Is Jesus A Prophet According To The Old Testament?

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
Forget about science (and about Derrida and Foucault), science will never be able to answer this topic's question for the same reason it will never be able to answer a question like: at what point an accumulation of grains of sand can be said to form a mound or heap?
Of course it can't answer that question, mound and heap are not scientific terms and that's not a scientific question. If you'd care to precisely define what a mound and heap are (e.g. a stable configuration of sand grains that are not all on the same horizontal plane) then you could get an answer. Nor do you need science to answer this topic's question, all you need do is read the Old Testament. Jesus is not mentioned in it, the answer is no.
 

big

Time Out
Oct 15, 2009
562
4
18
Quebec
That is quite perceptive of you, big. You are right; science will never be able to answer that question. Science wouldn’t even attempt to answer the question. That is because the concept of God is meaningless as far as science is concerned. So science does not recognize any Prophets.

As to Old Testament well, according to science, it is just a book (same as the Bible or Koran), nothing more.

No science is possible without religious faith but this faith can be unconscious.
 

Dexter Sinister

Unspecified Specialist
Oct 1, 2004
10,168
539
113
Regina, SK
No science is possible without religious faith but this faith can be unconscious.
Fond of making untestable claims, aren't you. You're telling me in effect that I have religious faith but don't know it. I don't believe you understand anything about science at all. Science has only one article of faith, that the cosmos is consistent and, at least in principle, comprehensible, which has certainly proven to be inductively true so far, though we may not be smart enough to comprehend it all.

You and a few others here remind me of this comment of C.P.Snow's, from the Wikipedia piece about him:
A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?
I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question — such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? — not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had.
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
11
Aether Island
The devil only exists for those who believe in him. So i believe it exists in your mind (and allywayz)

Dear Cliff,
Can the swine flu be cast into pigs?
Cousin Spade
PS
Few people, some of whom you mention, have not gotten past the Gospel According to Dr. Seuss "The Evil Grinch and the Pious Whos"
 
Last edited:

big

Time Out
Oct 15, 2009
562
4
18
Quebec
Science has only one article of faith, that the cosmos is consistent and, at least in principle, comprehensible, which has certainly proven to be inductively true so far, though we may not be smart enough to comprehend it all.

Scientists need only one article of faith, that the cosmos is inconsistent enough to allow them to play with it.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
You and a few others here remind me of this comment of C.P.Snow's, from the Wikipedia piece about him:
A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by the standards of the traditional culture, are thought highly educated and who have with considerable gusto been expressing their incredulity at the illiteracy of scientists. Once or twice I have been provoked and have asked the company how many of them could describe the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The response was cold: it was also negative. Yet I was asking something which is the scientific equivalent of: Have you read a work of Shakespeare's?
I now believe that if I had asked an even simpler question — such as, What do you mean by mass, or acceleration, which is the scientific equivalent of saying, Can you read? — not more than one in ten of the highly educated would have felt that I was speaking the same language. So the great edifice of modern physics goes up, and the majority of the cleverest people in the western world have about as much insight into it as their neolithic ancestors would have had.
Funny in a way. A bit sad in another. It seems to be a good observation, though.