--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rodahi:
prove it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tall: The point I'm making is that we can't prove it or disprove it. You believe he didn't see something after his death. Prove it.

I don't have to prove anything about dead people. They are dead. Your comments are absurd.

tall: This isn't something that can be argued either way so don't attempt to be able to.

Yes, it can. Dead people don't see anything.

tall: My Christian beliefs are influenced by the entire Bible. When the Bible talks about eternity in a "spiritual realm" and Christ sitting at the right hand of God in other parts of the New Testament that can be applied to the rest of life.

What is the "spiritual realm." Define it please.

tall: We can't see what happens outside of the earthly realm except for what we see in the Bible regarding it.

Why believe the JC Bible?

tall: This is where the prophecy is fulfilled and the promises are fulfilled that you are still waiting for here in the earthly realm. Read the book of Revelation to get a better idea of this.

I have read the Apolcalypse. The writer speaks of things that were to happen during his lifetime. They didn't. Failed prophecy.

tall: If you insist on taking one verse at a time out of the context/understanding of the Bible you are going to end up with a lot of questions and arguments.

You have read the entire Bible and understand all of it? Or, has someone told you what it says and you believe it.

tall: Before you should spend pointless hours scrutinizing tiny portions of a book of the Bible, read the whole thing.

I have read the WHOLE thing. It was reading the whole thing that made me a non-Christian.

tall: Know what it is you are studying before you begin to take it apart. The prophecies regarding the Messiah you say weren't fulfilled can easily be explained by looking at them with a spiritual realm in the picture.

You don't know the meaning of "spiritual realm." You only think you do.

tall: If you still have questions after that, then I will try to explain more for you.

Why would I want a person who believes in absurdities to explain anything to me?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is your lack of belief in Zeus based on "faith," "doubt," or available evidence?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tall: Answer: evidence, common sense

I don't believe in Yahweh for precisely the same reasons: evidence, common sense.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. Why have "faith" to start with?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tall: Why do you have faith in historical records?

You didn't answer the question. Will you ever?

tall: You weren't there, you can't prove who recorded them was there, you can't prove the events happened.

I don't claim to KNOW anything in the JC Bible happened in history. Further, I don't need to prove the events happened. You do.

tall: Faith is necessary to fill in where evidence leaves out or is unavailable.

Why do you have "faith?"

rodahi

It is necessary to fill in where evidence leaves out or is unavailable.
Michael, I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this. What does this prove? If there was a prophecy about the Messiah in the OT that doesn't seem to fit Jesus, then you are on to something. To take an event in Jesus' life and go back to look for the prophecy is pointless. You have this process backwards.

Here is a verse I found that is a prophecy to the resurrection of the Messiah:

Isaiah 53:8, 11 [8] By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [11] After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 700 B.C.

Matthew 28:2, 5-7, 9 [2] There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. [5] The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. [6] He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. [7] Then go quickly and tell his disciples: `He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you." [9] Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.



[This message has been edited by tallskinnyguy (edited June 13, 2001).]

Thanks for the response, TSG.

Michael wrote:

• [b]Now, to head the discussion back to prophecy, I'd still like you to show me where in the OT is prophecies that the messiah is to die and rise after three days.

Michael, I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this. What does this prove?

TSG, YOU claimed that there was an OT prophecy regarding the crucifixion. You wrote:

Prophecies were made regarding the liniage of the Messiah, how he would be executed by crucifixion (prophecy made before crucifixions were even invented)

So I am asking where this prophecy is, with reference to the NT statement that Jesus would die and rise in three days in accordance with the scriptures, but there is no such prophecy. We'll look at this verse you provided in a moment.

If there was a prophecy about the Messiah in the OT that doesn't seem to fit Jesus, then you are on to something. To take an event in Jesus' life and go back to look for the prophecy is pointless. You have this process backwards.

I found many prophecies in the OT that don't fit Jesus. I listed some above, because I was too lazy to run down so many Bible verses. It only takes a couple to totally disprove the idea that Jesus was the messiah. In any case, he was and is not recognized as the messiah by the jews. Do you think the jews are in error about their own scriptures?

Here is a verse I found that is a prophecy to the resurrection of the Messiah:

Isaiah 53:8, 11 [8] By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [11] After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 700 B.C.

First, some OT history. The "Suffering Servant" passage belongs to second Isaiah, written about 550-520, not 700, and refers to the tribulations of the Jews under Babylonian rule. At least six times in the passage the writer identifies the Suffering Servant as "israel" or "the house of Jacob." Since the text clearly indicates the meaning of the phrase.............

As any objective reader can see from this passage, there is no clear reference to death, let alone execution or crucifixion anywhere in this passage. It could apply to anyone who suffered under tyranny and then recovered some measure of peace and happiness.

In most circles of jews and gentiles, it is read as a messianic text. However, many jews interpret it as a prophecy of the Holocaust. The nice thing about prophecy is that it can be made to fit anything.

Obviously Jesus would not fit this. He did not bear any iniquities, but was killed for political crimes. Worse, a variant reading, given in the NIV in a footnote, reads:

Yet who of his generation considered that he was cut off from the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the blow was due?

Jesus was not executed for any transgression of the Jews.

There is no prophecy of Jesus here. Sorry.

Finally, the whole passage is clearly in the past tense. It refers to events of the writer's time, the period after about 539 BC.

Oh, some more messiah prophecies unfulfilled by Jesus:

• 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, and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for Him as one grieves for a firstborn son (Zech. 12:10).

There is no record of the inhabitants of jerusalem mourning Jesus death, indeed, they did not even notice it.

• ... and He will bring justice to the nations (Isa. 42:1).

Was or Is there justice among the nations? Nope.

• "Kings will see You and rise up, princes will see and bow down, because of the LORD, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen You" (Isa. 49:5-7).

No Kings and Princes ever bowed down to Jesus.

Michael

Michael, I have some disagreements with what you wrote (I'm sure this is as big of a surprise for you as it is for me when I get the same).
Psalm 22:16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet.

Isaiah 53:5 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.

Zechariah 12:10 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, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.

John 19:33-34; 36-37 [33] But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. [34] Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. [36] These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," [37] and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."

I responded to those in a following post.

The scriptures are for everybody. Yes I do believe that some Jews are in error in their identification of prophecy with Jesus. Paul wrote about this and how he managed to reason with many Jews in the synagogues using 'their own Scripture' to convince them. The Bereans who researched what he was saying found it to be accurate and became enthusiastic regarding his message. Many Jews do believe in Christ.

Do you realize the impossiblity of Jesus fulfilling all the prophecies at random? Many of the prophecies are very clear and specific and are out of the control of some man to try and fit his life to. Your argument of 'many Jews interpret...' doesn't convince me of anything.
Jesus was tried unjustly and was brought forth by the Pharisees over religious issues. He was killed because the crowd wanted him killed and Pilate allowed it.

What is your source for this?

This is clarified in the understanding of Christ's ministry of reconciliation to be completed at the second coming of Christ.
Note my previous argument to your 'failed prophecies' earlier in the post.

Let me know what you come up with regarding these when you get a chance. Thanks Michael.

TSG, none of these represent fulfilled prophecies. Jim Lippard wrote a very nice critique of these alleged Messianic prophecies at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...rophecies.html

I am going to quote him from this article here. He addresses each one of these prophecies that you refer to.

-----------------------------------

Christian apologists are perhaps most impressed by a number of alleged prophecies relating to Jesus' crucifixion. They claim that the Hebrew scriptures contain prophecies that Jesus would be crucified, that his garments would be divided by the casting of lots, that he would be given wine mixed with gall or myrrh, that he would cry out about being forsaken, and that none of his bones would be broken. There are several verses taken to refer to crucifixion: Psalms 22:16, Zechariah 12:10, and Zechariah 13:6 are typical examples. Psalms 22:16 reads, "For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me; they pierced my hands and my feet." This is a psalm of David which gives no indication of being prophetic and which describes the speaker being hunted down and killed rather than being crucified. Gerald Sigal (1981, p. 98) argues that the Hebrew word translated here as "pierced" is "ariy," which means "lion," and so a more accurate translation would be "like a lion [they are gnawing at] my hands and feet." Gleason Archer (1982, p. 37), however, argues that "they pierced" is correct, based on the Septuagint's translation and other considerations.
Zechariah 12:10 says "they will look on me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for him, as one mourns for an only son ...." The gospel of John (19:37) takes this as prophecy fulfilled by Jesus' crucifixion, but there is no indication that this speaks of crucifixion. Further, the "him" being mourned for is not the "me" that is being pierced. The Jewish interpretation of this verse is that God is speaking of the people of Israel being "pierced" or attacked (Sigal 1981, pp. 80-82).

Zechariah 13:6 speaks of "these wounds between your arms," spoken of one who claims not to be a prophet and to have been sold as a slave in his youth (Zechariah 13:5). Wounds between one's arms are not characteristic of crucifixion, and Jesus was neither sold as a slave nor claimed not to be a prophet.

Only the gospel of John speaks of Jesus' garments being divided among the soldiers and their casting of lots for his tunic (John 19:23-24), and he cites Psalms 22:18 as the prophecy which is thereby fulfilled. This latter verse reads, "They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." This verse tells of one event--clothing being divided by the casting of lots. But John transforms it into two events: first the division of Jesus' clothing apart from his tunic (John 19:23) and then casting of lots for his tunic (John 19:24). It appears that John created a story in an attempt to provide a fulfillment for his misunderstanding of a verse which gives no indication of being a prophecy in the first place.

Matthew (27:34) speaks of Jesus being given "wine to drink mingled with gall" and Mark (15:23) says he was offered "wine mixed with myrrh." These are both taken to be references to Psalms 69:21, which says "they gave me gall for my food, and for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink." The Hebrew word here translated as "gall" is "rosh," meaning poison or gall, and referring to some poisonous plant. The verse says that poison is being put into food, which does not apply to the crucifixion. Myrrh, which is not poisonous, is referred to by the Hebrew word "mor," which does not appear in Psalms 69:21. This psalm, which speaks repeatedly of flood waters, gives no indication of being either prophetic or of applying to Jesus.

The gospels of Matthew (27:46) and Mark (15:34) give Jesus' last words as "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," a quotation of Psalms 22:1. Luke (23:46) gives "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit" as Jesus' final words, while John (19:30) has Jesus say "It is finished." Only the first of these is claimed to be fulfillment of prophecy, yet it is hardly miraculous that Jesus would make such a statement. Presumably Jesus was familiar with the Hebrew scriptures. Such a remark, however, is inconsistent with Christian theology. Why would Jesus, supposed to be God incarnate, speak of being forsaken by himself at all, let alone at the culmination of his plan for human salvation? It is also not apparent that Psalms 22 is either prophetic or applicable to Jesus (see Sigal 1981, pp. 95-99).

A final prophecy I wish to examine relating to the crucifixion is that Jesus' bones would not be broken. It is only the gospel of John (19:32-36) which tells of soldiers breaking the legs of the crucifixion victims to hasten their deaths, yet sparing Jesus because he was already dead. John 19:36 cites Psalms 34:20, "He keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken," as the prophecy which is thereby fulfilled. There is no indication that Psalms 34 is intended as prophetic, nor that it applies to Jesus. The intent in the gospel of John is to represent Jesus as a sacrifice, specifically corresponding to the paschal lamb (e.g., John 1:29, 36). A requirement of the paschal lamb is that none of its bones be broken (Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12). But this analogy fails for several reasons: the paschal lamb was not for the atonement of sin, and Jewish sacrifices were required to be completely without blemish, sore, or injury (Leviticus 22:20-25) while Jesus was scourged and mutilated (John 19:1; Sigal 1981, pp. 265-268).

------------------------------------


TSG, you must also realize that the doctrine of human free will is completely incompatible with prophecies. The very nature of a prophecy implies that human action is predetermined. If human action is predetermined, this means that there is no such thing as free will. You can't have both free will and prophecies. You either must believe that free will exists and prophecies don't, or that prophecies exist and free will does not. Either way, this represents a problem. If free will exists and prophecies do not, then this obviously means that all of these alleged prophecies are false (which they are anyway). If prophecies exist and free will does not, then this means that some humans are predetermined to go to Hell and others aren't. And this means that your God is even worse than we thought, because some humans are born just to go to Hell. Your God is bad enough to have a place of eternal punishment for finite sins and to punish people just because some guy named Adam supposedly screwed up.

I'll leave you with another final quote by Jim Lippard:

"...the purported prophecies appear to be the result of deliberate attempts by the gospel writers and Christian apologists to find post hoc similarities between events described in the New Testament and the Hebrew scriptures. Messianic prophecies, contrary to apologists, do not provide evidence for Christian faith."


[This message has been edited by JamesKrieger (edited June 14, 2001).]

Regarding Isaiah 53, Jesus suffered for several hours whereas the Jews have suffered for centuries. My family happens to be Jewish. The way in which the Christians have usurped the Jewish Scriptures and reinterpreted them to refer to Christian triumphs, mutilating another culture's collection of myths and wisdom, leaving the Jews, in the eyes of the multitude of Christians, without any Scriptural backing of their own and thus without any recognized traditional defense against their frequent mistreatment over the centuries at the hands of the Christians themselves is not only anti-Jewish but the cornerstone of anti-Jewishness, which makes modern anti-Semitism possible. Christians have pulled the rug out from under Judaism, the Jews' very own holy text, depriving them in the Christians' view of their own heritage, their cultural dignity, leaving the Jews vulnerable to attack without the Christians' sympathy. For have the Jews not for centuries humiliated Christians, rejecting what Christianity has always called the Jewish Messiah? Did not the Jews kill Christ in the first place? Do they therefore not deserve to suffer? The Christian theft of Judaism is perhaps the most nauseating of Christian crimes.

Not that Christians could ever have made much of their bounty. The Jewish prophecies are thoroughly ambiguous, leaving no room for warranted belief in any miraculous, uncanny fulfillment of them. The notion of miraculous fulfillment of an ambiguous prophecy is a contradiction in terms. But the Jewish holy texts were written by Jews for Jews. Given the probably unparalleled hardships faced by the Jews over the centuries, a sense of minimal decency let alone Christian charity should prohibit adding insult to injury by so violent a reinterpretation of the Jewish Scriptures as Christians regularly flaunt.

There is a fresh outrage perpetrated upon the Jews called "Jews for Jesus." Just type into your search engine "Judaism" and "messiah," and you will find hardly any Jewish sites but a host of Christian sites masquerading as Jewish ones, intent on converting Jews through deception and misinformation. Christianity has already disgraced itself by being 2000 years too old whereas Jesus said that he would return for his third and final time very soon, within the lifetime of his earliest followers. (Jesus already got his Second shot when he was resurrected.) Having plunged ahead anyway, mostly for material gain using the corpse of the Roman empire, Christian leaders have been for many centuries utterly without shame, having had nothing left to lose, and were until recently the most dangerous threat to democracy, human rights, and freedom of thought. Hard-core materialists have in modern times taken up the cause of world domination and beaten the daylights out of Christianity by systematically and successfully redefining the world in scientific, natural (atheistic) terms, slashing for themselves a Church-State separation. Science has hardly created the promised utopia, but at least science has yielded the by-product of enhanced material comfort with its ruthless drive to power. Most Christians were content to writhe in the squalor of poverty with a pitiful hope for a bountiful life after death.

James,
I don't see how you can pass off all the prophecies because of something this guy wrote. I can just as easily copy and paste one of hundreds of apologetic rebuttles to this. I want to know what you personally have researched and found to be true, or at least your extended thoughts based on what this guy says. I disagree with his interpretations, and I can honestly say I believe they are lies. Why do you think there is so much controversy over the Christian religion throughout the world for the past 2000 years? I can take guesses as to why I think this, but obviously my response to the question is going to be greatly in favor of Christianity. Why do you as and atheist think this has happened and is happening? Why not with other religions? How/why did Christianity grow so big? I don't have an exact answer for this. Please let me know what the atheist view or just your personal view is.

Earl,
I'm sorry you feel this way. Is there anything you want me to respond to?

You never did say why you have faith. Since you have admitted that faith isn't evidence, why believe?

rodahi

Tallskinnyguy,

While you're "sorry I feel this way," I'm sorry what Christianity has done to the Jews. I'm also appalled. The Pope has recently apologized for the overt crimes, but not of course for the Christian's systematic abuse of another religion's holy texts. Without that shameless practice Christianity wouldn't have a leg to stand on, namely Judaism. Were the Christian to grant the obvious, that at best the Jewish Messianic prophecies are ambiguous so that the rejection of the Christian interpretation is rational and inculpable, there would be open-mindedness and toleration. But alas, Christians were scarred by the early twofold disaster of the Jews' rejection of Jesus as a false Messiah and the indefinite delay of Jesus' Third Coming. So for a long time now Christians have had nothing to lose, having already charged ahead in spite of embarrassments that would have sent less hearty fellows crying to their mothers. For centuries the Christians' technique has been to go for broke, throw caution to the wind, wrap themselves in a cloak of self-righteousness and warn their opponents that Jesus is self-evidently the Jewish Messiah as prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures.

For example, tallskinnyguy said in his first post in this thread regarding Daniel 9 (my emphasis), "While listening to the lecture and taking notes I was amazed at all the detail that came along with INTERPRETING the prophecy. It is clear that many scholars have poured time into analyzing the prophecy and the person it CLEARLY points to as the Messiah is Jesus Christ. There is none other that even come close. It is always amazing to me to see how much evidence God has given to us regarding the truth of the Scriptures and the fact that Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God."

Notice the contradiction. If a text requires "interpretation" the text cannot possibly be "clear." Anything that requires interpretation is automatically ambiguous. Scholars agree that Daniel's fourth vision is particularly obscure. All by itself the obscurity of the passage warrants justified doubt as to the Christian's claim that Daniel 9 "clearly" refers to Jesus. Daniel 9 doesn't "clearly" refer to anything!

But of course there is a better interpretation of Daniel 9 than the Christian one. Most scholars agree in fact that the 62 week period ended at 163 BCE, which is right around when Daniel was written. The second Messiah mentioned (the one appearing at the end of the second of the three periods of weeks) is, as Rodahi already pointed out in this thread, widely taken to be Onias III, the last High Priest of the Levitical line who was "cut off," or assassinated, by Antiochus IV when he came to power (2 Maccabees 4). And the "prince who will come" (Dan.9:26) was Antiochus, whose deeds against the Jews leading up to the Maccabean revolt are recorded in the Maccabees books and in Josephus. Many Jews died rather than apostatize. The Maccabees fought back and won, retaking the Temple. The Jewish festival of Hanukkah celebrates that victory.

The city and Temple were desecrated under Antiochus after his first Egyptian campaign (Dan.9:26-27). See 1 Maccabees 1:20-21, "And after that Antiochus had smitten Egypt, he returned again in the hundred forty and third year, and went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great multitude, And entered proudly into the sanctuary, and took away the golden altar, and the candlestick of light, and all the vessels thereof."

The broken treaty (Dan.9:27) and the destruction of the city and the Temple (Dan.9:26) were the handiwork of Antiochus who deceived Jerusalem. See I Maccabees 1:29, "And after two years fully expired the king sent his chief collector of tribute unto the cities of Juda, who came unto Jerusalem with a great multitude, And spake peaceable words unto them, but all was deceit: for when they had given him credence, he fell suddenly upon the city, and smote it very sore, and destroyed much people of Israel." See also Josephus, Antiquities XII, 5.4, "…the king came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery...and in order to plunder its wealth, he ventured to break the league he had made..."

Note that the context in Daniel shows that the Temple wasn't to be completely destroyed as it would be by Rome in 70 CE. See Dan.8:11, "Even against the prince of the host it acted arrogantly; it took the regular burnt offering away from him and overthrew the place of his sanctuary," and 11:31, "Forces sent by him shall occupy and profane the temple and fortress." See also Josephus' War of the Jews, 1.1.1-2, "The king [Antiochus] being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. But Onias, the high priest, fled to Ptolemy, and received a place from him in the Nomus of Heliopolis, where he built a city resembling Jerusalem, and a temple that was like its temple (1) concerning which we shall speak more in its proper place hereafter.

"Now Antiochus was not satisfied either with his unexpected taking the city, or with its pillage, or with the great slaughter he had made there; but being overcome with his violent passions, and remembering what he had suffered during the siege, he compelled the Jews to dissolve the laws of their country, and to keep their infants uncircumcised, and to sacrifice swine's flesh upon the altar; against which they all opposed themselves, and the most approved among them were put to death. Bacchides also, who was sent to keep the fortresses, having these wicked commands, joined to his own natural barbarity, indulged all sorts of the extremest wickedness, and tormented the worthiest of the inhabitants, man by man, and threatened their city every day with open destruction, till at length he provoked the poor sufferers by the extremity of his wicked doings to avenge themselves."

The ban on sacrifice and offerings (Dan.9:27) is recounted in Josephus, as quoted above, and in I Maccabees 1:44, "For the king had sent letters by messengers unto Jerusalem and the cities of Judah that they should follow the strange laws of the land, And forbid burnt offerings, and sacrifice, and drink offerings, in the temple; and that they should profane the sabbaths and festival days..."

The "abomination that desecrates" (Dan.9:27; 11:31) refers to Antiochus' setting up of a statue of Zeus in the Temple. See I Maccabees 1:54, "Now the fifteenth day of the month Casleu, in the hundred forty and fifth year, they set up the abomination of desolation upon the altar, and builded idol altars throughout the cities of Juda on every side..." See also Josephus, Antiquities Book XII 5.4, "And when the king had built an idol altar upon God's altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country."

The "strong covenant" made for a week (Dan.9:27) refers to the alliance made by Antiochus and the Jews who supported his Hellenization policies. These Jews who converted under pressure to paganism are mentioned in 1 Maccabees 1:43, "Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath."

This is also recorded in Josephus' Antiquities, XII, 5.4, "And indeed many Jews there were who complied with the king's commands, either voluntarily, or out of fear of the penalty that was denounced." Josephus goes on to describe the torments the non-compliant Jews went through, which included crucifixion and near genocide: "But the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened to the disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still alive, and breathed. They also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed, and those with whom they were found miserably perished also."

The "war" that comes to an end with a "flood" (Dan.9:26) refers to the overwhelming of Antiochus' army by the Maccabees.

See http://www.danielprophecy.com/chap10.html and http://www.primenet.com/~heuvelc/bib...ent/daniel.htm from which I've taken the above information. The author of the second page notes two serious problems with the Christian interpretation (I correct two typos from the author who mentions 38 and 33 "BCE" instead of "CE"): "The futurist interpretation of this passage is, of course, quite different. The KJV phrase '...unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks...' (9:25) invites an attempt to turn this into a prophecy of Jesus. Ignoring the grouping of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, futurists interpret this phrase to mean that the Messiah will come sixty-nine weeks (483 years) after the "commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem". As we have already seen, the decree of Cyrus is far too early to apply to Jesus, since it lands us at about 55 BCE. So, an alternative decree must be sought.

"The second chapter of Nehemiah records an incident in which Nehemiah asked permission from Artaxerxes to return to Jerusalem to assist with the rebuilding project. The king assented, and gave Nehemiah letters of safe conduct to Judea, as well as orders for his foresters to donate timber to the project. Despite the fact that this passage does not technically record a decree, and that the restoration of Jerusalem was already underway when Nehemiah arrived, this incident is chosen as the starting point of Daniel's seventy weeks by futurists, because it occurred in 444 BCE. This then takes the end of the sixty-nine weeks to about 38 CE. While this is closer to the time of Christ, it is still a few years too late. In order to rectify this problem, futurists note that the Jews used a lunar year of twelve months of thirty days. Using a year of 360 days then puts the end of the sixty-nine weeks at about 33 CE, exactly, so the story goes, at the point that Jesus was crucified. The problem with the latter is that the Jews knew that their lunar year eventually got out of sync with the solar year. In order to rectify this situation, they inserted an extra month of thirty days every two or three years. This means that, on average, the Jewish year was about 365 days long.

"Another problem with the futurist interpretation soon becomes apparent. If the sixty-nine weeks ended with the crucifixion of Jesus, that means that the seventieth week must have ended about 40 CE. However, no person fitting the description of Daniel's prince appeared on the scene at that point. In order to circumvent this problem, futurists insert a gap of indeterminate duration between the sixty-ninth and seventieth weeks. The seventieth week, so the story goes, will begin when the "times of the gentiles" (Luke 21:4) are completed. So far, this gap has lasted two thousand years, with no end in sight."



[This message has been edited by Earl (edited June 14, 2001).]

I am not passing off all prophecies because of just what this person wrote. I posted his arguments because they directly addressed the specific prophecies you referred to. I could have rewritten his arguments in my own words, but that would be plagiarism.


Then please do so. Show me why these arguments are wrong.


I did offer my extended thoughts by stating the contradiction between prophecies and free will, and you failed to address this logical problem.


Why do you believe they are lies? Please offer evidence to support this assertion.



First, I am not an atheist, but freethinker/agnostic and a former Christian, but that is minor detail and not relevant.

Second, Christianity is not as big as you think. According to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html, only 1/3 of the people in the world are Christian at 2 billion people (and Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are included in this category). Islam is not far behind at 1.3 billion, and secular/atheists/agostics are at a respectable fourth at 850 million.

Third, Christianity is actually shrinking, not growing, according to the data at http://www.religioustolerance.org/worldrel.htm In reality, Islam is the religion that is growing, increasing at a rate faster than the rate of population increase in the world.

Fourth, there are probably numerous reasons why Christianity has been controversial, so any reasons I might offer are purely speculative and there most likely is not just one reason.

1. Christians, at least in the U.S., proselytize heavily, to the point where it is annoying. These intense recruitment efforts have contributed to its growth over 2000 years, as well as its controversy. Some Christians (not all, but some that are close to me...my roommate and one of my closest friends are one) I know are quite arrogant about their religion as well, which will stir the pot up.

2. Christians are known for forcing their ideas on others. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the numerous attempt to convert native Americans to Christianity via missions, etc.

3. There are many negative things that have been done in the name of Christianity...the suppression of science during the Dark Ages, the Salem Witch trials, abortion bombings by extreme pro-life advocates, homophobia, anti-semitism, slavery, delegation of women to second-class citzenship, etc. The Bible can be held responsible for all of these things, although many Christians turn a blind eye to the negative aspects of the Bible and try to whitewash Christianity of these negative influences.

4. It is usually the Christians who are trying to sneak their religious values into government affairs. Government sponsorship of prayer in school is a perfect example, and Bush's recent charitable choice proposal is another one.

I doubt Christianity's controversy has anything to do with anything positive.

[This message has been edited by JamesKrieger (edited June 15, 2001).]