Biblical Prophecy Fulfilled

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

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
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.

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.

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.

You are coming to an incorrect conclusion. I’m trying to tell you why I know the bible is false.

I don’t believe in magic, supernatural, spirits or ghosts. I believe in the physical world. I believe the universe and beyond to be one living entity. This entity is beyond the understanding of all humans. Every religion is equally right and equally wrong. The idea of prophecy is inherently wrong, because humans had something to do with it. We succumb to delusion all to easily, and we are brilliant at making things seem larger then life. We have a basic need to reach beyond these limits, the belief in magic and the supernatural is compelling and fulfilling. However, it is only us, but we are part of God.

Originally posted by ushomefree
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.

Past history:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=425489&pagenumber=1
For example

Originally posted by ushomefree
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).

I don’t care about the article, I just didn't’t think you would understand me if I came out and said “It’s postdiction”.

Originally posted by ushomefree
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.

So, if the article had included the bible as one of it’s subject matters, would you have then believed that the bible is a product of postdiction?

Originally posted by ushomefree
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).

You are forgetting option 3. Some other possibility; bones being dijointed, unbroken bones and pierced hands and feet also describes a common sacrifice ritual, and a murder, and freak show, and a bad movie, and…

Originally posted by ushomefree
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.

I was just answering a question; I wasn't’t having a formal debate. 😛

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don’t believe in magic, supernatural, spirits or ghosts. I believe in the physical world. I believe the universe and beyond to be one living entity. This entity is beyond the understanding of all humans.

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Every religion is equally right and equally wrong.

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.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The idea of prophecy is inherently wrong, because humans had something to do with it.

Please elaborate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We succumb to delusion all to easily, and we are brilliant at making things seem larger then life.

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

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
We have a basic need to reach beyond these limits, the belief in magic and the supernatural is compelling and fulfilling.

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

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, it is only us, but we are part of God.

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?

Originally posted by ushomefree
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.

Why should I elaborate when your only goal now is the insult me? 😄

But will try.

Originally posted by ushomefree
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.

You would have to read the Lotus sutra to understand. However, my understanding is simplly a model that I have constructed from my years of study. The universe cannot be described accurately by a model, because there will always arise paradoxes inherent to the models.

Originally posted by ushomefree
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.

Do I need to tell you the story of the Elephant and the blind men?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Please elaborate.

Do you believe that humans are perfect?

Originally posted by ushomefree
I agree; and Sylvia Browne knows this all too well also.

You also know it, and don’t know it.

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

Evolution.

Originally posted by ushomefree
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.

You would have to read the Lotus sutra to understand. Don’t worry, I don’t hold your ignorance against you.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Now... on a lighter note, how was dinner?[/size]

It was chicken is Parmesan sauce with angle hair pasta covered with Alfredo sauce. It was yummy.