Keith&Co.

Well, the Christ was supposed to fulfill the prophecies that would identify the Messiah. So it SHOULD be an argument from prophecy, because the christains can show that Jesus was named Immanuel. Or that he was a King leading a great Army that kicked the invaders out of Israel.

And that after Jesus showed up, all war ended. All nations turned to Israel for leadership. No one builds weapons any more.

We can see that... Oh. You're right. Christains don't have an argument from prophecy.

Never mind.

Johnny Skeptic

Please start a new thread regarding one Old Testament prophecy that Jesus fulfilled.

Decypher

Good point.

If the gospels were really from God, then they could easily contain good quality prophecy predicting events for hundreds of years to come. But the gospels don't have it. The best prophecy they have, as far as I know, is a fairly clear prediction attributed to Jesus that the temple and Jerusalem would be destroyed. If the gospels can only give short-term prophecy, when it isn't clear exactly when they were written, then that looks very suspect. It is even more suspect when you consider how dodgy NT prophecy claims generally are. And for that reason, I think the prediction is legitimate evidence that the gospels were written after 70 CE. Christians will try to say that it is "anti-supernatural bias" to reason in such a way, and I agree that you could be begging the question against the Christian here. But NT prophecy claims look so suspect, that I think your entitled to say that after investigation it doesn't look like the NT contains real supernatural prophecy, and so therefore the prophecy about the destruction of the temple can be taken as evidence that the gospels were written after the event.

Decypher

Christianity claims far more than that a real person existed. If there was a historical Jesus, so what? You say that Jesus was "Christ". That isn't the case simply because Jesus was a historical person.

Decypher

I don't agree. See my post above. If the gospels were really from God, you could easily have good quality long-term prophecy in them. The skeptic wouldn't be able to say that the prophecy could be, "written after the event". The skeptic would have to accept the prophecy fulfillment. But the Bible isn't that good.

Doug Shaver

I think both positions are wrong. I think the burden of proof in any particular context lies on whoever is claiming that "X is true," no matter what X is.

If a Christian tells me that Jesus rose from the dead, then I am right to ask for proof. But if I go into a Christian forum and affirm that Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the shoe is on the other foot.

As a general principle, nobody, but nobody, on being told something that they are inclined to doubt, is obliged to assume that it's true until they can prove it false.

chrisengland

Thankyou Doug for sticking to the thread.
This thread is about the burden of proof' please stick to it people!!

Keith&Co.

Well, generally, it's the more outrageous claim that needs to prove itself.

It's well within the realm of human experience to cheat. Plenty of people cheat all the time, or say 'i told you so' and lie about what they actually said way back when. Or even convince themselves that they were right, no matter what the fact of the matter may be. It's not outrageous (as in, no supernatural entity need be invoked) to explain a prophecy as being written and postdated after the fact. Or false tales be created to fulfill a prophecy.

If the prophecy and the fulfillment are both in the past, it's more than possible that the order of their creation is not the same as current claims. To be of any use as a fulfilled prophecy, the burden of proof is on the claim that the prophecy was accurately expressed any time before the event, and that the event actually happened. If proven, then it would be a powerful aid to any ideas based on prophecy being possibe and historical.

Newfie

Since theists are interested in faith, not proof … well, you know!

If you’ve been married for any period of time then you know how the “I had a feeling that we shouldn’t have done that” prophecy works. My understanding of Biblical prophecy is that they were never meant to be predictions of future events, but as interpretations of past events. Specifically, they answer why Israel ( or a king ) suffered terrible setbacks. The answer, ultimately, involves a lack of obedience to God. Thus prophecies serve to illustrate just what happens when the people (or kings) lack faith.

In Pat’s case he is vindicated no matter what he predicts. His audience expects the kinds of events he predicts as indicators of the end times. By their not coming true his audience is actually disappointed. The question then becomes: Why has the prophecy not occurred? His overwhelming theme is that the end times (and by implication his predictions ) would occur if not for everything that is an obstacle. You know: Homosexuals, liberals, atheists, feminists, … Now if his predictions were actually accurate then they would help get his message across and I suspect that he would be making his money in Vegas.

DaMan121

Disagree - all history books are written after the fact, but NOT all are accurate. Propaganda and bias are not recent phenomenon. You are living proof that no matter what did actually occur, there are people that will always believe.