Re: virus:Logic

chardin (
Sat, 11 Oct 1997 15:44:47 CST+6CDT

> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 18:41:49 -0500
> To:
> From: Brett Lane Robertson <>
> Subject: Re: virus:Logic
> Reply-to:

> Anyway, I would like someone with good math skills to give me some
> probabilities--I'm terrible with math. Those prophets, hundreds and
> up to a thousand year before he came tells us that the promised
> Messiah to be sent by God would: (Chardin)
> I think you are probably a nice person too, but there are GREAT gaps in what
> you say--which makes YOU the prophet. You speak in tounges, jumping from
> one quote to another and saying "See, doesn't that prove anything?". I
> wonder if people who use biblical quotes to back up biblical quotes realize
> that they are going in circles.
Perhaps I did jump from one quote to another. There are many, many
prophecies in the Old Testament relating to the coming Messiah. I
did not, however, realize that I was using one quote to back up
another. Are you saying that there is no historical basis for any
of the writings about Jesus? If so, you are incorrect. When John
wrote his Book of Revelation, for instance, there exists secular
history that the church at the time received his writings as
authentic. John was a disciple of Christ's. Thus, those people
had no doubt that such a person lived and they had eye
witness accounts from people who knew him.
In the years immediately after John's death, there are
writings of early church father's who quote from John's writing
extensively, so much so that the entire Book of Revelation can be
reproduced from their writings. So, if you are trying to dismiss the
scriptures as something some folks wrote for an off-Broadway play in
early Rome, I think you do history, both secular and religious, a
grave disservice.

> You assume that there was a prophecy (see this quote and that quote), you
> assume there was a messiah (see this quote and that quote)...then you say
> prophecy = messiah since quote = quote; but you forget that you started
> with assumptions. Then you say quote leads to quote leads to quote...and
> present quotes like they are self-evident (they are not at all evident
> except for people looking for proof of their assumptions...people beginning
> with similar assumptions).

When you assume there existed a "Rome" I do not call you to task to
prove it. Yet, some of the oldest scriptures we have are older and
more reliable than copies of secular writings which prove their was a
civilization called Rome.

To deny that the Jewish people have a written record which they have
guarded and carefully passed down from generation to generation to me
would be an absurdity--but, then, of course, there are people who
deny that the halocaust took place, too. But perhaps I needed to
assert some such facts first. It might be that I am taking for
granted that most people realize this.

1) The Jews as a people have historically been known as the "people
of the Book."
2) They have regarded their scriptures as a sacred entrustment from
God--at least the Orthodox Jewish Community.
3) Because of this belief, they have guarded their writings with
utmost care--taking great pain that every "jot and tittle" was
preserved in the copying of their sacred text.
4) These texts, which are quite old can be dated with pretty good
accuracy, have a message which anyone who
takes the time to investigate them could read.
5) That message is that a Messiah will be forthcoming who will
save and bless his people
6) These promises are called "prophecies" because they speak of
things which had not yet come to pass but to which the people could
look forward
7) The Jews are still looking for their Messiah--thus, you see the
old men with beards at the "Wailing Wall" in Jersusalem praying, and,
as I understand it, praying for Messiah to come.

Now, if you would like to doubt the authenticity of the Hebrew
Scriptures, I suppose you can, but I'm not sure I gleaned that from
your post. Quiet frankly, the only thing I think I understand from
your message is that you accuse me of using a quote to back up a
quote. I suppose by "doubting" the text, my concern would be the
time frame. Time is, afterall, what I talking about.
Has God used a method to speak to man "outside of time." If there
are prophcies given which are very accurate and not generalized,
wouldn't you think that something odd was going on?

> Christ was reported to have said that you could not become (saved,
> this where I put <your message here>?) ...uh, <your message
> here = not tortured so that someone else can be>...Christ said you could not
> be righteous by understanding the law so you might as well accept charity
> (faith, grace); and you seem to prove it by trying really hard not to use
> lawful reasoning, logic. (for example:...Jerusalem is a burden/the prophets
> said/this is the last this is the last days/Jerusalem is a burden/
> the prophets were right...since the prophets said/this this the last
> days/Jerusalem is a burden--the paper says this? Does it show how prophets
> are right, or why Jerualem is a burden, or that this is the last days? Does
> it show how cause and effect folows that prophets -> Burden -> Last days?
> Or does it follow your circular reasoning that prophets = burden = last days
> so we accept each as proof unto itself?)

I sincerely hope my message was not as difficult for you to
understand as this one is for me. I take it you object to my statement:
"the prophets also say that in the
> last days God will make Jerusalem a "burdensome stone for all
> nations". Picked up a newspaper lately?"
The point I was trying to make rather hastily here is that the
prophecies are still in effect and not just something from yesteryear
as Sodom indicated. He said something to the effect that all of your
miracles are over and done with--what is wrong with your god can't he
do something now? (Forgive my rephrasing but I don't have that
quote). Yes, is my answer, God is still warning us of things to
come--giving us signs. These are throughought the Old and New
Testaments, and I guess my question would be--if they come true and
they are more than generalizations, then something is going on.

Do you want me to prove to you that Jerusalem is a "burden." Do you
want me to prove to you that no one knows quite what to do with
Jerusalem? Do you want me to show y ou that the Palestinians want it
so badly they are willing to blow themselves up to have it? The Jews
hold it so dearly in their hearts that they don't want to give it up?
Or perhaps we could investigate the fact that the Pope takes quite an
interest in that real estate as well? Then you have all the nations
looking on: wonding how will it end and will it interefere with the
shipment of next month's oil?
If you cannot see that the disposition of Jerusalem as a "burdensome
stone" then I doubt anything I can say would make any difference any
way. I guarantee you most of the presidents in my life time have
lost sleep over it.

As far as assumptions go, I repeat what I said above by example:

Christ said that the Temple at Jerusalem (Herod's Temple) would be destroyed and not
"one stone left upon another." I believe those are the words he
used. His disciples were amazed at this--the beautiful temple
destroyed--Was Christ threatening to do it? What did he mean? (Their

In A.D. 70, Titus destroyed that temple, and according to secular
history, the very foundation of the temple was plowed up in an effort
to pillage and plunder. But, what am I to do? I am comparing a
Biblical quote to history. How am I to know there was ever even a
Temple or a Roman General named Titus? Perhaps it is all made up?
Perhaps the halocaust did not take place? Maybe there was no
WWII--how foolish of me to pretend that I can speak of anything
without assuming!

> You asked for probablility. The probablility is 100% that an acorn will
> grow into an oak given the right environment. I hardly consider this to be
> a miracle.

I don't see the relevance to the above discussion. "Prophecy" is
hardly a natural phenomenon, a tree from an acorn is. Even though we
probably should not take the acorn = tree phenomenon for granted, most of us do.
"Poems are made by fools like me. . .
> I eagerly await your next---CHardin