Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 01-17-2005, 09:16 AM

From Craig Winn Receives Death Threat From A Muslim Group and Who's your savior? split from: Craig Winn Receives Death Threat From A Muslim Group :

Quote:

Originally Posted by agator

And people have been trying to attack the Bible for years. There isn't anything that would surprise me. Pick out your best shot at the scriptures and let's give it a go. Yahweh has proven divine authorship to the scriptures with some 500 fulfilled prophesies. Other than the imperfect nature of language and a few scribal errors, the Hebrew scriptures are without error. It fascinates me how people turn to attack Christianity when confronted with the problem of Islam. Even if you did find a problem, does Islam win by default?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avatar

Hardly. The most of the "prophecies" were written after the fact, and many more were shoehorned in. There were also a lot of unfulilled prophecies...such as the Mesiah's name being Immanuel, and the prediction that Judgemnent day would happen within the lifetimes of Jesus's contemporaries. Guess what...we're still here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agator

The scriptures are about 20% prophesy. That's about the size of the New Covenant(Testament). Yes, some are yet to be fulfilled. Some prophesies represent near and far fulfillment. So scritinize the few left but ignore the hundreds that have been fulfilled.The only ones left will be fulfilled. Bet on it.

.such as the Mesiah's name being Immanuel,

“The virgin will be with Child and will give birth to a Son, and will call Him Immanuel�? Isa. 7:1–16. “Immanuel�? is a Hebrew construction that means “God with us.�? Actually, it is an unusual construction that makes the point: “WITH US is God!�?
Isaiah would not have understood the full significance of the name. Yet it, as well as other names given the Messiah in this section of Isaiah, made it clear that the promised Child was to be both human and divine. Thus Matthew referred to this prophecy when he described Jesus’ conception not by any human father but by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:23).
The promise was a sign to Ahaz, in that it identified a period of time within which his enemies would no longer threaten him. From conception to birth is nine months; from birth to weaning to solid food was typically two to three years. So Ahaz was told that within three years the kings he feared would no longer be a threat. And the “whole house of Israel�? was invited to watch David’s line for a Virgin Birth, and told that the Child would be the promised Deliverer.
Each of the three great messianic visions in these chapters dates some 700 years before the birth of Christ! The Bible says nothing else about the effects of the Immanuel prophecy in the days of Isaiah and Ahaz. It does announce the great fulfillment in (Matt. 1:22-23). His birth showed all humanity that God is faithful to fulfill His promises in ways far beyond human expectations; for Jesus was not just a sign of God with us. Jesus was God in the flesh, God incarnate, God with us in Person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agator

Imagine, over 500 fulfilled prophesies already and you think this one will just go away, right? Are we not heading right down that path? You have to acknowledge that. What is astonishing to me is that atheist here are making fun of something that they don't know anything about. You probably have never investigated it, and you are making a conclusion based on ignorance. Way to go, professors...

...Yahweh proves to us with prophesies. Since no one hear knows the slighest bit about them, I find it humorous that you feel compelled to open your hole about them. There is no other book that can predict. Yahweh does it over and over, but I guess you need more than a spirit that can maneuver in time as to tell the exact outcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

agator:

We are VERY familiar with the CLAIM that the Bible contains "fulfilled prophecies".

We are also VERY familiar with the fact that no such claims ever stand up when examined.

I strongly doubt that you can provide anything new. I expect to see "prophecies" too vague to be meaningful, or verses ripped out of context (e.g. "prophecies of the reformation of Israel in 1948" that actually refer to the arrival in the Promised Land after the Exodus, or the return from Babylonian captivity), fictional "fulfillments" with no supporting evidence, "prophecies" written AFTER the event (e.g. Book of Daniel), and so on.

You will also ignore all the failed prophecies in the Bible.

Interestingly, the Bible's record on prophecies is so poor that it appears to be worse than we'd expect from chance alone. It appears to be "supernaturally erroneous".

Jack the Bodiless · 01-17-2005, 09:39 AM

Quote:

The promise was a sign to Ahaz, in that it identified a period of time within which his enemies would no longer threaten him. From conception to birth is nine months; from birth to weaning to solid food was typically two to three years. So Ahaz was told that within three years the kings he feared would no longer be a threat. And the “whole house of Israel�? was invited to watch David’s line for a Virgin Birth, and told that the Child would be the promised Deliverer.

The first part is correct, the second is not.

This is a very good example of a "Biblical prophecy", because it fails on so many different levels.

1. Isaiah makes no mention of a "virgin birth".

2. The "prophecy" was for the benefit of King Ahaz, and was "fulfilled" in the following chapter by the birth of Maher-Shahal-Hash-Baz. It was never intended to be a "Messianic prophecy".

3. There is no independent confirmation that Jesus WAS actually "born of a virgin". This is an unconfirmed story.

4. The Bethlehem Nativity is quite obviously a late addition (not mentioned by Paul, Mark or John, for instance) and contradictions between the two accounts fatally damage it.

It's one of numerous examples of the author of Matthew ripping Old Testament verses out of context and writing in a "fulfillment" for Jesus: a fulfillment of a nonexistent prophecy, or one supposedly "fulfilled" centuries earlier by someone else.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-17-2005, 09:45 AM

Posted on the wrong thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by agator

And the return of the Jews to the Promised Land, to “tsiyon (the mountain of Jerusalem, Zion—the permanent capital);�? is linked to Yahshua’s return—the climactic event of the last days. Nice try.
And Daniel was written between 605 BC and about 530 BC. Yahweh revealed the precise day the Messiah would walk into Jerusalem and perform as promised to the prophet Daniel, over 500 years in advance of the event.Wrong again.Anything else?

Daniel was written between 168 and 164 BC.

Edited to add: There is no confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. This traditional date appears to have been derived from Daniel.

Jack the Bodiless · 01-17-2005, 09:51 AM

...I have to sign off now, others can play with this. Back tomorrow.

agator · 01-17-2005, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

Posted on the wrong thread:

Daniel was written between 168 and 164 BC.

Edited to add: There is no confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. This traditional date appears to have been derived from Daniel.

<insult deleted> We even know the exact date of which Babylon fell-October 13, 539 B.C. Furthermore, Nabonidus, who ruled the empire of Babylon from 555-538 B.C., mentions his firstborn son Belshazzar on an inscription found in the city of Ur in 1853.
Even if you were right( which you are certainly not), it would STILL be prophetic.

agator · 01-17-2005, 10:19 AM

And you say" There is no confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD."
I want to know if there is an intelligent poster in this forum. <insult deleted>

agator · 01-17-2005, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

1. Isaiah makes no mention of a "virgin birth".

"almah" is the word Isaiah used(H-5959). It means young woman or virgin. Look it up. Here are some Bible translations of the verse for your edification.

ASV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

DNT: Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the virgin£ shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.£

YLT: Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign,

Lo, the Virgin is conceiving,

And is bringing forth a son,

And hath called his name Immanuel,

KJV: ThereforeH3651H3651 the LordH136H136 himselfH1931H1931 shall giveH5414H5414 you a signH226H226; BeholdH2009H2009, a virginH5959H5959 shall conceiveH2030H2030, and bearH3205H3205 a sonH1121H1121, and shall callH7121H7121 his nameH8034H8034 ImmanuelH6005H6005.

ICB: But the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin£ will be pregnant. She will have a son, and she will name him Immanuel.£

NCV: The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin£ will be pregnant. She will have a son, and she will name him Immanuel.£

GWT: So the Lord himself will give you this sign: A virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel [God Is With Us].

NASB: “ThereforeH3651H3651 the LordH136H136 HimselfH1931H1931 will giveH5414H5414 you a signH226H226: BeholdH2009H2009, a virginH5959H5959 will be with childH2030H2030 and bearH3205H3205 a sonH1121H1121, and she will callH7121H7121 His nameH8034H8034 ImmanuelH6005H6005.

NRSV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman£ is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.£

TLB: All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign—a child shall be born to a virgin!£ And she shall call him Immanuel (meaning, “God is with us�?).

NLT: All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The virgin£ will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel—‘God is with us.’

NKJV: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.£

RSV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman£ shall conceive and bear£ a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el£

KJV: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

NASB: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name £Immanuel.

That's about every Bible I could find, so I guess you are wrong once again. Next

Angrillori · 01-17-2005, 10:57 AM

Ooh ooh! Can I be the first one to announce that his irony meter broke?

Agator.

Agator, Agator, Agator. <personal comment deleted>

There's this really cool thing you have the opportunity to do--it's called holding your tonugue until you know what you're talking about.

Failing that, there's another relaly cool opportunity you have, and that being the opportunity to support your position with evidence. See, if you're claiming that there is confirmation for Jesus' crucifiction, and we're claiming there is not, then the easy way for you to "win" would be to merely offer up this confirmation.

So, do you have some confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 A.D.? Any?
(Heck, some would settle for you having confirmation that Jesus even existed, but a lot would settle for confirmation that he was crucified when you say he was.) If you don't have confirmation, and no one else does (we've asked a lot of people, and done a lot of research) then it's not really "ignorance" to point this out.

It is kind of ignorant to be unaware of the fact that neither you, nor anyone else actually has any confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 A.D. It's just plain rude to insult the intelligence of those who are aware of this fact. Of course, we may be wrong, and you could easily prove us all so merely by exposing this evidence, this confirmation, that you believe yourself privy to.

As for the dating of Daniel, ohmigoodness. There are these things called "libraries" they have "books" in them. Feel free to "read" these "books" to gain the knowledge that is in them. Even a cursory examination of old testament biblical criticism/study will net you some information showing the dating of the book. (And, so you won't be too surprised, it's not dated in he 500's B.C. no matter how much you attempt to insult people who point out that it is. Your failure to accept brute facts, and reality, is a compbination of sad, pitiful, and funny, to us. It's certainly not convincing or converting. In fact, it's exactly the opposite of converting. So you're in a bit of a dilemma concerning the old "great commission," you won't make disciples of us with your rather pathetic displays--just a word of friendly advice there kiddo.)

Edit to add:

Sweet! You're opening your mouth about almah/beulah! I love when <insult deleted> christians try to sound smart!

<Sits back, gets popcorn. Waits for the show to start.>

Amaleq13 · 01-17-2005, 11:33 AM

To all: Please avoid insults and focus on the evidence/arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by agator

And you say" There is no confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD."
I want to know if there is an intelligent poster in this forum.

I'm pretty familiar with the evidence and, to my knowledge, this is statement of fact. There is even debate within Christian scholarship regarding the precise year of the crucifixion. The most that can be said is that 33CE is the most popular guess.

agator · 01-17-2005, 11:37 AM

I have already proven a few things to be in err. How many do you need before you realize that my info is not the one flawed? I told you how we know the dating of Daniel and you tell me to go to the library for reference. How about you just tell me how you came to this brilliant deduction of Daniel, because I always thought Daniel is described as living in Babylon for the entire duration of the Babylonian empire, a period of 72 years. He arrived during the last year in the reign of Nabopolassar, stayed through the entire 45 year reign of Nebuchadnezzar, assisted 5 succeeding kings, survived through the occupation by the Medes and into the occupation of the Persians. He was present as Israel was taken into captivity; he died two years after a fragment of the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. It seems pretty easy to figure out to me. But perhaps you know something every scholar doesn't. Enlighten me.

And are you telling me that no one could supply prrof of the crucifixion? This is documented by Roman, Jewish, and Greek historians. Is written evidence not good enough? And BTW, the word is Bethulah- not beulah. The adjective you use for Christians might be fitting for yourself.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-17-2005, 09:51 AM	#4
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	...I have to sign off now, others can play with this. Back tomorrow.

01-17-2005, 10:19 AM	#6
agator Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 217	And you say" There is no confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD." I want to know if there is an intelligent poster in this forum. <insult deleted>

01-17-2005, 10:57 AM	#8
Angrillori Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: A world less bright without WinAce. Posts: 7,482	Ooh ooh! Can I be the first one to announce that his irony meter broke? Agator. Agator, Agator, Agator. <personal comment deleted> There's this really cool thing you have the opportunity to do--it's called holding your tonugue until you know what you're talking about. Failing that, there's another relaly cool opportunity you have, and that being the opportunity to support your position with evidence. See, if you're claiming that there is confirmation for Jesus' crucifiction, and we're claiming there is not, then the easy way for you to "win" would be to merely offer up this confirmation. So, do you have some confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 A.D.? Any? (Heck, some would settle for you having confirmation that Jesus even existed, but a lot would settle for confirmation that he was crucified when you say he was.) If you don't have confirmation, and no one else does (we've asked a lot of people, and done a lot of research) then it's not really "ignorance" to point this out. It is kind of ignorant to be unaware of the fact that neither you, nor anyone else actually has any confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 A.D. It's just plain rude to insult the intelligence of those who are aware of this fact. Of course, we may be wrong, and you could easily prove us all so merely by exposing this evidence, this confirmation, that you believe yourself privy to. As for the dating of Daniel, ohmigoodness. There are these things called "libraries" they have "books" in them. Feel free to "read" these "books" to gain the knowledge that is in them. Even a cursory examination of old testament biblical criticism/study will net you some information showing the dating of the book. (And, so you won't be too surprised, it's not dated in he 500's B.C. no matter how much you attempt to insult people who point out that it is. Your failure to accept brute facts, and reality, is a compbination of sad, pitiful, and funny, to us. It's certainly not convincing or converting. In fact, it's exactly the opposite of converting. So you're in a bit of a dilemma concerning the old "great commission," you won't make disciples of us with your rather pathetic displays--just a word of friendly advice there kiddo.) Edit to add: Sweet! You're opening your mouth about almah/beulah! I love when <insult deleted> christians try to sound smart! <Sits back, gets popcorn. Waits for the show to start.>

01-17-2005, 11:37 AM	#10
agator Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 217	I have already proven a few things to be in err. How many do you need before you realize that my info is not the one flawed? I told you how we know the dating of Daniel and you tell me to go to the library for reference. How about you just tell me how you came to this brilliant deduction of Daniel, because I always thought Daniel is described as living in Babylon for the entire duration of the Babylonian empire, a period of 72 years. He arrived during the last year in the reign of Nabopolassar, stayed through the entire 45 year reign of Nebuchadnezzar, assisted 5 succeeding kings, survived through the occupation by the Medes and into the occupation of the Persians. He was present as Israel was taken into captivity; he died two years after a fragment of the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. It seems pretty easy to figure out to me. But perhaps you know something every scholar doesn't. Enlighten me. And are you telling me that no one could supply prrof of the crucifixion? This is documented by Roman, Jewish, and Greek historians. Is written evidence not good enough? And BTW, the word is Bethulah- not beulah. The adjective you use for Christians might be fitting for yourself.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.