Why should we believe the gospels?

[William Wallace]

Did you just footnote a forum post? Awesome.

[bosk1]

It just seemed to flow better that way.

[rumborak]

Well, this is of course conjecture, but I figured in those days names worked the same as in other cultures. That is, yes, they do have a literal meaning (just like "William" has a literal meaning), but they end up being, well, just names. It just strikes me as weird that a prophecy would call out a name if the prophecy actually meant the semantic meaning of the name. And I would also find it weird if Mary would call Jesus by the name Immanuel, because first and foremost Immanuel is a name, not the semantic meaning.

EDIT: Just read the page on Wikipedia. Not surprisingly, I find the Jewish interpretation more believable.

rumborak

[bosk1]

EDIT: Just read the page on Wikipedia. I find the Jewish interpretation more believable tbh.

rumborak

Interesting.  The odd thing is that neither Ahaz nor Isaiah had a child who was given the proper name "Immanuel" either, so that interpretation seems strange to me.

[rumborak]

Well, not all prophecy has to be true in Judaism, right? That is, they allow room for error, no?

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

Well, not all prophecy has to be true in Judaism, right? That is, they allow room for error, no?

rumborak

to the contrary...in Deut 18:20-22 a prophet who speaks something that does not happen is to be put to death as a false prophet

[rumborak]

 well ..... doesn't that confirm the presence of false prophecy?
The question really is, why does Judaism keep it in its scripture?

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

well ..... doesn't that confirm the presence of false prophecy?
The question really is, why does Judaism keep it in its scripture?

rumborak

yeah, there definately is false prophecy, but what are you referring to regarding Judaism keeping "it" in its scripture?

[rumborak]

The prophecy. It obviously prophecied something that didn't happen in the end, so why keep it in there?

rumborak

[yeshaberto]

are you talking about the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy of Immanuel? that was fulfilled in Jesus, as matthew notes.
many of the prophecies of the jewish scriptures (as with christian scriptures) were dichotic.  there was an immediate fulfillment but there was also portions of the prophecy that referred to something bigger and further out
vs 14 is a section referring to the latter

[ack44]

many of the prophecies of the jewish scriptures (as with christian scriptures) were dichotic.  there was an immediate fulfillment but there was also portions of the prophecy that referred to something bigger and further out
vs 14 is a section referring to the latter

Yep, pretty much the logic of all modern cults. "Jesus was cool, but I'm the real deal!" Any sort of meaning can be blown into texts if the "intent of the author" doesn't matter anymore.

[yeshaberto]

there are dozens of obvious examples.
Psalm 45 is a psalm written regarding the wedding of solomon.  nevertheless, scattered throughout the psalm is messianic references of deity.  (vs. 3, 6-7, etc).
if the psalm was only about solomon, these messianic references make no sense.  jews and christians both recognize these as messianic prophecies, even though both understand it is talking about the wedding of a king

[Ħ]

Not to mention Daniel 9...if Jesus isn't the Messiah, then you can pretty much throw modern Judaism out the window.

[bosk1]

Not to mention Daniel 9...if Jesus isn't the Messiah, then you can pretty much throw modern Judaism out the window.

Yes, but most modern-day Jews don't understand that.

[ack44]

there are dozens of obvious examples.
Psalm 45 is a psalm written regarding the wedding of solomon.  nevertheless, scattered throughout the psalm is messianic references of deity.  (vs. 3, 6-7, etc).
if the psalm was only about solomon, these messianic references make no sense.  jews and christians both recognize these as messianic prophecies, even though both understand it is talking about the wedding of a king

Those are fine, since (I'm guessing) it's clear that the poetry has a double meaning. When it comes to prophecy though, and you hear all this mumbo jumbo about double fulfillment - of things separate from what the prophet is clearly referring to - that really turns me off.

[yeshaberto]

there are dozens of obvious examples.
Psalm 45 is a psalm written regarding the wedding of solomon.  nevertheless, scattered throughout the psalm is messianic references of deity.  (vs. 3, 6-7, etc).
if the psalm was only about solomon, these messianic references make no sense.  jews and christians both recognize these as messianic prophecies, even though both understand it is talking about the wedding of a king

Those are fine, since (I'm guessing) it's clear that the poetry has a double meaning. When it comes to prophecy though, and you hear all this mumbo jumbo about double fulfillment - of things separate from what the prophet is clearly referring to - that really turns me off.

yeah, I understood what you meant.  stuff like that turns me off as well.

[Ħ]

there are dozens of obvious examples.
Psalm 45 is a psalm written regarding the wedding of solomon.  nevertheless, scattered throughout the psalm is messianic references of deity.  (vs. 3, 6-7, etc).
if the psalm was only about solomon, these messianic references make no sense.  jews and christians both recognize these as messianic prophecies, even though both understand it is talking about the wedding of a king

Those are fine, since (I'm guessing) it's clear that the poetry has a double meaning. When it comes to prophecy though, and you hear all this mumbo jumbo about double fulfillment - of things separate from what the prophet is clearly referring to - that really turns me off.

yeah, I understood what you meant.  stuff like that turns me off as well.

Hmmmm...well remember that the prophets didn't always understand what they were prophecying about (1 Pet 1:10-11 for example)

[AndyDT]

I saw Bart Ehrman speak last night. He gave a summary on how many forgeries there were both within and without the bible. He mentioned the Gospel of Peter, Epistle of Peter, and Apocalypse of Peter - which church leaders were still debating whether to include in the NT until the 4th century.
He also said that many of the epistles were forgeries and the gospels themselves contradict each other factually and knowledge of historical events.

The most interesting part came at the end in answer to a quesiton which is the essence of what I was looking for. He said the question of authorship was irrelevant to belief. Whilst he was agnostic, his wife was christian and what mattered was the truth it pointed towards - how the stories spoke to you.

This has been my frustration at church with the tendency to exclude all else which points to God as if the bible was the only word and every word has to be analysed to death. I agree with the view - it's the truth it points to, just like the Tao, the Gita point to it.

[bosk1]

More evidence of why Ehrman is a moron.  It is irrelevant whether or not something "speaks to us" if we are looking for truth.  Truth is truth, period.

[Perpetual Change]

More evidence of why Ehrman is a moron.  It is irrelevant whether or not something "speaks to us" if we are looking for truth.  Truth is truth, period.

I think there's so much more than simple "truth seeking" in all the texts that Andy has mentioned. If an idea speaks to a reader on a personal and spiritual level, and impacts that reader's life in a very real and very positive way, does it really matter whether that reader is actively pursuing "truth" or not?