Author: John McMahon

I am not quite certain why Friedrich Nietzsche is so revered by atheists considering that he nails them to the wall time and time again.

In his article If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?, Sean McManus reports:

“On a recent chilly Friday night, a few dozen members of the City Congregation for Humanistic Judaism were gathered downstairs at the Village Community School on West 10th Street for Shabbat. For them, this is a monthly ritual that includes lighting candles and singing Jewish songs that have been carefully excised of a deity.

‘Where is my light?’ asks the song ‘Ayfo Oree.’ ‘My light is in me.’ According to the congregation’s leader, the humanist rabbi Peter Schweitzer, who wrote much of the secular Shabbat service, as well as the lyrics and verse for the congregation’s life-cycle events like weddings, funerals, and bar and bat mitzvahs, Judaism is mostly a culture-religion is just one component. So he simply takes a red pen to the God parts.

‘We offer a different door in,’ says Schweitzer. ‘One that doesn’t ask you to compromise your lack of beliefs’…

Schweitzer tells me that Humanistic Judaism was founded in the early sixties by a former Reform rabbi from Michigan named Sherwin Wine. Wine, Schweitzer explains, coined the term ignostic-you’re never going to know what God is, so why waste your time worrying about it? ‘God is a construct of the mind,’ he says. ‘Maybe you get there. Maybe you don’t.'”

This is clearly self-deification-atheism’s ultimate goal. Note that the answer to the question, “Where is my light?” is not, “There is no light,” but “My light is in me,” i.e., “I am my light,” or “I am the light.”

Note also that while it is asserted that “you’re never going to know what God is,” we get an instant dogma about what God is, “God is a construct of the mind.”

I have already chronicles various statements by atheists who seek to establish an atheist religion in my essay, Atheism is Holier Than Theism. In this case we encountered a Jewish atheist irreligious service with all of the trappings with the exception of references to a supernatural God.

Sean McManus further points out:

“[the] Society for Ethical Culture[‘s]…congregants sit in pews, rise to sing hymns, and pass around a collection plate…Greg Epstein “is eyeing the group’s building as a prototype for the church of New Humanism. Modeled on a Greco-Roman coliseum, Ethical Culture has semi-circular pews to promote conversation and a low stage designed to minimize the distance between leader and congregation. ‘I want to build big, beautiful buildings like Ethical Culture in every big city in America.'”

In his essay Parable of the Madman-The Gay Science Friedrich Nietzsche declares the death of God and predicts the phenomenon of atheist religiosity.

“Whither is God?” asked the madman “I will tell you. We have killed him-you and I. All of us are his murderers.”

We are then introduced to the point at hand as the madman asks and answers his own questions:

“How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers?What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?What water is there for us to clean ourselves?

What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent?

Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us?

Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?

There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us-for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto…

What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Contrary to popular belief, and contrary to what anti-missionary Jewish organizations claim, there are and have been many different Jewish messianic concepts. The difficulty in clearly defining a messianic concept is that in the Old Testament-the Tanakh-God does not necessarily state “I will now tell you about the coming Messiah” instead the prophecies must often be gleaned from various texts.

One major problem that the ancient sages came across was that the prophecies state that the Messiah would be a humble servant who would suffer and die and that the Messiah would be a triumphant conquering king who would wipe out Israel’s enemies and bring world peace.

The problem was: how could the Messiah be both a humble servant and conquering king? How could he be both killed and triumphant? We ought to empathize with what a difficult problem it was.

What happened is that various messianic concepts came about, some thought that the Messiah would be a human being, some a divine being. Some that he would bring about change through politics others the he would work through miracles. Some thought that there would be two messiahs one called the Mashiach ben Yosef who would be the suffering servant and another to come afterwards called the Mashiach ben David the conquering king who would raise the Mashiach ben Yosef from the dead.

This parsed essay consists of the following:

Part 1: Intro and Various Jewish ScholarsPart 2: Various Jewish Scholars (continued)Part 3: Various Rabbis

Part 4: The Talmud and Midrash Pesikta Rabbati

Part 5: Jewish Encyclopedias and The Temple Institute

Various Jewish Scholars:
Jacob Neusner,

The messianic theme is of varying importance in diverse Judaic writings.1

Abraham Cohen; editor of the Soncino Books of the Bible and who participated in the Soncino translation of the Talmud and Midrash,

There was considerable variety of opinion about the identity of the future redeemer.2

Phillip Sigal,

A variety of messianic ideas, all in some way having grown partially from the Egyptian experience of Moses as prophet-redeemer and partially from the prophetic vision of the ‘day of the Lord,’ circulated in the first century CE. Sometimes the idea included a Davidic dynast, sometimes an undesignated human political liberator, at times God Himself as the redeemer and liberating figure, occasionally the suffering and dying ‘servant of the Lord,’ and at times two messiahs_

In a series of conferences, American Reform established itself and articulated its positions_.

At the 1869 conference the Messiah was no longer identified as a person, but as a time of universal human unity-as a messianic era-which would not include a restoration of the Jewish nation or of the sacrificial cult_

There are significant differences in both Scriptural and postscriptural sources as to whether the messiah-redeemer figure will be a political liberator who is a scion of the dynasty of David or even God (as in Isa. 63:1-6). The sources are also ambivalent as to whether the redeemer will be a victorious sovereign or the servant of Yhwh who will suffer, and even die, in order that the people attain atonement.3

Nicholas De Lange,

the concept is not developed with clarity, and many conflicting opinions are recorded_

During the middle ages there was unanimity concerning the belief in a personal Messiah, but there was disagreement about whether the Messianic Age would be a natural or a supernatural event_

Isaac Luria gave a new direction to Messianism by claiming that it is up to each individual either to impede or hasten the messianic redemption by performing good or evil deeds_the doctrine has remained vague in the extreme_

Isaac Kook (1865-1935)_maintained that despite its secular impetus, the Zionist movement represented ‘the beginings of the messianic age’, quoting a Talmudic dictum that ‘in the footsteps of the Messiah insolence will increase.’4

Lev Leigh,

Although God promised Moses that he would raise up for the Jewish people a prophet of his stature and that he would put his word in this prophet’s mouth, and that the prophet would tell the Jewish people everything that God commanded him (see Deuteronomy 18:18), the mystics came to believe that they, not God, would be responsible for the Messiah’s coming.5

Tzvi M. Rabinowicz,

The hasidim never accepted the notion of a messianic age apart from a personal Messiah. Similarly, the resurrection of the dead that will take place after the coming of the Messiah is conceived of in Hasidism in the most literal of terms. The supernatural elements in traditional messianism are given prominence in the thought of all the hasidic masters. In the messianic age, the third Temple will drop down from heaven, the priesthood will be reestablished, and the sacrificial system reintroduced.6

Michael Asheri; trained as a scholar dedicated to finding out as much as he could about what being Jewish is all about,

someday a Jew will appear who will announce the end of the world as we know it and the establishment of the kingdom of God, in which finally the lion will lay down with the lamb. This Jew, and he will be a person, not an incarnation of God, as if such a thing were possible, is called Mashiach, or Messiah. When he arrives there will be a resurrection of the dead, called in Hebrew, T’chiat Ha-metim, and all the resurrected of the Jews will gather in Israel, there to live forever. Mashiach will be a descendant of the house of David and will be announced by Elijah the Prophet.7

Alfred J. Kolatch; graduate of the Teacher’s Institute of Yeshiva University ordained by the Jewish Theological Seminary of America served as Rabbi in three states,

The word ‘Messiah’ is used by some to refer to an actual person and by others to refer to a future time when a perfect world will be established. The exact nature of the Messiah is not clarified in the Bible, the Talmud, or later rabbinic writings. In fact, these sources contain many vague and contradictory statements_Maimonides speaks of the Messiah as both an age and a person.8

Arthur Hertzberg; received his rabbinic degree from the Jewish Theological Seminary of America,

There are two countertendencies in the Jewish vision of the Messiah. The ecstatic poetry of the prophets tended to suggest that the Messiah would come as the result of cataclysms and cosmic miracles. There are, however, more sober views in the Bible, which identify the Messiah with real political events, like the restoration of the Jews from Babylonian captivity by their deliverer, the Persian King Cyrus. Each of these notions has continued throughout the history of Jewish faith.

Rabbi Akiva in the second century hailed Bar Kochba, the leader of the revolt against Rome in 132-5, as the Messiah; other rabbis held to the ecstatic view_.it has been transmitted by the traditions of the prophets that God would cause misfortunes and disasters to befall us that would compel us to resolve upon repentance so that we would be deserving of redemption. That is the sense of the remark of our forbears: ‘If Israel will repent, they will be redeemed. If not, the Holy One will raise up a king whose decrees will be even more severe that those of Haman, whereupon they will repent and thus be redeemed.(1)

Our forbears also tell us that the cause of this visitation will be the appearance in Upper Galilee of a man from among the descendants of Joseph, around whom there will gather individuals from among the Jewish nation. This man will go to Jerusalem after its seizure by the Romans and stay in it for a certain length of time. Then they will be surprised by a man named Armilus, who will wage war against them and conquer the city and subject its inhabitants to massacre, captivity and disgrace. Included among those that will be slain will be that man from among the descendants of Joseph.(2)9

Footnote: (1) Talmud, Sanhedrin 97b
(2) Saadia Gaon, op. cit., Treatise VIII, Chap. 5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

“Atheism Explained and Exposed” intro

This is from a lecture I presented at the EMNR “Myth Taken” conference May 2015 AD.

It is titled “Atheism Explained and Exposed” and covers the issues of truth, morality, science, the problem of evil and Atheism itself.

Sadly, the audio goes from bad to worse.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page, on my Google+ page and/or the “Share/Save” button below the tags.

Now, let us backtrack into Prof. Richard Dawkins’ background and how he came to discover, or invent, the beautifully sinister theory. As it turns out, Prof. Richard Dawkins started life as a child. Actually, he was born at a young age. Just a little comedy relief break. Our interest here is Prof. Richard Dawkins’ youth as he describes it to Steve Paulson who asked him, “You’ve written about going to church as a boy. When did you become an atheist?”

“I started getting doubts when I was about 9 and realized that there are lots of different religions and they can’t all be right. And which one I happened to be brought up in was an arbitrary accident. I then sort of went back to religion around the age of 12, and then finally left it at the age of 15 or 16.”

Paulson then asked, “Did God and religion just not make sense intellectually? Is that why you turned against religion?”

“Yes, purely intellectually. I was never much bothered about moral questions like, how could there be a good God when there’s so much evil in the world? For me, it was always an intellectual thing. I wanted to know the explanation for the existence of all things. I was particularly fascinated by living things. And when I discovered the Darwinian explanation, which is so stunningly elegant and powerful, I realized that you really don’t need any kind of supernatural force to explain it.”1

Elucidation of this matter is found in a discussion with the aforementioned Jonathan Miller that went thusly:

Jonathan Miller (JM), “So when, at the age of 16, you became acquainted with Darwin, was it because you were taught about Darwin, or you began reading The Origin of Species?”Prof. Richard Dawkins (RD), “No, it was because I was taught.”JM, “And were you taught by people who, as it were, were aware, or seemed to be aware of the fact that it would have theological consequences?”RD, “No, I don’t think so. I mean_that wasn’t the terms in which they put it anyway.”JM, “How soon in the lessons did you begin to see that it did have theological consequences – that it more or less knocked the idea of design on the head?”

RD, “I do remember that I understood the principle of Darwinism before I really believed it was big enough to do the job. So I understood the principle of it and realised that yes, that is a candidate explanation for doing this job but I still don’t think it’s a big enough one_it was only later that I decided yes – it is big enough.”

It would appear that when the very young Prof. Richard Dawkins was taught The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life it confirmed, or informed, or was an excuse for, realizing the doubts that he developed at nine years of age.

Some of my books, all of which you can find here or here:

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Welcome to our world Massimo Pigliucci, welcome to our world.

It seems as if Massimo Pigliucci has just discovered that PZ Myers is a chronic besmircher and launches into illogical rants against anyone and everyone with whom he disagrees. Massimo Pigliucci seems to have noticed this because one of his colleagues, Michael De Dora, is the most recent of PZ Myers’ targets.

Well, welcome to the blunderful world of being in PZ Myers’ crosshairs.

Massimo Pigliucci wrote the following:

PZ’s post reads like it was written by an intemperate teenager in the midst of a hormonal rage. Among other things, he calls De Dora “witless,” “wanker,” “wishy-washy,” and “sloppy-thinking”; he accuses Michael of engaging in “cowardly intellectual dishonesty” and of using a “quisling” approach…

If PZ thinks that this sort of language belongs within any thoughtful writing about rational discourse, he really needs to look up the dictionary definitions of rational, thoughtful and discourse. Then again, it is precisely this sort of theatrics that apparently makes him so popular, as nothing gets people’s attention on the internet so much as shouting as LOUDLY as possible, regardless of the vacuity of what one is actually saying.

And speaking of content, what was so witless, wanky, wishy-washy, and witless about De Dora’s post? Oh, he dared question (very politely, and based on argument) one of the dogmas of the new atheism: that religious people (that’s about 90% of humanity, folks) ought (and I use the term in the moral sense) to be frontally assaulted and ridiculed at all costs, because after all, this is a war, and the goal is to vanquish the enemy, reason and principles be damned…

In yet another example of his sledge-hammer approach to discourse, PZ states that De Dora’s contributions in several recent writings have been “notable only for their fuzziness and willingness to accommodate any nonsense from religious BS artists.” If by fuzziness one means subtle reasoning, well PZ can certainly not be accused of that. But nothing I have seen written by Michael in any way “accommodates” religious nonsense, on the contrary, he is very clear in his rejection of religion in general and creationism in particular. It is the principle of Church-State separation that is at issue, as well as the ethics of insulting people’s beliefs for the sake of scoring cheap rhetorical points with one’s own converts…

“Somebody says the universe appeared magically a few thousand years ago, I guess that has to be a valid answer on the test question, ‘How old is the universe?’. To actually state that it is about 14 billion years old, and make such an answer a necessary part of the student’s grade…why, that is philosophy or theology, and not to be discussed in science class.”

Wow, I counted at least four gross mistakes in just this one paragraph, a pretty high rate for a self-appointed defender of evidence-based rationality: 1) in the course of this discussion De Dora never said or implied that young-earth creationism is a valid answer to a test question; 2) he has also never argued that a student who gave that answer instead of the scientifically grounded one should somehow get a pass; 3) Michael has never said that this is a philosophical or theological issue (PZ is referring to a different statement by De Dora, about the epistemological boundaries of science, see comment above, but that statement cannot reasonably be construed in the way PZ unreasonably construes it); and 4) of course these issues should be discussed in a science class (here I do disagree with Michael), but no discussion is helped in the least by referring to what half of your students deeply believe as “myth.”…

But this to me represents the latest example of an escalation (downwards in quality) in the tone and substance of the discourse on atheism, and I blame this broadly on the rhetoric of the new atheism (the only “new” aspect of which is precisely the in-your-face approach to “reason”). With few exceptions (mostly, Dennett), what we have seen in recent years is much foaming at the mouth, accompanied by a cavalier attitude toward the substance, rationality and coherence of one’s arguments. And now we have seen a new low consisting of childish insults to a fellow atheist and writer who is clearly fighting the same battle as the rest of us.

A few points of interest:

nothing gets people’s attention on the internet so much as shouting as LOUDLY as possible, regardless of the vacuity of what one is actually saying…the ethics of insulting people’s beliefs for the sake of scoring cheap rhetorical points with one’s own converts…
Indeed, PZ Myers’ blog is on scienceblogs but it is, in reality, an anti-Christian support group (see Pseudoscienceblogs.com). This is that which has fueled PZ Myers’ rise to cyber-stardom (see PZ Myers and Pavlov’s Monkeys).
This reminds me of a scene in the movie “Anchorman – The Legend Of Ron Burgundy” in which Brick Tamland (played by Steve Carell), the slower witted of the bunch, attempts to join the others in complaining to the boss:

Champ: “It is anchorman, not anchorlady! And that is a scientific fact!”

Brian: “Uh-huh.”

Brick: “I don’t know what we’re yelling about!”…

Brick: “Loud noises!”

the principle of Church-State separation
For some odd reason some people insist on going on and on about the principle of Church-State separation which have nothing to do with the USA’s Constitution. The Constitutions contains the Establishment Clause that prohibits the government from establishing an official religion. The concept of Church-State separation derives from letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
This is the same President of the USA Jefferson who, deist or not, attended Christian church services at the Capitol Building—something for which he would now be sued or impeached. Apparently, modern atheist activists think that they understand Jefferson better than Jefferson understood Jefferson.

now we have seen a new low consisting of childish insults to a fellow atheist and writer who is clearly fighting the same battle as the rest of us
Indeed, this is the ethic of the take no prisoners-friend or foe atheist for whom atheism has gone beyond positively affirming God’s non-existence without evidence (as PZ Myers is fond of doing) whilst refusing to debate the issue (as PZ Myers is fond of doing) and becomes a worldview that is dogmatheistic (as PZ Myers is fond of affirming) and demands absolute adherence—thus saith PZ.

Michael Shermer, no mind mannered atheist himself, has also begged, and been ignored, by the New Atheists when he attempted to reason with them.

In the next segment we will further consider the point about PZ Myers being likened to “an intemperate teenager in the midst of a hormonal rage” and the “theatrics that apparently makes him so popular.”

This is part 1 of my review of Professor Richard Dawkins’ “Royal Institution Christmas Lectures” aka “The Royal Institution Lectures for Children” Episode 1, “Waking up in the Universe” (transcript / video). When all parts have been posted I will provide a PDF format version of the entire essay.

The Child Abuser

Please note that my emotionally charged title is meant to mirror the charges of “child abuse” that Prof. Richard Dawkins et al have made against literally billions of people worldwide. In this case “child abuse” does not refer to pedophilia or to physical beatings (although Prof. Richard Dawkins does refer to certain twisted perverts as “gentle pedophile“). My charge of “child abuse” against Prof. Richard Dawkins is made utilizing his own criteria. “Children in the Atheist’s Den” refers to this critique of Prof. Richard Dawkins’ “Royal Institution Christmas Lectures” aka “The Royal Institution Lectures for Children” Episode 1, “Waking up in the Universe.”

One of the admitted goals of the New Atheists is to dictated child rearing. They are taking it upon themselves to determine and dictate how the entire planet’s parents will raise their children. But what if you do not agree with them? They have already taken the first step in retaliating against anyone who dares to act against this command of theirs: they have taken it upon themselves to refer to anyone who steps out of line as committing “child abuse” and being “evil.” Prof. Daniel Dennett refers to children who are raised in religious households as, “indoctrinated,” “brainwashed” and “psychologically abused.”1 Prof. Richard Dawkins thinks that everyone should agree with him, “Everybody’s consciousness should be raised to this level.”2 He also wonders if there may be place for “society stepping in.”3 He therefore calls for activism, “Please go out and work at raising people’s consciousness over the words they use to describe children.”4 Prof. Richard Dawkins further stated:

“you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society’s impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit those of your parents. We’d be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn’t it a kind of child-abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child?…Catholic child? Flinch. Protestant child? Squirm. Muslim child? Shudder.”5

But what about a Darwinist child? The “Children in the Atheist’s Den” series will conclude that Prof. Richard Dawkins does want to convert children into Darwinists. And what of an atheist child? Ultimately, he would like to see children grow up to be atheists, “I could well imagine that this linguistically coded freedom to choose might lead children to choose no religion at all.”6

Furthermore, Prof. Daniel Dennett has played a particular part in this by recommending a one way street of censorship. You should not be allowed to teach your children your religion without presenting various other options. But when it comes to “science,” Darwinian orthodoxy shall not be questioned nor challenged in the public classroom and no other options are to be tolerated (also see Protecting the Science Classroom).

Prof. PZ Myers was asked “But don’t parents have a right to teach their children what they believe to be true without a professor undermining certain deeply held beliefs?” and responded thusly, “Why should they have that right?” (see the “At 24:11 into the interview” section of this essay).

Prof. Richard Dawkins has previously stated, (to byFaith Magazine), “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” Yet, he has now solidified his definition of evil, (to the UK Telegraph), “It is evil to describe a child as a Muslim child or a Christian child. I think labelling children is child abuse and I think there is a very heavy issue.”

“Children in the Atheist’s Den” is premised upon a consideration of Prof. Richard Dawkins particular references to children choosing their own cosmology and his main point about parents abusing their children by teaching them a particular religion before the child has developed the cognitive abilities to weight evidence, make comparisons, and finally make an unbiased choice. I seek to prove that Prof. Richard Dawkins qualifies as a “child abuser” by his very own definition.I do not take this task on lightly and so in order to demonstrate that I am not merely making an assertion I will present my essay based on a lecture that he presented to an audience of children. This makes for a good example of Prof. Richard Dawkins abusing, indoctrinating, evil and brainwashing of children by pushing his own unproven beliefs, fallacious logic, faulty information and one sided biased information.Prof. Richard Dawkins lectures actually consisted on five separate lectures. I may or may not critique them all. For now, at least, these (hopefully succinct) segments critiquing one lecture are sufficient. The best thing to do is to completely ignore what I am going to post on this issue and watch them yourself. When you do so, constantly ask yourself if what he is presenting is evidence based, mere guess work passed off as fact, atheistic worldview adherence, etc.

It may be of interest to note that in 1991, while Prof. Richard Dawkins was presenting lectures to children and assuring them that life began in a primordial soup, John Horgan was enumerating some theories as to how life came to be to the readers of Scientific American (see this post). You may be thinking that after all, Prof. Richard Dawkins was lecturing to mere children while Scientific American is a science journal. Yes indeed, and this is just the point: Prof. Richard Dawkins was, to whatever extent and with whatever, if any, amount of forethought, presenting one of many theories as if it alone were fact (he did present the concept of undirected panspermia as a “fantasy”).

He did introduced the concept of the primordial soup by stating “Some people think…” fair enough. Yet, he offers no other options and so the children are not only being brainwashed but specifically indoctrinated by being offered limited information. Also, they are just asked to believe, Prof. Richard Dawkins stated, “Nobody knows how it happened but somehow…And after that Darwinian evolution and life took off.”The bottom line of the lectures appears to be an implication that his worldview is smart and will lead children to give up on their ignorance (and the ignorance of their parents). His lectures for children are meant to convert children into the worldview of absolute materialism. He makes this apparent by appealing to authority, by presenting very narrow and convenient arguments and selective evidence, by caricaturizations, passing off mere speculation as fact, etc. Thus, overall the children are left with this impression: science determines the meaning of life, is worthy of your trust and faith, and will make you smart enough to do away with your childish religious superstitions.May the children come out of the atheist’s den as unscathed as Daniel came out of the lion’s den.

Some of my books, all of which you can find here or here:

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.

Isaiah ch. 9, particularly verses 6-7 are a polemical issue betwixt Judaism and Christianity.The key question is: does the text refer to the, at the time of the writing, future Messiah and therefore to Jesus-as Christianity claims-or to a person contemporaneous to the times when the text was inspired-as Judaism claims?

Part 1: Introduction and From the Talmud
Part 2: The Targumim and The MidrashimPart 3: Various Rabbis and Jewish Scholars

Part 4: Another Aspect of this Issue

A Jewish gentleman with whom I was dialoguing forwarded me an article written by Rabbi Tovia Singer (of the anti-missionary organization Jews for Judaism). I do not know whether it was ever published in print or online (I received it via email on April 17, 2001]. I will quote, in part, from the text of the emailed article since it provides a very good and succinct elucidation of the controversy involving Isaiah ch. 9.

Rabbi Tovia Singer wrote:

“There is probably no text in the Hebrew Bible that was more elaborately manipulated by…Christendom to deliberately change words of our Hebrew scriptures…
the church vandalized these two celebrated verses and then dislodged them from their original context…
What exactly did the church do with this text in order to make the prophet’s message seem as though it foretold of a future Jesus? To begin with, Christendom took words that were written by Isaiah in the past tense and changed them into the future tense.
Just how did the church accomplish this task without being noticed by masses of Christian parishioners? It wasn’t that difficult as long as the faithful were deprived of any knowledge of the Hebrew language.” [emphasis added]

Rabbi Tovia Singer’s argument might be well spoken yet, it is an argument that jumps ahead quite a ways. First I would like him to explain why the Talmud, Targum, Midrash, Pesikta Rabbati, other Rabbinic writings and individual Rabbis, Jewish scholar and Jewish publications affirm that the text in question is indeed messianic.

The New King James Version renders Isaiah 9:6-7 as:

For unto us a Child is born,Unto us a Son is given;And the government will be upon His shoulder.And His name will be calledWonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.Of the increase of His government and peaceThere will beno end,Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,To order it and establish it with judgment and justiceFrom that time forward, even forever.

The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

The 1960 Jewish Publication Society translation of Isaiah 9:5,

“For a child is born unto us; And the government is upon his shoulder; And his name is called Pele-joez-el-gibbor-Abi-ad-sar-shalom [Wonderful in counsel is God the Mighty, the everlasting Father, the ruler of peace].” [brackets in original]

Now consider the 1978 Jewish Publication Society translation,

“For a child has been born to us, A son has been given us. And authority has settled on his shoulders. He has been named ‘The Mighty God is planning grace; The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler.'”

What we will now demonstrate is that Rabbinic writings apply this text to a future Messiah while rendering the verse in the present tense or past tense.; they apply it to a future Messiah while rendering the verse in the present tense.

From the Talmud:Talmud (tractate Derekh Eretz) in a chapter called Perek HaShalomTalmud-Perek HaShalom 59b,

“R. Jose the Galilean said: Even the name of the Messiah is called ‘peace,’ [as it is stated,] And his name is called…Abi-ad-sar-shalom.(1)”

Footnote: (1) Isa. 9:5, i.e. ‘the Everlasting Father, the ruler of peace.’

Talmud-Sanhedrin 94a,

“The Holy One, blessed be He, said: Let Hezekiah, who hath eight [shemoneh] names, come and mete out punishment to Sennacherib, who hath [likewise] eight. Hezekiah, as it is written, For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called [i] Wonderful, [ii] Counsellor, [iii] Judge,(1) [iv] Mighty, [v] Father, [vi] Everlasting, [vii] Prince and [viii] Peace.(2)” [brackets in original]

Footnotes: (1) Isa. IX, 5. It is assumed that the verse refers to Hezekiah
(2) For this meaning of el, cf. Ex. XXI, 6; XXII, 8

Footnotes to Talmud-Sanhedrin 44a, Soncino edition,

“The customary greeting of Shalom (peace) is held in equal esteem with the name of God (v. Shab. 10b).”1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Some of my books, all of which you can find here or here:

Social networks:
My Amazon author’s page
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Archive video site
Ken Ammi’s Product Reviews
My CafePress shop
Google +

Norm Geisler references TrueFreethinker.com:
Apologeticspress.com’s Kyle Butt references TrueFreethinker.com:

Read the article about which Gary Habermas, PhD (Distinguished Research Professor & Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary) said, “I have hung on to it since you sent it, & plan to keep doing so”: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations.