Evidence for YHWH that is not evidence for the IPU

[linwood]

Limbo,

Do you believe it is possible that the IPU was responsible for Biblical prophecy?

If not , why?

 

[Yerda]

...once we invoke the supernatural, all explanations become equally plausible.

All explanations become equally useless.

 

[linwood]

Ah, there we go. The answer to the first part is no.

That was the easy part, lol.

Why? Well, if it can be proven that prophecies in the Bible came true, and if it can be shown that God claimed responcibility, then that would take the whole arguement out of the mythical realm of the IPU, and into the real world of evidence.


So then considering your answer I fail to see how your earlier statement that Biblical prophecy is something that cannot be contributed to the IPU can be serious considering you cannot even offer proof of it as evidence for YHWH.

I would submit that even if you could offer evidence of it for YHWH that those who witnessed these prophecies did indeed witness the work of the IPU.
They just called her YHWH.

In other words,....

How do you know YHWH isn`t the IPU or that the IPU wasn`t just having some fun with Judiasm while munching a particularly thin crusted pineapple and ham pizza?


Assumption #1. No evidence for The IPU`s existence exists.

Assumption #2. We should dismiss any assertion for which we have no evidence.

Conclusion: We should dismiss the assertion that The IPU exists.

 

[linwood]

<sigh>

This thread asks for evidence for YHWH that is not also evidence for The IPU.

You answered this threads OP (Above) citing Biblical Prophecy as evidence that could not also be used as evidence of the IPU.

There is a category of evidence I think is generally overlooked...and that is biblical prophecy.

You then go on to state that IF Biblical prophecy could be proven and IF the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy was claimed by YHWH, it would be evidence for YHWH that is not also evidence for the IPU.

So I ask, in your opinion , with what evidence you have now about Biblical prophecy...
How can Biblical prophecy be used as evidence for YHWH but not for the IPU?

I am saying that what many may believe is prophecy fulfilled by YHWH was actually fulfilled by The IPU.

Prove my assertion wrong.

 

[Master Vigil]

Limbo, the bible cannot prove itself. That is circular reasoning and a logical fallacy. Just because the bible says that yahweh is god, doesn't make yahweh god. Just like reading greek myth, it says zeus is god, that doesn't make him so. Again, there is no more proof that yahweh is responsible for the prophecies in the bible than there is that the invisible pink unicorn was.

 

[Scuba Pete]

does it say in the OT that the cleanliness laws are meant to destroy tiny micro organisms which cause things like the plague

Of course not! However, even MORE important than that, there is a direct mention of "Communicable disease" in Leviticus. That simply wasn't a common concept back then. Of course these laws had MORE than one purpose... it taught that cleanliness WAS next to Godliness AND it helped them to understand that God IS!

but many ancient peoples had teachings that flew in the face of contemporary knowledge only to be validated over time.

Hmnnn... well I showed you "mine", now YOU show me yours. I would love to see these Spinks.

 

[Master Vigil]

First off... This isn't law and order. This isn't even law at all... For in law, innocent people are found guilty, and guilty people are found innocent. This needs to be done logically, not legally.

Second... History cannot be used to prove the metaphysical aspects of the bible to be true. I can sit here and tell you that on March 26, 2005 at 1:20 am, in Greensburg, Pa. A man named Dan Bernardo is on the computer while petting his pet ridgeback dragon and eating Invisible Pink Unicorn cereal.

Now, it is true that a man named Dan Bernardo is on the computer on March 26, 2005 at 1:20 am, but that does not prove AT ALL, that he was petting a ridgeback dragon and eating Invisible Pink Unicorn cereal. Your logic falls short. You can only use the bibles history to prove that it has some accurate historical data. But it doesn't prove at all that god exists, or that the prophecies are attributed to yahweh, and not the IPU.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Limbo-- I'd just like to say first of all, that if I have offended you I am sorry. I respect the fact that your posts in this thread have been so good-natured and polite, and they have been well-argued, even though I disagree for the most part.

I'll let Master Vigil and linwood respond to your last post....but I just have one quick comment here about something you said that jumped out at me: "These verses say that the prophets of the Bible spoke from God. In other words, the Bible claims to be a direct message from God."

You are assuming that the author of 2 Peter 1:20-21 20 speaks for all the other authors whose work appears in the Bible. That assumption, however, is unfounded. My English book is an anthology of works by many different authors from different time-periods, and although all these works may appear in a work with a common title, it would not make sense for me to interpret Robert Frost's opinions as "testimony" on the part of all of the authors represented in the anthology.

 

[linwood]

The apostle Peter makes a powerful statement about the origin of the Bible.

2 Peter 1:20-21 20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21 For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

These verses say that the prophets of the Bible spoke from God. In other words, the Bible claims to be a direct message from God.

So, there's no doubt about it, the Bible itself testifies that it is the very Word of God. But like I said, that alone is not enough. There are some others we must call to the witness stand:

Peter is not speaking of the Bible here.

He is speaking of Biblical scriptures.

The difference is immense considering the Bible wasn`t compiled in the form it is today until well after Peter died.

There is much scripture that didn`t make it into the Bible that Peter could have had no knowledge of and possibly much that did make it into the final draft he didn`t have knowledge of either.

Yet, in spite of all this diversity, there is a total and complete harmony and continuity from the beginning to the end - from Genesis to Revelation - there is only one subject - God's redemption of human beings. There is a unity in the Bible that can't be explained except by a supernatural superintendency. The only explanation which fits the circumstances is that God coordinated the entire project.

I would argue that the Torah was an epic story of a God who was more concerned with his own recognition and the unquestioning obedience of his followers while the NT promoted the redemption of mankind and even God himself.

If you fail to see the difference in intent and writing styles of those who wrote the Torah and those who wrote the NT then you should study more.

There is no continuity between the two and at times not much continuity within either one.

Second, consider the reliability of the Bible. There is undeniable evidence that the New Testament has been reliably and accurately transmitted over the years.

I think I can come up with a denial or two. Here`s just one

If you like we can stroll over to the Biblical errancy thread and debate more, man, many, more but to go into them any deeper here would be to drag this thread off topic

The Codex Sinaiticus seems to be missing the final 12 chapters of Mark that one finds in modern Bibles

Ray Bruce, a film director who is producing a documentary on the project, cited the Book of Mark as an example of how much the modern Bible has been altered from the Codex text. In the Codex, he said, the Book of Mark ends at chapter 16, verse 8, with the discovery that Christ's tomb was empty.

But more modern versions contain an additional 12 verses with testimony from Mary Magdalene and 11 apostles referring to the resurrection of Jesus.

"It shows how much this is a dynamic process of editing and adaptation," he said, but also raises questions about the influence man has had on texts regarded by Christians as divinely inspired.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/world/11103764.htm

It's been said that no other ancient book even comes close to such numbers and evidence. Just to give you an idea…if you were to compare the second place document where there are existing manuscripts, you'd have to go to the Iliad by Homer. And that only has 643 manuscripts that are known to be in existence.

Ahh, the plea to popularity.
This must mean that the Iliad is inherently true as well.

The fact that the words of both the Old Testament and the New Testament have been transmitted so accurately is indeed a miracle.

If it were a fact it would indeed be a miracle, but it`s not a fact.

But, thirdly, consider the accuracy of its facts. You see, not only has history shown that the Bible is unique in it's continuity and in its reliability, but history also shows that the Bible is unique in the accuracy of its facts.

Josephs geneology in Luke compared to Josephs geneology in Matthew.

How did Judas die? Hung or Fallen?

Story of Matthews Nativity compared to the story of Lukes Nativity

Jesus` last words on the cross, Mat. Luke John all different.

All four gospels have different resurrection stories.

I could go on and on and on….

For instance, years ago most modern, liberal Bible scholars were saying that there was no way that the first five books of the Bible could have been written by Moses. Because they were sure that writing didn't exist during the time that Moses lived.

Moses couldn`t have written it because the Torah describes Moses own funeral and events that happened after his death

How does one describe his own funeral in written text?

This evidence doesn`t support the IPU but it doesn`t support YHWH either.

 

[oracle]

those who "feel" YHWH's existence are actually feeling the Awesome power of the IPU

Yay for the almighty IPU and her awesome invisible pinkness!:woohoo:

 

[Scuba Pete]

You are assuming that the author of 2 Peter 1:20-21 20 speaks for all the other authors whose work appears in the Bible. That assumption, however, is unfounded.

Yeah, just because it says so is no reason to take it at face value! So, what about "No scripture ever" leaves wiggle room here Spinks?

 

[oracle]

Second, consider the reliability of the Bible. There is undeniable evidence that the New Testament has been reliably and accurately transmitted over the years.

I think I can come up with a denial or two. Here`s just one

If you like we can stroll over to the Biblical errancy thread and debate more, man, many, more but to go into them any deeper here would be to drag this thread off topic

The Codex Sinaiticus seems to be missing the final 12 chapters of Mark that one finds in modern Bibles

Ray Bruce, a film director who is producing a documentary on the project, cited the Book of Mark as an example of how much the modern Bible has been altered from the Codex text. In the Codex, he said, the Book of Mark ends at chapter 16, verse 8, with the discovery that Christ's tomb was empty.

But more modern versions contain an additional 12 verses with testimony from Mary Magdalene and 11 apostles referring to the resurrection of Jesus.

"It shows how much this is a dynamic process of editing and adaptation," he said, but also raises questions about the influence man has had on texts regarded by Christians as divinely inspired.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/world/11103764.htm

I posted an argument before, just thought I'd post it again here:
First Born Son, In Contrast to Only Begotten Son

In the Gospel according to the Hebrews, a gospel that did not make it into the canon, however is quoted by a number of church fathers connected with the city of Alexandria, Egypt -- Clement, Origen, Didymus the blind, and Jerome. In this gospel, Jesus is written as the “firstborn son” not the “only begotten son“:

“It is stated in the Gospel written in Hebrew, which the Nazereans read: “The entire fountain of the Holy Spirit will descend on him. For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” Later in that Gospel that we have mentioned we find the following: “It came to pass that when the Lord came up from the water, the entire fountain of the Holy Spirit descended and rested on him; and it is said to him, ‘My Son, in all the prophets I have been expecting you to come, that I might rest on you. For you are my rest, you are my firstborn Son, who rules forever.’” (Jerome, Comentary on Isaiah11:13) -- Lost Scriptures: Books That Did Not Make It Into the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman.

In the Arain conspiracy, Arius, the Presbyter of Alexandria who was later supported by Eusebius and was to be reinstated by Constantine after his exile, said that Christ did not share God's nature but was the first creature God created. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, said that Christ was fully God. At the Council of Nicea in 325, the Church Fathers came down on Athanasius's side and made Arius's belief heretical. In my speculation, the NT has been edited accordingly.

In Matthew 5:43-48, Jesus says that we may be sons of our Father in heaven. If Jesus is the “only begotten son“, then how can we also be God’s son? Are we “adopted”? Adoption is only based on the conditions that a child is given up by biological parents and taken care by non-biological ones. In this case we were all created by God who is our original father. Being a “son of God” is not literally a birth right, but a title given based on certain conditioning, or a relationship between an individual and God that arises due to certain circumstances. Jesus's claim that he was the son of God was probably not literal, but a claim that emphasized his close and personal relationship to God. The argument here is to show the possibility that there originally was no “only begotten son”, but that the NT was edited this way. Where in the world does "only begotten" come from? It's not in the OT like firstborn is. Jesus the Christ is also known as the firstborn in several non-canonical books.

There is even more underlying meaning behind "firstborn". According to the Zohar (I think, I will check this later and re-specify the source), It is the first letter of Genesis, the first verse of Genesis, the first Chapter of Genesis, the first book which is Genesis and so on that contains and reveals the Torah [sidenote: The Gnostics held Jesus as divine revealer, not savior]. Bet is the first distinction receding from Aleph, the "head" of the Hebrew alphabet: the first letter of the first verse of the first book, which sums up the Torah by itself. Is it relational to the first born? In this case I believe that Christ IS literally the Word [a component of the Torah], and Jesus is a personification of Christ. I believe that a historical Jesus existed, yet I also see Jesus as being a symbolical representation of Christ, as Christ becomes externalized through the teachings of Jesus and the revelations of God and God's Torah are made through him also. There is undoubtingly an existent relationship that cannot be denied, whether it is wholly symbolical, or whether that Jesus is literally Christ or Moshiach.

Where only begotten comes from, I have no clue. However firstborn son, firstborn lamb, first fruits, etc are found throughout the OT in a distinct and consistent pattern. It is also found in the NT, when Jesus is refered as "the firstborn from the dead": Colossians 1:18 "And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.", Revalations 1:5 "...and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead...". You also have the "Sons of God" which is constant in the OT, meaning that there is not only one son but there exists a plurality of sons. Only begotten seems like a breakage, interpolation, and inconsistency within this pattern. Of course from the possible perspective of the early church fathers, if Jesus is God, there is only one God, and that means there can only be one son. Only begotten makes that distinction, wherease firstborn would mean that there is more than one son.

Like I have stated, there are missing cogwheels, breakage of pattern, anomalies, inconsistencies within the whole context like I have described above, which to me seems like substantial evidence that shows the NT has been edited over. There was a definite digression away from Judaism and an anti-semitism in the early church, which seems to me like a contributing factor to possible interpolation. Only a Hebraic mind can understand concepts like Alpha and Omega (Aleph and Tav), because of the semitic meanings of the Hebrew Aleph-bet, which is stating the totality of God's existance as being everything that exists from the beginning to the end of a spectrum. It would be difficult for anyone to understand this concept if they do not understand Judaism. The first movement of digression from Judaism existed very early in the church, when Peter and Paul were still around. This discension was between the Jewish Christian's and the Gentile Christians, and I perceive that this is the underlying cause of the spiraling downfall of shizms, beginning very early whithin Christianity's roots. The Gentile Christians survived, however the hebraic mindset seems to have died with it. Of course in the gospel according to the Hebrews, Jesus was related as the firstborn son in the baptismal account.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

(Completely off-topic: The odd thing is, when I started reading about the IPU, I was more offended that a unicorn was being used than that it was an argument against theism. Now I have this quote

For an omnipotent unicorn, anything and everything is possible.

and I like it so much, it may become my signature.)

 

[linwood]

The Old Testament claims inspiration 2600 times. In fact, I would go so far as to claim that every contributor to the Bible claimed divine inspiriation. I would have to check on that to be sure.

Limbo,

Theologists cannot even verify who actually penned the books of the Bible yet you claim to be able to not only verify the authors but provide a statement of divine inspiration from each?

By the way, the Bible itself wouldn`t be admissable as evidence in a court of law to defend the concept of the Christian God if it was needed due to the fact that it is centuries old heresay.

You cannot support the Abrahamic God with Biblical scripture.

Now, it all comes down to how you define evidence. Most people have different ideas of what evidence is, and how much is needed.

I`m not that difficult to convince.
Reliable historical documentation from unbiased sources would serve to sway me to degrees.

you give me a chance to prove it is false.

You can no more prove the IPU false than I can prove God false.
Thats why the IPU exists

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Of course not! However, even MORE important than that, there is a direct mention of "Communicable disease" in Leviticus. That simply wasn't a common concept back then.

1) I don't see how Leviticus' mentioning of diseases that can be spread to others is "MORE important" than mentioning that hygiene kills microbes which cause disease....the latter, had it been mentioned, would have been far more important. It's not that far of a stretch of the imagination that the ancient Hebrews could have known about communicable diseases without divine help (the Egyptians performed brain surgery, for goodness' sake...let's give the ancients a little credit ).

2) I mentioned the stoning of adulterers earlier, but you chose to ignore it. Did that law "prove out in the end" despite defying contemporary knowledge? If laws that do "prove out in the end" are evidence of YHWH's existence, aren't laws that don't "prove out in the end" evidence of His nonexistence? It appears you are putting your selection bias to good use here.

In my opinion, if an ancient people have laws they claim stems from religious truth A, that their laws are beneficial/harmful to humanity is not reliable evidence of the validity/invalidity of religious truth A.

What would be good evidence for religious truth A is if an ancient people had knowledge of things that they could not have known about without religious truth A (i.e. without divine inspiration). That, I think, is what Limbo is trying to show with the OT prophesies. That has it's own problems, of course, not the least of which is the vagueness of the prophesies themselves. Also, the acrobatic methods of interpreting the prophesies are problematic because, if applied fairly to the prophesies of other religions, they could just as easily confirm the divine inspiration of the Prophet of Delphi or of the prophets in the Koran and, by this logic, their respective religious beliefs. Thus once again we are left either rejecting everyone's gods or accepting them all.

Of course these laws had MORE than one purpose... it taught that cleanliness WAS next to Godliness AND it helped them to understand that God IS!
Hmnnn... well I showed you "mine", now YOU show me yours. I would love to see these Spinks.

There are many examples throughout history. In fact, your initial statement that hygiene and cleanliness were not "common knowledge" was erroneous. In Mesopotamia, for example, cleaning and bandaging wounds was common practice for thousands of years. In any case, you have proposed that because the ancient Hebrews believed YHWH wanted them to be clean, and because being clean is good for your health, YHWH must have actually told them to be clean (and therefore YHWH exists). Even if one accepts your premise, your reasoning would lead one to conclude the existence of many other gods as well. Religious Daoists, for example, had rules regarding hygiene. Modern science confirms that hygiene prevents disease. By your reasoning regarding the Hebrews, this means that religious Daoists' belief that the ancient teachers who gave those rules were Deities must be true.

Yeah, just because it says so is no reason to take it at face value!

So, what about "No scripture ever" leaves wiggle room here Spinks?

I don't know what this means, please clarify.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Did that law "prove out in the end" despite defying contemporary knowledge?

Well, first it wasn't against contemporary knowledge, but Jesus was born according to the scriptures, so yes, it did prove out in the end.

There wasn't a concept of "microbes" back then. That's what's so remarkable Spinks. Sure they did brain surgery, and I am sure that the patient died of an infection afterwards. There they are walking around in the desert, and God tells them to wash their hands. "But we are thirsty" they say. "Wash your hands anyway" says God.

OK last effort for thisw post...

The Scripture from I Peter applies to ALL scripture, contrary to what you said. Why? Because it said it did. Read it again and see if you see it this time.

 

[linwood]

The Scripture from I Peter applies to ALL scripture, contrary to what you said. Why? Because it said it did. Read it again and see if you see it this time.

Are you saying the Gospel of Thomas is divinely inspired NetDoc?
It is scripture directly relating to Jesus supposedly by an apostle.

 

[Lightkeeper]

Oh...alright....you guys can't come up with anything more creative than the "invisable pink unicorn"?

At least try the ADHD Diagnosed Orange 15-Toed Homophobic Sloth.

Amen to that. It is such an overused cliche that I don't read past it.

 

[linwood]

The Islamic religion holds as true the Qur'an and, according to Muhammad.. declares only portions of the Old and New Testaments to be valid.

Hell Limbo, I consider "portions" of the Bible to be valid as well.
But I, like Islam, hardly believe it to be the inerrant word of God.

As a mater of fact, Muslim scholars in India, having examined this matter in detail in the light of the contents of the Qur'an, were convinced that the book of the Holy Bible, both the Old and New Testament, have not been changed, substituted or corrupted as is generally taken for granted. Look like continuity to me.

I`d like to see reference for this, it sounds interesting.
However when you said "continuity" I was under the impression you were refering to consistency within the Bible itself.
I fail to see how Islams opinion of the Bible regardless of what it is is continuity for Biblical scripture.

Some people want us to believe that all 5,306 manuscripts that disagree with the "minority text" are corrupt and that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are as pure as the wind driven snow.
There is a problem with that however. These two Alexandrian manuscripts disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.

That sounds like "continuity" to me.
Considering the modern puiblished Bible in all it`s forms directly contradicts itself often as I`ve pointed out.
People put such weight on the Sinaiticus because it is the oldest copy of Biblical scripture mankind possesses.
While that in itself does not prove it`s validity it does carry great weight as in purely logical terms it would be closer to the origins of the tales than those copied years later .

Anytime you are dealing with the Alexandrian texts, you are dealing with corrupted texts. They are the Gnostic gospels, which the Bible warns against the Gnostic teachings.

Those same warnings are within the Codex Sinaiticus itself.
It contains the OT and the NT in their oldest tracable forms.
It contains two other books which I am assuming you place your assertion on "The Sheperd of Hermas" and the "Epistle of Barnabus".
While these two later books are not canonical (actually Barnabus was) and were considered false by many early Christians many others found them necessary if not "divine".
Eusebius and Origin for example.
While Iraneus called the The Sheperd of Hermas false he did not rail against it as heresy as he did the Gnostic Gospels.
The Codex Sinaiticus is NOT Gnostic nor is it heretical, the vast majority of it is canonized and accepted by mainstream theologians as valid.
You are going to have to give me some support for your assertion that the Sinaiticus is Gnostic.
Please tell me what you base this assertion on.

So could I, and I will if its necessary to prove my point.

We will both grow tired of this way before either of us "Proves his point".

According to tradition the Torah was written by Moses. As today, the concept of authorship included the possibilities of ghost writers and editors working under the author's supervision. Therefore, neither Christians nor Jews had a problem with those passages of the Torah describing the death of Moses and the funeral, ect.

I`m not concernd with what Jews or Christians had problems with.
I`m concerned with the validity of your implication.
You earlier implied Moses did write the Torah by way of defending it against those who critisied the possibilty over language.
Are you now denying that implication?

 

[linwood]

Amen to that. It is such an overused cliche that I don't read past it.

Now you know how an atheist feels constantly confronted with "God".