Francoise,
Well, I guess I mean "alleged prophecies allegedly fullfilled by Jesus" but that was a bit too cumbersome for a title.
What I wanted to concentrate on now was that many "prophecies" either were not prophecies at all, or not messianic in nature.It is true that you can sometimes prove a negative. But Skeptic is generally correct. The situations where you CAN prove a negative is where you can demonstrate that observational consequences are absent. This is generally only true about localized claims. Ie. I can prove there is no huge "Flying Saucer" in the center of Bergen. I cannot prove no such thing exists anywhere on the planet. For religious and other claims, the rule is simple: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This is a rule that most people apply in their daily lives, and to everybody elses religion. Consistency and intellectual honesty requires that you also apply it to your own belief system. That is the reason I am no longer a JW, no longer a Christian and no longer a theist.Those who claim the Bible is an extraordinary book inspired by a superhuman source, will have to present the evidence. It is perfectly legitimate to reject the claim without specific evidence against its supernatural origin, since that would be the default position. Of course, skeptics have more than a few heavy arguments against Bible inspiration and in particular inerrancy.- Jan
--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]
Jan, don't you really mean to state "Prophecies Allegedly Fulfilled by Jesus"? I mean, the prophecies are there alright, and you're questioning that Jesus fulfilled them? Or do you mean your statement as it appears?
Well, I guess I mean "alleged prophecies allegedly fullfilled by Jesus" but that was a bit too cumbersome for a title.
What I wanted to concentrate on now was that many "prophecies" either were not prophecies at all, or not messianic in nature.It is true that you can sometimes prove a negative. But Skeptic is generally correct. The situations where you CAN prove a negative is where you can demonstrate that observational consequences are absent. This is generally only true about localized claims. Ie. I can prove there is no huge "Flying Saucer" in the center of Bergen. I cannot prove no such thing exists anywhere on the planet. For religious and other claims, the rule is simple: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." This is a rule that most people apply in their daily lives, and to everybody elses religion. Consistency and intellectual honesty requires that you also apply it to your own belief system. That is the reason I am no longer a JW, no longer a Christian and no longer a theist.Those who claim the Bible is an extraordinary book inspired by a superhuman source, will have to present the evidence. It is perfectly legitimate to reject the claim without specific evidence against its supernatural origin, since that would be the default position. Of course, skeptics have more than a few heavy arguments against Bible inspiration and in particular inerrancy.- Jan--
Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The Devil´s Dictionary, 1911]