Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ya know, I hate to do a "JIA thread," but we were talking about it today in church and there's a book out that claims that over 2,000 biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.

A tad skeptical, I went looking online.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm

A better site is here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml

(Now, don't ask me where in the hell they got the probabilities, but that's not really the point.)

There's also books that claim that the Holocaust didn't happen and that George Bush is an alien come to take over the world.

Why should we view these as any mroe than mere contrivances inorder to justify a particular faith?

Originally posted by Alliance
George Bush is an alien come to take over the world. alien2 I knew it



I predict that someone will post after me.

That might be meaningful if the only prophecies that had been fulfilled historically were Biblical ones. Many of Nostradamus' prophecies, for example, are widely believed to have been accurate.

and mine, I said someone would post after me

Originally posted by Alliance
There's also books that claim that the Holocaust didn't happen and that George Bush is an alien come to take over the world.

Why should we view these as any mroe than mere contrivances inorder to justify a particular faith?
Because they aren't mere contrivances, as they fit with what is written in the Bible?
Originally posted by Darth Revan
That might be meaningful if the only prophecies that had been fulfilled historically were Biblical ones. Many of Nostradamus' prophecies, for example, are widely believed to have been accurate.
Even those who aren't prophets of God can predict the future. Also, if I recall correctly, many of Nostradamus' prophesies were extremely vague.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Because they aren't mere contrivances, as they fit with what is written in the Bible?

The bible blatantly ambigous. I haven't examend specific claims specifically, but things like dates are out of the question.

They are contrivances, as all prophecies have been shown to be.

I will summarize the problem with this:

How do we know that Bible is accurate?

Over 2000 Biblical prophocies have been fulfilled.

How do we know that over 2000 Biblical prophecies have been
fulfilled?

It says so in the Bible.

And how do we know that the Bible is accurate?

(repeat 1000 times)



This is especially a problem regarding OT prophocies in the NT. It appartently hasn't occured to the author of this site, for example, that the authors of the Gosples might claim that Jesus was sold out for thirty pieces of silver because it was claimed that the Messiah would be, and they wanted to pain Jesus as the messiah.

Is there a key for the infinity symbol?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Even those who aren't prophets of God can predict the future. Also, if I recall correctly, many of Nostradamus' prophesies were extremely vague.

I know... I'm not saying I agree with those people, just that there are a lot of other so-called "prophets" who many believe to be able to see the future. So the fact that it shows up in the Bible isn't all that special. Neither site gives much in the way of actual passages from the Bible. I'm not sure that I trust them that the Bible isn't extremely vague with these prophecies, either.

Besides which, the Bible is just another book and we really have no way of knowing whether so-and-so son of whoever actually said the things it claims they did.

The validity of prophecies are often exaggerated. Prophecies are indeed often vague, allowing them to be applied to many possible future events.

(Nostradamus' writings have frequently been misquoted and, in some instances, even deliberately altered in order to prove that he supposedly predicted various events.)

Those are just a couple of examples...I don't understand how they are ambiguous if they are clearly described in the Bible and backed by historical text.

fear


Oh No ! God's gonna get US !!!!!!

Jesus definitely fulfilled a lot of prophecies. Those which were vague he explained pretty well as to how he fulfilled them.

"I, the Lord, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles" Isaiah 42:6
Jesus definitely fulfilled that one.

"Just as there were many who were appalled at him- his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness- so he will sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him" Isaiah 52:14-15
That one too.

"Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. We, all like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all" Isaiah 53:4-6
That's a difficult one to fulfill, but Jesus did.

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times" Micah 5:2
Fulfilled.

"See your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey" Zechariah 9:9
Fulfilled.

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced..." Zechariah 12:10
Fulfilled.

"Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand" Psalm 16:9-11
Fulfilled.

It is undeniable that fulfilling even these few scriptures in combination is not very easy, in fact, very improbable.

The Bible even says that Jesus traveled to places specifically to fulfill prophecy.

Originally posted by FeceMan
The Bible even says that Jesus traveled to places specifically to fulfill prophecy.
Precisely. He did the donkey thing to fulfill prophecy.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Precisely. He did the donkey thing to fulfill prophecy.
Which, of course, will be touted as him knowing he wasn't actually the Messiah but making it look like he was.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Precisely. He did the donkey thing to fulfill prophecy.

The Donkey Thing

Originally posted by FeceMan
Which, of course, will be touted as him knowing he wasn't actually the Messiah but making it look like he was.
How could the Messiah not be aware that he was fulfilling the prophecy though? I think the more important part of that prophecy is that salvation is given to the Messiah. Jesus definitely offered that.

Wait, if Jesus is God, how come he fought in the war against the Romans? IE Killing his children?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Wait, if Jesus is God, how come he fought in the war against the Romans? IE Killing his children?
What?

As Gregory said, you cannot have a prophecy told in one part of the bible and then "fufill" it later.
Thats not a prophecy, its foreshadowing.
Show me a historical one. Not one that is only proved by the bible.
And preferable one mroe modern, because the bible has been rewritten many times.

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
As Gregory said, you cannot have a prophecy told in one part of the bible and then "fufill" it later.
Thats not a prophecy, its foreshadowing.
Show me a historical one. Not one that is only proved by the bible.
And preferable one mroe modern, because the bible has been rewritten many times.
I'm talking about a prophecy pulled from a scroll that was recorded from previous records around 150BC. That is 150 years before Christ was born. The author can be validated as having lived around 700BC (I think that's right).

A historical one would be in FeceMan's post about the refounding of Israel. It was prophecied more than 2000 years ago and came true in 1948 (or was it 49?).

Originally posted by lord xyz
Wait, if Jesus is God, how come he fought in the war against the Romans? IE Killing his children?

For most of the RE (eg the good part) the Roman empire maybe contained 5% Christians. 10% max.

I'd call that more wishful thinking that happened to get validated then "prophesy."

As for the other ones, no. I mean if you want to take them as fulfilled prophocy as an item, of your faith, it's fine by me, but as a witnessing tool? This is what I'm talking about; if somebody doesn't already believe that say, Matthew, is an inspired book, then it's useless to say, "Look, Matthew says this happened!" because the only person in the conversation who thinks "Matthew said it" is the same as "it happened" is you.

(In Mark, Jesus tells his followers that the Second Coming will occur durring their lifetime, if you want to talk about un fulfilled prophocy...)

(Please go away, JIA; we've been having such a nice conversation, why did you have to come barging into it?)

Originally posted by FeceMan
Ya know, I hate to do a "JIA thread," but we were talking about it today in church and there's a book out that claims that over 2,000 biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.

A tad skeptical, I went looking online.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm

A better site is here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml

(Now, don't ask me where in the hell they got the probabilities, but that's not really the point.) Great find, I'll read through it more later...Though it seems to only talk about the OT...And I don't disagree that there could of been certain historical figures and battles, though I believe things may have been exaggerated. But I need to go back and read through your links before I say more..

It was 1948, but it was talking about the "fig tree"...and in other places the "fig tree" does NOT repesent Israel...

*Sighs.*

You know, I'm starting to think that Abraham saying, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead," is really quite accurate.

Originally posted by FeceMan
*Sighs.*

You know, I'm starting to think that Abraham saying, "If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead," is really quite accurate.
And, ironically enough, they will believe at some point...just the man of lawlessness.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Ya know, I hate to do a "JIA thread," but we were talking about it today in church and there's a book out that claims that over 2,000 biblical prophecies have been fulfilled.

A tad skeptical, I went looking online.

http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-prophecies-fulfilled.htm

A better site is here:

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/prophecy.shtml

(Now, don't ask me where in the hell they got the probabilities, but that's not really the point.)
And still people would say the Bible was written by men who thought up stories. Amasing!!! I sometimes really are astounded by their closed mindedness and stubborness to accept the Truth.

I really are astounded at it too, Cletus...

Originally posted by FeceMan
Which, of course, will be touted as him knowing he wasn't actually the Messiah but making it look like he was.
Yea, and he just accidently was born in the right place (Bethlehem) at the right time (the star) just so that he could have everybody fooled into believing one day that he was the Messiah. He even unknowingly fulfilled those prophesies. And He probably bribed the soldiers at the cross not to break his bones and bet on his clothes just because it was prophesied so many years before his birth. Wow, then he must be God!!!
You make me laugh with your desperate clinging to the lies Satan has brainwashed you with. Wake up !!

"propheses"

Honestly, these people didn't even record supernova, you think you'd meet the man and remeber a sort-of-bright star 30 years ago? No.

It'd be spectacularly easy to do. Leaders thorught history to aspire to beecome mythigc dictators twist and spin legends around his birth.

Originally posted by Alliance
"propheses"

Honestly, these people didn't even record supernova, you think you'd meet the man and remeber a sort-of-bright star 30 years ago? No.

It'd be spectacularly easy to do. Leaders thorught history to aspire to beecome mythigc dictators twist and spin legends around his birth.
Dream on

Originally posted by sonnet
And still people would say the Bible was written by men who thought up stories. Amasing!!! I sometimes really are astounded by their closed mindedness and stubborness to accept the Truth. It astounds me that people still believe this stuff and the gullibility of people.

It will never occur to people that they can't use the Bible to verify the Bible. Never. Even after you explain it. Yes, sonnet, because we absolutely can't explain why Jesus was born in the right place without resorting to prophocy. It would never occur to us that Matthew might have altered the acount to make it concur with the prophocy.

We know Mattew is accurate, because it's in the Bible.

We know the Bible is accurate, because its prophocies are fulfilled. For example, Jesus is born where it was predicted.

We know that Jesus was born where it was predicted, because it says so in Matthew.

And we know that Matthew is accurate because it's in the Bible.

And the song and dance goes on...

There's a hole in the bucket,
Dear Liza, dear Liza
There's a hole in the bucket,
Dear Liza, there's a hole.

Then fix it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
Then fix it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, fix it.

With what shall I fix it,
Dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I fix it,
Dear Liza, with what?

With a straw, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
With a straw, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, with a straw.

But the straw is too long,
Dear Liza, dear Liza
But the straw is too long,
Dear Liza, too long

Then cut it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
Then cut it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, cut it.

With what shall I cut it,
Dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I cut it,
Dear Liza, with what?

With an axe, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
With an axe, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, an axe.

The axe is too dull,
Dear Liza, dear Liza
The axe is too dull,
Dear Liza, too dull

Then sharpen it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
Then sharpen it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, sharpen it.

With what shall I sharpen it,
Dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I sharpen it,
Dear Liza, with what?

With a stone, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
With a stone, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, a stone.

The stone is too dry,
Dear Liza, dear Liza
The stone is too dry,
Dear Liza, too dry

Then wet it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
Then wet it, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, wet it.

With what shall I wet it,
Dear Liza, dear Liza?
With what shall I wet it,
Dear Liza, with what?

With water, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
With water, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, with water.

How shall I get it,
Dear Liza, dear Liza,
How shall I get it,
Dear Liza, how shall I?

In the bucket, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, dear Henry
In the bucket, dear Henry,
Dear Henry, in the bucket.

There's a hole in the bucket.

Originally posted by Gregory
It will never occur to people that they can't use the Bible to verify the Bible. Never. Even after you explain it. Yes, sonnet, because we absolutely can't explain why Jesus was born in the right place without resorting to prophocy. It would never occur to us that Matthew might have altered the acount to make it concur with the prophocy.

We know Mattew is accurate, because it's in the Bible.

We know the Bible is accurate, because its prophocies are fulfilled. For example, Jesus is born where it was predicted.

We know that Jesus was born where it was predicted, because it says so in Matthew.

And we know that Matthew is accurate because it's in the Bible.
Thanks for your absolutely meaningless post.

I suppose that, if you actually read the prophecies that are not verified by the Bible but by historical data, you would...

Naw, you wouldn't. Bible verifying itself, kthx.

I suppose when you have absolutely no argument, insulting the other person is as good a technique as any.



"Know therefore, and understand, that from the going out in the world to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of the anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks." (Daniel 9:25 ESV) The actualy building process would take sixty-two weeks. "Seven weeks" = 483 years? You know, Daniel also says that it would be the followers of the Messiah who would destory the city. Of course, Jerusalem was never actually destroyed (your wonderful website mixes up the destruction of the Second Temple with the destruction of Jerusalem), and when the Second Temple was destroyed, it was by the Roman army, not the "Prince's people." So, uh, yeh. I guess when that's the best you have, it's not terribly surprising that you'd have to resort to insults.

Originally posted by Gregory
It will never occur to people that they can't use the Bible to verify the Bible. Never. Even after you explain it. Yes, sonnet, because we absolutely can't explain why Jesus was born in the right place without resorting to prophocy. It would never occur to us that Matthew might have altered the acount to make it concur with the prophocy.

We know Mattew is accurate, because it's in the Bible.

We know the Bible is accurate, because its prophocies are fulfilled. For example, Jesus is born where it was predicted.

We know that Jesus was born where it was predicted, because it says so in Matthew.


Yeah, and maybe Matthew, Mark, Luke and John got it wrong or wait... maybe they all conspired to make up the story.

"Conspired?" You're closer then you think, considering that Matthew and Luke appear to have used Mark as a source.

You laugh a lot, don't you? I'm glad you have a sense of humor, since you seem to have so little else going for you.

Let's consider a few non-Canonical texts. Hm, let me see ... The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the Apocalypse of Peter. Those will do for a start. Do you think that these books form an accurate portrait of Jesus. For example, do you agree with the author of Thomas that Jesus espoused Gnostic philosophy? Do you think that as a child, he struck people dead on a whim?

... You don't?

You think the authors of the gospels, acts, and apocalypse I just listed made stuff up?

And yet when I suggest that the authors of the canonical Gospels also made things up, you act like it's the funniest thing in the world, and you need only (poorly) rephrase my suggestion for every body to see how ludacrous it is.

You really haven't thought this all the way through, have you?

Originally posted by Gregory
Let's consider a few non-Canonical texts. Hm, let me see ... The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Judas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the Apocalypse of Peter. Those will do for a start. Do you think that these books form an accurate portrait of Jesus. For example, do you agree with the author of Thomas that Jesus espoused Gnostic philosophy? Do you think that as a child, he struck people dead on a whim?

... You don't?

You think the authors of the gospels, acts, and apocalypse I just listed made stuff up?

And yet when I suggest that the authors of the canonical Gospels also made things up, you act like it's the funniest thing in the world, and you need only (poorly) rephrase my suggestion for every body to see how ludacrous it is.

You really haven't thought this all the way through, have you?
The books you mention are false and not accurate at all. Most of them have been found to not even have been written by the people who supposedly written them. But you would definitely not agree on that. They are not even close to the truth. And yes they are made up and inspired by satan.
We as God's children do not need outside proof because God's spirit testifies with our spirit that God and Jesus is true and His Word is true. But that is not something you will be able to understand.
Actually it is very funny to read how you all are grasping at the same old lies and at the same time it is sad that you are so blinded by the world.

Don't quit your day job, kid; the psychic gig isn't for you. Of course most of the books aren't by their alleged authors. The same sort of research has shown that some of the letters of Paul are almost certainly not by Paul. And of course, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John aren't by the people they're names after (well, they never claim to be).

Do you ... do you have a point? Other then insulting me, I mean? It's not as if I claimed those books were divinely inspired; all I said was that since you believe those books were made up, you can't just wave your hand and dismiss the idea of Mark, Mattew, Luke, and John being made up (and I never claimed that they were entirely made up, you seem to have a bad habit of putting words into my mouth) with a

I mean, you can, but not convincingly.

Originally posted by Gregory
I suppose when you have absolutely no argument, insulting the other person is as good a technique as any.



"Know therefore, and understand, that from the going out in the world to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of the anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks." (Daniel 9:25 ESV) The actualy building process would take sixty-two weeks. "Seven weeks" = 483 years? You know, Daniel also says that it would be the followers of the Messiah who would destory the city. Of course, Jerusalem was never actually destroyed (your wonderful website mixes up the destruction of the Second Temple with the destruction of Jerusalem), and when the Second Temple was destroyed, it was by the Roman army, not the "Prince's people." So, uh, yeh. I guess when that's the best you have, it's not terribly surprising that you'd have to resort to insults.

Guess it sucks when you don't read the whole passage. Or deliberately misquote.

I want you to do something for me, Feceman. Did you see the "ESV" by my quotation? Did you wonder what it meant? It stands for "English Standard Version." Now. I want you to find a copy of the English Standard Version of the Bible--your local library probably has one--and read that passage.

I'm completely serious about this; if you get the same edition as I have in front of me, it will be on page 904.

Have you read it? Good.

I will now accept your apology for implying that I misread the passage, should you choose to offer one.

Still, that might take some time. Until then, do you believe that Jerusalem was destoryed? Do you believe that "the people of the Prince" (the Messiah's followers) destroyed it?

And because I am amazingly, almost cripplingly nice, I'm going to offer you a hint. Let's take your numbers: "seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'" Seven sevens and sixty-two sevens makes 483 days. This is about 1.3 years. So, if it will really make you happy, I'll amend my statement:

1.3 years = 483 years?

I offered you a hint, and I completely forgot to give it! I am such a tease. But don't worry, here it is:

Four hundred eighty-three years is exactly 25,185 "sevens." You can nitpick my figures and argue with the ESV's translation, but unless you can get 25,1825 sevens out of that passage, it simply does not say what the author of your web page claims it says.

QQ

You, uh, plan to tell me where you got that from? I hope you don't expect me to believe it on faith.

I also asked you whether you think Jerusalem was destroyed by the messiah's people, as foretold in Daniel. You forgot to answer, so I'll repeat the question.

Originally posted by Gregory
You, uh, plan to tell me where you got that from? I hope you don't expect me to believe it on faith.

I also asked you whether you think Jerusalem was destroyed by the messiah's people, as foretold in Daniel. You forgot to answer, so I'll repeat the question.
I just made it up off the top of my head.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/dn924-27.html

I didn't say that you made it up.

I don't want to destract you from answering my question about the messiah's people destroying Jerusalem, so I won't say anything more.

Edit: Yes I will. Stephen E Jones thinks that evolution can't be true because humans can understand mathematics. Can you maybe give me a source that isn't written by a crackpot? But don't let it distract you too much.

"The people of the ruler who will come" are not those of the Messiah.

Oh, of course not. Just because Daniel is predicting the coming of the messiah, refers to him explicitly as "a prince," and then refers to "the prince who is to come" ... how on earth could I have thought he was referring the the messiah?

... of course the prince who is to come is the messiah.

And even if "the prince who is to come" is goddamn Ronald McDonald, it doesn't change the fact that Jerusalem was prophecies for destruction after the anointed one was "cut off." This did not happen, assuming you think Jesus was the messiah. There was unpleasentness, but the city was not destoryed, it did not end in a flood, and all was certainly not desolation.

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm

He says it better than I could.

EDIT: And, furthermore...


Notice that, in the KJV version, when describing Christ, "Prince" is capitalized whereas the "prince that shall come" is not capitalized.

Does he indeed. So the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. With a flood?

I care nothing for the KJV.

Originally posted by Gregory
Does he indeed. So the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. With a flood?
Flood is metaphorical, as evidenced in other verses.


It's the original translation so you can go on not caring, but I'll still be using it.

"original"

I fully admit that the flood probably isn't supposed to be literal, actually. I'm very tired.

KJV is the original translation, and one of the worst; don't mistake antiquity with authority.

Quick: In what year did Artaxerxes give Ezra permission to rebuild the temple?

(It's a trick question, I'm afraid; the books Ezra and Nehremiah both answer the question, but the answer is different in each one. Which is a bit of a problem, since we sort of need that date if we're going to try to extrapolate like Dr. Ross wants to.)

Originally posted by Alliance
"original"
*Sighs.*

You know what I mean, asshat.
Originally posted by Gregory
I fully admit that the flood probably isn't supposed to be literal, actually. I'm very tired.

KJV is the original translation, and one of the worst; don't mistake antiquity with authority.

Quick: In what year did Artaxerxes give Ezra permission to rebuild the temple?

(It's a trick question, I'm afraid; the books Ezra and Nehremiah both answer the question, but the answer is different in each one. Which is a bit of a problem, since we sort of need that date if we're going to try to extrapolate like Dr. Ross wants to.)
Verses, please. Also, "Artaxerxes" is a title and not a name.

I know it's a title; in this context, it would refer to Artaxerxes I.

The date Ross uses is 458 BC, which is seven years into the reign of Artaxerxes I. Ezra 7:1 comes closest to explicitly supporting this.

Nehemiah, on the other hand, explicitly states that permission was given in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes' reign (2:1), which would be 445 BC and place the start of Jesus' ministry (if you were inclined to believe that that is indeed what was being prophecised) at 38AD.

Permission was given to two different people, and the rulers were not the same.

Originally posted by Gregory
Don't quit your day job, kid; the psychic gig isn't for you. Of course most of the books aren't by their alleged authors. The same sort of research has shown that some of the letters of Paul are almost certainly not by Paul. And of course, Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John aren't by the people they're names after (well, they never claim to be).


Actually the books in the NT in the Bible have been verified and was written about 30 - 60 years after Christ was crusified and by the authors just as they are "claimed " to be. They knew or lived with Jesus or the disciples or the apostles. Very credible. They got first hand information.

The other books not included in the Bible were written over 100 years after Christ and besides the controversy around the alleged authors of the books, none of them knew Jesus, lived while he was on earth or knew anyone that was with Jeus or His disciples. Thus no credibility for those books.

Originally posted by sonnet
Actually the books in the NT in the Bible have been verified and was written about 30 - 60 years after Christ was crusified and by the authors just as they are "claimed " to be. They knew or lived with Jesus or the disciples or the apostles. Very credible. They got first hand information.

The other books not included in the Bible were written over 100 years after Christ and besides the controversy around the alleged authors of the books, none of them knew Jesus, lived while he was on earth or knew anyone that was with Jeus or His disciples. Thus no credibility for those books.

no, they haven't been "verified" at that age. Read up on your own philosophy. It might be "enlightening".

Most of them were written at least 100 years after jesus existed. Are you ****ing stupid? No, you're not. You're willfully ignorant. Out of the 4 dozen gospels written, only four made the final cut? Why is that? Because the bible was edited and approved by people who were NOT alive when the events took place! They were condensed by people in power, positions they didn't want to loose, three or four centuries later! Condensed by propogandists that wanted to speak for god, much the same way you are attempting to do now! Face it. Your religion is a hoax. And you fail Jesus miserablly! Not only are you full of shit when it comes to Jesus, but Jesus himself would condemn you based on your own ignorance of what he said, preached, believed!

You might find the King James Version of the Bible in every hotel drawer in North america, but you won't find the dozens of other manuscripts that were written to describe teh truth of the situation.

Originally posted by sonnet
Actually the books in the NT in the Bible have been verified and was written about 30 - 60 years after Christ was crusified and by the authors just as they are "claimed " to be. They knew or lived with Jesus or the disciples or the apostles. Very credible. They got first hand information.

The other books not included in the Bible were written over 100 years after Christ and besides the controversy around the alleged authors of the books, none of them knew Jesus, lived while he was on earth or knew anyone that was with Jeus or His disciples. Thus no credibility for those books.

What is your souce for these claims?

Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
no, they haven't been "verified" at that age. Read up on your own philosophy. It might be "enlightening".

Most of them were written at least 100 years after jesus existed. Are you ****ing stupid? No, you're not. You're willfully ignorant. Out of the 4 dozen gospels written, only four made the final cut? Why is that? Because the bible was edited and approved by people who were NOT alive when the events took place! They were condensed by people in power, positions they didn't want to loose, three or four centuries later! Condensed by propogandists that wanted to speak for god, much the same way you are attempting to do now! Face it. Your religion is a hoax. And you fail Jesus miserablly! Not only are you full of shit when it comes to Jesus, but Jesus himself would condemn you based on your own ignorance of what he said, preached, believed!

You might find the King James Version of the Bible in every hotel drawer in North america, but you won't find the dozens of other manuscripts that were written to describe teh truth of the situation.
My God, you are a fool. The gospels in the Bible were already in use in the earliest churches and surely someone would have noticed over the years if dramatic changes had been done. I do not fail Jesus or God for I stand steadfast in my faith in God and His son Jesus. I do not change my faith on a whim just because some new "evidence" has shown up out of the pen of some unbeliever or sceptic. That would be failing God and Jesus! And please stop using your fowl language when you adress me. You can use it on your fellow non- believers and plasphemers if you like.

Originally posted by sonnet
My God, you are a fool. The gospels in the Bible were already in use in the earliest churches and surely someone would have noticed over the years if dramatic changes had been done. I do not fail Jesus or God for I stand steadfast in my faith in God and His son Jesus. I do not change my faith on a whim just because some new "evidence" has shown up out of the pen of some unbeliever or sceptic. That would be failing God and Jesus! And please stop using your fowl language when you adress me. You can use it on your fellow non- believers and plasphemers if you like.

Your ignorance is ASTOUNDING !

YA ZEALOT

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Your ignorance is ASTOUNDING !

YA ZEALOT
I'll rather be that than totaly lost like you!!!

Originally posted by sonnet
I'll rather be that than totaly lost like you!!!

How am I lost ?

I'm pretty secure with myself and my life...

Hey, guys?

This thread is for discussing how prophesies in the Bible have been fulfilled, not for when the Gospels were written.

Mark was written about 70, so more like 40+ years, but whatever.

Please tell me you realize that, for example, ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark do not have "The Gospel According to Mark" written on them. Please, please tell me you realize that their titles are much later additions.

Please tell me this. Lie if you have to.

As a matter of fact, we know that the Gospels changed over time, because we have a variety of ancient manuscripts. Which we can, you know, compare. But as has been mentioned, this is getting off topic.

Originally posted by Gregory
Mark was written about 70, so more like 40+ years, but whatever.

Please tell me you realize that, for example, ancient manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark do not have "The Gospel According to Mark" written on them. Please, please tell me you realize that their titles are much later additions.

Please tell me this. Lie if you have to.

As a matter of fact, we know that the Gospels changed over time, because we have a variety of ancient manuscripts. Which we can, you know, compare. But as has been mentioned, this is getting off topic.
Well then since our sources are contradictory it seems we shall agree to stick to what we individualy believe. If the Bible are so changed how can you then want to look at propheses that are fulfilled. Did they then not change the propheses too???? Was just wondering.

That the Gospels weren't originally named isn't a matter of sources, it's a fact. It's interesting that you mention prophesy (well, it is theoretical subject of the thread, but...), because that's one way that Mark is dated; if you're a secular scholar, and don't believe that Jesus could foretell the future, then Mark must have been written around 70CE, when the destruction of the Second Temple was immanent or had already happened.

I doubt that the prophosy in Daniel was changed, because Jesus actually mentions it in Mark's little apocalypse; that the desolation foretold by Daniel would soon come to pass. So it pretty much had to have been widely known before Mark, and I assume before Jesus, although as always, I could be wrong. In fact, I think the OT in general didn't change very much, because of the strong scribal tradition in Judaism (I have heard the theory that Daniel is a late forgery, around 3BC, and the prophesy refers to Epiphanies, but I'm not sure how much real support there is for that). I'm much more conversant with the NT then the Old, though.

One of those books on that thread is by John Ankerberg......I used to watch him.......He is kinda like Bible conspiracy theory.........lol

Though if the Messiah did fulfill all the OT prophecies, then why don't the Jews accept him? They are still waiting. Jesus was not these things. The Roman Catholic church made him these things.

They were so concerned with keeping up appearances by observing the Law that they were blinded by their hypocrisy.

Again, not the point of this thread.

No other religious writings in the world do we find specific prophecies like we find in the Scripture. You will find no predictive prophecies whatsoever in the writings of Buddha, Confucious, Mohammed, Lao-Tse, or Hinduism. Yet in the Scripture there are well over two thousand prophecies, most of which have already been fulfilled.

They are so specific in nature taht they burn all bridges behind them. If they are not fulfilled, it leaves no room for excuse. How can this be explained? Of all the attacks that have ever been upon the Scripture, there has never been one book written by a skeptic to disprove the prophecies of the Scripture. Though the Bible has been attacked at every other place, the one place where God rests His inspiration in that the things He fortells come infallibly to pass.

"Those who hate me without cause are more numerous than the hairs of my head" (Ps. 69:4).

"The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers conspire together against the LORD and His Anointed One" (Ps. 2:2).

"Even my friend in whom I trusted, one who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me" (Ps. 41:9).

"Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered" (Zch. 13:7).

"The I said to them, 'If it seems right to you, give me your wages; but if not, keep them.' So they weighed my wages, 30 pieces of silver. 'Throw it to the potter,' the LORD said to me--this magnificent price I was valued by them. So I took the 30 pieces of silver and threw it into the house of the LORD, to the potter" (Zch. 11:12-13).

"They are striking the judge of Israel on the cheek with a rod" (Mc. 5:1)

"I gave My back to those who beat Me, and My cheeks to those who tore out My beard. I did not hide My face from scorn and spitting" (Is. 50:60).

"They pierced my hands and my feet" (Ps. 22:16).

"My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" (Ps. 22:1).

"Everyone who sees me mocks me; they sneer and shake their heads: 'He replies on the LORD; let Him rescue him; let the LORD deliver him, since He takes pleasure in him'" (Ps. 22:7-8).

"They gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink" (Ps. 69:21).

"I am poured out like water, and all my bones are disjointed; my heart is like wax, melting within me" (Ps. 22:14).

"Yet He Himself bore our sickness, and He carried our pains; but we in turn regarded Him stricken down by God, and afflicted" (Is. 53:4).

"He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. Like a lamb led to the slaughter and like a sheep silent before her shearers, He did not open His mouth" (Is. 53:7).

"They divided my garments among themselves, and they case lots for my clothing" (Ps. 22:18).

"He submitted Himself to death" (Is. 53:12).

"He bore the sin of many and interceded for the rebels" (Is. 53:12).

"You may not break any of its bones" (Ex. 12:46).

"He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken" (Ps. 34:20).

"The look at Me whom they pierced" (Zch. 12:10).

"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" (Is. 53:9).

"For You will not abandon me to Sheol; You will not allow Your Faithful One to see the Pit" (Ps. 16:10).

"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" (Ps. 68:18).

"The LORD declared to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies Your footstool" (Ps. 110:1).

The Bible prophecies are altogether unexpected! I know of no one ever prophesying that any other human being would rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. That is exceedingly improbable. The chance of it happening by coincidence is incalculable. No, the Bible is not merely a book written by men; it is a book written by God through men, and the heart of its prophetic message is Jesus the Christ.

No one can ever know the future. What you call a Prophecy is really a product of careful manipulation, translation and hind sight.

Shakyamunison-

Everyone with an opinion can share it; but producing evidence to validate their opinion is something--more often than not--is neglected. The examples of Scripture are not out of context, and they are certainly in their original form; the Dead Sea scrolls verify this. We are literally forced to conclude: (1) wow... what an amazing coincedence or (2) there is something oddly interesting about the Scripture. Perhaps it is true prophetic revelation from God? Please elaborate.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

Everyone with an opinion can share it; but producing evidence to validate their opinion is something--more often than not--is neglected. The examples of Scripture are not out of context, and they are certainly in their original form; the Dead Sea scrolls verify this. Please elaborate.

I am not making an extraordinary claim. The future does not exist until now, and then it's not the future anymore.

If I got together enough people and spent enough time scouring ancient obscure documents, I could come up with all kinds of "Prophecies" that have been fulfilled in the past.

It all boils down to wishfull thinking.

Provide an example using Scipture that I presented. Make your case.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Provide an example using Scipture that I presented. Make your case.

Why would I use Scripture? The bible is just a book. That would be like me using Gone With the Wind to prove some point having to do with physics.

Scripture deals with future revelation of history; and it has come to pass. Hence the reason why man is able to determine that it is--indeed--prophecy, or at least--to be minimalistic about it--able to conclude that Scripture does indeed contain much circumstantial evidence (whether right or wrong). Would you at least agree to my last point?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Scripture deals with future revelation of history; and it has come to pass. Hence the reason why man is able to determine that it is--indeed--prophecy, or at least--to be minimalistic about it--able to conclude that Scripture does indeed contain much circumstantial evidence (whether right or wrong). Would you at least agree to my last point?

NOT AT ALL.

Not a single so call prophecy in the bible is really a prophecy. This is what is call Postdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

Shakyamunison-

The article you provided--in how it defines "postdiction"--does not apply to the Bible; the Bible contains specific prophecies, and they are not open-ended, for example. And Scripture--in dealing with prophecy--is certainly not allegory. Besides, the article namely speaks of Nostradamos, having nothing to do with prophetic Scripture. If you wish to apply "postdiction" to Nostradamos, I would agree; his prophecies were extremely vague--self-fulfilling; but the Bible is a much more detailed. Can you at least agree with me on that point?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

The article you provided--in how it defines "postdiction"--does not apply to the Bible; the Bible contains specific prophecies, and they are not open-ended, for example. And Scripture--in dealing with prophecy--is certainly not allegory. Besides, the article namely speaks of Nostradamos, having nothing to do with prophetic Scripture. If you wish to apply "postdiction" to Nostradamos, I would agree; his prophecies were extremely vague--self-fulfilling; but the Bible is a much more detailed. Can you at least agree with me on that point?

I gave that article only to help you understand what I meant by postdiction. I do not see any reason why postdiction would not apply to the bible.

Why do you believe that postdiction does not apply to the bible?

Shakyamunison-

You are completely step-toeing the issue(s); you know damn well that the examples I provided at the mark of this thread do not apply to "postdiction."

Why are you being difficult? I'm simply asking you straight forward questions; you can be critical and not absurd at the same time.

Why can't read the prophetic Scripture I provided--in conjunction with your article--and understand that "postdiction" does not apply to the Bible yourself? Why must I write a book or spell it out for you? This indicates that you are intellectually lazy my friend. All you need to verify my claim is presently posted on this thread! The irony.

All people like you do is make hasty claims and poke at other people's posts, never entertaining the notion to study or take a topic seriously, nevermind remaining neutral. You have so much conviction for nothing! Your amazing! Instead, you turn the table around and hide. And for what?!

Originally posted by ushomefree
This indicates that you are intellectually lazy my friend.


The irony.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Shakyamunison-

For crying out loud... get real!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

For crying out loud... get real!

What do you mean?

Prophecies in the bible are products of postdiction.

I think, this is worth a second read:

No other religious writings in the world do we find specific prophecies like we find in the Scripture. You will find no predictive prophecies whatsoever in the writings of Buddha, Confucious, Mohammed, Lao-Tse, or Hinduism. Yet in the Scripture there are well over two thousand prophecies, most of which have already been fulfilled.

They are so specific in nature taht they burn all bridges behind them. If they are not fulfilled, it leaves no room for excuse. How can this be explained? Of all the attacks that have ever been upon the Scripture, there has never been one book written by a skeptic to disprove the prophecies of the Scripture. Though the Bible has been attacked at every other place, the one place where God rests His inspiration in that the things He fortells come infallibly to pass.

"Those who hate me without cause are more numerous than the hairs of my head" (Ps. 69:4).

"The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers conspire together against the LORD and His Anointed One" (Ps. 2:2).

"Even my friend in whom I trusted, one who ate my bread, has lifted up his heel against me" (Ps. 41:9).

"Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered" (Zch. 13:7).

"The I said to them, 'If it seems right to you, give me your wages; but if not, keep them.' So they weighed my wages, 30 pieces of silver. 'Throw it to the potter,' the LORD said to me--this magnificent price I was valued by them. So I took the 30 pieces of silver and threw it into the house of the LORD, to the potter" (Zch. 11:12-13).

"They are striking the judge of Israel on the cheek with a rod" (Mc. 5:1)

"I gave My back to those who beat Me, and My cheeks to those who tore out My beard. I did not hide My face from scorn and spitting" (Is. 50:60).

"They pierced my hands and my feet" (Ps. 22:16).

"My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?" (Ps. 22:1).

"Everyone who sees me mocks me; they sneer and shake their heads: 'He replies on the LORD; let Him rescue him; let the LORD deliver him, since He takes pleasure in him'" (Ps. 22:7-8).

"They gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink" (Ps. 69:21).

"I am poured out like water, and all my bones are disjointed; my heart is like wax, melting within me" (Ps. 22:14).

"Yet He Himself bore our sickness, and He carried our pains; but we in turn regarded Him stricken down by God, and afflicted" (Is. 53:4).

"He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. Like a lamb led to the slaughter and like a sheep silent before her shearers, He did not open His mouth" (Is. 53:7).

"They divided my garments among themselves, and they case lots for my clothing" (Ps. 22:18).

"He submitted Himself to death" (Is. 53:12).

"He bore the sin of many and interceded for the rebels" (Is. 53:12).

"You may not break any of its bones" (Ex. 12:46).

"He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken" (Ps. 34:20).

"The look at Me whom they pierced" (Zch. 12:10).

"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" (Is. 53:9).

"For You will not abandon me to Sheol; You will not allow Your Faithful One to see the Pit" (Ps. 16:10).

"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" (Ps. 68:18).

"The LORD declared to my Lord: 'Sit at My right hand until I make your enemies Your footstool" (Ps. 110:1).

The Bible prophecies are altogether unexpected! I know of no one ever prophesying that any other human being would rise from the dead and ascend into heaven. That is exceedingly improbable. The chance of it happening by coincidence is incalculable. No, the Bible is not merely a book written by men; it is a book written by God through men, and the heart of its prophetic message is Jesus the Christ.

Ushomefree just admit you don't have an answer to my question.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one can ever know the future. What you call a Prophecy is really a product of careful manipulation, translation and hind sight.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
NOT AT ALL.

Not a single so call prophecy in the bible is really a prophecy. This is what is call Postdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postdiction

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I gave that article only to help you understand what I meant by postdiction. I do not see any reason why postdiction would not apply to the bible.

Why do you believe that postdiction does not apply to the bible?

The Proof of Prophecy
This video is slow at certain phases; but it is informative.
If only being merely curious about Bible prophecy, watching this video will not be in vain.
For better (or worse) those viewing will learn.

t-n-59kfQTg

0jA8OhgTIHk

atkXTghkY9c

J7_URYUvaSE

OtR8QSbXypw

CNNU98jz36U

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ushomefree just admit you don't have an answer to my question.

Ushomefree all you are doing now is posting stuff to avoid my question.

Shakyamunison-

I have already addressed your question; prophetic Scripture is not the product of "postdiction." I even provided a few reasons as to why I stand by that claim on the very next post! Prophetic Scripture is not vague; for example:

(1) "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are disjointed; my heart is like wax, melting within me" (Ps. 22:14).

(2) "They pierced my hands and my feet" (Ps. 22:16).

(3) "He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken" (Ps. 34:20).

The book of Psalm was written in the 3rd century BC, and the passsages I provided refer to crucifixion--a method of execution that was NOT in practice by the Romans (at the time of authorship).

As you may know, when persons are crucified, their "hands" and "feet" are "peirced." Moreover, when persons are crucified, their bones are pulled out of joint (due to positioning on the cross). To aid in the process of death, persons being crucified often had their knees bashed in with a club; such bashing of the knees insured that persons lacked the ability to push upward with their legs to breath. This did not happen to Jesus, just like scripture indicated about the Messiah 300 years in advance!

And what I provided--in retrospect--is a shortsighted. I'm not a historian or Bible theologian; I'm just having fun on the forum; but purchase books written by members of the field and you will learn a great deal. Well written books contain bibliographies for checks and balances and recommendations. Studying something as indepth as prophecy requires years! And people who have gone the distance, have higher levels of understanding than you and I my friend. Remember that.

As I mentioned, the entire article you provided from WikiPedia--dealing with "postdiction"--does not apply to prophetic Scripture. For one, Scripture is detailed, not vague. I hope the examples (and commentary) I provided begins to stimulate understanding. The article you posted provides many other issues that I am unwilling to address.

You have the power and intelligence to answer your own questions with objective study. I post threads of this caliber to render such courses of action, and for some, objective study is commenced. I don't have issues with answering questions (or even debating over disagreements if communication is present). I could be wrong, but it just seems that you are merely attempting to argue--just for the sake of arguing! And I am not here for that. You can't live your life expecting other people to teach you; at some point, you have to divorce yourself from the secular world/pop culture and take an active roll in educating yourself.

I'm sure you know people who claim to be knowledgeable about certain topics; but you know better! You have the knowledge to know better! If I took my motor vehicle to Jiffy Lube--or any other garage--to get an oil replacement, it would not prove difficult to realize mechanics do not know their jobs if they attempted to replace the oil of my motor vehicle by changing the washer fluid. In this context, when you stated that prophecy can be boiled down to "wishful thinking," it's obvious that you lack knowledge; you simply haven't conducted objective study. There is an old saying: it doesn't take all day to recognize sunshine.

Oh... well why in the hell are we waisting our time then?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Oh... well why in the hell are we waisting our time then?

All I did was say that no one can say the future, and prophecies are not real.

None of that was a waist of time.

And you position is "postdiction"?

Originally posted by ushomefree
And you position is "postdiction"?

What? That didn't make any sense.

It did make sense; your position was clear. But I wanted you to elaborate on why you adhere to the position of the article (which has nothing to do with the Bible).

Originally posted by ushomefree
It did make sense; your position was clear. But I wanted you to elaborate on why you adhere to the position of the article (which has nothing to do with the Bible).

I don't believe in the bible, so why would my position have anything to do with the bible?

The reason I adhere to the position of the article? I really don't understand that question. Can you rephrase it for me? But take your time, I have to go to dinner now, and may not be back on until later.

The fact that you view the Bible as false is irrelevant; but "why" you view the Bible as false is relevant. You need to validate how you came to such conclusions, please.



Within the context of our discussion, you stated that prophetic Scripture is the product of "postdiction." In order for you to agree with the contents of the article, you must have a point of reference (or references) in which to base your views. With all in mind, you should have the capacity to provide examples of false prophetic Scripture within the terms (or definitions) provided in the WikiPedia article. Failing to meet this requirement, forces one to assume that you have bias (or uninformed) views.

This standard (or requirement) also applies to me; I disagree, and, in response, provided examples--a point of reference--to dismiss the claims housed in the WikiPedia article. First, and this is important to note, the article you provided serves purpose to Nostradamus and James Van Praagh, not the Bible; but I will entertain the premise.

In assuming my position on the WikiPedia article, I provided prophetic Scripture (complimented with commentary). I provided the following:

(1) "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are disjointed; my heart is like wax, melting within me" (Ps. 22:14).

(2) "They pierced my hands and my feet" (Ps. 22:16), and

(3) "He protects all his bones; not one of them is broken" (Ps. 34:20).

At first glance, the following Scripture fall short in addressing the first premise of the Wikipedia article--that prophecy thwarted by Nostradamus and James Van Praagh is vague. In keeping the article in context, I agree; but in correlation to prophetic Scripture, I disagree. And this has nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth.

Let me explain, please.

The Scripture that I provided (in this post and the previous) deal specifically with the characteristics of "crucifixion"--the manner in which the coming Messiah will be executed. Regardless of who the coming Messiah may be, I am able to make this assumption in lore of Scriptural context; the context of the Scripture (in this post and the previous) entail the manner in which the coming Messiah will be executed. Never mind Jesus of Nazareth for a moment.

The Scripture at hand speaks of:

(1) Bones being "disjointed,"

(2) Unbroken bones,

(3) "Pierced" hands and feet.

Regardless of who the Messiah may be, the method of execution Scripture paints, obviously deals with "crucifixion." There is no other alternative. Noting the historical record of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus was crucified in this precise manner; moreover, the bones of the coming Messiah would not be broken.

We must note, before reading further, that I am being critical about three references to Scripture; but Jesus of Nazareth fits the glove precisely. When you take the time to research the hundreds of Scripture available in the Bible (concerning the coming Messiah), you are forced to make two conclusions:

(1) This is an amazing coincidence, or

(2) Prophecy is a revelation from God Himself (to ensure mankind takes heed of the Messiah).

And to drive the point home, we must note, that the book of Psalm was written 300 BC--300 years before "crucifixion" was a method of Roman execution.

Now... it must be noted, that I have referenced only three passages. A more extensive list of prophetic Scripture was provided at the mark of this thread--even that list is incomplete. Hundreds of prophecies deal with the coming Messiah, and all can be understood in light of Scriptural context and history; we can debate this claim; but you must, at minimum, understand my perspective. To make the statement, "It never said Jesus or crucifixion," is utterly shortsighted--some may postulate "arrogant" or "unfair."

When dealing with historical matters, the student (or historian) is forced to make assumptions based on circumstantial evidence (or probabilities). What is most plausible? And in my view, to dismiss my post by stating, "It never said Jesus or crucifixion," is weak; it ignores history and the integrity of Scripture. If you lack the capacity to bring forth a more compelling argument--once with persuasive authority--I think it is best that you and I put this discussion to rest. I do appreciate the discussion, nonetheless.

Originally posted by ushomefree
The fact that you view the Bible as false is irrelevant; but "why" you view the Bible as false is relevant. You need to validate how you came to such conclusions, please.



I would gladly tell you why I don't beleive in the Bible, if you will first tell me why you do beleive in the Bible.


And please don't give me the simple half ass response "Because it's the word of God". Tell me why you beleive it, or how you know it's truly the one and only word of God ?

If you say that it's the word of God, because that's what it claims to be, I will simply laugh at you.

SpearofDestiny-

For a Christian to state, "Because it's the Word of God," in answering questions presented by the skeptic is shameful, in my view; there is nothing more annoying than professing faith (and not knowing why). I agree with you; such statements are not necessary, since the reasons for faith are numerous. Professing Christians should be educated enough (on their own faith) to give an account to help others, especically in teaching the Gospel. Speaking for myself, I give credence to the Bible in response to prophecy; I have other reasons, but prophecy weighs most heavily. The post I provided for Shakyamunison touches lightly on the subject. Did you read it? For you to demand an explanation as to why I believe the Bible to be "the Word of God," seems unecessary. I made an effort to present a basic view of prophecy concerning a few passages--of course to help validate Biblical prophecy. If you so choose, read it carefully. I have been on this forum (and thread) practically all day, and I am calling it quits for the night. I should be on the forum tomorrow; if you have any questions (or comments) to voice, I will make an effort to respond. Otherwise, take care.

Shakyamunison-

What an intellectual giant you are; C. S. Lewis... watch out! Having spent a large amount of time working to present my views in an open, organized fashion, I really feel cheated by your response; you haven't presented anything but nonsense, and you are 40+ years old. I am flabbergasted.

Please read my critique over your opening paragraph.



If what you stated is true, how are you able to reach conclusions about an "entity" that is "beyond the understanding of all humans"? Please elaborate.



If the Cosmos in which you and I occupy are governed by objectivity, how can all the world religions be "equally" right (and wrong)? Please elaborate.



Please elaborate.



I agree; and Sylvia Browne knows this all too well also.



I agree; but why does man inherently have a drive towards something greater than themselves do you think?



What evidence has lead you to make such conclusions? You stated prior, "I believe the universe and beyond to be one living entity. This entity is beyond the understanding of all humans."

How is it that you are able to conclude that we are a part of God, while the "entity" is "beyond the understanding of all humans"? Again, please elaborate.

Now... on a lighter note, how was dinner?