Does the Euthyphro Dilemma Argue For Theism? (Part Two)

Marc Schooley, author of the The Areopagus, (who also comments as MS Quixote) argues adamantly in a post on his blog that the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. MS Quixote referenced this argument during a discussion on the reasons why people are theists or atheists at the blog Daylight Atheism.

I intend to present a comprehensive case as to why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances atheism, but to do this, I must substantively and seriously address the reasons given by MS Quixote as to why he believes the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. This is my goal, and I intend to demonstrate my case thoroughly and convincingly.

This is my second post which analyzes MS Quixote's argument for why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism rather than atheism.

Last time, I explained my assertion that one cannot avoid the ED by positing that the paradigm of goodness is embedded in God's nature:

The first philosophic move of the theist is to pass through the horns of the ED by locating the Good as the nature of God. In effect, the theist answers the dilemma by saying “neither.” Hence, the theist claims that the good is not independent of God, as posited by horn one, nor is the good commanded by God, as claimed by horn two. In effect, a tertium quid is presented: God’s nature is the paradigm of goodness. God’s nature is the good...Note, the theist objection does not say that God’s nature is good; it says that God’s nature is the good.

(The emphasis on the final sentence of that quote is solely mine.)

MS Quixote tries to argue that the paradigm of goodness is embedded in God's nature; but he is simultaneously arguing that God's nature is "the good" rather than good. So he seems to be arguing that there is, in fact, no way to tell whether the paradigm of goodness really is, in and of itself, actually good.

Let's try to use your argument for a thought experiment:

Goodness is embedded in God's nature necessarily, since God is the paradigm of goodness. God's standard for goodness is not a coherent concept - because God is the standard. But why is God good? Because he is; it's a brute fact of existence - deal with it. But what if God's nature was malevolent: if God's nature is the paradigm of goodness, and God's nature is malevolent, then is malevolence actually goodness? God could've been anything, but he just is good. We just got lucky that he isn't apathetic or malevolent or bipolar. God's the standard for goodness because he is - through God, all things are. We know God is good because all things are patterned from him - we can tell that all things are patterned from God's goodness, we can tell that he is the ultimate paradigm, because that's just exactly the kind of world we seem to inhabit:

No random, indiscriminate earthquakes, volcano eruptions, mudslides, or tsunamis,

No rampant diseases such as polio, typhoid, smallpox, or the Black Plague,

Just goodness. We know God is good because that's just the way the world works.

You want evidence, you say? You want to know if this assertion really means something?

Just examine the world around you. Then you'll know.

Why do we really say that God is the paradigm of goodness? Why do we really believe in a maximally great being?

Perhaps it's comforting. Perhaps it's disorienting to believe that we are here on this planet, in the middle of this universe, lacking guidance, lacking care, and lacking supervision.

Perhaps that was the best explanation we had at one time. Perhaps it helps us derive meaning from our existence. Perhaps we feel that it keeps us in touch with the traditions of our families and our communities.

It doesn't mean anything to say that any God is the paradigm of goodness if we refuse to define a standard for goodness. So you say that God is the standard? Fine, judge God by his handiwork, if that's what you believe.

God is "the good", you say. God is "maximally great", you say. How do you know?, I say.

Do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is good, or do you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is his nature, by fiat?

If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because of some outside standard, then your God is inferior to that standard. If you know that God's nature is the paradigm of goodness because it is - by fiat - then you've admitted that you have no basis for interpreting God's nature as "good" or "evil".

Whatever God's nature becomes (or rather, what it has become) is the good; whatever it does not become (or rather, what it has not become) is not the good. As a consequence, you have absolutely no idea what the good resultant from God's nature should be, nor what it is, nor what it means.

Anyone can say, "this comes from God, it must be the good!"

"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you believe atrocities." - Voltaire

Does the Euthyphro Dilemma Argue For Theism? (Part One)

Marc Schooley, author of the The Areopagus, (who also comments as MS Quixote) argues adamantly in a post on his blog that the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. MS Quixote referenced this argument during a discussion on the reasons why people are theists or atheists at the blog Daylight Atheism.

I intend to present a comprehensive case as to why the Euthyphro Dilemma advances atheism, but to do this, I must substantively and seriously address the reasons given by MS Quixote as to why he believes the Euthyphro Dilemma advances theism. This is my goal, and I intend to demonstrate my case thoroughly and convincingly.

First, I must commend MS Quixote for his well-written and well-argued critique of ED. I recommend his summary of ED and the surrounding controversies to anyone who desires to obtain a solid understanding of what exactly the dilemma is, and what is meant by it, when both theists and atheists refer to it.

Because MS Quixote has done such an excellent job covering the historic origins of the Euthyphro Dilemma and the traditional use of ED by atheists, I will not delve into those sections of his essay here. I hope that my readers of this entry will already have some knowledge of the dilemma, and if they don't, I recommend MS Quixote's summary of it, because he does a much better job of summarizing it then I could have done.

Let's cut right to the meat of this discussion: Quixote's critiques of the dilemma.

MS Quixote asserts that:

Another nemesis of the dilemma is the tertium quid, the third option. If a viable third option is presented, the dilemma is rightly deemed a false dilemma. The dilemmas above appear to be true dilemmas; there do not appear to be other alternatives to dead/alive and pregnant/not pregnant. However, if a dilemma states that children like either football or baseball, it is rather simple to provide other options, say, basketball. Thus, the dilemma is defeated. This is commonly referred to as “passing through the horns of the dilemma.”

Lastly, one may “grasp the horns of the dilemma.” If it may be shown that one or both of the premises of a dilemma is false, the dilemma is successfully defeated. With ED, the theist is able to both pass through the horns and grasp them.

So, is the theist really able to both pass through the horns of the Euthyphro Dilemma and grasp them? This is the bedrock of MS Quixote's argument: if I cannot demonstrate that his arguments (which purport to demonstrate that the theist can pass through and grasp the horns of the ED) are invalid, then I cannot state that MS Quixote is incorrect when he claims that the ED argues for theism rather than atheism.

MS Quixote's first step is to demonstrate that the Euthyphro Dilemma is, in fact, a false dilemma, by presenting a viable alternative, a third option, in addition to the two horns of the Dilemma as summarized:

The first horn of the dilemma—Is good willed by God because it is good—locates the good independently of God. The good is conceived of as some standard or other that God recognizes in determining what is good. If this state of affairs obtains, God is subservient to standard independent of his eternal being; there is at least one entity He is not sovereign over. Moreover, he becomes the mere messenger of goodness. Admittedly, this position is untenable for Christian theists.

The second horn of the dilemma—or is it good because it is willed by God—tends to render the commands of God arbitrary. The ED proponent argues with this horn that God could have just as well commanded rape and murder as goods, and that they are evils is only at the whim of God’s command. Furthermore, under the second horn, often referred to as Divine Command Ethics (DCT), it is difficult to make informative claims about Gods goodness, if goodness is solely based upon what God says it is. What does it then mean to say that God is good?

While acknowledging that both horns of the original dilemma are untenable for Christianity, MS Quixote presents his third option:

The first philosophic move of the theist is to pass through the horns of the ED by locating the Good as the nature of God. In effect, the theist answers the dilemma by saying “neither.” Hence, the theist claims that the good is not independent of God, as posited by horn one, nor is the good commanded by God, as claimed by horn two. In effect, a tertium quid is presented: God’s nature is the paradigm of goodness. God’s nature is the good.

Ah ha, the ED is clearly bunk, then! So we're finished, right?

Not necessarily.

As MS Quixote aptly recognizes, many proponents of the Euthyphro Dilemma are not prepared to accept this alternative as an answer to the dilemma. In fact, these critics argue that this framing only moves the dilemma one step farther back:

ED is re-erected around the theist’s contention that God’s nature is the good: Is God’s goodness good in relation to some independent standard, or it is good because God’s character is good? The former presents the same problem as the first horn of the original dilemma, the latter, the same problem as the second horn of the original dilemma which again seems arbitrary or whimsical. After all, God’s character could have been anything.

MS Quixote responds that those critics who reply to his offered alternative with this response fail to understand exactly what he really means with his third option:

Theists generally consider the reformulation of the dilemma a clear indicator that the ED supporter has misunderstood the theist contention that God’s nature is the good. Note, the theist objection does not say that God’s nature is good; it says that God’s nature is the good.

The ED supporter has attempted to establish an infinite regress with the reformulation of the dilemma; however, the theist response precludes this outcome by positing God’s nature as a metaphysical ultimate, a brute fact of existence. Brute facts are explanatory propositions that require or admit no explanation themselves.

So God's goodness is a brute fact of existence. But wait, God's nature isn't good; it is the good, according to MS Quixote.

So how we can call God "good" if we have no standard for what is "good"? If "the good" is defined as God's nature, then anything that is God's nature is "the good". But God could be entirely malevolent, and since it is his nature, then complete malevolence is "the good". For who are the pots to question the potter? God can smash all of them if he wants, err, if that's his nature.

And why not? What's preventing God from being completely malevolent? And how do we know that if there is a God, that he isn't entirely malevolent? If God's nature is "the good", and we cannot define "the good" apart from God's nature, then how can we ascribe any qualities at all to this nebulous concept known as "the good"?

If we agree with MS Quixote's definition of "the good", then we now have no coherent standard for whether something is good or evil. In fact, good and evil become meaningless and obsolete; things are either part of "the good" or they are not part of "the good". God's nature defines what is "the good". And those who speak in the name of God get to define what is God's nature!

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part Four)

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is the final installment of the series, part four of four.

For the last time, here we go again:

19. Psalms 34:20 - "He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken."

In my previous installment, I discussed not only Psalms 34:20, but also Exodus 12:46 and Numbers 9:12.

At that time, I had the following remarks about this passage:

Psalms 34:20 is a song of praise, and makes no specific mention of a Messiah; it's also another Psalm of David. The verse is clearly a figurative reference to the righteous man who obeys the Lord - not one of his bones will be broken. It's anything but obvious that this passage is about Jesus, or even a Messiah.

For those reasons, it is apparent to me that Psalms 34:20 is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus - in my mind, it hasn't even been established that this is a prophecy at all, especially a messianic one - and that can be said for many of these passages.

It is highly likely that the only person who will believe that all of these passages are obvious references to Jesus is someone who has been thoroughly indoctrinated into the Christian faith. If there is a God, then God gave us rational minds -- and we should not be afraid to use them. I will reject Jesus before I reject truth, if the truth of Jesus cannot be established. Alas, this is what I have done - and yet I am accused by some of "exalting intelligence above God". Funny, I thought using what you were given was an act of worship....

20. Zechariah 12:10 - "They will look at Me whom they pierced."

The full text of this verse from my NIV Bible:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit (footnote: Or the Spirit) of grace and supplication. They will look on (footnote: Or to) me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son."

There's really no way to tell if this is a messianic prophecy or not. At best, this passage is vague and ambiguous.

The surrounding passages describe events concerning the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem - this is not exactly an ideal comparison to a Jesus-like figure.

Let me just say, like most "prophecies", it's a stretch to say that this passage really means anything at all. I doubt that anyone will be convinced by my summaries that these are not valid or genuine prophecies. I hate to be this cynical, but let's admit it, most people believe what they want to believe. It doesn't matter if the passage doesn't even say anything about a Messiah - people have been trained their entire lives to see the Messiah in that text, who am I to dispute such a strong intuition, even if it is the result of indoctrination?

Demian, I fear what you are going to say next - you'll say that I don't see Jesus in this text because I'm not a believer. And technically, that may well be true. But I believe that there is no reason to see Jesus in this text.

Let it not be said that there is no level of evidence that would compel me to believe in Christianity - that is not true. If there were prophecies that were unabashedly, explicitly, specifically about a Messiah - and Jesus fulfilled these impeccably, then I would definitely reconsider my position. But that is not the case.

Yet again, I see no reason to accept that this passage is a valid prophecy of Jesus.

21. Isaiah 53:9 - "They made His grave with the wicked, and with a rich man at His death, although He had done no violence and had not spoken deceitfully."

Thankfully, this is our final Isaiah 53 passage. I have spoken both in previous installments of this series, and in the comments section on your blog, giving reasons why it is obvious to me that Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, rather than a Messiah. For those reasons I have already carefully articulated, it is apparent to me that Isaiah 53 is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

22. Psalms 16:10 - "For You will not abandon me to Sheol; You will not allow Your Faithful One to see the Pit."

Why couldn't this passage be referring to David? My NIV footnote on this verse says: Or your faithful one instead of "Holy One".

Eh, it doesn't really make much difference. It's ambiguous and unclear at best, manipulation at worst. Those who want to believe will believe it, I guess.

I am not convinced that this passage is a valid prophecy of Jesus - like so many other passages from Psalms, there is no specific mention of a Messiah, and it just seems to text the words that are there, and to twist the meaning of the original text.

23. Psalms 68:18 - "You ascended to the heights, taking away captives; You received gifts from people, even from the rebellious, so that the Lord God might live there."

What does this passage even have to do with a Messiah or with Jesus?

Yes, Jesus is said to have ascended to heights. So is Harry Potter.

Taking away captives? Okay, this could be stretched to say that Jesus is taking away captives from sin, or Satan, or whatever...but this passage doesn't mention a Messiah. It's a song of praise to Yahweh. Why put a Messiah into the text when there's no reason to do so?

Since this passage is so nebulous and incoherent, I strongly suspect that it is not a valid or genuine prophecy of Jesus.

24. Psalms 110:1 - "The LORD declared to my Lord: "Sit at My right hand until I make Your enemies Your footstool."

Once again, this is another one of the passages from Psalms (and Psalm of David, according to the notes in my NIV Bible) which appears to apply more to David specifically and contains no explicit mention of a Messiah.

Every single one of these "prophecies" is either flat-out contradictory with Jesus's narrative as portrayed in the Gospels, vague, mischaracterized, misapplied, misread, ambiguous, or is in some other fashion unimpressive and unconvincing. The best prophecies of the 24 are merely ambiguous and vague; the worst, manipulative and deliberately distorted. It is sad that these "prophecies" are considered the foundations for a robust prophetic portrait. Suffice it to say, I'm not convinced.

A Quick Reminder and an Announcement

Hello readers!

Later today, I am going to complete the final Part 4 of my four-part series analyzing Demian Farnworth's list of claimed prophecies of Jesus.

This week, I will be purchasing The Evolution of God by Robert Wright.

I recommend reading the Amazon customer review penned by John W. Loftus for a clear and concise summary of the book's contents.

I will review each chapter of The Evolution of God on this blog.

My reviews will be an ongoing feature of this blog until (and probably some time after) I finish the book.

I wanted to inform all of you of what is in the works for my blog, and if there are any more interesting developments, you'll be the first to know! Thanks for reading, and thanks for all of your interactions in the comments section, and for all you do.

If you have any other questions, please drop me a line in the comments. Thank you!

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part Three)

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

His list includes 24 prophecies which he believes indicate Jesus as the Messiah.

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is part three of four.

They say the third time's the charm. Here we go again:

13. Isaiah 53:4 - "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted."

Yes, Isaiah 53. I am familiar with the details of Acts 8:26-39, where Philip convinces the Ethiopian eunuch that Isaiah is referring to Jesus in this passage.

I assert that Isaiah is not talking about Jesus in this passage, but about Israel. Why have I reached this conclusion?

From Isaiah 41-Isaiah 53, the servant is consistently identified as Israel.

Isaiah 41:8-9 (NIV) - "But you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend,
I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you"

Isaiah 42:18-19 (NIV) - "Hear, you deaf; look, you blind, and see!
Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the LORD?"

Isaiah 42:24 (NIV) - "Who handed Jacob over to become loot, and Israel to the plunderers? Was it not the LORD, against whom we have sinned? For they would not follow his ways; they did not obey his law."

Isaiah 43:1 (NIV) - "But now, this is what the LORD says -- he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel"

Isaiah 43:10 (NIV) - "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he."

Isaiah 44:1-2 (NIV) - "But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen.
This is what the LORD says -- he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen"

Isaiah 44:21 (NIV) - "Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you."

Isaiah 45:4 (NIV) - "For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name"

Isaiah 48:20 (NIV) - "say, "The LORD has redeemed his servant Jacob."

Isaiah 49:3 (NIV) - "He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.""

Therefore, I feel comfortable concluding that the servant of Isaiah 53 is not Jesus, but Israel, as is apparent throughout this section of Isaiah. It should be clear that this is not even a messianic prophecy - unless one rejects what the text actually says, repeatedly - it is clear that this passage portrays Israel, not Jesus, as the suffering servant. The misapplication of this passage strongly suggests that this is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

14. Isaiah 53:7 - "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so He did not open His mouth."

Another Isaiah 53 passage? I can't believe there are still two more Isaiah 53 passages listed after this one.

By any honest accounting, shouldn't text from the same place be counted as only one prophecy? This problem also occurs with Psalms 22 and Psalms 69. There are really only fourteen or fifteen "prophecies" on this list, but the fuzzy math has made it appear that even the vague and misapplied prophecies which are listed here are more numerous than they really are.

I just provided a rather lengthy list of examples from previous chapters of Isaiah to demonstrate why the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel, rather than Jesus, so I will repeat my arguments here. However, I will conclude that for the same reasons listed in my previous post, it seems highly unlikely that this passage is a valid prophecy of Jesus.

15. Psalms 22:18 - "They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots."

My NIV Bible notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

I've already covered Psalm 22 before in this series. Again, there are no specific references to a messiah and the text appears to be about David.

I believe that this is an example of retroactive application from the Gospel writers to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34, and John 19:23-24 all specifically depict soldiers casting lots for Jesus' clothing. John even mentions in the text that this happened so that the prophecy from Psalms 22:18 might be fulfilled. A footnote in my NIV text indicates that a few late versions of Matthew 27:35 included a direct reference to Psalms 22:18.

The passage from Psalms 22 is not directly linked to a messiah, but it appears that the Gospels were written to make it appear that Jesus did something that is linked to "prophecy" - even though Psalms 22 is clearly not of prophetic nature. For those reasons, it seems most plausible that Psalms 22:18 is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

16. Isaiah 53:12 - "He submitted Himself to death."

Only two more Isaiah 53 passages after this one - we're almost done!

Again, I have provided a lengthy list of examples which demonstrate why the author of Isaiah is referring to Israel, not Jesus, as the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Given the context of the reading, it is implausible to claim that the passage applies to Jesus.

For the reasons I have previously mentioned in this post, it is apparent that Isaiah 53 is likely not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

17. Isaiah 53:12 - "He bore the sin of many and interceded for the rebels."

How hard are they even trying? This passage is from the same exact verse as the previous "prophecy". Fuzzy math, indeed.

By this point, I believe that my position on the servant's identity in Isaiah 53 is crystal clear, and it should not have to be repeated why it is apparent to me that Isaiah 53 is not a valid prophecy of Jesus.

Only one more Isaiah 53 passage after this - we're getting closer!

18. Exodus 12:46 - "You may not break any of its bones."

This verse is similar to Psalms 34:20 and Numbers 9:12. John 19:31-36 claims that prophecy was fulfilled in this manner.

However, Exodus 12:46 clearly refers to the Passover meal, not to Jesus:

Exodus 12:43-45 (NIV) - "The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, "There are the regulations for the Passover: "No foreigner is to eat of it.
Any slave you have bought may eat of it after you have circumcised him,
but a temporary resident and a hired worker may not eat of it."

Now, I know enough about the Bible to see where apologists might make the comparison that Jesus is the Passover Meal, etc. However, there are some major problems for the Jesus narrative if this is the interpretation justifying this passage as prophecy:

1. Only the circumcised could share this Passover. Paul states explicitly in Romans 2:26-29 (NIV) - "If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as those who are circumcised?
The man who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.
A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical.
No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code."
According to Christian tradition, Jesus served as a sacrifice for the circumcised and the uncircumcised alike. It presents a major problem to identify him with a Passover meal that is exclusively for the circumcised.

2. This passage says nothing specific about a Messiah.

Psalms 34:20 is a song of praise, and makes no specific mention of a Messiah; it's also another Psalm of David. The verse is clearly a figurative reference to the righteous man who obeys the Lord - not one of his bones will be broken. It's anything but obvious that this passage is about Jesus, or even a Messiah.

Numbers 9:12 is also a reference to the Passover, and shares the same problems as Exodus 12:46.

For all of the reasons I have listed, it is apparent that none of these three passages is a valid or genuine prophecy of Jesus.

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part Two)

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

His list includes 24 prophecies he believes indicates Jesus as the Messiah.

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is part two of four.

Here we go again:

7. Isaiah 50:6 - "I gave My back to those who strike me, and My cheeks to those who pluck out the beard; I did not cover My face from humiliation and spitting."

The version of Isaiah 50:6 from my NIV reads "I offered my back to those who beat me, my cheeks to those who pulled out my beard; I did not hide my face from mocking and spitting."

It seems apparent to me that the figure identified in Isaiah 50 is the author of Isaiah himself, not Jesus. Isaiah 50:4 states that "The Sovereign LORD has given me an instructed tongue, to know the word that sustains the weary."

Furthermore, Isaiah 50:7-9 affirms:

"Because the Sovereign LORD helps me, I will not be disgraced. Therefore, I have set my face like flint, and I know that I will not be put to shame.
He who vindicates me is near. Who then will bring charges against me? Let us face each other! Who is my accuser? Let him confront me!
It is the Sovereign LORD who helps me. Who is he that will condemn me? They will all wear out like a garment; the moths will eat them up."

Is it true that the Gospels portray Jesus as not being disgraced, as not being put to shame, as not being charged or accused? These things may very well be true of Isaiah, but if the Jesus narrative is to remain coherent, these things can absolutely not be true of Jesus.

Because the context of Isaiah 50 implies that the statement is made by Isaiah, and because the statements themselves seem to fit Isaiah well, and not do seem to correspond with the accounts of Jesus from the Gospels, it seems more likely than not that Isaiah 50 is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

8. Psalms 22:16 - "They pierced my hands and my feet."

My NIV Bible notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

As you may have discerned by now, I have a high level of skepticism for claims of prophecy which originate from David's exclamations, because it seems apparent to me that it is futile for Biblical interpreters to associate a sinful figure such as David with the supposedly sinless Jesus (especially with regards to verses like Hebrews 4:15).

Further, the footnote under this verse in my NIV suggests "Some Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac; most Hebrew manuscripts / like the lion,", rather than "pierced". Also, none of the New Testament writers cite this verse as a reference to Jesus's crucifixion. At best, this verse is highly controversial and ambiguous, and it's not clear at all that it even references a messiah. Once again, I am quite doubtful that this verse is a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

9. Psalms 22:1 - "My God, my God, why have You forsaken me."

As I just wrote immediately above, my NIV Bible notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

Do I have to repeat what I just said about my skepticism of conflations of the figures of David and Jesus, while one is portrayed as a sinner and the other is portrayed as sinless? The longer I do this, the more it becomes apparent that the authors of the Gospel are purposely trying to write Jesus into previous texts. What else can I say? There is no specific reference to a messiah in this chapter. For those reasons, it seems clear to me that this passage is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

10. Psalms 22:7-8 - "All who see me sneer at me; they separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying, "Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him; let Him rescue him, because He delights in him.""

Four of these prophecies are from Psalms 22. I understand, you think Psalms 22 is a messianic prophecy.

Clearly, I think this verse is referring to David, as is this entire chapter.

Again, there is no obvious reference to a messiah in this verse or in this chapter. It is ambiguous at best.

Again, I think it is extremely foolish to conflate the figures of a sinful David and a sinless Christ.

For those reasons, it is apparent to me that Psalms 22:7-8 is not a prophecy of Jesus.

11. Psalms 69:21 - "They also gave me gall for my food and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink."

My NIV notes that this chapter is a Psalm of David.

My objections to conflating the figures of David and Jesus should go without saying by this point, Demian. But here is a great example of why I am so skeptical of such claims:

"You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you." - Psalms 69:5

We have already covered this, of course. But I wanted to remind you that it seems a direct contradiction to identify Jesus with a foolish sinner, as the author of this passage is portrayed.

Be honest. Is Jesus supposed to be a sinner? If not, how can this be a valid prophecy?

Furthermore, it is ambiguous and doesn't even specify a direct reference to a messiah. It's about David.

It is apparent to me, once again, that this passage is not a prophecy of Jesus.

12. Psalms 22:14 - "I am poured out like water; and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted within me."

Crikey, not another passage from Psalms 22. (In case you haven't noticed by now, a Psalm of David.)

One last time:
1. No specific reference to a messiah is contained in this passage, making it highly ambiguous at best.
2. It's problematic to compare the sinful David and the supposedly sinless Jesus (to say that both figures are the same) because of verses like Hebrews 4:15.

For those reasons, it is apparent that Psalms 22:14 is not a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

Prophecies of Jesus as Messiah? (Part One)

Demian Farnworth at Fallen and Flawed recently composed a post entitled Who Do These 24 Statements Describe?

His list includes 24 prophecies he believes indicate Jesus as the Messiah.

I wanted to respond point by point to each verse in the comments section of Demian's blog, but after only making my way through two of the 24 verses, I realized that Demian would probably kill me for taking up so much room on a blog comment.

This response will span four parts - during each entry, I will comment on six of the proposed prophecies mentioned in Demian's post. This is part one of four.

Here we go:

1. Psalms 69:2 - "Those who hate me with out cause are more than the hairs of my head."

My NIV Bible indicates that this is a psalm of David. I am skeptical of this passage because in verse 5, the writer declares that "You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you." So if Christians want to suggest that the figure who is hated without reason and who has enemies without cause is Jesus, then should they also suggest that Jesus is guilty and has committed folly? For those reasons, it does not seem likely that Psalms 69:2 is a prophecy of Jesus.

2. Psalms 2:2 - "The things of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the LORD and against His Anointed."

At first, there were elements about this chapter that made me feel that it could be a convincing messianic prophecy, but after performing some comparative analysis on differing versions of the text, I have concluded that this is at best an ambiguous and unclear passage, and not a strong prophecy of Jesus - in fact, it may not even refer to a messianic figure.

Here's the text of Psalms 2 as found in my NIV:

"Why do the nations conspire (footnote: Hebrew; Septuagint rage) and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One (footnote: Or anointed one).
"Let us break their chains," they say, "and throw off their fetters."
The One enthroned in heaven laughs; the Lord scoffs at them.
Then he rebukes them in his anger and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
"I have installed my King (footnote: Or king) on Zion, my holy hill."
I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, "You are my Son (footnote: Or son; also in verse 12); today I have become your Father (footnote: Or have begotten you.
Ask of me, and I will make the nations your inheritance, the ends of the earth your possession.
You will rule them with an iron scepter (footnote: Or will break them with a rod of iron); you will dash them to pieces like pottery."
Therefore, you kings, be wise; be warned, you rulers of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

For comparison purposes, here is the text of Psalms 22 from a Hebrew-English Bible based on the Masoretic Text which I found at mechon-mamre.org:

Why are the nations in an uproar? And why do the peoples mutter in vain?
The kings of the earth stand up, and the rulers take counsel together, {N}
against the LORD, and against His anointed:
'Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.'
He that sitteth in heaven laugheth, the Lord hath them in derision.
Then will He speak unto them in His wrath, and affright them in His sore displeasure:
'Truly it is I that have established My king upon Zion, My holy mountain.'
I will tell of the decree: the LORD said unto me: 'Thou art My son, this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of Me, and I will give the nations for thine inheritance, and the ends of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.'
Now therefore, O ye kings, be wise; be admonished, ye judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Do homage in purity, lest He be angry, and ye perish in the way, when suddenly His wrath is kindled. {N}
Happy are all they that take refuge in Him. {P}

In the NIV version, there are several things which give the verse the appearance of referring to a Messiah:

1. The use of the phrase 'Anointed One' as distinct from the LORD.
2. The capitalization of words such as 'Son', 'King', and 'Father'.
3. The use of the phrase 'Kiss the Son' and the reference to taking refuge - this does sound like something that could be a plausible reference to Jesus.

However, in the comparison version of Psalms 22,

1. 'anointed' is used instead of 'Anointed One'.
2. 'king' and 'son' are not capitalized; I have begotten thee is used instead of 'Father'
3. The term 'Do homage in purity' is used instead of the phrase 'Kiss the Son', and the text generally does not seem to refer to taking refuge in a Son, but rather to taking refuge in the LORD generally.

It seems more plausible that 'son' in this chapter refers to King David, or to Israel itself, rather than to Jesus. Especially since verse 6 mentions that the king will be installed on Zion, and Jesus specifically claims that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), it seems most likely that Psalms 2 is not a prophecy of Jesus - though I would certainly like to question whoever oversaw the compilation of the NIV text on their interpretation and rendering of Psalms 2.

3. Psalms 41:9 - "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me."

My NIV Bible denotes this chapter as a Psalm of David.

Verse 4 of Psalm 4 indicates that the psalmist has "sinned against" God. Once again I ask, do Christians want to associate Jesus with the figure of a Psalm who has openly admitted his sinful behavior? This is in direct contradiction to Christianity's claim that Jesus is without sin. For those reasons, it seems most likely that Psalms 41:9 is not a prophecy of Jesus.

4. Zechariah 13:7 - "Strike the shepherd and the sheep may be scattered."

What exactly is this supposed to be a prophecy of?

In this verse, God says "I will turn my hand against the little ones." What does that have to do with Jesus? Yes, knowing my Bible, I can guess that you're going to say that it's a reference to the apostles fleeing after the crucifixion of Jesus - but to me, that's a definite stretch in this context, because in this verse, it is God himself who is doing the striking and the scattering, and turning his hand against the little ones. This doesn't seem to have much to do with Jesus, and the context of this verse does not fit coherently with the Jesus narrative at all. For these reasons, it seems probable that this verse is not a prophecy of Jesus.

5. Zechariah 11:12-13 - "I said to them, "If it is good in your sight, give me my wages; but if not, never mind!" So they weighted out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 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."

The author of Matthew 27:9-10 references this verse, but attributes it to Jeremiah instead of Zechariah. Oops?

Also, this passage is ambiguous at best. God is depicted here as telling Zechariah to throw the money at a potter; Judas is depicted as giving the money to Caiaphas, who is said to have bought a potters' field. Besides that, this passage says nothing about a messiah. It appears that the author of Matthew tried to make it appear that Jesus fulfilled prophecy, but ended up not only citing the wrong prophet, but mangling the prophecy in the process. For those reasons, it seems doubtful that this passage is a genuine prophecy of Jesus.

6. Micah 5:1 - "With a rod they will smite the judge of Israel on the cheek."

My version of Micah 5:1 reads "Marshal your troops, O city of troops (footnote: Or Strengthen your walls, O walled city, for a siege is laid out against us. They will strike Israel's ruler on the cheek with a rod."

What do "a siege is laid out against us" or marshaling troops have to do with Jesus? It seems more likely that this verse refers to an earthly ruler of Israel. Micah 5:4 claims that in the days of the promised ruler Israel "will live securely, for then his greatness will reach to the ends of the earth." Yet as I noted earlier, Jesus is on the record as saying that his kingdom is not of this world (John 18:36), so it seems unlikely that he would marshal troops or prepare for a siege, or restore the kingdom of Israel, as the figure identified in Micah 5:2 is described as doing. For these reasons, again, it seems unlikely that this passage is a genuine prophecy of Jesus. This may be another attempt by the Gospels writers to make it appear that Jesus fulfills prophecy, but is clear that Jesus does not match the figure of the powerful earthly ruler described in Micah 5.

Robespierre: A Lesson in Divine Justice

"Terror is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country."

- Maximilien Robespierre

What if I said the following?

"God's righteousness is only justice: prompt, severe and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of His righteousness which includes all honesty and virtue, applied perfectly according to His will."

What is the difference between these two statements?

The first statement is widely acknowledged as the creed of a madman. We recognize that abject terror, even in the service of admirable goals, is not at all admirable, but grounds for condemnation and repudiation.

Yet the second statement is widely espoused as a tenet of Christian dogma. What humanity would do, we consider abuse - but when a god does it, it is permissible.

Was Robespierre right to order thousands killed for the interests of the state? Can your God be called good if the result of said God's "righteousness" is the torment of billions?

Robespierre killed for the glory of the state and for himself, and he is labeled a narcissist and a cruel, sick man. Christians claims that their God kills and condemns for His own glory, yet they worship Him.

Divine command morality leads to this state of affairs: history's most notorious villains and the god of the Bible are indistinguishable.