Bible Prophecy as Evidence of a bible writers trustworthiness

[Sheldon]

I wrote this list out, and did not just copy and paste from a website! It shows that Jesus fulfils the 'suffering servant' prophecies in the greatest of detail. It means that either the writers of the NT tried to fit Jesus' life to the prophecies, or the prophecies were fulfilled in the life of Jesus.

The bible contains claims, not objective evidence.

If you believe the former of these two possibilities, then you have to show that the writers were able to ensure the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, and ensure his death by crucifixion on the eve of Passover.

Firstly this is a false dichotomy, secondly i do not need to disprove your claims or beliefs, the burden of proof is yours, and I am under no obligation to accept biblical claims as objective evidence just because others do.

They would also have to steal his body from a tomb and then dispose of it somewhere undetected.

Or it didn't happen at all, and was made up entirely, or it was exaggerated, or Jesus never even existed, or someone did steal the body, all of those things are possible of course, but we have no objective evidence resurrections are possible. However that is besides the point, since even if it happened exactly as described, all you would have is an event you could not explain.

They would then have to whip up some great belief in the disciples to make them think they were being baptised in the Holy Spirit, promised by Jesus before he died.

Well as hard as it is to imagine, that in that epoch and place, hysterical credulity and gullible superstition were commonplace , no I don't have to offer any contrary explanation, that is an irrational argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Anyone who gives this a little thought, will realise that creating a deception is actually very difficult, especilly amongst a people, the Jews, who were suspicious of false Messiahs.

I disagree, and the Jews remaining dubious rather suggests not everyone was convinced, so that is an odd claim.

What establishes Christianity in Asia is not just words but POWER. The Acts of the Apostles shows that belief spread quickly in Asia Minor because the word was preached and signs and wonders followed. The same is true of revival today.

Another bare assertion, do you think the sheer repetition of bare unevidenced assertions will ware me down into credulity?

 

[Audie]

Funny. The last timeS we discussed this, you were the one that disappeared... with something like how important you were to talk to people like me.

You made that up, thats not remotely what i would say.
Have you counted up the times you've denied and fled from simple fact like that ice floats?

 

[Sheldon]

Did you forget to say what he will do, and when? Incomplete.

We can make that up later and pretend. Either way it doesn't matter I could accurately predict the number of freckles on his ****, it wouldn't make a deity real.

 

[nPeace]

You made that up, thats not remotely what i would say.
Have you counted up the times you've denied and fled from simple fact like that ice floats?

I discussed that with you. Look back.
I don't make up things. The post is so old, it may be deleted, but just give me permission to quote you from that thread, and if it's still around, I'll find it.
There are other threads where you did not respond.
I can show you those too.

So you are the one making up things.

 

[Sheldon]

Have you ever considerd it's because of you and your worldview?

It is because there isn't a shred of objective evidence, for the notion of sin, just like the one ring in Tolkien's masterpiece. that's why I disbelieve they are real.

 

[nPeace]

It is because there isn't a shred of objective evidence, for the notion of sin, just like the one ring in Tolkien's masterpiece. that's why I disbelieve they are real.

You mean there is no objective evidence that people are immoral, and people deteriorate and die? Unbelievable!

 

[Sheldon]

Isn't what you describe there, like the diverse theories that the various scientist all claim is true, and one group can claim that theirs is true?
"Look at these bones. They look like... and look at this... this says that this is the case... and..."

No, that's a risible comparison.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
It is because there isn't a shred of objective evidence, for the notion of sin, just like the one ring in Tolkien's masterpiece. that's why I disbelieve they are real.

You mean there is no objective evidence that people are immoral, and people deteriorate and die? Unbelievable!

No obviously, as that is not remotely what I said. Is English not your first language, or was that risible misrepresentation deliberate?

 

[nPeace]

No obviously, as that is not remotely what I said. Is English not your first language, or was that risible misrepresentation deliberate?

What is sin?

 

[Audie]

I discussed that with you. Look back.
I don't make up things. The post is so old, it may be deleted, but just give me permission to quote you from that thread, and if it's still around, I'll find it.
There are other threads where you did not respond.
I can show you those too.

So you are the one making up things.

I discussed that with you. Look back.
I don't make up things. The post is so old, it may be deleted, but just give me permission to quote you from that thread, and if it's still around, I'll find it.
There are other threads where you did not respond.
I can show you those too.

So you are the one making up things.

Did so,did not.
But you seem disinclined to deal with facts that disprove your flood.
How DO you " explain" polar ice that predates any possible time for " flood"?

Try it.

 

[nPeace]

Did so,did not.
But you seem disinclined to deal with facts that disprove your flood.
How DO you " explain" polar ice that predates any possible time for " flood"?

Try it.

Okay. I'm a nice guy, so I will help you out, and save you the trouble of persistently trying to derail this thread with your favorite ... or should I say, the only subject you seem interested in.
I remember when I first came on RF, and you and Subduction Zone were like the "Let talk about the Flood" duo.

You can trace the course from here.
If you feel the conversation was not finished, revive that thread.
if I did not know better, I would think it was some obsessive compulsion.

 

[firedragon]

Christianity and Islam are well established. Baha'is haven't proved themselves yet. But my point was the Jews don't accept the Christian interpretations of the prophecies. Then Christians don't accept the Islamic and Baha'i interpretations. And Islam doesn't accept the Baha'i interpretations. And I think, from whose ever perspective we take, they have a point. Any one of them can say, "Well because it says this here, that makes them wrong. And because this verse says this, it makes us right."

When you say "Islam doesnt accept and Christians dont accept islamic interpretations" you should note that you are addressing Muslims, not Islam. Islamic theology is not and was never built on bible prophecies. The bahai theology is founded on bible prophecies. Their whole narrative of Bahaullahs post hoc justification is based on millerism and the great disappointment, and its rooted in the Bible.

 

[firedragon]

As I have stated clearly, my evidence for God is the Bible and the Holy Spirit. Scholars have had 2000 years to determine the canon and text of scripture, and I believe the Holy Spirit has been their guide.

If you wish to discuss the integrity of scripture, then I'll do so based on the internal integrity of the text. Let's not forget that all the apostles chosen by Jesus were Jews, and as Jews they had no difficulty accepting Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

Paul, who was a Pharisee before becoming an apostle of Christ, made it very clear in his epistles that the Law and the Prophets were holy and of God.

Romans 7:12. 'Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.'

Paul could not be clearer about the Law. And this applies to the whole of the Tanakh, which he knew back to front. Paul believed them to be scripture, and inspired by God.

If a Muslim thinks that there are parts of the Bible that have been corrupted then they should try to rewrite the Bible with the errors taken out. That I would love to see.

I find it strange that all over the internet, with all of these Christian anti islamic polemicists around with absolutely kindergarten level knowledge, every scholarly position quoted by any muslim is turned around to the Muslim with some apologetic trick. Not necessarily a trick by the person, but a habit learned from those polemicists. Thats invalid.

RD. The Bible canon developed through almost 4 centuries.

Can you give me a direct answer to this question below?

** Why dont you accept the Epistle of Barnabas though it was there in the earliest Bible known to humanity today? Do you understand the question? If you dont please clarify.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well, there were a lot of respected religious views from a lot of religions that are not yours. Which basically means that the respect and esteem for other religious books that contradict your books are wrong are "indicated" to be true.

By the way, those same people also, esteemed of books that claimed that there were giant ants mining gold in Turkey and that eating a lizard soaked in urine is good for the male libido. For females, they should put a bat soaked with blood on top of their heads.

And for the modern day... Elvis sightings, alien abductions, Nigerian Prince

And how many copies of those books contained prophesies that apparently came true — as there is virtually no attempt of debunking found in writings from their day?
If, as you claim, some of these prophecies were written after the fact, such deception would have been exposed by contemporaries, and the Bible would have been discarded into trash.

Is that what we see? No….the Bible, a collection of books from a relatively obscure nation, has been distributed worldwide and has survived numerous attacks throughout it’s history, still achieving fame as THE most published book ever, currently in over 3300 languages.

Only those looking for confirmation bias, would ignore this fact.

 

[kaninchen]

as there is virtually no attempt of debunking found in writings from their day?

What would you have expected and from whom?

 

[MyM]

Yes, you have struck me as particularly closed minded from the start, even for a theist. The notion an omniscient and omnipotent deity can only communicate as a monoglots is of course, preposterous in itself.



I don't believe in supernatural damsons, I believe I explained this already. So reeling off bare unevidenced claims about them in tandem, is pretty pointless.



Why are you telling me, I am an atheist?



That is untrue, and I offered a website full of them, which you refused to even look at, or offer any refutation, preferring had waving.



Not sure why this has to be repeated ad nauseam, but I am not going to simply accept your bare unevidenced claims.



I don't have any religion, I am an atheist. I see no objective difference between your religion and all the others, and no objective evidence for any deity.



Yet you can offer nothing beyond the same subjective claims all the other religions make.



This is a public debate forum, and all claims and beliefs can be subjected to critical scrutiny. If all you have are bare subjective and unevidenced claims then I am going to disbelieve them, and say so.

lol I rest my case

 

[MyM]

As long as you don't try and force your own beliefs onto others.

seriously

 

[Redemptionsong]

Name the countries, name the other
religious books they ban.
This inherently a silly argument for " truth"
in the bible.

Information on the present situation is easily accessed.
[52 Countries Where the Bible is Illegal | Love Packages]

All the soviet bloc countries banned the Bible, and if one looks back in history then one can mulltiply the number.

What this tells us is that the Bible is no ordinary book. It inspires belief, and followers. Why would that be, if it's just a piece of ordinary literature?

There is a promise that comes with belief in Jesus. 'Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:'

Receiving the Holy Spirit is an experience that 'born again' believers know is real. They are endowed with a Spirit that is not their own.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The Lord of The Rings is pretty clear about destroying the one ring, I don't lose much sleep about it if I'm honest. Since like the unevidenced notion of sin, I don't believe it is real.

I love it when people raise the banner 'Reason is everything, faith is nothing'. It confirms what God has said in Psalm 14. And, knowing that God is loving and kind, we can only assume that he's being generous in calling atheists 'fools'. Much stronger language could easily be employed.

Atheists hate miracles. They hate prophecy, they hate the idea of the Red Sea parting, the virgin conception, of Jesus healing, of Jesus walking on water and stilling the storm, of Jesus casting out evil spirits, of Jesus raising the dead, of Jesus being resurrected, and of Jesus ascending to heaven. It's all too much for a very limited understanding of life.

Yet, without even realising it, these same 'scientifically minded' individuals believe in a miracle. They observe the miracle, study it, and then claim its all an accident. But here's the problem: scientific minds have concluded that the universe has existed for 13.8 billion years, or near enough. The universe had a beginning, which means that before the universe existed, there was no universe. Nothing that constituted 'matter'. O dear! No matter to observe! No time or space.

The crowd with the banner, 'Reason is everything, faith is nothing', now have a dilemma. How can this state of unreasonableness be explained? Well, clearly it cannot, for 'nothing' is not a concept, and 'God' does not appear in the equations studied by scientists. Yet, given the two options, God or nothing, the former appears far more rational. To say that nothing existed before the universe is like saying there was a miracle but it had no cause. To say that God existed explains the miracle, and demonstrates that science is actually studying a miracle!

With this new way of seeing the world, miracles do not appear so odd, or irrational.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I find it strange that all over the internet, with all of these Christian anti islamic polemicists around with absolutely kindergarten level knowledge, every scholarly position quoted by any muslim is turned around to the Muslim with some apologetic trick. Not necessarily a trick by the person, but a habit learned from those polemicists. Thats invalid.

RD. The Bible canon developed through almost 4 centuries.

Can you give me a direct answer to this question below?

** Why dont you accept the Epistle of Barnabas though it was there in the earliest Bible known to humanity today? Do you understand the question? If you dont please clarify.

You're playing your old cards again. The canon of scripture was decided by scholars, guided by the Holy Spirit. The reason that certain books were left out is because they were not seen to have the authority to be called 'scripture' ie inspired and inerrant. It may also be that the NT already had enough information to confirm the person of Jesus as God's anointed, and enough information for the Church to understand it's role and to answer necessary theological questions.

What a lot of people fail to register, is that there was no NT scripture to hand out to the thousands of believers that the apostles first converted. These early believers had something far more convincing than the written word. They had direct intervention by Jesus in their lives.

As much as Muslims may bemoan it, they do not experience the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the baptism given by Jesus Christ [Luke 3:16], and it is only given to those who believe him to be enthroned in heaven. It is not enough to believe him to be a prophet, for all men are sinners (according to the Bible).