arnoldo

Obviously you can revise historical fact to whatever suits your argument. Your position is Abraham, Moses and Daniel is a myth, right? Your position is also that bascially all Jewish prophecy is false and written after the fact, right? Why would the Jewish record, then fail to revise, the false promises of what God told Abraham when it obviously didn't come true according to revisionist history. Your choices are:
A. The Jews are stupid
B. I don't understand prophecy
C. God is a myth so it doesn't matter anyway.

arnoldo

I just read this post, I agree to only discuss that Israel is Proof of God's existence.

arnoldo

Can you give any examples of bona fide self fulfilled prophecy from the ancient greek religion or any other religion for that matter?

arnoldo

Yes it's very convenient to be able to revise history to win any argument you have. Do you think John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate,etc,etc, is a myth also?

Jack the Bodiless

Nope, that's what Christian apologists do.

History tells us that there was no such census.

Interestingly, history also tells us that Matthew's Jesus (born in the reign of Herod) was born at least a decade before Luke's Jesus (born during the governorship of Quirinius).

makerowner

I'm not outraged by it, I'm just pointing out the obvious flaws in the story. No one, AKAIK, claims that the Greek gods are the arbiters of morality and that we should live our lives following their example. Many people do so for the Christian god, so I'm questioning the morality of that example. Do you think killing infants is moral? Yes or no answer please.

arnoldo

Yes, I suppose that both John the Baptist and Yeshua were false prophets and that is the reason they were executed. Or were they both myths?

arnoldo

Yeah, monotheism is so intolerant.

Johnny Skeptic

Are you saying the skeptics have revised history by asking Christians to provide reasonable proof that Adam and Eve existed? My word, are you not aware that many skeptics, and many Jews, believe that Jesus, John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate, Nebuchadnezzar, Paul, and many other Bible characters, were real people? The main issue is not whether or not those people lived, but what they did. Everyone agrees that Alexander the Great was a real person, but almost everyone rejects the claim that he cut the Gordian Knot.

For purposes of this thread, the issue is not whether or not Jews exist, and whether or not they occupy parts of Palestine. The issue is WHY they occupy parts of Palestine.

Oh really? What evidence do you have that deism is false? What evidence do you have that all prophecies in all other religious books are false? Please be advised that skeptics are merely replying to PRIOR assertions that are in the Bible. The Bible came first, not objections from skeptics.

Regard "pesky 'burden of proof,'" in fact, Genesis 17:8 has proven to be quite pesky for you. For a fulfillment of prophecy it requires that Jews occupy ALL of the ancient land of Canaan. Today, Jews do not occupy anywhere near ALL of the land of ancient Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if the Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, that would be a fulfillment of prophecy. Jews cannot possibly have restored a nation that even you admitted they never had since you said that they have never occupied all of the land of Canaan. Now how in the world do you know that Jews have never occupied all of the land of Canaan? Well, er, uh.......

The partition of Palestine is a bona fide example of a self-fulfilled Bible prophecy. If Jewish and Palestinian history had been reversed, and Palestinians had been persecuted by Hitler and other parties instead of Jews, there is no way that the U.N. would have granted Palestinians control of Jerusalem and a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like the Jews got. Logically, if the Partition of Palestine was not a self-fulfilled prophecy, under my hypothetical scenario, the U.N. would have granted the Palestinians control of Jerusalem and a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like the Jews got, but as you know, under that scenario, such would definition not have been the case, and that is most certainly because of the Bible. Of the 33 governments that voted in favor of the partition, 32 are predominantly Christian. The only non-Christian government that voted for the partition was Russia. At that time, Russia was joyfully getting lots of aid from the U.S. for rebuilding purposes, and was certainly not interested in contesting the wishes of the U.S. and 31 other countries. Any yet you would have people believe that the Bible does not have anything to do with the Partition of Palestine, and that no other religious books have anything to do with how people act.

Yes, how about you? If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and were raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in was predominantly Buddhist, what would the odds have been that you would have heard about the God of the Bible? The correct answer is "zero." Today, what are the odds that a devout, Southern Bible Belt, fundamentalist Christian couple's son will become a fundamentalist Christian as compared with the odds of a son who is raised by Muslim parents in a remote region of Afghanistan becoming a fundamentalist Christian?

If the God of the Bible does not exist, what are the odds that a much lower percentage of elderly skeptics would become Christians than younger skeptics, and that a much larger percentage of younger skeptics would become Christians than elderly skeptics, and that a much smaller percentage of elderly Christians would become skeptics than younger Christians, and that a much larger percentage of younger Christians would become skeptics, all of which are the case today? The correct answer is 100% because it is well-known that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explain why humans have to do what God ought to be doing much of himself. Why would God frequently mimic the way that things would be if he did not exist, thereby needlessly causing doubt and confusion? No loving God would go out of his way to mimic the way that things would be if he did not exist. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the Gospel message was distributed entirely by humans. If God does exist, he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT they hear the Gospel message, and with mimicking the way that the Gospel message would be spread if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

We have a similar case regarding the distribution of food. James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person that his faith is dead, but God has refused to give food to millions of people who died of starvation. If God does not exist, that explains why all distribution of food is done by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

Please answer this question: WHY DID GOD INSPIRE JAMES TO WRITE THAT IF A MAN REFUSES TO GIVE FOOD TO HUNGRY PEOPLE, HE IS VAIN, AND HIS FAITH IS DEAD?

If a loving God exists, there is no way that it could be predicted that every year, the percentage of women in the U.S. who are Christians would be a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians, and that the percentage of elderly skeptics who become Christians would be much smaller than the percentage of younger skeptics who become Christians, and that the percentage of elderly Christians who become skeptics would be much lower than the percentage of younger Christians who become skeptics. If a loving God exists, the odds against those things being the way that they are are astronomical. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the primary factors that determine why people believe what they believe are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period.

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if he does not exist.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: If the Jews did not occupy Jerusalem, but occupied 70% of Palestine, would you call that a fulfilled Bible prophecy? If the Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, would you call that a fulfilled prophecy? If not, why not?

Why do you believe that the Jews will not be kicked out of Palestine again? After all, the Philistines, Nebuchadnezzar, the Egyptians, and the Romans persecuted and killed many Jews of many occasions.

In the early part of the 2nd century, Trajan went to Palestine and killed 500,000 Jews. Why didn't God protect the Jews?

What exactly has God protected Jews from for thousands of years, possibly from hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamies, plagues, droughts, and famines? It would not make any sense for God to protect the Jews from other humans and refuse to protect them from hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamies, plagues, droughts, and famines, but if the God of the Bible does not exist, then that explains this situation.

If Jews were able to occupy all of the ancient land of Canaan, is it your position that God would stop killing them with hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamies, plagues, droughts, and famines? If not, then God could not possibly care about the safety, health, and well-being of Jews. If God's only intention is proving that he is powerful, he certainly does not have to partition Palestine in order to do that. There would be much better ways for God to accomplish that, such as creating a new planet.