Thread 18103929

Part 1:

The New Testament's atonement doctrine cannot be explained on the basis of the Tanakh alone. Although it does draw from this well, particularly in the Paschal imagery St. Paul employs (1 Cor 5:7) or the Yom Kippur mysticism of Hebrews, the martyrdom theology which developed during the Maccabean period (4 Maccabees 6:27-28, 4 Maccabees 17:20-22) should prove to be the basis for this theology.

Although the notion of a righteous person dying for the sins of the nation is arguably found in the Tanakh (Isaiah 52:13-53:12), this theology gets significantly more development during the Maccabean period when Judeans who sided with the Torah-keeping faction suffered at the hands of the Seleucids (2 Maccabees 7). This is also about the time when the idea of a final resurrection first begins appearing in the literature (Daniel 12:2, 2 Maccabees 7:14) and elaborations about the afterlife and atonement in general (2 Maccabees 12:39-45).

With this in mind, one cannot help but read Romans 5:12-21 in this light where God's wrath against the gentiles is collectively appeased (so long as they have faith) because Jesus's act of righteousness satisfies God's wrath. In this way, Paul could be seen as holding to a kind of satisfaction theory of atonement (not to be confused with the more precise satisfaction theory of atonement laid down in latter centuries by theologians like Anselm).

Part 2:

We find a similar logic in 1 Peter 2:18-25, though now shifted as a means of individual merit, where Jesus's suffering serves as an example for this. In fact it is precisely this logic of martyrdom and suffering which we also see echoed in some of the Church Fathers (e.g. Tertullian: Apology 50, Cyprian: On the Lapsed 17, Origen: Exhortation to Martyrdom). We even find a peculiar, potentially offensive, interpretation of this among the Gnostic writer Basilides who claims that the martyrs are awarded salvation through their suffering because, in truth, they are being punished on account of some secret sin (Clement of Alexandria: Basilides' Idea of Martyrdom Refuted 12).

It is not hard to see then how the Christian doctrine of atonement, as applied to Jesus, but also to the notion of redemptive suffering more generally, does have continuity with specific developments in Second Temple theology.

Easy peasy. G-d offered himself as sacrifice so that people would get infinite free sacrifices in the temple, given that they accept christianity. Then he destroyed the second temple.

>>18103934
Hello. I intended this thread to be neutral.

>>18103937
lol that makes it even better because you just indirectly refuted the prots.

>>18103945
Please stop being sectarian. This is a neutral, historical thread.

>>18103929 (OP)
>This is also about the time when the idea of a final resurrection first begins appearing in the literature (Daniel 12:2
The book of Daniel dates to the late Babylonian and early Persian era though. This seems to diminish your point.

Also, the idea of a final resurrection can be seen in many places of the Old Testament besides Daniel. Job 19:25-27, Psalm 49:15, Psalm 16:10, Ezekiel 37:12, Micah 7:7-9, Hosea 6:2, all of these come to mind as references. Psalm 16:10 is referenced specifically by Peter in Acts 2:27 as a reference to physical resurrection, which was of course described in great detail throughout the New Testament as well. All of this aligns acceptably well with what it says in Daniel 12 and in the other references I just mentioned.

>>18104219
I forgot to mention Job 14:14 as well. This part of Job's speech in chapter 14, specifically vv. 12-14, seems to mirror what it says in 1 Thessalonians 5:9 and 2 Peter 3:12 centuries later as well.

>>18104219
>The book of Daniel dates to the late Babylonian and early Persian era though. This seems to diminish your point.
To the contrary it has long been recognized that the Book of Daniel is a 2nd century BCE work and attempt to date it earlier than this are largely apologetic in nature and not taken seriously in academic historical scholarship. There has been much written on this topic and I can only summarize a small handful of data points.

Some internal evidence for the dating of the Book of Daniel includes the appearance of ex eventu prophecy where the work accurately "predicts" the time between the conquests of Alexander the Great to the persecutions of Antiochus IV (Daniel 8:3-22, Daniel 11:21-35). Yet the prophecies given are only accurate up to 164 BCE since the book goes on to describe a final campaign Antiochus will wage against Egypt and Palestine "at the time of the end" (Daniel 11:40-45) which never took place in history. In reality Antiochus IV did invade Egypt but in 167 he went to Persia to quell an invasion there where he died in 164 (for reasons not fully known). The author of the work clearly envisions a final, apocalyptic scenario where Antiochus IV is the last Seleucid king and his defeat will ultimately culminate in a final apocalyptic scenario leading to a resurrection of the righteous (Daniel 12:1-4).

>>18104219
There are several other key indications that Daniel is not Neo-Babylonian in date including the appearance of many anachronisms or inaccuracies regarding the Babylonian period at the beginning of the book. For example the author uses the word "Chaldean" to refer to the educated, priestly class, of Babylonian society (Daniel 2:2, 4:7) accurately reflecting what the word came to mean by the 2nd century BCE. However it only gained this meaning later and in the actual Neo-Babylonian period the word was simply another term for the Babylonians. The Book of Daniel also records the fact that the Babylonian Empire fell to a figure called Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:31). However we have 0 historical evidence that such a figure ever existed, instead it is likely that Darius the Mede in Daniel is a confused portrait of another historical figure called Darius I Hystaspes.

We also have external evidence for a 2nd century date to Daniel. For example the Book of Sirach 44-50 (dated to about 175 BCE), directly or indirectly lists every book of the Hebrew Bible, but shows no awareness of either a character named Daniel or a Book of Daniel.

>>18104219
> Also, the idea of a final resurrection can be seen in many places of the Old Testament besides Daniel. Job 19:25-27, Psalm 49:15, Psalm 16:10, Ezekiel 37:12, Micah 7:7-9, Hosea 6:2, all of these come to mind as references. Psalm 16:10 is referenced specifically by Peter in Acts 2:27 as a reference to physical resurrection, which was of course described in great detail throughout the New Testament as well. All of this aligns acceptably well with what it says in Daniel 12 and in the other references I just mentioned.
You are anachronistically reading a latter theology into these verses which is simply not present. This is an apologetic move on your part instead of serious, historical, analysis of the verses you mined. I will not be engaging in theological disputes or interpretations in this thread since this is a neutral thread.

>>18104466
>The author of the work clearly envisions a final, apocalyptic scenario where Antiochus IV is the last Seleucid king
Ok, does it say that somewhere? It seems to me that part way through verse 12:1, it says "and there shall be a time of trouble," etc. There could be a time gap before that.

>the appearance of ex eventu prophecy
You just assumed it was ex eventu prophecy as an a priori assumption, didn't you? Is that a balanced approach, anon? Do you have a reason to give for this, other than the implied assumption that "prophecies cannot happen," which isn't a balanced or neutral view since you haven't provided a justification as to why not? The part that's missing is why this is supposed to be obvious.

>not taken seriously in academic historical scholarship.
You are the arbiter of what counts as scholarship now? I would raise the counter point, what if the works you are looking at are biased? For example, the previous secular worldview was built around the assumption that Belshazzar was a fictional biblical character, but they were forced to revise this upon finding the Cylinders of Nabonidus. The case of Darius the Mede is similar. The most reasonable explanation there is that Darius the Mede was given rule over the important city of Babylon in the earliest years of Cyrus while he was still pursuing Nabonidus' troops. Only someone with an unreasonable bias, i.e. who is forced to assume every biblical claim is false by default – even without any reason for the assumption – would say this is impossible. This could lead you or others to misrepresent such a position as being neutral or impartial when it isn't. You would then be breaking the rules of your own thread, according to my determination.

>There has been much written on this topic and I can only summarize a small handful of data points.
By all means tell us more about what you're alluding to here. We shouldn't have to guess.

>Sirach 44-50
Argument from silence. Can you think of anything better?

>>18104470
>the verses you mined.
Claiming I "mined" verses is not an impartial, neutral approach. There's no need to be afraid of these verses. I think if anyone read them, they would see the references to physical, bodily resurrection in those verses. Here's one example:

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."
- Job 19:25-27

Here Job's speech states, "though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another;"

He refers to the fact that worms will destroy his body, a reference to physical decomposition, yet he then says that his own flesh and his own eyes will see God, and Job is emphatic on the point that it will be his own physical eyes, not those of another. This ties in to verse 25 where he says his redeemer shall stand "in the latter day" upon the earth, which is when Job says he shall see God. This ties in with Christ the redeemer (see Genesis 3:15, a prophecy Job could have known about) representing divinity, i.e. God.

>I will not be engaging in theological disputes or interpretations in this thread since this is a neutral thread.
In this post (>>18104466) you earlier gave your interpretation of Daniel 12:1-4, where you said it "clearly envisions a final, apocalyptic scenario," etc. So that seemingly was against your own thread rules. Are you revoking that here?

>You are anachronistically reading a latter theology into these verses which is simply not present.
Doesn't this statement go against your own thread rules? IOW, this statement seems to be a theological judgement on your part. You've said that it's a "latter theology." What if the Bible actually has that theology, and the verses quoted prove that.

ok but im still a christus vitor chad

>>18103929 (OP)
>This is also about the time when the idea of a final resurrection first begins appearing in the literature
Isaiah 24-27 sounds like it's talking about a resurrection to me... some scholars, date the passage to the Persian period, but even then it is clearly pre-Hellenistic.

>>18105112
>Ok, does it say that somewhere? It seems to me that part way through verse 12:1, it says "and there shall be a time of trouble," etc. There could be a time gap before that.
The distress here almost certainly refers to Antiochus IV's intervention and invasion of Palestine when a civil war there broke out between the Hellenists and the practitioners of Judaism. (1 Maccabees 1:47-22)

>You just assumed it was ex eventu prophecy as an a priori assumption, didn't you? Is that a balanced approach, anon? Do you have a reason to give for this, other than the implied assumption that "prophecies cannot happen,"
Yes, the evidence I gave above indicates that the Book of Daniel is not a genuine 6th century BCE work but a 2nd century BCE work. Modern scholars were not even the first to point this out, as far back as the 4th century Porphyry of Tyre also pointed this out. The fact that the author doesn't accurately record anything from 164 BCE but does accurately record so many other things prior to this is a big clue about the time period it was written.

>>18105112
>>18105114
> For example, the previous secular worldview was built around the assumption that Belshazzar was a fictional biblical character, but they were forced to revise this upon finding the Cylinders of Nabonidus. The case of Darius the Mede is similar. The most reasonable explanation there is that Darius the Mede was given rule over the important city of Babylon in the earliest years of Cyrus while he was still pursuing Nabonidus' troops. Only someone with an unreasonable bias, i.e. who is forced to assume every biblical claim is false by default – even without any reason for the assumption – would say this is impossible. This could lead you or others to misrepresent such a position as being neutral or impartial when it isn't. You would then be breaking the rules of your own thread, according to my determination.
I think this is just a big red herring. People use the same argument to discount science. The historical method relies on a very rigorous methodology to be able to answer questions about the past. In the case of Belshazzar, even though you're correct he was a historical person, the Book of Daniel records several inaccuracies about him that simply do not reflect a 6th century BCE work. For example Daniel portrays him as the successor and son of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:1), but in fact the historical Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus. I do not believe Darius the Mede is a total historical fiction either but is rather a legendary portrayal of Darius the Great. This is likely a midrash on Jeremiah 51:11 and Isaiah 13:17.

>>18105114
>>18105112
>By all means tell us more about what you're alluding to here. We shouldn't have to guess.
I'm not particular good at summarizing scholarship and I myself do not claim to be a scholar either.

>Argument from silence. Can you think of anything better?
Arguments from silence aren't always fallacious as long as there's grounds for thinking a work or figure would be mentioned when they are otherwise aren't. In the case of Sirach it is remarkable that he spends several chapters writing about the most important patriarchs, prophets, and king in order but fails to mention Daniel. The character of Daniel is likely a literary elaboration and midrash on the character mentioned in Ezekiel 14:14.

>Here Job's speech states, "though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another;"
I don't see how that has to entail eschatology, in context Job is simply foretelling his suffering and redemption by God which does happen at the end of the book. I don't have a problem with typological interpretation, this is a perfectly legitimate way to interpret it historically, nervertheless it is not within the scope of secular scholarship to do this. I understand that midrash is important aspect of historical Biblical interpretation, but midrash is theologically motivated often, it is not neutral.

>>18105112
>>18105114
>In this post (>>18104466) you earlier gave your interpretation of Daniel 12:1-4, where you said it "clearly envisions a final, apocalyptic scenario," etc. So that seemingly was against your own thread rules. Are you revoking that here?
I'm not giving a modern theological apologetic as you are, it is simply a historical interpretation. Yeah if you want to get technical any interpretation of the Bible is going to be theological, because it's a theological book. But it can be read and interpreted like any other historical document from antiquity.

>Doesn't this statement go against your own thread rules? IOW, this statement seems to be a theological judgement on your part. You've said that it's a "latter theology." What if the Bible actually has that theology, and the verses quoted prove that.
Because we have a general idea about how the ideas of Biblical theology developed over time.

>>18106199
>>18105112
>>18105114
>Daniel 5:1
I'm sorry I mean *Daniel 5:11-13

>>18106199
>I do not believe Darius the Mede is a total historical fiction either but is rather a legendary portrayal of Darius the Great. This is likely a midrash on Jeremiah 51:11 and Isaiah 13:17.
That doesn't fit the timeline. The latest year mentioned in Daniel is the third year of Cyrus in Daniel 10:1, which is before Camybses (see Ezra 4:6) or Bardiya/Gaumata (Ezra 4:7-24a). Darius the great doesn't arrive on the scene until Ezra 4:24b, which is strictly after Daniel.

>The fact that the author doesn't accurately record anything from 164 BCE but does accurately record so many other things prior to this is a big clue about the time period it was written.
Most of chapter 12 involves the biblical end times. Daniel 12:6-7 for example mirrors Revelation chapter 10.

Further, the statement, "the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end" in Daniel 12:9 lines up with Revelation 22:10, which says, "And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand." The two prophecies are clearly connected. One in Daniel says that there are words sealed until the "time of the end," while the prophecy in Revelation says that the words are unsealed, and the time is now at hand. So Daniel 12:9 clearly ties in thematically with Revelation 22:10. Daniel is waiting, in chapter 12, for the book of Revelation to provide the fulfillment.

>as far back as the 4th century Porphyry of Tyre also pointed this out.
He didn't hide the fact he was against Christianity. But the underlying reasoning of all of these people is simply, "prophecies cannot happen" – which is an assumption that hasn't been sufficiently proven, no proof is even provided to support this claim. Why can't prophecies happen? If you simply assume prophecies cannot predict the future, that artificially excludes – and I would say, without justification – any consideration whatsoever of the possibility that it WAS a true prophecy about future times. It's presuppositional.

>>18106199
>For example Daniel portrays him as the successor and son of Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 5:1)
He could be descended from Nebuchadnezzar on the maternal side, which would still make him a son in that sense. The mother who is telling him this could even be Nebuchadnezzar's daughter.
>but in fact the historical Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus.
Sure. His maternal grandfather may have still been the earlier emperor Nebuchadnezzar as well. Unless you think, or want to say that's impossible?

>>18106245
>That doesn't fit the timeline. The latest year mentioned in Daniel is the third year of Cyrus in Daniel 10:1, which is before Camybses (see Ezra 4:6) or Bardiya/Gaumata (Ezra 4:7-24a). Darius the great doesn't arrive on the scene until Ezra 4:24b, which is strictly after Daniel.
But then all this does is prove my point, because Daniel doesn't accurately reflect timelines. The very fact that Daniel is portrayed by the author as having lived in the 6th century BCE contradicts Ezekiel 14:14 which clearly portrays Daniel as having lived during the age before Moses or at least portrays him along with Noah and Job as a righteous non-Israelites. This certainly cannot be the Daniel as has come down to us through the Book of Daniel, but the character in the Book of Daniel is likely a literary expansion of the mythical figure.

>Most of chapter 12 involves the biblical end times. Daniel 12:6-7 for example mirrors Revelation chapter 10.
I don't see how arguing from a text more than 200 years later than Daniel helps establish its antiquity in the 6th, rather than the 2nd, century BCE.

>>18106249
>He didn't hide the fact he was against Christianity. But the underlying reasoning of all of these people is simply, "prophecies cannot happen" – which is an assumption that hasn't been sufficiently proven, no proof is even provided to support this claim. Why can't prophecies happen? If you simply assume prophecies cannot predict the future, that artificially excludes – and I would say, without justification – any consideration whatsoever of the possibility that it WAS a true prophecy about future times. It's presuppositional.
I'm not actually making that assumption though. You're confusing methodological naturalism with philosophical naturalism as well, which aren't the same thing. On can utilized methodological naturalism without actually presupposing philosophical naturalism is true. I am not a naturalist btw. I do think miracles can happen. But that's irrelevant to a historical analysis of the text because that, like the science, only deals with the domain of things that can happen in the natural cosmos.

>Sure. His maternal grandfather may have still been the earlier emperor Nebuchadnezzar as well. Unless you think, or want to say that's impossible?
That's a speculative position, but even if this was the case, the text portrays him as the direct successor and son of Nebuchadnezzar, when he was neither.

>>18106263
>the text portrays him as the direct successor and son of Nebuchadnezzar, when he was neither.
He is called Nebuchadnezzar's son, and he may very well have been, on the maternal side. That would explain why Nabonidus gives him control over the city while he is doing archaeology or whatever.

As for direct successor, it doesn't say that. This shouldn't be conflated with the above. In Daniel 5:11, all it says is that Nebuchadnezzar was his father, not that he was a "direct successor." Rather, Evil-Merodak is said to be his immediate successor in 2 Kings 25:27. And Neriglissar, the person who reigned after him, may have been mentioned by name in Jeremiah 39:3 as well, though he isn't explicitly stated to be a ruler. Then there's Nabonidus soon after, who leaves his son (the maternal grandson of Nebuchadnezzar) in charge of Babylon at some point. I see no contradiction here, since Belshazzar is portrayed as a "son," but he not explicitly stated to be a "direct successor", i.e. those two things do not logically have to go together, & it would be a gross conflation to say that they must.

>On can utilized methodological naturalism without actually presupposing philosophical naturalism is true.
Two things apparently result from this. Firstly, a person who does this has precluded a wide array of possibilities from consideration. And the fatal problem is, this methodology fails to explain why anything exists in the first place: so it either has to admit at least one supernatural cause as to why the ordered universe exists at all, or it faces a self-contradiction. This is because, according to that methodology, there cannot be pre-existing supernatural causes, so the ultimate cause of the natural universe itself, which is prior to the universe, is left unexplained. It is assumed (perhaps unconsciously) that the natural observable universe just exists, but with no explanation for the fact that "there is something instead of nothing" that fits within the methodology.

>>18106245
>But the underlying reasoning of all of these people is simply, "prophecies cannot happen" – which is an assumption that hasn't been sufficiently proven, no proof is even provided to support this claim. Why can't prophecies happen? If you simply assume prophecies cannot predict the future, that artificially excludes – and I would say, without justification – any consideration whatsoever of the possibility that it WAS a true prophecy about future times. It's presuppositional.
Where's your proof that prophecies CAN happen? If one theory relies only on entities or events that are certainly known to be possible and the other depends on asserting the existence things that aren't known to be possible, that's a huge advantage for the first theory, don't you think? Just in terms of parsimony?

>>18106314
>You don't think me pulling a rabbit out of my hat was a real miracle? Then explain where the universe came from or you must abandon your naturalistic assumptions!
OP is right that one doesn't need to assume ontological naturalism to know that divine revelation isn't the most likely explanation for the Book of Daniel or any other known book.

>>18106314
>He is called Nebuchadnezzar's son, and he may very well have been, on the maternal side. That would explain why Nabonidus gives him control over the city while he is doing archaeology or whatever.
The problem here is that, once again, you're simply reading an apologetic into the text rather than taking it at its face value. Just because this is a plausible interpretation does not make it a likely one. The author of Daniel shows no awareness as to Belshazzar's legitimate ancestry nor to any Babylonian rulers between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. The historical genre which Daniel 5 would belong to is that of a court tale, which do not put an emphasis on historical accuracy. It's not meant to be a historically accurate account about a prophet named Daniel, but a midrashic tale, possibly containing elements which predate the actual Book of Daniel, but which have entered their final form in this work.

>>18106314
>Two things apparently result from this. Firstly, a person who does this has precluded a wide array of possibilities from consideration. And the fatal problem is, this methodology fails to explain why anything exists in the first place: so it either has to admit at least one supernatural cause as to why the ordered universe exists at all, or it faces a self-contradiction. This is because, according to that methodology, there cannot be pre-existing supernatural causes, so the ultimate cause of the natural universe itself, which is prior to the universe, is left unexplained. It is assumed (perhaps unconsciously) that the natural observable universe just exists, but with no explanation for the fact that "there is something instead of nothing" that fits within the methodology.
You're still assuming methodological naturalism makes philosophical claims at all so your criticisms don't really land where you seem to think they are landing. Even if it can be said to make claims, it does not actually require its practitioners to commit to naturalism at all. Methodological naturalism does not exclude the supernatural as an explanatory principle, it merely operates at the level of nature because this is its only domain. Methodological naturalism doesn't need to consider the ultimate cause of the natural world, why would it? It's not a philosophical theory and it makes no claims about the origin of the universe.

>>18106331
>OP is right that one doesn't need to assume ontological naturalism to know that divine revelation isn't the most likely explanation for the Book of Daniel or any other known book.
Earlier it was said to be an absolute proof, without the possibility of exception, that Daniel absolutely must be after the events it talks about, not just that it was "more likely" or the most likely.

I'm only saying, it should at least be considered possible.

>If one theory relies only on entities or events that are certainly known to be possible and the other depends on asserting the existence things that aren't known to be possible, that's a huge advantage for the first theory, don't you think?
I mean, if you accept the fact that something exists instead of nothing, it seems to me that you've already conceded that occam's razor doesn't exclude supernatural causes. I'm not saying that means every claim of a supernatural cause is automatically true, just that it isn't automatically false either. Since that would mean you have no way to explain why anything exists, yet you seem to be operating under that assumption just fine, last time I checked. Or are you a true radical skeptic who denies all existence?

>>18106338
>You're still assuming methodological naturalism makes philosophical claims at all
So all of the secularists writing wikipedia articles and other articles aren't claiming their historical narratives are actually true, they're just applying a methodology they don't believe in for some reason? It is sort of like how someone makes a wiki for a fictional universe where they assume the episodes are true purely for the sake of argument, but nobody actually takes it seriously? I ask because I'm pretty sure a lot of these guys are actually claiming and asserting their historical claims are actually true and that the Bible is actually false, not just that it is "theoretically false if you make certain assumptions a priori." I don't see people making that caveat a lot.

>>18106354
>So all of the secularists writing wikipedia articles and other articles aren't claiming their historical narratives are actually true
Just want to point out that you're abandoning the principle of charity by assuming ulterior motives about why people present these ideas. This kind of attitude makes it really difficult to have productive discussions on any subject.

>It is sort of like how someone makes a wiki for a fictional universe where they assume the episodes are true purely for the sake of argument, but nobody actually takes it seriously?
I'd simply say this is a mischaracterization of the actual aim of these historical reconstructions here. You're also conflating the contents of these reconstructions with the methodology behind them. These reconstructions are meant to be taken as theories about what happened in the past, but they don't preclude the supernatural in general, that's literally irrelevant to them.
>I ask because I'm pretty sure a lot of these guys are actually claiming and asserting their historical claims are actually true and that the Bible is actually false, not just that it is "theoretically false if you make certain assumptions a priori."
And you see while it may be that in your interpretative framework and theory of Biblical inspiration, these reconstructions may seem to be falsifying your worldview, not everyone actually understands the Bible in the same way you do, and there are plenty of religious scholars who are happy, who pioneer even, this methodology in Biblical studies. Again you're attaching ulterior motives to the people behind this. Nobody is necessarily trying to prove the Bible false, the veracity of the Bible as a theological document isn't an issue or concern here at all.

>>18106354
>I'm only saying, it should at least be considered possible.
No you're not lol, you're saying the book of Daniel dates to the late Babylonian and early Persian era.

>if you accept the fact that something exists instead of nothing, it seems to me that you've already conceded that occam's razor doesn't exclude supernatural causes
Even if you believe in a supernatural cause for the universe that doesn't in itself mean everything supernatural is on the table. In particular, it doesn't mean prophetic revelation is.

>that would mean you have no way to explain why anything exists
Indeed I don't and I don't think it is explainable in principle since explanations must appeal to things beyond what is being explained. If the thing you're trying to explain is all of existence, then you're not going to get anywhere because there is nothing else. Theism is not an exception to this.

>>18106375
>Just want to point out that you're abandoning the principle of charity by assuming ulterior motives about why people present these ideas.
I was asking a question there, actually. The quote you gave was cut off before the sentence was complete.

>I'd simply say this is a mischaracterization of the actual aim of these historical reconstructions here.
So your answer to that question is no, they're not doing that? If so, then the methodology is joined to philosophical outlook. This is what I originally thought before the idea of divorcing methodology from philosophy was suggested.

>And you see while it may be that in your interpretative framework and theory of Biblical inspiration, these reconstructions may seem to be falsifying your worldview,
They do seem to be, yes. Are you saying they aren't and that what I was saying earlier is factually accurate?

Or are you saying that they are actually falsifying and disagreeing with what I was saying earlier, in matter of fact and truth?

I don't think my view is compatible with those who say Daniel cannot possible have been written before the events that it wrote about. The reason for this is because they are assuming things that I don't assume, and precluding things that I do not preclude from consideration. So either they agree with me or else not, and I think they do not.

>there are plenty of religious scholars who are happy, who pioneer even, this methodology in Biblical studies.
Then I extend my disagreement with them as well.

>>18106380
>No you're not lol, you're saying the book of Daniel dates to the late Babylonian and early Persian era.
I objected to people who said it's not possible simply because of the bare presupposition that "prophecies cannot happen." That by itself, or combined with something like an argument from silence, is what I would call flawed and not something from which certainty can be derived.

>>18106393
>So your answer to that question is no, they're not doing that? If so, then the methodology is joined to philosophical outlook. This is what I originally thought before the idea of divorcing methodology from philosophy was suggested.
I guess you could say the conclusions garnered may leads to a particular philosophical outlook, but any assumptions that are present don't presume them.

>Or are you saying that they are actually falsifying and disagreeing with what I was saying earlier, in matter of fact and truth?
If you think the Book of Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE, then yes, these theories do falsify that viewpoint. If you think the Book of Daniel is an inspired religious text, then no, these theories do not necessarily falsify that.

>The reason for this is because they are assuming things that I don't assume
If anything, all that is being assumed is that the natural world exists, that there are events in it, that it has laws and regularities within these events, and that these events can be investigated. That's basically about it if I were to put it in my own words. It doesn't make claims about the ontological status of supernatural events though. So if that's the case then you're correct that it doesn't assume what you assume, because you start by assuming a religious framework is true, but methodological naturalism is neutral about your framework.

>>18106410
>these theories do falsify that viewpoint.
And if that methodology isn't just being done for the fun of it, but is actually serious, that means the methodology is being informed by philosophically materialist claims which are strictly naturalist only. By that token, it means that it does require its practitioners to commit to purely materialist naturalism. And that brings us back to the question of where that comes from. And it brings things right back to the deficiencies of that presupposition as earlier elaborated on.

>If you think the Book of Daniel is an inspired religious text,
If the book of Daniel and other scriptures in the Holy Bible are inspired by the Creator, the Lord and God who is asserted in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:20-21, that would mean the books of the Bible are factually true. I'm not sure why anyone would use the term "inspired" in some other way than this. Maybe, if someone was being disingenuous they would say the word "inspired" to appear to some people as if they were saying the above, while really meaning some other definition. The use of the term "religious" in modern parlance often seems to indicate the presence of such an ulterior definition. However, these connotations are notoriously slippery and not always overtly stated.

I feel bad for people who think it's fine to reaffirm their fellow human beings in something they know is false simply by calling it a "religious truth."

>So if that's the case then you're correct that it doesn't assume what you assume,
I said it assumes what I don't assume, not the other way around. The methodology and practice now in popular use assumes certain possibilities are not allowed to be considered, but I allow those possibilities to be considered.

>>18106433
>And if that methodology isn't just being done for the fun of it, but is actually serious, that means the methodology is being informed by philosophically materialist claims which are strictly naturalist only. By that token, it means that it does require its practitioners to commit to purely materialist naturalism. And that brings us back to the question of where that comes from. And it brings things right back to the deficiencies of that presupposition as earlier elaborated on.
But this is a strawman. Because even if the conclusions one might reach through methodological naturalism may lead one to have a specific outlook, this does not mean these conclusions are in the assumptions. Your attempting to demonstrate circularity, but you completely miss the mark because you're conflating the theories and the content of those theories with the methodology being employed in them. The theories may falsify a particular viewpoint, this does not mean the theory begins with the assumption that the viewpoint is already false somehow. You're attempting to construct a straw man argument.

I am not going to debate theology with you because I will be remaining neutral about the veracity and inspiration of the Bible.

>I said it assumes what I don't assume, not the other way around. The methodology and practice now in popular use assumes certain possibilities are not allowed to be considered, but I allow those possibilities to be considered.
Are you saying it assumes the negation of what you assume? Namely that if you believe God exists, methodological naturalism posits God does not exist. Well then that's simply factually inaccurate.

Anyway I have to go to bed now, it's quite late where I am.

>>18106446
>The theories may falsify a particular viewpoint, this does not mean the theory begins with the assumption that the viewpoint is already false somehow.
In this case, it does start with that assumption. The assumption in this case would be that "prophets cannot predict the future," as part of this naturalistic method of reasoning. That particular assumption (regardless of its merits) leads one to make a 100% certain conclusion that Daniel must have been written after the events, since "prophets cannot predict the future." And if Daniel was written after the events it talks about, that also implies that book of Daniel is false, because Daniel itself claims to have occurred all before Cambyses' reign. The chain of logic that leads to the conclusion that part of the Bible is false all begins with the assumption that prophets cannot predict the future.

However, the Bible also talks about prophets. If they are divinely inspired, then according to the biblical account, their prophecies (such as Daniel) do predict the future. So the naturalistic assumption, in this case, at least, was the opposite of a Biblical claim. The Bible was therefore assumed to be false on this account.

If the Bible is false about prophets not being able to predict the future, since that is a miracle and breaks with the chosen methodology, then of course that methodology will also conclude that Daniel must have been written later than claimed, hence implying it is false.

But nowhere in the above chain of reasoning was the possibility allowed that prophets could predict the future. The line of reasoning collapses otherwise. The assumption is that the Bible is wrong about prophets being able to predict the future, and the conclusion is that the Bible is wrong about when the book of Daniel was written. It has nothing to say about the possibility that the Bible is right about both. It only assumes one claim is false, and concludes that the other must be false if the first one was false.

>>18106446
>Are you saying it assumes the negation of what you assume? Namely that if you believe God exists, methodological naturalism posits God does not exist.
It excludes theism and creatio ex nihilo for sure.

See you later, anon.

>>18104219
>The book of Daniel dates to the late Babylonian and early Persian era though.
Okay so "Daniel" writes a book of prophecy and gets everything right up until the 2nd century, getting increasingly more accurate as he gets closer to the 2nd century, right down to "predicting" certian people getting political offices by name, and then all of a sudden starts getting shit massively wrong, to the point where it's not even close.

If I gave you a book that gave you the history of America, then went on about trump getting elected in 2020, getting more and more detail, assassination of Charlie Kirk and so on, very specific, and it goes "and then China nukes America in 2030", would you believe me if I told you "this book was totally written in 1780 dude china will nuke us", or would you assume I wrote it in 2025, seeing as no record of such book existing before this point exists? What if it's now 2050 and china has evidently not nuked anyone?

You have to be legitimately retarded to think the book of Daniel was actually written by Daniel.

The very idea of a book being le hidden for so many years is ridiculous.