Bible proven by Fulfilled Prophecies

[hardheadjarhead]

I understand. There are always questions to the authenticity of old works. As a side, I wonder how much debate there will be in a thousands years on people like Washington and Lincoln? My only point is that there are some works outside of the Bible that mention Jesus.

JPR

JPR,

Here's a fairly in-depth critique of extra-biblical sources:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

It is contained in a larger work dealing with the writing of Josh McDowell. You'll have to scroll down the page a bit.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Flatlander]

I am saddened...

not only by the attempts of people like fiesty and big nick to change christianity into what htey want it to be... feisty isnt arguing with me as she thinks, but with Jesus himself.. her qualifying statement was that she is a christian, just not born again... which obviusly proves (by her own admission), that she is not a christian.. because that is what Jesus himself told us was the qualifying factor(and i gave her proof).. all else is simple arrogant rhetoric on her part, as well as anyone else who takes offense at their ""christianity" being called into question.. which is another thing, fiesty, that happens throughout the new testament should you care to read it all...

What an unfortunate thing to say. In your analysis of the Bible, do you recall - (Luke 17:20-21): Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." Do you suppose there is room in this for Feisty Mouse to be able to validly claim her Christianity? I do.

Flatlander, you are correct in your point that it appears I am alone, on this site anyway, as those who profess christianity dont know what the word actually states, and instead twist its meaning to suit...

However you are incorrect on two points.. 1st, it is not simply your part to say...umm nope.. i reject your claim, and then stating that it is up to me to run around finding more stuff.. you have to "disprove" my arguments, not simply say you reject them out of hand.. next please.. that doesnt work...

If I am skeptical of your ability to demonstrate the accuracy of the text, which you require as evidence to support your proof, then how could I reasonably disprove it either? Uncertainty is the issue for me, not truth or falsehood.

Secondly, you stated you think Jesus' teachings were some of the best society has etc..., well, according to your stance, Jesus is not who he said he was, and therefore you are accepting life morals form a man who is then (according to your stance) a liar, a lunatic, and the most moraly corrupt person who ever lived (and there are lots external sources of his existance - he his an historical figure- but will any of you take the time to investigate this, probably not) - because untold millions of people have based their eternal salvation on him... and if he is as you say, then he is the worst mass [spritual] murderer in all time... which negates your theory that he was just a good man.

You are projecting an awful lot of ideas onto me that I never alluded to , claimed, stated, or implied. You have quite an imagination.

Jesus said he was the son of man. He bestowed upon us a great many lessons. I believe these things. I do not believe he was some type of paranormal entity. I believe he was a man. Does this make him a liar, lunatic, or merely misrepresented? If he was merely misrepresented, should I follow those who have either a) chosen to misrepresent him, or b) naively accepted all they've been told? Or should I seek the truth that is self evident to me? Which one brings me closer to god, by my definition of god? Or have I defined god wrong, according to your 'right' way?

Anyway... I was prepared to present a lot of supporting evidences that you have obviously not seen before, but unlike some of you, I don't come here simply to argue and get offended...so I cannot continue in the face of your inability to put forth a cohesive and substansive rebuttal to even my first point in question (which is being ignored because you know it is fact)...

So before even presenting the evidence which was to be the meat of your argument, you are going to abandon the thread? Flatlander's prophecy proven true by parmandjack's own admission.

So I guess Flatlander, you should go ahead and give me that fools rep, i'd rather walk away quietly, and leave you to your own opinions, than let this devolve into an arguement, that was not the purpose of this thread... its sad though, because there was most likely people out there who were genuinely looking for som answers, unlike feisty and bibgnick who already have it locked down and who twist the bible to make it give them a more comfortable and cozy existance within the secular society... rather than following it acecpting what it actually sez...

That's really too bad. Good try, though. I don't think the fool's rep was mine to give, rather, yours to earn.

What struck me most about this was the tenacity with which you approached the "sale". Perhaps this is a reason your conversion technique hasn't been working for you. One will find what one is seeking. You really don't need to sell Jesus to me, he sells himself. Rather than carrying on in such a fashion, I honestly believe you would better represent your faith by becoming less agressive, and allowing others to follow their own path. Just one more time, so you can "get" my position here: (Luke 17:20-21): Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you."

And in my opinion, all around you. Have patience, parmandjack. You don't require anyone's validation to hold your beliefs.

:asian:

 

[loki09789]

Bible is proven to be what by pointing out 'fulfilled prophecies?'

Godly, Divine, the "ONE WORD" or ONLY God recognized 'word' on divinity?....

I could say the same thing about folks like Nostradomus....

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Sigh....

Biblical prophecies debunked
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/errancy/issues/iss171.htm

Another thread elsewhere dealing with similar ideas on biblical prophecies coming true:
http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000249.html
(Note- I haven't read the whole thing yet)


The problem here PJ is that you started out with a declaration "Bible proven by Fulfilled Prophecies". The problem is, that many of those have since been debunked, or are subject to a great deal of personal interpretation. We've got folks from 100 faiths here...any proclamation that "mine is true, y'all are wrong" is going to get danders up. We have room for everyone here. Just be prepared to back up absolutes with verifiable fact.

My own path is Taoist / Egyptian-Pagan. I've researched a great deal of different faiths, systems, paths, etc. That one works for me. I do however see value in the lessons, and ideas in the Christian faith. In another thread, I both proved and disproved Jesus' existance. (Huh? Yeah, it can go both ways. Do some digging...education is a powerful ally)

At the end of the day, when all the debate is done, there is still only 1 thing.
Faith.

We'll find out the truth, when this game is done. Until then, we can only seek it, and I firmly believe that all the writen words, all the argument, all the debate can only give one a vague idea. The real answers are found within. The final one, when we are gone.

That my friends, is as close to 'preaching' as I will go. If anyone wants to discuss my ideas, another thread is best...who knows...I may learn something about myself.
I've learned alot in here, even if PJ doesn't see it (and I hope he does).

Peace.
:asian:

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

Thanks Kaith! What an exhausting thread! I think I will remain a "Born again Heathen".

 

[bignick]

I am saddened...

not only by the attempts of people like fiesty and big nick to change christianity into what htey want it to be...

it was statements like these that got my "danders up"...sharing your beliefs with others is a great way to learn more about each other...forcing your beliefs on others or telling them theirs are wrong is a good way to alienate each other...

the intent of my postings was never to be argumentative...but to encourage intelligent discussion...if you read my posts on this thread, i'm asking for it...you started this thread, it's purpose...offering proof of the Bible, the main proof you offered was the Bible...as for your other prophecies, i must have missed those posts, and i apologize, but Kaith has posted some links offering alternative explanations to these prophecies...

you're problem was that you were arguing using your faith as evidence...the old testament prophecies "fulfilled"(i use the parentheses here not because of my lack of belief, but not everyone on the board believes so...and i respect their beliefs) by Jesus is enough for you to believe...when you start saying that should be enough for everybody to believe, you run into problems...because God created us in His image, but yet we are all unique and require different evidence for us to believe...what evidence do i need? I need none, because there is little to none to give...if we had solid evidence proving that christianity or more specifically that any certain branch of it, was the true way...than why are all these other religions around?

faith is a very personal matter...and it is a choice...i've made my choice...you've made yours..and that's all we can do...speaking to people to convert them is one thing...but actions speak louder than words...

 

[Feisty Mouse]

not only by the attempts of people like fiesty and big nick to change christianity into what htey want it to be... feisty isnt arguing with me as she thinks, but with Jesus himself.. her qualifying statement was that she is a christian, just not born again... which obviusly proves (by her own admission), that she is not a christian.. because that is what Jesus himself told us was the qualifying factor(and i gave her proof).. all else is simple arrogant rhetoric on her part, as well as anyone else who takes offense at their ""christianity" being called into question.. which is another thing, fiesty, that happens throughout the new testament should you care to read it all...

How very belittling your tone is, parmandjack. So I take it your point was to come here and tell everyone, both Christian and non-, that unless they become "born-again" Christians, that they are not acknowledging the truth?The vast majority of Protestants, and the Catholics and Orthodox (as well as all the non-Christian faiths, but that seems to be outside of your scope) don't stand with you on that one. You may take some time to educate yourself on these different branches of Christianity before coming here and telling us that you've got all the answers. It's pretty insulting and shows no respect or education on the topic.

I have read the Bible, thank you very much. I read the passages you quoted before as passages about spiritual renewal, and baptism, and all Chrisitan faiths have baptism. Jesus did not just say ONE thing. He said many things. I want to know about all of them. Citing a few passages and telling me that I'm not a Christian because I think something different than you is, again, insulting to say the least.

Faith is important. So is what we do in this life with what we are given. To say otherwise is to ignore a large part of the New Testament message (as well as the Old Testament - about obeying the law and doing as you should) - "Love one another". Why did Jesus wash the feet of his disciples? Do you draw a message from that about humility and love? I certainly hope so. I think few of us truly aspire to that level of love, and demonstrating that by caring for each other.

It's too bad that this discussion has become so nasty. I usually take an interest in discussing religion with people. But I have been fortunate enough to have as friends people who show some respect in their discussions.

 

[kenpo tiger]

So, if there are people of 'over 100 faiths', as Kaith has suggested, on this board -- can we hear from the Moslems of all types, Buddhists, Shintoists, and so on?

Parmand, To condemn Feisty and Biggie out of hand isn't really fair, given that both have made attempts at reciprocity through debate with you. I can certainly vouch for Feisty as being a most open-minded individual; I'm still getting to know Biggie, but he also seems to be that way, as are Flatlander and the others you perceive to be attacking you. Also, to just throw your hands up and leave is not the answer, is it. We are all asking for you to prove your original premise -- that's it. KT

 

[loki09789]

So, if there are people of 'over 100 faiths', as Kaith has suggested, on this board -- can we hear from the Moslems of all types, Buddhists, Shintoists, and so on?

Parmand, To condemn Feisty and Biggie out of hand isn't really fair, given that both have made attempts at reciprocity through debate with you. I can certainly vouch for Feisty as being a most open-minded individual; I'm still getting to know Biggie, but he also seems to be that way, as are Flatlander and the others you perceive to be attacking you. Also, to just throw your hands up and leave is not the answer, is it. We are all asking for you to prove your original premise -- that's it. KT

There is a big difference between "It is proof enough for me to find faith" and "You have to be convinced by the same proof".

Even as an American, Christian type person (because of upbringing and choice later on in life), I tend to work from the concept of "God in people" so that the divinity in each person can be recongized.

A lack of Religious faith does not equate to Immorallity. THere are many civic minded, socially conscious and "good" people in the world who didn't and don't follow the same Judeo/Christian code that many here were raised with BUT will have the same types of habits and behaviors/values when they are put into action...

Remember "faith in works" means that we live it not just talk about it. Proof of a divinely inspired foundation is fine, but acting on it in the now and passing on good lessons for the future is where the rubber meets the road.

If your Christian then the fact that Jesus/Christ was suppose to have died to save Sinner and Saint alike... how do you plan on honoring that sacrifice? Judging, attacking, condemning or being a living example of the spirit of the message?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

At the end of the day, when all the debate is done, there is still only 1 thing.

For some faith does not sustain. For these people there is an irresistable urge to exclaim how right they are, and how wrong the rest of the world is. The people doing this feels elevated (whether they literally are or not), and then can look down upon those lesser beings who don't share their beliefs.

If all were to accept their doctrine they'd have to find another because they'd no longer be special. They'd no longer be able to arrogate themselves and claim exclusivity.

Faith has little to do with this process, and as far as they're concerned evangelism be damned. Converts need not apply.


Regards,


Steve

 

[CanuckMA]

you're problem was that you were arguing using your faith as evidence...the old testament prophecies "fulfilled"(i use the parentheses here not because of my lack of belief, but not everyone on the board believes so...and i respect their beliefs) by Jesus is enough for you to believe...

Part of the problem is that the Torah quotes in his list of 'prophecies' had absolutely nothing to do with the prophecy.

 

[SenseiBear]

so my question is, why are people so caught up on getting converts through threats of eternal damnation, fire and brimstone, when its all about love?

I'm too tired to re-read the gospels, again, but the only time I can remember jesus talking about hell and damnation was when he was addressing the hippocrits and the pharisees... who in this thread may fit that description?

 

[SenseiBear]

Bigot.

Big·ot, noun: A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

But bigot, unamended, does not suffice. The two syllables alone provide satisfaction in their blunt harshness, yet leave out certain traits of the individual in question.

You're an arrogant bigot, Parmandjack.

ar·ro·gant adj.: Having or displaying a sense of overbearing self-worth or self-importance.

But as accurate as that may be, yet another adjective is wanting so as to get a richer understanding of the failings of the character described.

You're an arrogant, condescending bigot, Parmandjack.

con·de·scend·ing adj.: Displaying a patronizingly superior attitude

Bravo!

 

[SenseiBear]

Parm - you keep insisting we prove the bible false... But your thread says Bible proven by Fulfilled Prophecies ... so one more time - which ones? It is your job. you can fill out page after page of snide rebuttal - but it is obvious to everyone but you that you are just avoiding the issue.

I don't know why I keep checking this thread - proof obviously is not forth-coming.

 

[Raewyn]

Well................I must say. this is the first thread where I have read every single post!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I just want to say unfortunatley the bible has or can be interpreted in so many different ways. You can take one verse out of the bible, read it to 10 people and have 10 different views. I am not religious by any means but I would'nt call myself an athiest either, I think Im just a fence sitter!! But I must say parmandjack you sound like those people who come around knocking on your door and you go to close it but their foots stuck in the way that you cant. Your obviously a firm believer in your faith and good on you! but man you sure have a way of trying to get your point accross............it;s not really the go aye??

I was a bit scared at first too post anything, but the more I read the angirer I got, but I guess by the time I got to the end of this thread I'd calmed down a bit. By the way Fiesty good on you!!!! You stick to your guns girl!!!
I read a post by parmandjack a couple of pages ago where he had said that Jesus was god. I thought he was the "Son of God who died on the cross for our sins"???

"I think Ill just go now, maybe I should have kept my mouth shut and left well enough alone"

 

[JPR]

I read a post by parmandjack a couple of pages ago where he had said that Jesus was god. I thought he was the "Son of God who died on the cross for our sins"???

"I think Ill just go now, maybe I should have kept my mouth shut and left well enough alone"

Raisin,



Regarding the issue of God / Son of God, that is a debated point of theology (like so many others). This issue centers on the idea of the triune God, the Trinity. Those that believe in the Trinity, believe that there are three personalities (for lack of a better term) to God. They are God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit. The three are one, coequal, but also distinct. An analog I try to use to help explain this deals with a scientific phenomenon know as the “triple point” of water. There is a special combination of temperature and pressure in which all three phases (solid, liquid, and gas) of water coexist simultaneously. Each phase is independent of the other with unique properties, but it exists as a whole system.



So, for those that believe in the Trinity, God the Father sent God the Son to live with us. God the Son (Jesus) lived for 33 years and spent the last 3 of those years in teaching / preaching / ministering to those in Israel. As the last act of this ministry, Jesus died to pay the price for my (and everyone else’s) sin so that I no longer had to be separated from God. After Jesus resurrected and ascended into heaven, God the Holy Spirit came to be the counselor for those that believe.


Hope that helps.
JPR

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I read a post by parmandjack a couple of pages ago where he had said that Jesus was god. I thought he was the "Son of God who died on the cross for our sins"???

Raisin,

This was also a major topic of debate held by the previously mentioned Nicene Council held in 325 by the church fathers. The "Arian Controversy" had to do with whether Jesus was the son of God or God incarnate. Arius, the Presbyter of Alexandria, stated that Jesus was not God in the flesh but rather the first entity God ever created. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria thought Jesus was indeed God come to Earth.

Arius' views were popular throughout the western part of the Roman Empire. He died not long before the vote to decide the issue, and Athanasius' views held sway. At that point it became the Arian heresy, and Arius' views were stamped out with the force of the Church and the backing of the Emperor.

A good book discussing the topic is When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome by Richard E. Rubenstein. Amazon carries it, and the site has a fairly well done review of the issues dealt with in the book. It also gives a person a great deal of insight into the early church.


Regards,


Steve

 

[loki09789]

For Christians (and to a limited point, Jewish people too) The "who is/was Jesus?" issue is like that mountain in the distance of Buddhists or that Elephant being examined by the blindmen in western Philosophies....we won't see or know the whole story but will interpret and make discoveries based on our perspective.

One of the earliest historical points of contension about Jesus Messiah Yes or No was because, according to what I learned/read/interpreted, the majority of the Jewish community expected, wanted and believed (meaning had been taught and had faith in) that the Messiah was going to be like a second King David. Warrior King of the Jews who would drive out the Romans and rebuild a Jewish independent nation and regain Bethelehem.

When the Jesus/Christ/Messiah presentation of a Prince of Peace and civil unrest/internal examination/intraspection was laid before them most resisted because they EXPECTED a warrior/king in an earthly sense that would force External changes. The biblical (NT) Jesus generally is characterized as one who forces internal change.

As usual the battle is between those who want to change the structure hoping it will lead to internal changes and those who want the reverse and think change should happen from the inside out.

Generally speaking, Jesus was the latter because the text (through most/all of the Gospels) protrays him so that he is pushing the message of being motivated by love, loyalty and caring for people, community and God.

Just my take on this stuff.

People will get caught up in what is 'proof','right' and proper with practice and ritual, but I think the Christlike way to go is to focus START with recognizing a common goal of humanity and NEVER let that foundation go. The minute you start forming ideas, opinions, decisions about people (in faith perspective that is) based on what YOU think is right and wrong and not what the SPIRIT of love, loyalty and genuine interest in the common good (which might mean personal sacrifices) things will become fractured.

 

[Flatlander]

A good book discussing the topic is When Jesus Became God: The Struggle to Define Christianity during the Last Days of Rome by Richard E. Rubenstein. Amazon carries it, and the site has a fairly well done review of the issues dealt with in the book. It also gives a person a great deal of insight into the early church.


Regards,


Steve

Use the Amazon link at the bottom of the page here if you're interested....

 

[heretic888]

Just spent the last ten minutes or so reading through this thread (although I must admit I often found myself merely skimming through the rantings that were parmanjack's posts). Here are the points that caught my interest:

1. Biblical prophecies proven??

Okay, this is a bit of a sticky subject, but here's my take. Biblical "prophecies" typically fall into a few major categories:

A) The "prophecy" in question was written after the event it was supposed to predict. This is especially true of many of the prophecies of the Old Testament. The major problem here is that, yet again because of cultural bias, people (even scholars) have a tendency to date Biblical works centuries before they were actually written (and let's not forget all those yummy, politically-motivated revisions and redactions!). After all, hindsight is 20/20.

B) The "prophecy" in question does, in fact, not predict what it is claimed to. This applies especially to a lot of the "Jesus prophecies". Many people point to the Virgin Birth as "proof" of some prophecy in the Old Testament, but the original Hebrew does not mention anything at all of a Virgin Birth (which is a Pagan religious concept, anyway). It is only in the revised Greek translation that is the Septugaint that we see an OT reference to such a concept.

The city of Nazareth could also be mentioned here. The truth is that Nazareth did not exist when Jesus was supposed to have lived, and was later "created" by the Church to fulfill the "facts" in the Bible. Not that "the Nazarene" refers to anyone from a place called Nazareth anyway...

C) New meanings are "read into" the prophecies after significant events. After 9/11, people "discovered" that the Revelation of John mentioned Osama Bin Laden and the twin towers. After WWII, people "discovered" that Revelation mentions Hitler. People are now "discovering" mentions of a war against Saddam Hussein. Interpretations like these are always suspect, because they never --- not once --- predict a future event. They only "predict" events that have taken place. There are, again, clear political motivations here (i.e., the goal is to "prove" the validity of the Bible).

2. Proof for Jesus??

I've already gone into this in two other threads, but there are no extra-Biblical references to Jesus that are not suspect of forgery. Even the most commonly asserted one, Josephus Flavius, didn't even write about Jesus (supposedly) until around the year 100 CE --- a full 2 generations after he was supposed to have died!

3. The "Arian Controversy"??

The Arian Controversy was really about the same thing that the Roman community of Christians endorsed from the start --- the carnalization, historicizing, and literalizing of Jesus Christ. Arius asserted, very simply, that Jesus was not a carnalized incarnation of God. He asserted that he was a heavenly figure, akin to the aeons of the Gnostics or the forms of Plato. Origen asserted similar things, as did Marcion, Valentinus, and even Paul.

The history of these debates usually get warped around into trivial manners concerning a belief of "pure monotheism" vs the trinity (which, by the way, originated with Valentinus), when what it was really about was a debate of carnalism/literalism (which was only popular in Rome) vs illusionism/docetism (which was popular throughout the Empire, especially in places like Alexandria, Antioch, and Asia Minor). Again, this stems from historical revisionist attempts to hide the fact that the literal "reality" of Jesus was debated from the very beginning.

Laterz all.