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20) "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16) >ascend to heaven "And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11) "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13) Anyway, I can keep doing this for hundreds of lines. A 900+ line file available on request. Eric Rescoria writes: "Hmmm....It's not really that continuous. Really kind of a grab bag of stuff, inconsistent in a lot of places." Loren I. Petrich writes: " True, most of its text was well preserved -- after it had achieved "canonical" status. But before the various texts got "canonical", there is good reason to suspect a lot of rewriting, though exactly what rewriting may remain forever obscure. Other sacred literature can be traced back at least as far back as the older parts of the Bible, which starts getting "reliable" at about 1000 BCE. For instance, the Vedas were preserved by professional chanters for many centuries; the oldest of them, the Rig Veda, is estimated to date back (partly from linguistic grounds) to about 1200 BCE. The two Homeric epics also display great continuity; they achieved their final form about 800 BCE. Their story of the Trojan War appears to have been based on a real war over Troy at about 1200 BCE, even if it did not quite occur as described (ten years of fighting, chariots used only to get to the front, not to mention divine intervention). In the _Iliad_, there is even mention of tower shields and boar's tusk helmets, which go back to about 1500 BCE. Interestingly, the Ten Plagues of Egypt in the Bible look suspiciously like the great eruption of Thera at about that time, even if any historical Exodus could not have happened at about that time, the reign of the empire-builder Thutmose III. All three sets of documents display internal evidence of having been put together from multiple sources; though the details of these sources have been intensively debated." } in its circulation That's nice, but you can go to almost any country on earth and eat at a McDonalds and watch Mickey Mouse. Ronald Ramage wrote: "A notion I was once told of, that I'm fond of repeating - Alexander the Great conquered all of the known world. (He would have gone further, but his army refused to follow him.) As he conquered, he set up an administration that functioned in Greek. (If you wanted something done, it was done in Greek.) One of the reasons for the success of the obscure hebrew cult recycling the life-after-apparent-death myth with an absent-but-all-powerful-father (Dionysis in the rinse cycle) is that once the gospels got translated into Greek, they spread along the administrative channels established by Alexander the Great in 300 BC." Eric Rescoria writes: "Well, it is the #1 selling book ever. However, considering that last time I checked, Baby and Child Care was #2, I'm not sure how much this means to me. Also, remember that Dianetics is pretty popular." Matthew P Wiener wrote: "Euclid's ELEMENTS is possibly the #2 best seller over history." Loren I. Petrich writes: " Baloney. Shakespeare and other Western literature have also circulated widely, due to the cultural influence of Europe and its colonies. Furthermore, this type of estimate discriminates against genres of writing that do not have single canonical texts. If one was to count the volume of these, such as the volume of science or history or art books, they would far outweigh the Bible." } in its translation Mickey Mouse "speaks" many languages. So? Loren I. Petrich writes: " Due to zealous missionaries. Other religions have not attached such a high priority to translations. Islam teaches just the opposite; the only legitimate version of the Koran is the canonical Classical Arabic text; translations are commentaries at best." Michael L. Siemon writes about circulation & translation: "Points 2 & 3 (if this means simply scale of distribution and number of languages translated into) may be marginally true, but mostly as a consequence of two accidents: - European colonization/influence over the last 250 years - the specific evangelical program to make the text available in every language (this is driven by one particular under- standing of one "command" of Jesus. Success in achieving this goal is very nice but is rather a strange criterion for comparison with traditions that don't have that goal." } in its survival Funny thing, but one shelf over from where I bought McDowell's book is a shelf talking about those nasty druids, the ancient foundations of New-Age cults,.... Loren Petrich wrote: " The oldest "reliable" history in the Bible dates back to about 1000 BCE. But: The Homeric epics date to about 800 BCE. The Rig Veda dates to about 1200 BCE or so. This collection of hymns was passed on for generations by professional chanters before it was written down. The Bible is not alone in containing bits and pieces of older history: The Ten Plagues of Egypt have a remarkable resemblance to the after-effects of a major volcanic eruption: clouds of ash create darkness, boils on cattle, etc. There is a natural disaster that qualifies: the great Thera eruption of 1500 BCE, which made tsunamis and spread a big cloud of ash over its Eastern Mediterranean neighborhood. The historical Trojan War occurred about 1200 BCE, if it had actually happened; Homer's _Iliad_ refers to tower shields and boar's tusk helmets, which had gone out of circulation at the time, but which were current at about 1500 BCE. Looking at general cultural features, comparative mythologists have reconstructed some of the culture of the speakers of Proto-Indo-European; among their findings is the worship of a god named "Father Sky" (the original Heavenly Father?) and a three-level class system of sovereigns, warriors, and common people. The most plausible archeological candidate to date is the Kurgan culture of about 4500-2500 BCE in the South Russian steppes, which is easily older than most of the content of the Bible. Probing further, Marija Gimbutas has dared to attempt to reconstruct cultural features of the European Neolithic societies; she identifies several kinds of deities whose worship had persisted into historical times. These include a Bird and Snake Goddess (Brigit, Athena, etc.) and a Goddess of Death and Regeneration (witches like Baba Yaga). These societies go back at least 8500 years; Dr. Gimbutas is willing to probe into the Paleolithic, to about 30,000 years ago. She concludes that the "Venus figurines" were statuettes of a Mother Goddess whose fatness symbolized pregnancy. Thus, if her cultural reconstructions are anywhere close to correct, Mother-Goddess worship is at least 30,000 years old, about ten times older than the oldest "reliable" history in the Bible." Eric Rescoria writes: "Well, it did survive, but I think that the Bhagavad Gita and the Mahabarata(sp?) are older." Michael L. Siemon writes: "Of roughly equal age and influence to the oldest parts of Hebrew scripture, and with equal "continuity" and "influence on literature" one could cite the _Iliad_, the Vedas, the _Mahabaratha_, The _I Ching_ and _Book of Odes_ and maybe others." Michael I Bushnell writes: "We have almost no idea what happened to the OT before the Septuagint or so. There just aren't any manuscripts. So, there is no reason to say that "the Bible is practically 99% the same" as the original texts. This is a claim which has nothing to back it up." Charles Hedrick writes: "I don't know about the OT. For the NT here's what I know: The earliest complete manuscripts are from the 4th and 5th Cent. However we now have papyrii from much earlier. While there are gaps in them, taken all together they take us back to the 3rd Cent. for much of the text, and give cross-checks back into the 2nd Cent. E.g. we've got a copy of most of Paul's letters that was made around 200, and most of John from 175-200." Loren I. Petrich writes: " Lots of Classical Greek and other ancient literature have survived. See above. The Bible itself contains some survivals of older stories like the Mesopotamian Flood Story, which goes back to about 2000 BCE -- or earlier. Going back before the invention of writing (or at least writing we have been able to interpret) requires interpreting archeological finds, and extrapolating backward from historically documented times, which can be rather tricky. But some have been willing to do just that, and there are numerous discussions of Proto-Indo-European culture, for example. For instance, the Proto-Indo-European speakers worshipped a god named "Father Sky" (in IE, of course), which may be the ultimate inspiration for what kind of god the God of the Bible is -- a patriarchal sky god. The likely age of this concept? The age of the Kurgan culture, which dates back to as far back as 5000 BCE. Other Indo-European conceptions survive; one of them is that of a warrior-god battling a monstrous snake or snake-monster. Thus, Thor kills Midgard, Indra kills Vrtra, Zeus kills Typhon, Apollo kills Python, and Perseus kills Medusa. In later times, we learn of many heroes who kill dragons, and saints who exorcise the Loch Ness Monster and the snakes of Ireland (It is worth noting that other cultures have different attitudes; the Chinese consider their dragons very friendly). Can one go back even further? The eminent archeologist Marija Gimbutas has been daring enough to do exactly that. She concludes that one can trace backward a Bird Goddess, a Snake Goddess, a Mother Goddess, a Goddess of Death and Regeneration, a Vegetation God, and a Master of Wild Nature back into the Neolithic, which started in the eastern Mediterranean about 10,000 years ago. She has even interpreted those Paleolithic "Venus figurines" as a Mother Goddess; these go back at least 25,000 years. Burials with red ocher (a symbolically-colored substance) go back even further. True, Mother Goddesses have fared poorly in Western society since Christianity was established as the official religion (the early Christians had to create a cult of the Virgin Mary just to compete :-), but the continuity to previous times seems very evident." } in its teachings Right: Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you. every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death... Deuteronomy 22:20-21 ...and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of the city shall stone her with stones that she die... Proverbs: 26:10 The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors. Jeremiah: 25:27 Therefore thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Drink ye, and be drunken, and spue, and fall, and rise no more, because of the sword which I will send among you. 25:28 And it shall be, if they refuse to take the cup at thine hand to drink, then shalt thou say unto them, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Ye shall certainly drink. Deuteronomy: 20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: 20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. Eric Rescoria writes: "Not really. A lot of the early Christian documents say similar things. The OT looks much like a lot of other Ancient Near Eastern literature of the time. E.g. Baal, Kirta. Also, the NT is quite similar in teachings to, say the Tao Te Ching." Loren I. Petrich writes: " The Bible contains a mishmash of different teachings, some of them with little precedent in other sources, and others very commonplace. Exclusive monotheism (as opposed to syncretist monotheism) has been independently invented only a couple times -- by Akhnaton and by Zoroaster, for example (if these examples are valid). On the other hand, there are curious similarities between parts of the Sermon on the Mount and the _Tao Te Ching_ (to take one example). One supposed support for the Bible is its criticism of misbehaving Israelite kings. But the critics were apparently priests at odds with these kings, so the criticisms are not surprising. Furthermore, Greek and Roman historians include lots of critical comment." Michael I Bushnell writes: "Some of the teachings of the Bible are unique to Christianity, some are unique to both Christianity and Judaism, and some are quite common world-wide. Any text probably expresses some things that are unique and some that are not, so the some of the Bible's teachings are unique, but that is not (depending on your definitions) a characterstic the Bible possesses uniquely." Michael L. Siemon writes: "As to "teachings" it is preposterous to attempt a measurement here; but something like the Lotus Sutra or Confucian Analects are quoted mindlessly by as many people as Biblical verses, while the tragic outlook and human individualism of the _Iliad_ are arguably more important teachings in the West than *anything* in the Bible (I don't necessarily believe that, but the argument is not trivially dismissible.)" Loren I. Petrich writes: " The Bible has a very mixed record; some teachings are rare outside the Bible, while others are very common. Exclusive monotheism is perhaps shared with two sources independent of the Bible: Akhnaton and Zoroaster. Forbidding murder, theft, and other such mischief is practically universal among legislators; the Ten Commandments are hardly distinctive there." } in its influence on literature Jim Perry wrote: "In the specific case of English, the "King James" translation of the Bible is one of the greatest and most influential works in the English language, not least because of the time at which it happened to be written, coincidentally the same time Shakespeare was writing. It is arguable which of these two had the greatest impact on the subsequent English language and its literature, but both were immensely important. It is probably the case that the works of Shakespeare could be as easily reconstructed from secondary material as the Bible; it is also true that of the many phrases which have entered everyday speech from these two sources, few speakers can consistently tell which of the two they came from." Loren I. Petrich writes: " Absurd. Lots of other literature has influenced other literature. As Mike Siemon pointed out, the Koran set a standard for Classical Arabic, by being a canonical text (if nothing else)." Michael I Bushnell writes: "The Quran is also unique. No other book has so thoroughly affected a language the way the Quran changed Arabic forever. The Quran is also written as a direct message with God speaking to humans in first person. ... Books that have had wide influence but are not unique are generally *not* classified as "holy books" by anyone, Plato, Shakespeare, etc., all have nothing about them to characterize them as unique in the sense above, but have had tremendous impact nontheless." Matthew P Wiener wrote: "6 has been fairly low in terms of direct influence: Andrew Marvell "The Definition of Love" and Edna St Vincent Millay "Euclid Alone" comes to mind." } Chapter 2. How was the Bible prepared? (p 25) This chapter covers the usual writing materials of the time and says that they were used. I'm not sure what this is suppose to prove. } Chapter 3. The Canon (p 29) } meaning of the word "Canon" } tests of a book for inclusion in the canon } is it authoritative i.e. did it come from the hand of God. Now, how the heck can you tell that?!?!? Not to mention the minor detail that there are a number of references in the bible to things that the prophets apparently though fit the description that wasn't included. For instance: Much of what below is below is gotten from editor's notes for the Jerusalem, Anchor, Oxford, and New American Bibles. >Exodus 24:7 EXO 24:6 And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basons; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. EXO 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the LORD hath said will we do, and be obedient. Note: This refers to the Words of God. This refers to the "book of the covenant" which Moses reads aloud to the people after coming down from Mount Sinai. From context, this book seems to consist of the words that Yahweh told him while on the Mount, which he writes down in verse 4. But the previous 4 chapters tell us what these words are; hence, this isn't an extrascriptural reference. It is, however, treated as the word of Yahweh. >Numbers 21:14 NUM 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the LORD, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon, Note: This refers to the wars of God and his actions. This verse precedes a fragment of a song from the "Book of the Wars of Yahweh", evidently a collection of old Israelite war songs. The collection is now lost. The Numbers writer was obviously familiar with it, and quotes it as part of the account of the Israelite journey, but nothing in the context suggests that the writer considers it anything more than a memorable and historic song. >Joshua 10:13 JOS 10:13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. note: More stories much like those of the Judges. Joshua 10:11-13 and the last half of 2 Samuel 1 are both taken from "the Book of the Just" ("the Book of Jasher" in some translations). This is another lost collection of epics about early Israelite heroes like Joshua (here) and David (in the Samuel excerpt). The Joshua quotation includes the "sun stood still" lines. The writers seem to regard the Book of the Just as faithfully recording the stories of these leaders. > 1 Kings 11:41 KI1 11:41 And the rest of the acts of Solomon, and all that he did, and his wisdom, are they not written in the book of the acts of Solomon? Note: There are other chapters which DO include Solomon This verse appears at the end of 9 chapters recounting the story of Solomon, and refers the reader to the "Book of the Acts of Solomon" for more details about his life. Again, this work is now lost, but some scholars think it was one of the sources for the account in 1 Kings. > 1 [Chronicles] 29:29 CH1 29:29 Now the acts of David the king, first and last, be- hold, they are written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer, Note: The works of prophets and seers. This verse at the end of 1 Chronicles reports that all David's deeds can be found in the histories of the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad. All of these prophets figure in the two modern books of Samuel. Because we don't know how the "books of Samuel" were originally compiled, it's not clear whether this verse refers to material which is now part of those books, or material which didn't make it into our present compilation. > [2 Chronicles] 12:15 CH2 12:15 Now the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer concerning genealogies? And there were wars between Rehoboam and Jeroboam continually. Note: words of prophets and seers. Reports that the acts of Rehoboam "as is well known" are recorded in the annals of the prophets Shemaiah amd Iddo. > [2 Chronicles] 13:22 CH2 13:22 And the rest of the acts of Abijah, and his ways, and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo. Note: words of prophets. Reports that Abijah's acts are recorded in the midrash of the prophet Iddo. This verse and 2 Chron. 24:27 (talking about the midrash of the book of kings) are the only two verses in the OT referring to midrashes (studied commentaries on earlier work). > [2 Chronicles] 33:18-19 CH2 33:18 Now the rest of the acts of Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers that spake to him in the name of the LORD God of Israel, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel. CH2 33:19 His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sins, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers. note: words and sayings of seers from those spake of the Lord. Two of several references through Kings and Chronicles to the "chronicles of the kings of Israel", "the chronicles of the kings of Judah", or just "the history of the seers". Some of this must refer to histories not in the current OT compilation, since we're told about certain details of the stories mentioned in these chronicles which aren't mentioned anywhere in Kings or Chronicles. CH2 34:30 And the king went up into the house of the LORD, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the LORD. Note: words of the covenant from the house of the Lord. EZR 7:11 Now this is the copy of the letter that the king Ar- taxerxes gave unto Ezra the priest, the scribe, even a scribe of the words of the commandments of the LORD, and of his statutes to Israel. Note: commandments of the Lord. > Matthew 2:23 MAT 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. Note: spoken by prophets. In this verse, Matthew says that Jesus fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He shall be called a Nazorean". But that quote cannot be clearly identified with any Old Testament passage. Some scholars have tried to guess what Matthew's referring to; proposed verses have included the reference to Samson as "nazirite" in Judges 13:5, a similar sounding word for "branch" in the "branch from the root of Jesse" verse in Isaiah 11:1, or even a "nsr" consonant combination somewhere in Jeremiah. Others consider "Nazorean" to metaphorically refer to Jesus' mission to both Jews and Gentiles, alluded to in Isaiah 66 and elsewhere. (Nazareth is supposed to have had a mixed Jew and Gentile population.) Considering the uncertainty of all these proposals, it's quite possible that Matthew was referring to something else entirely, which we no longer have. > Col 4:16 COL 4:16 And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye like- wise read the epistle from Laodicea. note: similar to other letters from Paul to various churchs. Here, Paul instructs the Colossians to trade letters with the Laodiceans after they're done reading the one they have. Paul doesn't say which letter the Laodiceans have, but since his letters circulated from city to city, it could be any previous letter he'd written. If it was one of the letters we have now, it was probably Ephesians, in the opinion of most of the editors I consulted. > Jude 1:14 JUD 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, note: more words from a prophet. This verse is particularly interesting, since it refers to a document which we _do_ have, both in Greek translation and in various Aramaic fragments found at Qumran. Jude here quotes what he calls a prophecy from "Enoch, who was of the seventh generation descended from Adam." The Book of Enoch, from which he quotes, is a work of apocalyptic literature which most scholars think was written in the second or first century BC. It isn't in the canons of either Judaism or Christianity, but Jude seems to treat it as inspired. In short, the Bible does refer to nonbiblical sources from time to time, even presenting some of them as prophetic. The Bible may contain inspired information "sufficient for salvation", as some Christians assert, but it evidently doesn't contain _all_ inspired information. Explainations by: spok@gs6.sp.cs.cmu.edu (John Ockerbloom) } is it prophetic i.e. written by a Man of God. As I've just shown, there are a LOT of things that fit the test that just weren't politically correct. } is it authentic Love this. And how can you tell? Because it says so! This is called circular logic. And if you care about how well it corresponds to reality: The bat is not a bird. LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomina- tion: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind; LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind; LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl, LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle, LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapw- ing, and the bat. DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat. DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the ea- gle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind, DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind, DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind, DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan, DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cor- morant, DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. >Rabbits do not chew their cud. LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 'Gerah', the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated 'chew the cud' in the KJV is more exactly 'bring up the cud'. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it. > Insects do NOT have four feet. LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. >Snails do not melt. PSA 58:8 As a snail which melteth, let every one of them pass away: like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun. >earth supports: JOB 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. >Heaven, too... }JOB 26:11 The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at }his reproof. } is it dynamic And how do you measure this? } was it received, collected, read and used Matthew especially seems REAL bad at misquoting scripture. Look elsewhere in this file for numerous examples where he says something fulfills what such-n-such a prophet said, when examination shows that it was some other prophet that said ALMOST that. } Old Testament canon } factors determing need of old testament canon } the Hebrew Canon } Christ's witness to the old testament canon As can be seen many times (especially as recorded in Matthew), they are more likely to misquote it than witness to it. } extra-biblical writers' testimonies } ecclesiastus yeah. In the prolog, that was written by the author's grandson. } josephus This guy is extensively discussed elsewhere in this file. } talmud Right. Definitively supports his contentions: Tosefta Yadaim 3:5 reads "The books of Ben Sira and whatever books have been written since his time are not canonical" (translated). } the New Testament witness to the Old Testament } as sacred scripture Wrong. Not by McDowell's tests. See above. } the council of Jamnia OhBoy! A group to decide on Political Correctness! } the Old Testament Apocryphal literature } why not canonical } "They abound in historical and geographical inaccuricies and anachronisms" That they could catch. But since the sources (in many cases) are the same as the rest, I would be hesitant to say that others did NOT exist. } The New Testament Canon } tests for including a book in the New } Testament canon } the New Testament Canonical books } Chapter 4. The Reliability of the Bible (p 39) } part 1 - confirmation of the historical text } the reliability and trustworthiness of scripture As shown above, physically and biologically it does no such thing. And historically, there are things that just don't fit. Herod's actions, geneologies, and rulers are discussed elsewhere in this file. Here is another: Noah's flood: et's look at the Biblical dates. I Kings 6:1 says that 480 years passed from the start of the Exodus to the start of construction on the first temple by Solomon. Gal 3:17 says that 430 years passed from the cevenant with Abraham to the delivery of the Law to Moses. The chapters of Genesis after the Flood accound give the periods in years that passed between the births of various individuals from Noah to Abraham, giving a period of 390 years from the Flood to the covenant with Abraham. Thus, according to the Bible, the Flood took place 1300 years before Solomon began construction of the first temple. a) This is a clear, direct, falsifiable claim. These are clear, unambiguous statements that a period of X years elapsed between two events. b) The event itself (a global Flood that wiped out all but 8 humans) would be pretty hard to miss or gloss over. c) Because there were any number of literate cultures in the near East, who recorded dynastic lists, raised monuments giving dates and length of reigns, and sent ambassadors to each others' courts, we can pretty reliably construct chronologies for near Easter history, particularly for Egypt, and without reference to (but supported by) dating methods such as carbon-14 with corrections from tree-ring sequences. d) The upshot of which is that the building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egytians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C. e) Therefore, either we have to reject the historicity of the Flood account; accept the historicity of the Flood account, but explain away the clear Biblical dating of the event; or accept the Biblical account and chronology, and reject the massive amount of written and archaological evidence estab- lishing the chronology of history in the near East. } the New Testament compared with other works of } antiquity Why? I have not noticed that Homer claims to be THE ETERNAL, UNCHANGING TRUTH. And as s seen from the textual contradictions, it doesn't even compare favorably with itself! } chronology of important new testament } manuscripts } manuscript reliability supported by various versions So? There are numberous versions of Aesop's fables. So should the bible be viewed as another collection of fables? } manuscript reliability supported by early church } fathers Of course! One would expect nothing else. This would not disallow anything that these earlier people (who had custody) changed/deleted. His first reference on this is an encyclopedia! } manuscript reliability supported by lectionaries } the bibliographical test for the reliability of the } Old Testament } the Talmudists James J. Lippard writes: " In the Palestinian (or Jerusalem) and Babylonian Talmuds are further references. The Talmud is in two parts: the Mishnah, a codification of Jewish law with explanatory reminiscences (completed around 220 C.E.); and commentary on the Mishnah known as the Gemara. There is one Mishnah, but it was studied in Palestine and Babylonia, which each produced their own Gemara. While the Mishnah contains no explicit references to Jesus, some believe a passage (Jeb. IV, 13) which says that Rabbi Shim'on ben 'Azal (who was active near the beginning of the second century) found a roll of pedigrees in Jerusalem which told that "a certain person" was of illegitimate birth refers to Jesus. The Gemara claims that Pappos ben Jehuda, who lived in the second century, was the husband of the mother of Jesus (Shabbath 104b). Jesus is also said to have been persecuted by King Alexander Jannaeus (Sanhedrin 107b), who reigned from 103 to 76 B.C.E.). It describes Jesus' activities by saying that he "practiced magic and led astray Israel" (Sanhedrin 43a). These widely varying dates indicate that these were merely concocted accounts produced around the third century to counteract the spread of Christian beliefs." } The Massoretic period (AD500-900) } Quotations and Observations on the reliability of the } Old Testament Things like creation, Noah's flood,.... Give me a break. } The Hebrew Text The earliest mentioned is from AD895: well after the event. } The witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the reliability } of the Hebrew Scriptures } The Septuagint substantiates the genuiness of the } Hebrew Text } The Samaritan Text } The Targums AD500. } The Mishnah AD200 } The Gemars AD20 at the earliestPalentinian, AD500 for the Babylonian. } The Midras Claim is for 100BC to 300AD, but then says that it is substantially Massoretic (which is 500AD to 900AD). There seems to be an inconsistency here in his statements. } The Hexapla This was a prepared harmony of the gospels and originated NOTHING but was identified as a hackup job. AD185 for the earliest. } Internal Test for the reliability of the Scriptures } Benefit of the Doubt Josh should read Josh. If he did, he wouldn't believe himself. } Primary source value } "They write as eyewitnesses or from first-hand } experience" Michael I Bushnell writes: " Most of the authors of the Bible were *not* eyewitnesses. Paul *never* know Jesus when he walked the earth. So much for most of the New Testament. The Pentateuch wasn't written by eyewitnesses, the histories weren't written by eyewitnesses, almost none of it was written by eyewitnesses." } competent primary source material This sections contains the assertion that it MUST be used as one, but no evidence as to why. } external evidence test for reliabiality of scripture } substantiating authenticity } "Do other historical materials confirm or deny the } internal testimony provided by the documents } themselves?" To look at the flood, Herod's actions, census data,... they deny it. Next? } supporting evidence of extra-biblical authors } Eusebius In ecclesiastrical, and he got it from: } Papias who got it from: } Irenaeus who got it from John. Maybe. NONE of this list has ANY direct knowledge even by Josh's own words! } Clement of Rome James J. Lippard writes: "The anonymous epistle known as 1 Clement (attributed to Clement of Rome) makes repeated references to Jesus, but does not put him in any historical setting. It is dated at 96 C.E. on the basis of internal evidence (assuming that its references to persecution are to that of Domitian). This work also cannot be considered independent historical testimony." } Ignatius AD70-110, a desciple of Polycarp who was a desciple of John three times removed and a century later. } Elgin Moyer Who wrote about Ignatius in 1968. This is historical evidence?!?!? } Flavius Josephus Charles Hedrick writes: "Josephus (a Jewish historian) in Jewish Antiquities, finished ca. 93-94. Refers briefly to the trial of James, "the brother of Jesus who is called Messiah". There is another and longer reference to Jesus in this document, containing a brief description of Jesus, as "a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people", crucified by Pilate, and source of Christianity. However because it has an explicit acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and of his resurrection, almost all scholars believe that this passage is a Christian interpolation. There are some scholars who believe that the core of it is original, and Christians added only the parts acknowledging Jesus as Messiah and the reality of resurrection. There is virtually no doubt about the passage referring to James. (source: John Meier, Bible Review, June 1991)" } Tatian This guy didn't originate ANYTHING, but just "harmonized". And the date was given as AD170, centuries later. } part 2 - confirmation by archeology This entire section does not consist of fact one, but is entirely opinions of various authority figures. } evidence from archaeology. James J. Lippard writes: "On p. 73 (chapter 4, part 2, 2D, 1E in McDowell's outline, New Testament examples of archaeology confirming the New Testament), McDowell writes "It was at one time conceded that Luke had entirely missed the boat in the events he portrayed as surrounding the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:1-3). They argued that there was no census, that Quirinius was not governor of Syria at that time and that everyone did not have to return to his ancestral home. ... we find evidence that Quirinius was governor of Syria around 7 B.C. This assumption is based on an inscription found in Antioch asribing to Quirinius this post." The facts of the matter: Luke 2:1-2 claims that Caesar Augustus (27 B.C.E. to 14 C.E.) decreed a census during the time that Quirinius was governor of Syria and while Herod was still king of Judea (Luke 1:5, also Matthew 2:1). Herod, however, died in 4 B.C.E., and Quirinius was never governor of Syria during his reign. The governors of Syria during the end of Herod's life were Titius (10 B.C.E.), Sentius Saturninus (9-6 B.C.E.), and Varus (6-4 B.C.E.). Varus had to suppress a revolt which broke out in Palestine after Herod's death so was in office beyond the end of Herod's reign. Quirinius was governor of Syria in 6 C.E., and possibly earlier, but not during Herod's reign. Thus Tertullian attempts to correct the error by claiming Jesus was born during a Judean census conducted by Sentius Saturninus in 8 B.C.E. This still is not correct, as a Roman census in Palestine under Herod would have been very unpopular, as Herod still held title and authority of the land from Caesar and the Senate. Josephus also makes no mention of a census under Herod, but states that the first census of the area was taken in 6 C.E. under Quirinius shortly after Judea was converted into a Roman province, which resulted in a Jewish revolt under Judas, the Gaulonite of Gamala. An inscription found by the archaeologist Sir William Ramsay in Antioch is often cited as proof that Quirinius was indeed governor of Syria during Herod's reign [Cheney 69, p. 224], [Habermas 84, p. 153], [McDowell 72, pp. 72-73]. The inscription in fact demonstrates no such thing, but reads as follows (Ramsay's own translation): "To Gaius Caristanius (son of Gaius of Sergian tribe) Fronto Caesianus Julius, chief of engineers, pontifex, priest, prefect of P. Sulpicius Quirinius duumvir, prefect of M. Servilius. To him first of all men at state expense by decree of the decuriones, a statue was erected." [Ramsay 15, p. 285] This inscription states only that Quirinius was elected "duumvir" of the Roman colony of the Pisidian Antioch in Galatia. Ramsay argued that this honor could have been conferred for playing a prominent part in a certain war against the Homonadenses. He showed that this war occurred in Herod's lifetime, and argued that Quirinius must have been governor of Syria when it was fought, since the only nearby Roman legions were in Syria. This does not follow, however, as Augustus could quite easily have entrusted a Syrian legion to someone who was not the governor of that province. The Homonadenses territory was north of Syria but south of Galatia and Pamphylia. Ramsay himself admitted that the war was fought on both fronts. A.N. Sherwin-White [Sherwin-White 78, p. 165] points out that Galatia was a more likely base for a war with Homonadenses. Another inscription is also cited as evidence that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria. This inscription (dated some time after 14 C.E.) found in Tivoli indicates that some anonymous consular conquered a kingdom or tribe, conquered or restored a king, was proconsul of the Asian province, and was legate (governor) of Syria. The use of the word "iterum" (meaning "again") in this inscription is controversial, it is uncertain whether it applies merely to "governor" or to "governor of Syria". In any case, Quirinius is not the most likely candidate. He is not known to have been proconsul of Asia, and the war with the Homonadenses did not involve a king (assuming that he did in fact fight in that war). More likely is that the inscription refers to someone such as L. Calpurnius Piso, who is known to have received the rewards mentioned in the inscription, or Varius Geminus, who is described in another inscription in similar language as being governor of an unnamed province [Sherwin-White 78, pp. 162-171]." Robert Low writes: "On the archaeological confirmation of the patriarchal narratives: the point of view proposed here, that archaeology showed that the patriarchal narratives fit uniquely into the period about 2000-1700 BCE, was thoroughly demolished in the mid-seventies by van Seters (Abraham in History and Tradition), and Thompson (The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives). } old testament examples of archaeological } confirmation (concerning Josh's statements concerning Babel) Rich Alderson writes: "The current *scientific* information on this is that a few linguists in the old Soviet Academy of Sciences believe that they can reconstruct a super- family of languages that is ancestral to the Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, and Kartvelian families, but their methodology is highly suspect. ... There has been work done from time to time (highly suspect work) on the reconstruction of the original language of human beings, but it is not even clear that there ever was a single original language. None of these attempts is taken seriously by mainstream linguists." Loren Petrich writes: " Our species has several adaptations for generating and interpreting language, which appear to be present in all racial groups. This circumstance might seem to support the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis of macro-evolution, in which major changes happen in small populations that then proceed to spread out over larger areas. That way, one has all the features present, instead of some overlapping patches in different racial groups. [No, I haven't seen this argument anywhere] According to PE, our species had originated from a relatively small population in which genes could easily spread. This would mean that these people spoke only one language or some closely related dialects. Thus, PE > a common language. However, the time of origin is not 4000 years ago but about 100,000 to 200,000 years ago, and the place of origin is almost certainly not Mesopotamia but somewhere around Eastern or Southern Africa." } new testament examples Robert Low writes: On archaeological confirmation of Luke's census of Quirinius: the work of Ramsay purporting to show that Quirinius held a position of responsibility and held a census in Judaea in about 4BCE has not been accepted by most historians. (A good review of the problem can be found in Fitzmeyer's comentary on Luke in the Anchor Bible series.) The inscription he relies on does not actually have a name on it, and Josephus is pretty clear that the census of Quirinius in about 6 CE was the first that the Romans had inflicted on Judaea; it resulted in widespread rioting and insurrection. (Sanders and Davies, in "Studying the Synoptic Gospels" suggest that Luke has confused two periods during which there was a good deal of civil unrest, namely round about Herod's death, and the occasion of Quirinius's census." } conclusion McDowell decides it is historically trustworthy. An odd conclusion given the evidence presented... } bibliography His unbiased evaluations contain material from "the bulletin of the evangelical theological society", the encyclopedia britannica, scripture press publications, jewish publications society of America, the harvard theological review, christianity today, Presbyterian and Reformed publishing co., the king's business, revelation and the bible, the biblical archaeologist reader, and a lot from Moody Press. Guess what kind of conclusions you are likely to get from these? } }SECTION II THE ACADEMY AWARDS - IF JESUS WAS NOT GOD, THEN HE DESERVED } AN OSCAR. (p 79) } Chapter 5. Jesus - A man of history } Jesus is a man of history Eric Marsh writes: "As far as I can tell, there is no historical documentation about Jesus at the time of his life; the only documentation came some 70+ years after his death." } Christian Sources for the Historicity of Jesus } 27 different new testament documents Amazing. The NT supports the NT. } church fathers No kidding. Does the term "vested interest" ring a bell? Amusingly enough, none in his list lived within a century of the proposed time. Hence, do direct witness, just hearsay (at best). } Non-biblical sources for the Historicity of Jesus } Cornelius Tacitus James J. Lippard writes: "In Tacitus' Annals (XV, 44), he mentions Christians and states that "Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus" (Tacitus 1942, vol. 1, pp. 380-381). Several facts call this into question as independent testimony to Jesus' history. The first is that the late date of its writing (120 C.E.) indicates that Tacitus was most likely merely repeating what Christians themselves said. Second, the earliest existing manuscript containing this passage is from the Middle Ages. Third, it was not Tacitus' practice to consult original documents and in fact Roman crucifixion records would not be accessible to the ordinary Roman citizen (Wells 1971, pp. 186-188). Fourth, the passage's inaccuracy is indicated by its misuse of the title "Christ" as a proper name and its reference to Pilate as "procurator" rather than his correct title, "prefect" (Wells 82, p. 16)." } Lucian of Samosta This is a second-century satirist. Excuse me for not accepting the unverified statement of a comedian two centuries after the fact as an authoratitive source. } Flavius Josephus Eric Rescorla wrote: "Not Josephus. That passage is commonly regarded as a forgery. As for the AD/BC system, surely you are aware that that was developed hundreds of years later, and actually has the WRONG date for Jesus's birth (judging from the texts) by a couple of years." } Suetonius (AD120) James J. Lippard writes: "Suetonius wrote in the second century of a Jewish revolt in Rome during the reign of Claudius which was instigated by "Chrestus" (Tranquillus 1957, p. 197). Claudius reigned from 41-54 C.E.; it is unlikely that Christians were instigating revolt at such an early date, and certainly not under the leadership of Jesus himself. It is also unlikely that this is really a reference to Christians--"Chrestus" was a common name among slaves and freemen at the time, and appears more than eighty times in surviving Latin inscriptions of Rome (Wells 1971, pp. 185-186)." Karl Kluge wrote: "The only references to Christ in Roman historians (as opposed to references to Christians, such as Pliny's report) are an unclear reference in Suetonius, who mentions an expulsion of Jews from Rome due to the agitation of "Chrestus", and Tacitus who mentions Christ's crucifixtion by Pilate in describing Nero's persecution." } Plinius Secundus, Pliny the Yunger Charles Hedrick writes: "Pliny the Younger wrote a letter in 112 describing Christians and asking the Emperor what to do about them. However references to Christ are clearly in the context of their belief about him, so this does not constitute any independent confirmation." James J. Lippard writes: "Among the letters (X, 96-97) of Pliny is one to the Emperor Trajan (in 112 C.E.) asking for advice in dealing with Christians. His only mention of Jesus is to say that those who denied Christ were not punished (Pliny 1963, pp. 293-295). This testimony cannot be considered confirmation of Jesus' historicity as it is not independent of Christian tradition." } Tertullian (AD 197) James J. Lippard writes: " In attempt to counteract this silence, early Christians both forged documents and alleged that pagan documents attesting to Jesus' existence did exist. The best known forgery is a correspondence between Seneca and Paul, written in Rome in the late fourth century (Johnson 1976, p. 99; Wells 1971, pp. 189-190). Another such forgery is a third-century letter from Pilate to "his emperor Claudius" which insists that the disciples did not steal Jesus' body from the tomb. This letter's author overlooked the fact that Pilate was governor of Judea only until 36 C.E. while Claudius did not become emperor until 41 C.E. (Hoffman 1984, pp. 65-66). The second method was used by Justin Martyr, who states in his first Apology (Chapter 35) that Roman records of the crucifixion exist; and by Tertullian, who claimed (in 197 C.E.) that Pilate wrote a report to Tiberius about the crucifixion and resurrection resulting in the senate convening to place Christ among the gods. These claims are rejected by historians (Wells 1971, pp. 189-190). [McDowell cites both of these claims, one of them without any disclaimer, the other with a too mild disclaimer.]" } Thallus, the Samaritan-born historian Even McDowell admits that his writings have "Disappeared". Charles Hedrick writes: "Thallus, a Samaritan-born historian. McDowell says that he mentioned Christ in 52 AD. However his works are no longer extant, so we have only citations of it by others. I haven't seen any quotations of his mentions of Christ." } Phlegon, a first century historian Whose Chronicales have been lost... } letter of Mara Bar-Serapion Who complained about how little "The jews gained from executing their wise king". Doesn't say it was Jesus at all. } Justin Martyr Who was writing at about AD150 about nonexistent records. The quote given is unattributed, but appears to be from the psalms. } The Jewish Talmuds Mark Haefner writes: "The Mishnah and Gemara together, are usually known as the Talmud. The Gemara (commentaries) is where you would find several references to christianity, although, as one might expect, not very favorable. This is also where the alleged Roman father of Jesus is mentioned (Ben-Pantera), which, as some have suggested, this could also be a corruption of the greek Parthenos (virgin)." } Bibliography His authoratative source is an encyclopedia. sheesh. Among his authoritative sources we find an article from the Palm Beach Post-Times from sunday, Feb 13, 1972. } Chapter 6. Jesus - God`s Son (p 89) } His direct claims to deity Interestingly enough, though Jesus is suppose to have been literate, we have NOTHING of his that makes this, or any other, claim. Hence, we have no direct claims. We have claims or claims. Or actually translations of compilations of abstractions of ... of claims of claims. } His trial See elsewhere in this file as to why this is a totally inaccurate claim. } his other claims This is interesting, since we have NO personal claims. We DO have what OTHERS say that he said, but that's hearsay. John Emery writes: "Jesus didn't write anything personally Himself.It was His closest followers that wrote and testified of Him:" Eric Marsh writes: "I don't think that we really know what he may have claimed; what we know is in your religion's holy book, and many consider that material to be _very_ questionable. As for miracles and the rest, there has hardly ever been a shortage of claims to such but far too often, once those claims are investigated they generally don't pan out." } equality with the Father The references given are only from John. From the gospel accounts we can read how the direct witnesses viewed the validity of this claim. } I am I And so am I. So? } Jesus is due the same honor as that given to God. So it is claimed that he claimed. But so did British nobility in mideval europe. } to know me and } believe in me These two sound a lot like the common personality cults visable throughout the world at any time. } He who has seen me Yeah. See the above. } I say unto you... That's nice. A lead in instead of quote marks. } his acceptance of worship as God The same could be said of the Temple goddesses of Rome. } his claims confirmed by others Members of almost any personality cult say the same. Ask moonies. } His indirect claims to diety } forgiveness of sin Since this is the only place that "sin" is described in the first place, and that there is no objective way to determine if a "sin" exists, if it does not, if it is forgiven, or if it is not this is unsubstantiated. } immutable This entire section is straight and nothing but pleading from authority, and the authority is a book published by Dallas Theological Seminary Press. Excuse me for not buying a foregone conclusion. } life A clever unsupportable claim. Believers die just as easily as anone else. } judgement } His titles of deity } YHWH } Son of God The bible seems to claim that EVERYONE is. } Son of Man In Ezekiel 28:21, for instance, the LORD uses this address to Ezekiel. Biology indicates that EVERY Homo Sapien is. } Abba, Father Does "Our Father, who art in heaven..." ring a bell? } Chapter 7. The Trilemma - Lord, Liar or Lunatic? This is a totally artificial universal set derived (apparently) by his wishful thinking. It is his attempt to get the answer he wants by the elimination of those he does not like. And as long as there exists even ONE possibility not included, the exhaustive search method cannot work. For example, the possibility that the claims as in his text was not the claims Jesus made is not included. James J. Lippard writes: "The "Liar/Lunatic/Lord" trilemma is obviously bogus, and is one of my pet peeves with McDowell. It assumes that the New Testament's description of Jesus' words is quite accurate, which is at best a highly questionable assumption. Most biblical scholars reject it." Robert Low writes: "Finally, the logic used: McDowell argues from the classical apologist trichotomy, that Jesus was mad, bad, or God. That this is invalid is almost too obvious to be worth pointing out. It only follows from one particularly narrow reading of the NT writings, a reading not accepted even by all those who believe in Biblical infallibility!" Jim Perry writes: "Ad hominem, anti-semitism, and Poisoning the Well spring to mind here, not to mention that this quote, whatever one makes of it, is pure opinion/conclusion, not "evidence", let alone "convicting evidence". This chapter is almost entirely quotes of this flavor, and as usual there is no reference to any material contradictory to } bibliography: Among his unbiased, authoritative sources he lists an unpublished thesis from the Dallas Theological Seminary, a book from the Dallas Theological Seminary Press, a book from the Lutherin Book Concern, a book from the Bible Truth Depot, one from Scripture Press publications, Inc., one from The Christian Victory Publishing Co., one from the American Tract Society, an unpublished dissertation from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a lot from Moody Press. } Chapter 8. The great proposition (p 111) } If God became man, then we would expect Him to: And how were THESE selection made?!?!? But if you read the fine print, you notice that Josh admitted to _FIRST_ reading _Protestant_Christian_Evidences_. Hence, even pretending that he is aiming to be convinced of something when he is using the conclusion to formulate the question is absurd and an excellent example of circular logic. } 1. Have an unusual entrance into life (Josh keys from virgin birth) COX, RALPH LUTHER, III writes: "Further, he the Hebrew word "almah," (young woman), as specifically, "virgin." But, this is not a prophecy about the Messiah. It is not a prophecy about an event to happen 750 years later. It is not a prophecy about a virgin (bethulah) mother. In short, it not about Jesus. Matthew has made use of a verse out of context, and tries to make it fit the specific case of Mary. It should be noted that if we want to read the prophecy in a general manner, a very general one, it can be made to fit Mary. Mary, virgin or not, was indeed a young woman with child. Of course, the fit is shady and has problems. Jesus, while thought of by later Christians to be G'd walking among men, was never called by the name, Immanuel. If Christianity wished to claim this prophecy for Jesus, it becomes at best a cut-and-paste prophecy... a second class prophecy. Not too convincing." } 2. Be without sin Two points of interest. First, Jesus was presented as having broken MANY of the OT laws, which (since they were suppose to have been given by God) constituted "sinning". Now, if you take the view that no matter WHAT he did, it wasn't sinning this becomes an empty claim that anyone could satisfy. Second, much of Josh's "support" for this statement comes from many authority-figures saying that it was evidently true since Jesus appeared to believe that he was blameless and then equated "thought without blame" with "without fault" with "sinless". We use the term criminally insane to describe similar attitudes in court. } 3. manifest the supernatural in the form of miracles Another odd statement, considering how many magicians and sorcerers there have been. Moses was suppose to have met a bunch, most Kings employed a few, Crowley was (in my opinion) a wierd magician. There were so many that they even gave anti-magician (necromancedr, witch, fortunetallar,...) guidance. } 4. have an acute sense of difference from other men A not-uncommon characteristic. On one hand there are those who claim their difference is because of a "cosmic consciousness (everyone from the Prince/Buddah to Rev. Moon) and in others it is attributable to paranoia (see "mass murderers") } 5. speak the greatest words ever spopken Pleading to authority, the authority being the rather biased professor of theology at Easter Baptist Theological Seminary. Besides which, those who know the words of Mohammad, John Smith, Crowley,Euclid, Einstein... might tend to disagree. } 6. have a lasting and universal influence lasting: The fat lady hasn't sung yet. universal: considering the cases of Islam, Wicca, Buddhism,... this does not seem to be a justified statement. } 7. satisfy the spiritual hunger in man Since I am aware of christians converting to taoists, wiccans, and other spiritual groups, and I am aware of non-christians (athiests, buddhists, druids) who know of christianity and do not "convert", this does not seem to be a substantiated statement. } 8. Exercise power over death } "It is seen that Jesus was not forced to give up his life" OK. So Jesus didn't die on the cross. As you wish. Or maybe you mean "Stay dead"? Shirley McLain makes the same claim of herself. } biographies: His unbiased references include Faith Press, Inc., the United Church Press, Westminister Press, the American Tract Society, Good News Publishers, Inc., the magazine Christian Century, Scripture Press Publications, Christian Heritage, Inc, Christian Culture Press, Sword of the Lord Publishers, the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and Back to the Bible Broadcast. } Chapter 9. The Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament fulfilled } in Jesus Christ Logically speaking, this chapter is horrible. You cannot verify a text from itself, but only (at best) check its consistency. And NONE of the "fulfilled" items have any verification other than the same bible that made them. } credentials of Jesus as the Messiah through fulfilled prophecy } 1. Born of the seed of woman GEN 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Like, who isn't? EVERYONE (iaw the Bible, anyway) is a descendent of a woman. } 2. born of a virgin James J. Lippard writes: "Probably the most famous of these prophecies is the prophecy that Jesus would be born of a virgin. The gospels of Matthew (1:18-25) and Luke (1:26-35) both claim that Jesus was born of a virgin, but only Matthew (1:23) appeals to the Hebrew scriptures as an explanation for why this should be the case. The verse appealed to is Isaiah 7:14, which reads: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel." There are a number of difficulties with this passage. As many have noted, the Hebrew word translated as "virgin" in this verse is "almah," which is more accurately translated simply as "young woman." The Hebrew word "bethulah" means "virgin." In the book of Isaiah, "bethulah" appears four times (23:12, 37:22, 47:1, 62:5), so its author was aware of the word. In the New American Standard translation of the Bible, all other appearances of "almah" are translated simply as "girl," "maid," or "maiden" (viz: Genesis 24:43, Exodus 2:8, Psalms 68:25, Proverbs 30:19, Song of Solomon 1:3, 6:8). Thus the claimed fulfillment adds a biologically impossible condition which is not even present in the original prophecy(1). Another problem is that nowhere in the New Testament does Mary, Jesus' mother, refer to him as "Immanuel." Thus we have no evidence that one of the conditions of the prophecy was ever fulfilled. But the most serious problem with this alleged messianic prophecy is that it has been taken out of context. Looking at the entire seventh chapter of Isaiah, it becomes clear that the child in question is to be born as a sign to Ahaz, King of Judah, that he will not be defeated in battle by Rezin, King of Syria, and Pekah, son of the King of Israel. Jesus' birth was some seven centuries late to be such a sign. J. Edward Barrett (1988, p. 14) points out evidence that early Christians rejected the virgin birth. One piece of Barrett's evidence is that in 1 Timothy 1:3-4, the writer (who may or may not be the apostle Paul) advises that his audience "instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith." The earliest gospel, Mark, lacks an account of Jesus' birth, as does John, the latest gospel. Virgin birth is obviously quite relevant to genealogy, and both Matthew and Luke present Jesus' genealogy in close proximity to the story." } 3. son of God See above. } 4. seed of Abraham James J. Lippard writes: " There are various alleged genealogical prophecies about the ancestry of the Messiah. It is claimed that Genesis 22:18 and 12:2-3 are prophecies that the Messiah will be a descendent of Abraham, but these verses say nothing about the Messiah. They say simply that the descendents of Abraham will be blessed." GEN 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Excuse me, but these are the verses he referred to. I see what appears to be a promise that the nation will descend from him (as taught in sunday school) and the birth of Isaac, but zip about Christ. } 5. son of Isaac GEN 21:12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. Looks more like instructions to name Abraham's son Isaac to me... } 6. son of Jacob NUM 24:15 And he took up his parable, and said, Balaam the son of Beor hath said, and the man whose eyes are open hath said: NUM 24:16 He hath said, which heard the words of God, and knew the knowledge of the most High, which saw the vision of the Al- mighty, falling into a trance, but having his eyes open: NUM 24:17 I shall see him, but not now: I shall behold him, but not nigh: there shall come a Star out of Jacob, and a Sceptre shall rise out of Israel, and shall smite the corners of Moab, and destroy all the children of Sheth. NUM 24:18 And Edom shall be a possession, Seir also shall be a possession for his enemies; and Israel shall do valiantly. NUM 24:19 Out of Jacob shall come he that shall have dominion, and shall destroy him that remaineth of the city. NUM 24:20 And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek was the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish for ever. Looks more like a promise that some mean somabitch will rule Israel and do some serious butt-kickin'. This is Jesus?!?!? } 7. tribe of Judah Genesis 49:7 Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob and scatter them in Israel. Genesis 49:8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: they hand shall be at the neck of thine enemies; thy father's children shall bow down before thee. Genesis 49:9 Judah is a lion's whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion, who shall rouse him up? Genesis 49:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come, and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Excuse me again, but this reads as the standard run of promises given. This is in the section "Jacob's dying blessing", and it is the standard "who is in charge" speach. And there is the minor detail that Shiloh is desolate ruins with the remains of a synagogue... } 8. family line of Jesse ISA 10:33 Behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, shall lop the bough with terror: and the high ones of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall be humbled. ISA 10:34 And he shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one. ISA 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: ISA 11:2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; ISA 11:3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: ISA 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. Excuse me, but this appears to be talking about a quite destructive individual, who causes the downfall of Lebanon, and slays the wicked with his words. Sounds much more like a conquering war-king than Jesus. } 9. house of David JER 23:3 And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase. JER 23:4 And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the LORD. JER 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. JER 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS. JER 23:7 Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that they shall no more say, The LORD liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; JER 23:8 But, The LORD liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all countries whither I had driven them; and they shall dwell in their own land. I don't recall this description as fitting Jesus. Sounds more like a great unifying King. Even if Josh was 100% right on his assertions on 4-9, if it were the last it HAD to be the earlier. Not, even by his assumptions, vaguely independent events. James J. Lippard writes on 5,6,7,8,and 9: "Other claimed prophecies about the Messiah's ancestry are that he will be of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10, Micah 5:2), of the family line of Jesse (Isaiah 11:1, 10), and of the house of David (Jeremiah 23:5, 2 Samuel 7:12-16, Psalms 132:11). Some of these do appear to be genuine messianic prophecies, but others simply seem to refer to future kings. All of these verses refer to kings--and thus none have been fulfilled by Jesus. But the problems for these prophecies run even deeper. Is Jesus actually of the tribe of Judah, the family line of Jesse, and the house of David? The sole evidence for this is two sets of genealogies for Jesus, in Matthew 1:1-17 and Luke 3:23-38. Both of these trace Jesus' lineage through his father, Joseph. If the virgin birth story is taken seriously, then Jesus lacks the proper ancestry. On the other hand, if the genealogy in Matthew is taken seriously, then Jesus has as an ancestor Jeconiah (Matthew 1:12), of whom the prophet Jeremiah said, "Write this man down as childless, a man who will not prosper in his days, for no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah." (Jeremiah 22:30) The genealogy in Luke suffers from the same problem, since it includes Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, both of whom were descendents of Jeconiah." } 10. born at Bethlehem Funny thing. While McDowell gives Micah 5:2 as the "prophecy", his discussion doesn't mention it at all. MIC 5:1 Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. MIC 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. MIC 5:3 Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. And Micah goes on talking about a military conquest of Assyria and the gentiles. Doesn't sound a lot like the Prince of Peace... James J. Lippard writes: " A second claimed birth prophecy is that Jesus would be born in the city of Bethlehem, cited in Matthew (2:1-6), Luke (2:4-7), and John's (7:42) gospels. Of these, Matthew and John specifically refer to prophecy in the Hebrew scriptures. The passage referred to is Micah 5:2, which reads: "But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you one will go forth for me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, from the days of eternity." "Ephrathah" is the ancient name of Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19, Ruth 4:11) but, to confuse matters, "Bethlehem Ephrathah" is also the name of a person: Bethlehem the son (or grandson) of Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 4:4, 2:50-51). This prophecy could therefore refer to either a native of the town or to a descendent of the person. If the latter, Jesus does not qualify since neither of his alleged genealogies (more on these later) list either Bethlehem or Ephrathah. If the former (more likely since Bethlehem was the birthplace of King David, from whom the Messiah is supposed to be descended), then Jesus qualifies by birthplace(2), but fails to meet the condition of being "ruler in Israel." Christians claim that this is a prophecy which will be fulfilled at the Second Coming." ... "The gospel of John says nothing about Jesus being from Bethlehem, but instead says that he is from Nazareth in Galilee. See John 1:45-46 and 7:41-42,52.3There are two common attempts made to resolve these contradictions. The most common among evangelical Christians is to claim that Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, not Joseph. This fails to explain the repeated convergence followed by divergence as you trace the ancestry backward. It also fails to explain why the Luke genealogy contains almost twice as many ancestors as Matthew's in the same time period. A second explanation is that each case of divergence is the result of Levirate marriage. That is, the discrepant fathers are brothers of each other, and when one died the other married his brother's wife. This explanation also fails to explain the difference in number of ancestors." } 11. presented with gifts PSA 72:10 The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents: the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. PSA 72:11 Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him. PSA 72:12 For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. PSA 72:13 He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy. According to the prophecy, the Kings of Tarshish, the isles, Sheba and Seba were suppose to be there. But no Kings are mentioned, just Magi. And as for the poor: MAT 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. MAR 14:7 For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always. JOH 12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always. AKA "looking out for number one". } 12. Herod kills children James J. Lippard writes: " Another prophecy related to the birth of Jesus I wish to address is that the Messiah would be born at a time when King Herod was killing children. Only the gospel of Matthew (2:16-18) makes this claim about a prophecy of Jeremiah (31:15). But the prophecy in question states that "A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more." "Rachel weeping for her children" refers to the mother of Joseph and Benjamin (and wife of Jacob) weeping about her children taken captive to Egypt. In context, the verse is about the Babylonian captivity, which its author witnessed. Subsequent verses speak of the children being returned, and thus it refers to captivity rather than murder. A further problem is that no historian of the time seems to have taken note of Herod's alleged mass slaughter of male children. Flavius Josephus, who chronicled Herod's abuses, makes no mention of it. Matthew goes on to claim that to evade Herod's murders, Jesus was taken as a child to Egypt. This is done, according to Matthew 2:15, in order "that what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet might be fulfilled, saying, 'Out of Egypt did I call my son.'" This is a reference to Hosea 11:1, which is not a messianic prophecy at all. It is a reference to the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt." COX, RALPH LUTHER, III writes: " After Jesus's birth in Bethlehem, Matthew tells about a quick (and elsewhere unmentioned) excursion to Egypt, as if he wishes to liken Jesus to Moses. This was done to escape an alleged infanticidal rampage of the king, Herod. [Mt 2.15] ...and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfil what the lord had spoken: "Out of Egypt I have cal-led my son." What the lord really said was this. [Hosea 11.1] When Israel was a child, I loved him. And, out of Egypt I called my son. The more I called them (my people), the more they went from me; they kept sacrificing to the Ba'als, and kept burning incense to idols. Matthew conveniently omits the rest of Hosea's oracle. But, it was indeed Israel that, once called out of Egypt, wanted to return. This is history. Jesus is certainly not being spoken of here. And, if we are to draw some kind of parallel here, we wind up with a Jesus that flees and resists G'd. Again, this prophecy is just not as convincing as Matthew probably had hoped. ... As for Herod and his infanticide, it is rather unlikely that such an event actually occurred. One never knows, but the event is not mentioned or alluded to anywhere else in the Bible, nor is it mentioned in any of the secular records of the time. Herod was particularly unliked in his reign, and many far less evil deeds of Herod were carefully recorded. This might be a prime example of how events were added to Jesus's life to enhance the message of the church's gospel." } 13. his pre-existence Now how the heck are we suppose to tell that?!?!? Interestingly enough, reincarnation also would fit the prophecy. Reincarnation was a not-uncommon belief at the time/place. Besides which, his "prophecy" is: MIC 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Which doesn't, to me, appear to have anything to do with it. } 14. he shall be called Lord COX, RALPH LUTHER, III writes: "The word "lord" is often mistakenly capitalised by Christian bibles to denote divinity in this lord. But, in the Hebrew, the word is "adoni," and no capitalisation exists. Adoni simply means "lord," a generic term as we would use it. It is used often in the scriptures to refer to kings and to G'd. It is merely an address of respect. There is nothing in the text itself to imply that the word refers either to divinity or to the messiah-king." } 15. shall be Immanuel (God with us) James J. Lippard writes: Another problem is that nowhere in the New Testament does Mary, Jesus' mother, refer to him as "Immanuel." Thus we have no evidence that one of the conditions of the prophecy was ever fulfilled. } 16. shall be a prophet This isn't saying much. Almost EVERYONE seemed to qualify themself. } 17. priest PSA 110:3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. PSA 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. PSA 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. PSA 110:6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. PSA 110:7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head. Sounds more like a temporal ruler, and a not-too-friendly one at that. Lotsa wrath, striking, dead bodies, wounds, and such. And where else has this order been mentioned? I can find ONE: GEN 14:17 And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale. GEN 14:18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. GEN 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: GEN 14:20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. So it looks like a very temporal priest-king, heavy on slaughter, feasts, and such. Apparently like others in the area. And egypt, too, if I recall. priest-kings have been popular. } 18. judge ISA 33:20 Look upon Zion, the city of our solemnities: thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet habitation, a tabernacle that shall not be taken down; not one of the stakes thereof shall ever be removed, neither shall any of the cords thereof be broken. ISA 33:21 But there the glorious LORD will be unto us a place of broad rivers and streams; wherein shall go no galley with oars, neither shall gallant ship pass thereby. ISA 33:22 For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. ISA 33:23 Thy tacklings are loosed; they could not well strengthen their mast, they could not spread the sail: then is the prey of a great spoil divided; the lame take the prey. ISA 33:24 And the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick: the peo- ple that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity. ISA 34:1 Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it. ISA 34:2 For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter. ISA 34:3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood. ISA 34:4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree. ISA 34:5 For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment. ISA 34:6 The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea. ISA 34:7 And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness. ISA 34:8 For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion. ISA 34:9 And the streams thereof shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land thereof shall be- come burning pitch. ISA 34:10 It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever. ISA 34:11 But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emp- tiness. ISA 34:12 They shall call the nobles thereof to the kingdom, but none shall be there, and all her princes shall be nothing. ISA 34:13 And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls. ISA 34:14 The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest. ISA 34:15 There shall the great owl make her nest, and lay, and hatch, and gather under her shadow: there shall the vultures also be gathered, every one with her mate. It is clear to me (in context) that they are NOT referring to any Prince of Peace but a vicious, but a warrior/king. Claimed to fit, but not demonstrated. } 19. king Obviously not. Making the claim and not being able to back it up is what was claimed to have gotten him terminated. } 20. special anointment of Holy Spirit "Annointed One" means messiah. There were numerous announced contenders at the time. } 21. his zeal for God How is this suppose to serve as an identifier? Besides which, the term was in the "prophecy" but not in his given "fulfilment" verse. Now the prophecy: PSA 69:5 O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. PSA 69:6 Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. PSA 69:7 Because for thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face. PSA 69:8 I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children. PSA 69:9 For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. PSA 69:10 When I wept, and chastened my soul with fasting, that was to my reproach. PSA 69:11 I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a pro- verb to them. PSA 69:12 They that sit in the gate speak against me; and I was the song of the drunkards. PSA 69:13 But as for me, my prayer is unto thee, O LORD, in an acceptable time: O God, in the multitude of thy mercy hear me, in the truth of thy salvation. PSA 69:14 Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of the deep wa- ters. Any question who prayed in psalms, and who thought he was foolish, zealous for the Lord, wore sackcloth, fasted, ...? Still think that it was Jesus? } prophies concerning his ministry } 22. preceded by messenger James J. Lippard writes: "The first of these, that he would be preceded by a messenger, refers to Isaiah 40:3, which reads, "A voice is calling, 'clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness; make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.'" This verse speaks not of a messenger for the messiah, but of the Jews being released from the Babylonian captivity. Another verse claimed to offer the same prophecy is Malachi 3:1, which says "Behold, I am going to send my messenger, and he will clear the way before me. ..." This may be plausibly taken as a messianic prophecy. But did John the Baptist actually "clear the way" as a messenger for Jesus? The historian Flavius Josephus writes about John the Baptist, but makes no link of his name with that of Jesus (Antiquities of the Jews, 18.5.2; Josephus (1985), p. 382). The earliest of Christian writings, the letters of Paul, make no mention of John the Baptist. The gospels (and the book of Acts, written by the author of Luke) are the only real evidence of a link. But the gospel evidence does not hold up. The gospel of John shows John the Baptist explicitly recognizing Jesus as the Messiah (John 1:25-34) before being cast into prison by Herod (John 3:23-24). But the gospels of Matthew (11:2-3) and Luke (7:18-22) depict John the Baptist, in prison, sending his disciples to Jesus to ask if he claims to be the Messiah. If the story in John were true, John the Baptist would have had no reason to ask this question." } 23. ministry to begin in Galilee James J. Lippard writes: " Christian apologists claim that Jesus' Galilean ministry is prophesied by Isaiah 9:1, which says, "... in earlier times he [God] treated the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali with contempt, but later on he shall make it glorious, by the way of the sea, on the other side of Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles." All this verse says is that God will make the area "glorious"--it says nothing of ministry by the messiah. The subsequent verses (Isaiah 9:6-7) speak of a child to be born who will be king, whose "name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace." Jewish tradition says that this refers to King Hezekiah, not the Messiah (Sigal 1981, pp. 29-32)(4). Isaiah 9:7, if applied to Jesus, is unfulfilled since it speaks of his kingship." } 24. ministry of miracles James J. Lippard writes: " Prophecy of Jesus' miraculous healings are purported to be found in Isaiah 35:5-6 and Isaiah 32:3-4. The latter does not speak of healing, but says that "the eyes of those who see will not be blinded, and the ears of those who hear will listen. And the mind of the hasty will discern the truth, and the tongue of the stammerers will hasten to speak clearly." It is further stated that this will occur during the reign of a king (Isaiah 32:1), which did not occur in Israel during Jesus' ministry. The former verse, on the other hand, describes people being healed ("the eyes of the blind will be opened, and the ears of the deaf will be unstopped") but also, in verses 7-8, describes land being "healed." There is no clear indication here that these healings have anything to do with the Messiah, rather, it is God himself doing the healing. The gospels contain no account of Jesus healing land." } 25. teacher of parables The "prophecy": PSA 78:2 I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: PSA 78:3 Which we have heard and known, and our fathers have told us. Come on. Another prayer by David. When does Jesus address God and talks about their fathers?!?!? COX, RALPH LUTHER, III wrote: " Matthew tries again to make Jesus's parables look like they have the prophetic approval. [Mt 13.35] ...he said nothing to them without a parable. This was to fulfil what was spoken of by the prophet, "I will open my mouth to them in parables. I will utter that which has been hidden since the foundation of the world." Matthew really botches up here. He attempts to quote not from a prophet, but from the Psalms. [Ps 78.2-4] I will open my mouth in parable. I will utter dark sayings of old, things that we all have heard and known, things that our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, but tell to the coming generation the glorious deeds of the lord... As was pointed out, the verses in the Psalms do not really come from a prophet. You might also want to know that earlier copies of Matthew's gospel even inserted Isaiah's name as this prophet. Apparently, later scribes caught the error and tried to cover some of it up. Perhaps the most significant part of this is that, once again, Matthew has altered the Old Testament Scriptures. As Jesus has said earlier, he speaks in parables so that some will not understand them. The parables in the Psalms are not to be hidden. Further, they speak of things "known, that our fathers have told us." Jesus deals with things "hidden since the foundation of the world." Indeed Jesus dealt in a lot of secrecy and confusion. This is in direct opposition to the parables in the Psalms. No wonder Matthew had to rewrite them! And still once again, Matthew's artificial prophecies fall flat on their face. But, Christians rarely look at this. Matthew's prophecies aren't the only things about Christianity that are beginning to look bad." } 26. he was to enter the temple Every male of this religion did. So? } 27. he was to enter Jerusalem on a donkey COX, RALPH LUTHER, III writes: Shortly after accepting the role of the Jewish messiah king, Jesus requests a donkey be brought in for him to ride into Jerusalem. [Mt 21.5] This took place to fulfil what was spoken by the prophet, saying, Tell the daughter of Zion, "Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, mounted on an ass, and on a ass-colt." Of course, the passage quoted from Zechariah 9.9 reads a little differently. Lo, your king comes to you; he is triumphant and victorious, humble, and riding on an ass, on an ass- colt... he will command peace to the nations. There isn't all that much difference here, except that Zechariah only involves one animal --an ass-colt-- while Matthew reads the poetic wording slightly differently. Thus, he has Jesus call for both a colt and an adult ass. From Matthew's version, we get a comical picture of the divine Christ sweating it to straddle two donkeys. This could inevitably lead to a theological, proctological dilemma! We find that in the account written earlier by St. Mark, only the colt was called for and brought to Jesus. This indeed fits the verses of Zechariah properly, and shows us that in Matthew attempt to use prophetic verses, he has bungled. Now, excluding many respectable Christians I have met, I have noticed that while Christ is thought to have ridden on asses, the situation is often reversed nowadays..." James J. Lippard writes: " A final prophecy dealing with Jesus' life and ministry is Zechariah 9:9, which says "Behold, your king is coming to you ... humble, and mounted on a donkey, even on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Again, Jesus was not king, so that aspect of the prophecy remains unfulfilled. The alleged fulfillment of this prophecy is also problematic. According to Mark (10:11-19), Luke (19:28-38), and John (12:12-19), Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey. But Matthew 21:1-11 has Jesus riding on both a donkey and a colt, indicating his misunderstanding of the prophecy." } 28. "stone of stumbling" to jews PSA 118:22 The stone which the builders refused is become the head stone of the corner. One would be inclined to believe that Josh's racism reared its head again. There is nothing in the "prophecy" about jews. And since the scenarios that do not agree with his personal prejudices are offered from that group, he has to get his dig in. } 29 "light" to gentiles ISA 59:21 As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever. ISA 60:1 Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. ISA 60:2 For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. ISA 60:3 And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. ISA 60:4 Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gath- er themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. ISA 60:5 Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. ISA 60:6 The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD. ISA 60:7 All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto thee, the rams of Nebaioth shall minister unto thee: they shall come up with acceptance on mine altar, and I will glorify the house of my glory. I see a lot that didn't happen. COX, RALPH LUTHER, III writes on both jews and gentiles: " Upon healing multitudes of commoners, it is said that Jesus ordered them to keep quiet, presumable so that he wouldn't arouse the attention of the local rulers. [Mt 12.15-21] This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah. "Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is pleased. I will put my spirit on him, and he will announce justice to the Gentiles. He will not wrangle or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. He will not break a bruised reed or quench a smoldering wick until he brings justice to victory, and the gentiles will hope in his name." The Isaiah passage quoted reads, [Is 42.1-4] Behold my servant whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights. I have put my spirit on him, and he will bring forth justice to the nations. We will not cry or lift up his voice, or make it heard in the street. He will not break a bruised reed, or quench a smoldering wick. He will faithfully bring forth justice. He will not fail (burn dimly) or be discouraged (bruised) until he has established justice in the earth. And the coastlands await his law. You see, Matthew has conveniently left out part of the passage, because it does not suit the dealings of Jesus. Christians could never think of Jesus failing, never would the "light" of mankind burn dimly. But, the servant nation of Israel will indeed come to an end when its job is done. When the gentiles come to embrace G'd there will no longer be a chosen people, but rather all will be the children of G'd. Also, the ending phrase has been changed from the Judaic "...the coastlands await his law." to the Christologic, "the Gentiles will hope in his name." While the original proclaims the Torah law of Jehovah, the other rewrites it to fit its strange doctrine of "believing in the name." If one has any doubt the servant referred to is not Jesus, one has only to read the whole chapter, Isaiah 42, and hear about the beloved but blind and imperfect servant, "a people robbed and plundered..." So, we see that when Matthew's attempt at "prophecy" is examined, it crumbles." } prophecies concerning events after his burial } 30. resurrection PSA 16:1 Preserve me, O God: for in thee do I put my trust. PSA 16:2 O my soul, thou hast said unto the LORD, Thou art my Lord: my goodness extendeth not to thee; PSA 16:3 But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the ex- cellent, in whom is all my delight. PSA 16:4 Their sorrows shall be multiplied that hasten after another god: their drink offerings of blood will I not offer, nor take up their names into my lips. PSA 16:5 The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot. PSA 16:6 The lines are fallen unto me in pleasant places; yea, I have a goodly heritage. PSA 16:7 I will bless the LORD, who hath given me counsel: my reins also instruct me in the night seasons. PSA 16:8 I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. PSA 16:9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. PSA 16:10 For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. "preserve me"? Not "thy will be done"? This looks like another of David's prayers and he was talking about himself. Interestingly enough, reincarnation would also fit this "prophecy", and was a not-uncommon belief at the time. John Emery writes: "But here is what there is not: There is no non-believer's or skeptic's eye witness report of the resurrection nor are than any writings written by Jesus Himself." } 31. ascension PSA 68:18 Thou hast ascended on high, thou hast led captivity captive: thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebelli- ous also, that the LORD God might dwell among them. This does not have anything apparently to do with "the ascension" } 32. seated at the right hand of God PSA 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Doesn't look like a claim for something to happen centuries away, but a conversation at the time. Not only is there no evidence to support this contention, but there is no way to GET any evidence to support it. } prophecies fulfilled in one day } 33. betrayeyd by a friend James J. Lippard writes: "Two verses taken as prophecies of betrayal by a friend are Psalms 41:9 and Psalms 55:12-14, the former of which reads, "Even my close friend, in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me." Both are psalms which speak of feelings of pain from being betrayed by a close and trusted friend. Yet Jesus already had foreknowledge of his betrayal by Judas (John 13:21-26), and so must not have trusted him. When the gospel of John (13:18) quotes from Psalm 41:9, it tacitly admits this problem by omitting the phrase "in whom I trusted." Neither verse from the Hebrew scriptures gives any indication of being intended as prophetic." } 34. sold for 30 pieces of silver James J. Lippard wrote: " Matthew 26:14-15 states that Judas Iscariot was paid thirty pieces of silver by the Jewish priests as payment for his betrayal. Matthew 27:9 claims that this is done to fulfill a prophecy of Jeremiah. Actually, the verse in question is Zechariah 11:12, which says, "And I said to them, 'If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!' So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages." This verse is Zechariah himself speaking to the people. The following verse (Zechariah 11:13) says, "Then the Lord said to me, 'Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.' So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord." Again, this is Zechariah speaking of his own experience. But Matthew 27:5-7 tells a story of Judas Iscariot throwing his payment into the temple before committing suicide, after which the priests used the money to buy a potter's field. This story does not appear in the other gospels (though Acts 1:18-19 says that Judas himself bought a field with the (unspecified amount of) money earned by his betrayal)." } 35. money to be thrown in God's house } 36. price given for Potter's field COX, RALPH LUTHER, III writes: " We are told that Jesus was betrayed while in Jerusalem by one of his followers, Judas Iscariot. Matthew writes, [Mt 27.5-10] And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, [Judas] departed... But, the chief priests, taking the silver, said, "It isn't lawful for us to put it in the treasury, since it is blood money." So they... bought a potter's field with it to bury strangers in... Then was fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the lord directed me." This prophecy is an utterly gross bastardisation of Old Testament Scripture. First, Matthew has made a mistake regarding the name of the prophet. It is Zechariah who utters the verses which Matthew makes use of. [Zech. 11.12-13] ...And they weighed out my wages, thirty shekels of silver. Then YHVH said to me, "Cast them to the treasury," --the lordly price at which I was paid off by them. So I took the thirty shekels of silver and cast them into the treasury in the house of YHVH. First of all, the verses of Zechariah do not deal with a betrayer of the messiah, or of G'd. The deal with a shepherd, most likely a priest, chosen to serve a function of presiding over the people shortly before G'd would send Judah and Israel into conflict with one another. The word, "treasury," had been replaced by the King James Scholars with "to the potter," precisely because this made Matthew's quote fit better. But, this is a blatant error. The correct translation of the Hebrew is indeed "treasury," which also makes perfect sense in Zechariah's context, whereas "potter's field" is totally unrelated. Whether the mistranslation was intentional or not seems to be beyond speculation. However, given Matthew's track record, one finds it hard to resist the notion of intentional dishonesty. Of course, Matthew would have ample reason for altering the text. The thirty pieces of silver match Judas's situation, and if as most Christians seem to be, the reader is willing to disregard the contextual incongruity, Matthew might have another prophecy to toss around. However, the correct translation of Zechariah directly contradicts the situation with Judas and the high priests. The high priests would not put the money in the treasury. The worthless shepherd of Zechariah does exactly the opposite! Of course, to the average Thursday-Night Bible student, the "prophecy" as presented by Matthew would be taken at New Testament face value. To those, Matthew's work is convincing enough." } 37. forsaken by his disciples ZEC 13:7 Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered: and I will turn mine hand upon the little ones. Funny. I seem to remember more along the lines of "Father, forgive them". I don't seem to recall a lot of smiting, getting the little ones, or zapping the shepard. Seems to be an identity/situation confusion. } 38. accused by false witnesses PSA 35:11 False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not. How odd. I though he knew everything. Must be a different reference. } 39. dumb before accusers ISA 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. Herman Rubin writes: "The Torah unconditionally prohibits an accused person testifying against himself in a capital case. The trial account has Jesus answering , "Thou sayest." } 40. wounded and bruised ISA 52:13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high. ISA 52:14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: ISA 52:15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they con- sider. ISA 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? ISA 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. ISA 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. ISA 53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sor- rows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and af- flicted. ISA 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. McDowell has a problem with sequence? This is the block right BEFORE the last one. Maybe he is afraid of context? Which includes exhalted and extolled, and obeyed by kings. Another of David's praises. } 41. smitten and spit upon ISA 50:5 The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebel- lious, neither turned away back. ISA 50:6 I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spit- ting. ISA 50:7 For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. Doesn't look like a prophecy. Looks like a prayer. } 42. mocked PSA 22:6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. PSA 22:7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, PSA 22:8 He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. Jesus thought of himself as a worm? Or maybe JOSH thought of him as a worm. Or maybe different person, and is the writer humbling himself... } 43. fell under the cross PSA 109:21 But do thou for me, O GOD the Lord, for thy name's sake: because thy mercy is good, deliver thou me. PSA 109:22 For I am poor and needy, and my heart is wounded within me. PSA 109:23 I am gone like the shadow when it declineth: I am tossed up and down as the locust. PSA 109:24 My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness. PSA 109:25 I became also a reproach unto them: when they looked upon me they shaked their heads. PSA 109:26 Help me, O LORD my God: O save me according to thy mercy: Oh come on. This is obviously a prayer TO God, not a prophecy ABOUT God. Context!!! } 44. hands and feet pierced James J. Lippard wrote: "There are several verses taken to refer to crucifixion: Psalms 22:16, Zechariah 12:10, and Zechariah 13:6 are typical examples. Psalms 22:16 reads, "For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me; they pierced my hands and my feet." The Hebrew word translated here as "pierced" is "ariy," which means "lion." A more accurate translation would be "like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and feet." (Sigal 1981, p. 98) Zechariah 12:10 says "they will look on me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for him, as one mourns for an only son ...." The gospel of John (19:37) takes this as prophecy fulfilled by Jesus' crucifixion, but there is no indication that this speaks of crucifixion. Further, the "him" being mourned for is not the "me" that is being pierced. The Jewish interpretation of this verse is that God is speaking of the people of Israel being "pierced" or attacked (Sigal 1981, pp. 80- 82). Zechariah 13:6 speaks of "these wounds between your arms," spoken of one who claims not to be a prophet and to have been sold as a slave in his youth (Zechariah 13:5). Wounds between one's arms are not characteristic of crucifixion, and Jesus was neither sold as a slave nor claimed not to be a prophet." } 45. cruicfied with thieves COX, RALPH LUTHER, III wrote: " After his arrest, Jesus is quickly executed for claiming the Jewish kingship, messiahship. According to one version of the gospel tale, Jesus gets executed along with two thieves. [Mk 15.27] And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right, one on his left. And so the scripture was fulfilled which says, "He was reckoned with the transgressors." Here, Mark is trying to link Jesus to a passage in Isaiah 53, about the servant nation of Israel. The passage is not about the messiah, for if one reads the whole chapter of Isaiah 53, and its surrounding chapters, one sees that the servant is a nation. The verses are also about what this servant has gone through in the past, not a prediction of what is to come, in any event. The servant is thought of as a criminal. This also happens to fit the description of Jesus. Had the passage really been about the messiah, it still is not at all clear why executing Jesus between two thieves would fulfill the "prophecy" in Isaiah. Jesus would more fittingly fulfill it with his whole ministry. He was considered a blasphemer and troublemaker all throughout his career. Locking onto a single event is a rather poor way to steal prophecy, at least in this case, as we see that Mark could have had made a better analogy with general comparisons." } 46. made intercession for his persecuters Odd, this is the same that is cursing to destruction (see text on #53). } 47. rejected by his own people ISA 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. ISA 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. ISA 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. ISA 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. This is from the block by David from before. McDowell really seems worried about context. Anyway, where is the seed of Jesus, I don't recall his days being extended, ... } 48. hated without a cause PSA 69:4 They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enem- ies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away. PSA 69:5 O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. Jesus was aware of his foolishness? Methinks McDowell has confused David with Jesus again... } 49. friends stood afar off See also #37. PSA 38:11 My lovers and my friends stand aloof from my sore; and my kinsmen stand afar off. I must have missed Jesus's lovers. And looking earlier: PSA 38:4 For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me. followed by an extensive description of various diseases. I didn't know that Jesus was badly diseased and had extensive iniquities. Or maybe this is someone else praying? } 50. people shook their heads PSA 109:24 My knees are weak through fasting; and my flesh faileth of fatness. PSA 109:25 I became also a reproach unto them: when they looked upon me they shaked their heads. PSA 109:26 Help me, O LORD my God: O save me according to thy mercy: Not "thy will be done"? Whence the fasting? Maybe someone else? } 51. stared upon PSA 22:17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me. further down same prayer. } 52. garments parted and lots cast James J. Lippard wrote: " Only the gospel of John speaks of Jesus' garments being divided among the soldiers and their casting of lots for his tunic (John 19:23-24), and he cites Psalms 22:18 as the prophecy which is thereby fulfilled. This latter verse reads, "They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." This verse tells of one event--clothing being divided by the casting of lots. But John transforms it into two events: first the division of Jesus' clothing apart from his tunic (John 19:23) and then casting of lots for his tunic (John 19:24). It appears that John created a story in an attempt to provide a fulfillment for his misunderstanding of a verse which gives no indication of being a prophecy in the first place." } 53. to suffer thirst PSA 69:19 Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries are all before thee. PSA 69:20 Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heavi- ness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. PSA 69:21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. PSA 69:22 Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap. PSA 69:23 Let their eyes be darkened, that they see not; and make their loins continually to shake. PSA 69:24 Pour out thine indignation upon them, and let thy wrathful anger take hold of them. PSA 69:25 Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents. PSA 69:26 For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded. PSA 69:27 Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness. PSA 69:28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous. First he talks about his own shame and dishonor, then expresses reproach and asks for pity, then curses them that God should kill them and destroy where they live. Funny, but this just doesn't sound like "thy will be done" and "Father, forgive them". } 54. gall and vinegar offered him See my extract directly above. James J. Lippard wrote: " Matthew (27:34) speaks of Jesus being given "wine to drink mingled with gall" and Mark (15:23) says he was offered "wine mixed with myrrh." These are both taken to be references to Psalms 69:21, which says "they gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." The Hebrew word here translated as "gall" is "rosh," meaning poison or gall, and referring to some poisonous plant. The verse says that poison is being put into food, which does not apply to the crucifixion. Myrrh, which is not poisonous, is referred to by the Hebrew word "mor," which does not appear in Psalms 69:21. This psalm, which speaks repeatedly of flood waters, gives no indication of being either prophetic or of applying to Jesus." COX, RALPH LUTHER, III wrote: Then, Jesus is led away to be crucified. [Mt 27.34-35] ...they gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall; but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. And, when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots: that it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet, "They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." First of all, the vinegar offered to Jesus is actually common sour wine, of the type that Roman soldiers drank regularly. We find that right before Jesus dies, the soldiers themselves give him some to drink --not polluted with gall. [Jn 19.28-30] Jesus... said, "I thirst." A bowl of vinegar stood there, so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth. When he had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished;" But, Matthew seems to be drawing on, not a passage from the prophets, but one from the Psalms. [Ps 69.20-28] I looked for pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none. They gave me poison for food (lit. they put gall in my meat), and for my thirst, they gave me vinegar to drink... Add to them punishment upon punishment, may they have no acquittal from thee. Let them be blotted out of the Book of the Living. Of course, the sour wine offered to Jesus is done at his request of drink. This does indeed seem to be a show of pity. The psalm quoted is about David and his political and military enemies. It is not about the messiah or Jesus. It is then not surprising that we run into further problem when we see that the "Jesus" in the psalm asks G'd for the damnation of the "crucifiers," whereas the Jesus of the gospels says, [Lk 23.34] Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, the don't know what they do!" Further, Matthew misses with his attempt to create prophecy by having gall (a bitter substance) put into Jesus's drink, not his meat, as the psalm stipulates." } 55. his forsaken cry psalms 22:1a mathew 27:46 } 56. committed himself to god psalm 31:5 luke 23:46 note that here we have TWO different last words. And they are DIFFERENT. James J. Lippard writes on 55 & 56: " The gospels of Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) give Jesus' last words as "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," a quotation of Psalms 22:1. Luke (23:46) gives "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit" as Jesus' final words, while John (19:30) has Jesus say "It is finished." Only the first of these is claimed to be fulfillment of prophecy, yet it is hardly miraculous that Jesus would make such a statement. Presumably Jesus was familiar with the Hebrew scriptures. Such a remark, however, is inconsistent with Christian theology. Why would Jesus, supposed to be God incarnate, speak of being forsaken by himself at all, let alone at the culmination of his plan for human salvation? It is also not apparent that Psalms 22 is either prophetic or applicable to Jesus (see Sigal 1981, pp. 95-99)." } 57. bones not broken James J. Lippard wrote: " A final prophecy I wish to examine relating to the crucifixion is that Jesus' bones would not be broken. It is only the gospel of John (19:32-36) which tells of soldiers breaking the legs of the crucifixion victims to hasten their deaths, yet sparing Jesus because he was already dead. John 19:36 cites Psalms 34:20, "He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken," as the prophecy which is thereby fulfilled. There is no indication that Psalms 34 is intended as prophetic, nor that it applies to Jesus. The intent in the gospel of John is to represent Jesus as a sacrifice, specifically corresponding to the paschal lamb (e.g., John 1:29, 36). A requirement of the paschal lamb is that none of its bones be broken (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). But this analogy fails