11 Jul 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadSorry, I almost forgot to answer point no 1:
Do you have any references to the source of your information on:
1. when the prophesy was made
2. When Jesus was crucified
Daniel was taken into captivity in 605 BC, so the prophecy was written in the late sixth century BC. What's important is not exactly when the prophecy was written, just proof that it was written well before the birth of Jesus. The easiest proof for this is the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament, which includes the book of Daniel) which was completed before 200 BC.
The Dead Sea Scroll also contain Old Testament documents (of all the books except Ester) that predate Christ.
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyI'd love to get you on the stand in a court of law so you could give us your "testimony."
I would have to say that the most impressive prophesy I have come across is Daniel 9:24-27. I came across it as I was looking in my concordence for the word "Messiah" in the OT and only found it in this verse. When I first read it I have to admit, I had no idea of the meaning, however, I did some digging in interpretations and realized it was nothing more t ...[text shortened]... s, however, Christ appears to have fulfilled a great many of them in his first coming.
Nothing you have written constitutes anything accepted in the real world as a matter of fact -- it is all a tissue of made up nonsense -- commentary based on commentary based on text written by human beings and thereby made to appear by later generations applicable to an event many years after the human being wrote it down.
The pity is your delusion is so great that you cannot even understand what I'm saying. You have absolutely no concept of what constitutes evidence, or fact. And your distortion of language to make it appear that the patently false premises from which you draw conclusions would make taking you apart on the stand all the more sad.
You see, nothing you've said relates to anything outside the pages of that book and the thoughts between your ears.
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by Henry23"Of course they were blissfully unaware of the fact that Jesus the Messiah
Another related fact from the Talmud:
Genesis 49:10 The scepter shall not depart from Judah, Nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh (which refers to Messiah) comes; And to Him shall be the obedience of the people.
In around 7 AD the Roman authorities removed the right to pass the death sentence from the Jewish Sanhedrin (that's why they bro ...[text shortened]... that Jesus is the Messiah (I haven't confirmed this, though; it's only something I heard).
has been born in Bethlehem just a few years before that. "
This is an example of cherry picking. You select out the stuff you call "facts" from a book of commentary on the 5 books of Moses and then when another statement is made in that same book that you find conflicts with what you want to believe, what do you do? You dismiss it, rationalize it - but you do not give it equal weight because it doesn't confirm your preconceptions.
This is not rational discourse -- merely religious stuff that refers only to itself and not to the world in which we are born, live and die.
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by Henry23But, you see, it is not I who carries the burden of proof.
From the posts discussing the Dan 9 prophecy your statement above is clearly wrong and uninformed. Nostradamus never made specific prophecies like this. If you've ever read his stuff you'll know they are so vague and general that they would apprear to be fulfilled in many ways and at many times.
In contrast to that the Biblical prophecies about Jesus are ...[text shortened]... es are not credible, but have failed to present any convincing evidence to back up your claim.
It is you who must prove that the statements in the book you cite were written at the time you say, that the calculations and other conditions that you interpret or quote making the "prophecy" accurate are valid, and that the entire context of the book you are so into -- this Bible -- is anything more than a document that has been translated from other languages and passed down through over two thousand years, yet remains absolutely accurate down to the day.
If I had you on the stand, you wouldn't stand a chance trying to establish that this document is a credible source for the truth of the statements it contains -- because it is not a primary source, but a translation of a translation, and revised countless times.
There is no possible chain of evidence you could present going back far enough to eliminate the possibility that these words in which you place so much stock have been carefully doctored over the centuries so as to help support those who have invested many many billions of dollars, taken countless lives, and ruled nations based on what they claim is the truth of what is in the version of that book at the time they needed it to be the truth.
Again, the level of credulity you show is simply amazing.
Why, you don't even understand the first thing about rational argument, logic, fact or truth in the real world.
These are just words to you that can mean whatever you want them to refer to. Yet, words are not entirely that flexible. That is why you cannot use the Bible as a reliable source to establish anything in it as a fact -- it is perhaps the ultimate hearsay testimony.
And hearsay is about as reliable as playing the old childhood telephone message game.
Sorry, but you have to do the proof, not me. You are assuming what you say is true and already established as fact.
That is not the case. There are quite a few billion people in excess of those who believe what you believe who differ with your view.
So not even on the basis of consensus can you prevail. No, you have a lot more burden to carry to come close to making a case that what you rely on has anything to do with the world in which we live.
11 Jul 08
Here is a possible way forward -- even though I suspect that all you believers simply dwell in a fantasy world of your own and even use a language that merely sounds like English but is something else, for the words mean something different to you than they do to me.
Let's establish whether folks believe in one of two basic approaches to the Bible:
1. Biblical inerrancy, or
2. Biblical infallibility
which is the case?
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinI believe the original scriptues were without error, but we don't have those around anymore. Translations can have flaws.
Here is a possible way forward -- even though I suspect that all you believers simply dwell in a fantasy world of your own and even use a language that merely sounds like English but is something else, for the words mean something different to you than they do to me.
Let's establish whether folks believe in one of two basic approaches to the Bible:
1. Biblical inerrancy, or
2. Biblical infallibility
which is the case?
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by whodeyThere is not one prophecy in the Bible that can not be explained away through rational, chronological, interpretive or other methods without relying on the supernatural.
I would have to say that the most impressive prophesy I have come across is Daniel 9:24-27.
To sum up, in looking at various places on the web I find a lot of folks have problems with so-called prophecies about Jesus. The first and foremost is the translation problem. How do you know the words you cite have been accurately and properly translated? There are examples where a word in the oldest written source is translated differently in different parts of what is now accepted as the English version of the Bible.
Beyond the issue of translation is the problem of the context within which alleged prophecies occur. For example, what is the historical context? I found one discussion about the alleged prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Imman'u-el."
This verse has been cited as foretelling the virgin birth. Both on translation and contextual grounds, it can be explained as otherwise.
This alleged prophecy was framed in such a way that for it to be true, it would need to have occurred in the time of King Ahaz -- who faced a war. The child referred to is stated to have been born during Ahaz's time in chapter 8 of Isaiah. Far from being a prophecy of a virgin birth, we find a regular pregnancy some 700 years prior to the birth of Jesus.
So, the point is where you stand on belief in the truth of what's in the Bible, whether it be prophecy or anything else, depends on where you sit. It is a matter of choice, not fact. You can believe it if you want, but no one has been able to establish it as fact in the same manner as one can establish, for example, that the only element that can make a diamond is carbon.
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydwhat's the evidence for your belief?
I believe the original scriptues were without error, but we don't have those around anymore. Translations can have flaws.
If I told you your significant other was unfaithful, would you believe it just because I wrote it here? How is it any different to rely on a piece of writing so old and repeatedly used for both religious and political purposes over the centuries that we have no idea what it originally said, still less whether anything other than human beings with agendas of their own at the time simply wrote what they wanted folks to believe.
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinI have faith. Faith requires no evidence, hence the term "faith".
what's the evidence for your belief?
If I told you your significant other was unfaithful, would you believe it just because I wrote it here? How is it any different to rely on a piece of writing so old and repeatedly used for both religious and political purposes over the centuries that we have no idea what it originally said, still less whether anything ...[text shortened]... an beings with agendas of their own at the time simply wrote what they wanted folks to believe.
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinThere is no "proof" for Christ other than experiencing the living Jesus himself. A man can have all the intellectual proof he requires but if he does not know that God is alive then he doesn't know much.
what's the evidence for your belief?
If I told you your significant other was unfaithful, would you believe it just because I wrote it here? How is it any different to rely on a piece of writing so old and repeatedly used for both religious and political purposes over the centuries that we have no idea what it originally said, still less whether anything ...[text shortened]... an beings with agendas of their own at the time simply wrote what they wanted folks to believe.
Either Christ is standing in your midst right now as you read these words or he isn't. If he isn't then no proof will make any difference. If he is then you won't need proof anymore you will just know.
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydI do not find having faith at all useful. It did not affect the reality in my life -- I had faith that we could keep my son alive and that all the effort and help we got to do so would make it so.
I have faith. Faith requires no evidence, hence the term "faith".
Not that I relied very much on faith, alone.
I have a predisposition towards a more rational approach to life. I have no patience with folks who try to tell me that in which they have faith, and only faith, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
They should admit that they simply want to believe in the truth of their faith -- and leave it at that.
If they did, we'd have a lot less to debate.
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by knightmeisterMany people who demonstrably do not know what they are talking about are supremely confident that they know what they know.
There is no "proof" for Christ other than experiencing the living Jesus himself. A man can have all the intellectual proof he requires but if he does not know that God is alive then he doesn't know much.
Either Christ is standing in your midst right now as you read these words or he isn't. If he isn't then no proof will make any difference. If he is then you won't need proof anymore you will just know.
Every hospital for psychopathic disorders has such patients; and who does not have acquaintances, not as yet incarcerated, who are similarly confident that they know what others believe no one can know.
Consider also the knowing behavior characteristic of primitive peoples and even of people in an advanced stage of civilization whose knowing reflects views, religious views perhaps, at variance with your own; you probably believe that they obviously do not know what they are so confident they do know.
Our own forefathers knew that some people were witches, knew this well enough to hang or burn the supposed offenders; yet we today assert that, in spite of their great confidence, our forefathers didn't know what they thought they knew.
These considerations suggest that a mere superabundance of confidence in what one knows is not a sufficient justification for knowing that one knows it.
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by ScriabinI don't try to convince anyone to believe as I do. Believe anything you want--it's no skin off my nose (NOW who is the tolerant one?)
I do not find having faith at all useful. It did not affect the reality in my life -- I had faith that we could keep my son alive and that all the effort and help we got to do so would make it so.
Not that I relied very much on faith, alone.
I have a predisposition towards a more rational approach to life. I have no patience with folks who try to tell ...[text shortened]... e truth of their faith -- and leave it at that.
If they did, we'd have a lot less to debate.
And why should I "admit that I simply want to believe in the truth of my faith?" There is no "want" to it--I DO believe in the truth of my faith. But it doesn't concern me one whit whether you do or not. Why then should my faith bother you?
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by PinkFloydthe original question was how is it possible that you DO believe in the "truth" of your faith?
I don't try to convince anyone to believe as I do. Believe anything you want--it's no skin off my nose (NOW who is the tolerant one?)
And why should I "admit that I simply want to believe in the truth of my faith?" There is no "want" to it--I DO believe in the truth of my faith. But it doesn't concern me one whit whether you do or not. Why then should my faith bother you?
we obviously mean different things when we use the word "truth."
for you, it is a matter of what you choose to believe.
For me, it is what is the case.