Are you a liar?

[Tinker Grey]

Zeke made a prophecy that Nebby would defeat and utterly destroy Tyre so it would never be found again:

Google Maps

There it is.

And it gets even better. After failing at that prophecy Zeke saw that Nebby would defeat Egypt. He did not do that either.

EDIT:

Bible Gateway passage: Ezekiel 26 - New International Version

@F1fan , I added a link to the verses.

My favorite is Matthew claiming that Jesus' return from Egypt fulfills a prophecy. Most scholars (and Bible footnotes) say this is a reference to Hosea 11:1

Here's Hosea 10:15 to Hosea 11:2

So will it happen to you, Bethel, because your wickedness is great.
When that day dawns, the king of Israel will be completely destroyed.

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.​

The bolded is phrase that "Matthew" references. So 2 things: 1) why would anyone read these and call them a prophecy at all let alone a messianic one; and 2) Why is that one phrase cited, but not "But the more they were called, the more they went away from me."?

 

[Subduction Zone]

My favorite is Matthew claiming that Jesus' return from Egypt fulfills a prophecy. Most scholars (and Bible footnotes) say this is a reference to Hosea 11:1

Here's Hosea 10:15 to Hosea 11:2

So will it happen to you, Bethel, because your wickedness is great.
When that day dawns, the king of Israel will be completely destroyed.

When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

But the more they were called, the more they went away from me.
They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images.​

The bolded is phrase that "Matthew" references. So 2 things: 1) why would anyone read these and call them a prophecy at all let alone a messianic one; and 2) Why is that one phrase cited, but not "But the more they were called, the more they went away from me."?

I wonder if creationists got the habit of quote mining so blatantly from authors such as the one that wrote the Bible. I figure if it is okay for writers in the Bible to quote mine the Bible then it is okay for anyone to quote mine the Bible.

"There is no God" source, the Bible itself at least 12 times.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't agree.

You have attempted to argue that the prophecy against Tyre is a false prophecy, but this, too, is not accurate.

As S.F. Paul writes, 'lt is further foretold that, after seventy years had passed from the destruction inflicted by Nebuchadnezzar, Tyre would be recovered for a season; although there should be an utter ruin eventually, as is evident from some of the prophecies quoted above [Jer., Ezek, Joel, Amos, Zech.]. Isaiah speaks of this temporary restoration (ch.23:15 &c), and Jeremiah includes them with the Jews in this promised return from captivity (ch.25:12). In the case of the Jews, there was a returning to the worship of the true God; but with Tyre, it was but to return to their idols, and to their riches and merchandise, until they should be further destroyed'.

Isaiah tells of the Assyrian destruction of Tyre. Ezekiel tells of the destruction by Nebuchadnezzar. Cyrus set free the nations that Nebuchadnezzar had taken captive, and the city begins to flourish again. But it was the new city.

'The old Tyre, which was situated on the mainland, had been desolated by Nebuchadnezzar, but the people built a new city on an island situated a short distance from the mainland. Here arose a flourishing centre of merchandise, which continued for many years, until the time came for a further fulfilment of prophecy.

This was under the Grecian Empire, when Alexander the Great enlarged the conquests eastward, and Tyre was again under seige in the year 330 B.C. Alexander's engines of war could not reach the new island city from the mainland, but by building a huge mound or mole between the two, he succeeded in reaching and taking the city, and setting it on fire. The mound was made from the ruins of the old city of Tyre, thus fulfilling the words of the prophet: "They shall lay thy stones, and thy timber, and thy dust in the midst of the water".

After this, the city was again rebuilt and flourished for a time, coming under Christian influence during the period of the early churches, as was foreshadowed by lsaiah (see ch.23:18); but under the rule of the Saracens and Turks, it steadily declined into a mere fishing village.

Visitors today can see fragments of the old wall, and piles of granite and marble columns, used by fishermen to dry their nets. As Ezekiel says, 'l will make thee like the top of a rock; thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon'.

Once again, it appears that your criticism is without justification.

But that is false. Tyre always was the island, not the mainland. If you read the prophecy itself you will see that it describes the island, not the mainland. If you knew anything about the history of Tyre you would know that it was the island, not the mainland. Tyre was a natural port and had an odd source of wealth. It was the one place at that time that one could get the makings of the color purple. Its rarity was why it was limited to royalty. Also because of its natural harbor and source of wealth it became a prized possession among countries. Which is why Tyre used to have a very strong defensive wall built. The only place it could be attacked at that time was in its natural harbor. They were attacked and conquered many times during their history, both before and after the biblical prophecy. That is why they built a very very strong defense on the island. When attacked their strategy was that everyone of importance shut themselves up on the island until the thread went away. It worked quite well until Alexander the Great brought the mainland to the island. But even he did not destroy Tyre to the extent of the prophecy.

Believers had to try to change where Tyre was so that could claim that it had been destroyed, but their story did not match the Bible nor did it make any historical sense. The wealth and port were on the island. Not the "settlements" that surrounded it on the land. Nebuchadnezzar only destroyed the suburbs. They did not destroy the city.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't agree.

They exist, and l would like you to tell me who wrote Psalms 22-24, and roughly when they were written.

Then by that standard the Bible says at least 12 times that "there is no God".

Quote mining should always be seen as an attempt to lie. I use that argument only because by your own standards the Bible repeatedly denies the existence of God. Worse yet if I play the creationist version of quote mining I can quote the Bible saying "there is no God" and I can pretty much guarantee that you will not find the verse, even though I got it from the Bible. When creationists quote mine they tend not to give the exact source of their quotes. They know if they do that they will lose the argument when people see the quotes in context. The same applies to most "prophecies" about Jesus. In context the prophecies do not exist.

 

[2ndpillar]

6 million Jews didn’t deserve Hitler because some supposed ancestors made God irritable.

Apparently 6 million Jews got Hitler. Judah has a track record of sinning, such as burning their children in sacrifice to Baal. Now, many of Judah/Jews simply get abortions and burn their babies to the god of green energy in furnaces. As judgment is coming to all the nations, one should be careful of their choices. Judgment day is coming, whether people acknowledge that what they do to others will eventually come down on their own heads, or not. The boogeyman is coming. (Zechariah 14:12)

'Truly disturbing': Energy company accused of incinerating babies' bodies for electricity (wnd.com)

Jeremiah 19:…4 because they have abandoned Me and made this a foreign place. They have burned incense in this place to other gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have ever known. They have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5They have built high places to Baal on which to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal— something I never commanded or mentioned, nor did it even enter My mind. 6So behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when this place will no longer be called Topheth or the Valley of Ben-hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.…

 

[Subduction Zone]

Apparently 6 million Jews got Hitler. Judah has a track record of sinning, such as burning their children in sacrifice to Baal. Now, many of Judah/Jews simply get abortions and burn their babies to the god of green energy in furnaces. As judgment is coming to all the nations, one should be careful of their choices. Judgment day is coming, whether people acknowledge that what they do to others will eventually come down on their own heads, or not. The boogeyman is coming. (Zechariah 14:12)

'Truly disturbing': Energy company accused of incinerating babies' bodies for electricity (wnd.com)

Jeremiah 19:…4 because they have abandoned Me and made this a foreign place. They have burned incense in this place to other gods that neither they nor their fathers nor the kings of Judah have ever known. They have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. 5They have built high places to Baal on which to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal— something I never commanded or mentioned, nor did it even enter My mind. 6So behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when this place will no longer be called Topheth or the Valley of Ben-hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.…

Don't make the error of believing all of the myths of the Bible. Claims of child sacrifice are quite common about one's enemies from those times. But it is a rather irrational claim if one thinks about it.

 

[Redemptionsong]

They are attributed to David. What makes you think these are prophecies?

For something to be a prophecy, it seems to me that someone should read it before the prophesied events and be able to say "Hey, that guy's prophesying X and Y."

Why would David's contemporaries read those psalms and think that it was prophecy? And, if one asserts that it became obvious only after the gospels were written, then it seems more obvious that the gospels were written to make it seem that way.

Matthew calls the Psalmist a prophet.
Matthew 13:34,35.
'All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, l will open my mouth in parables; l will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world'. [Quoting Psalm 78:2]

Let's also consiser the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost. He said, 'Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us until this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;'

Is it just NT apostles that considered the Psalms to be prophecy? No, because 1 Chronicles 25:1-3 says,
'Moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals: and the number of the workmen according to their service was:
Of the sons of Asaph; Zaccur, and Joseph, and Nethaniah, and Asarelah, the sons of Asaph under the hands of Asaph, which prophesied according to the order of the king.
Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six under the hands of their father Jeduthun, who prophesied with a harp, to give thanks and to praise the LORD'.

I think that's clear evidence that the Psalms were viewed as prophecy, and that David himself was a prophet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Matthew calls the Psalmist a prophet.
Matthew 13:34,35.
'All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, l will open my mouth in parables; l will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world'. [Quoting Psalm 78:2]

Let's also consiser the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost. He said, 'Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us until this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;'

Is it just NT apostles that considered the Psalms to be prophecy? No, because in 1 Chronicles 25:1-3 says,
'Moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals: and the number of the workmen according to their service was:
Of the sons of Asaph; Zaccur, and Joseph, and Nethaniah, and Asarelah, the sons of Asaph under the hands of Asaph, which prophesied according to the order of the king.
Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six under the hands of their father Jeduthun, who prophesied with a harp, to give thanks and to praise the LORD'.

I think that's clear evidence that the Psalms were viewed as prophecy, and that David himself was a prophet.

So what? The author of Matthew screws up elsewhere, especially when it comes to "prophecy" so why does it matter what his opinion is here?

 

[Redemptionsong]

So what? The author of Matthew screws up elsewhere, especially when it comes to "prophecy" so why does it matter what his opinion is here?

No, Matthew does not make the mistakes you claim.

Still, l await your answer to who wrote Psalms 22-24. Can you also give a date?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, Matthew does not make the mistakes you claim.

Still, l await your answer to who wrote Psalms 22-24. Can you also give a date?

What? Are you making the mistake of believing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew? No, it was just name for him. And yes he clearly did make those mistakes.

And why would it matter who wrote Psalms 20? We do not know. It is attributed to Kind David, but there is no good reason to believe that.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Matthew calls the Psalmist a prophet.
Matthew 13:34,35.
'All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:
That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, l will open my mouth in parables; l will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world'. [Quoting Psalm 78:2]

Let's also consiser the words of Peter on the day of Pentecost. He said, 'Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us until this day.
Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;'

Is it just NT apostles that considered the Psalms to be prophecy? No, because in 1 Chronicles 25:1-3 says,I
'Moreover David and the captains of the host separated to the service of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with harps, with psalteries, and with cymbals: and the number of the workmen according to their service was:
Of the sons of Asaph; Zaccur, and Joseph, and Nethaniah, and Asarelah, the sons of Asaph under the hands of Asaph, which prophesied according to the order of the king.
Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun; Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah, Hashabiah, and Mattithiah, six under the hands of their father Jeduthun, who prophesied with a harp, to give thanks and to praise the LORD'.

I think that's clear evidence that the Psalms were viewed as prophecy, and that David himself was a prophet.

I don't care what others said of David. Nothing he wrote hints of foretelling. And certainly not, Psalm 22-24

 

[Redemptionsong]

What? Are you making the mistake of believing that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew? No, it was just name for him. And yes he clearly did make those mistakes.

And why would it matter who wrote Psalms 20? We do not know. It is attributed to Kind David, but there is no good reason to believe that.

You dismiss the traditions that attribute Matthew's Gospel to Matthew, yet you provide no evidence for your doubt. The same is true of your doubts about Psalms 22-24, which are attributed to David.

Tradition is a form of evidence, because tradition takes you back to the beginnings of the Church, and to the patriarchs in Israel.

When do you think these three Psalms were written?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I don't care what others said of David. Nothing he wrote hints of foretelling. And certainly not, Psalm 22-24

Well, we can look at that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You dismiss the traditions that attribute Matthew's Gospel to Matthew, yet you provide no evidence for your doubt. The same is true of your doubts about Psalms 22-24, which are attributed to David.

Tradition is a form of evidence, because tradition takes you back to the beginnings of the Church, and to the patriarchs in Israel.

When do you think these three Psalms were written?

Do I seriously have to? Do you not know any of the history of the Bible? As to the Psalm that we are discussing it has at least internal claims that it was written by David. As a result the best that you can say is that it claims to have been written by King David. The Gospel of Matthew doesn't have even that. It was written by a person that was well educated in Koine Greek. That is not how Matthew was described at all. It was also written far too late, about 90 CE, for it to be written by a follower of Jesus.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Do I seriously have to? Do you not know any of the history of the Bible? As to the Psalm that we are discussing it has at least internal claims that it was written by David. As a result the best that you can say is that it claims to have been written by King David. The Gospel of Matthew doesn't have even that. It was written by a person that was well educated in Koine Greek. That is not how Matthew was described at all. It was also written far too late, about 90 CE, for it to be written by a follower of Jesus.

It was common practice to have a scribe write down your record. It was much like using a typist. But just because you use a scribe, does not mean that the work should be attributed to the scribe. The work is attributed to the one who dictates the words. And we know that only a close disciple would have had such a detailed knowledge of Jesus' life.

And your dating of Matthew's Gospel is way out. It must have been written and circulated decades earlier, based on the chronology of events recorded in the NT.

But, this particular argument is about prophecy generally, and whether or not prophecy exists.

If you admit that Psalms 22-24 are of ancient origin, then we can begin to look at the wording.

 

[Elihoenai]

What do 22.2 billion Christians assert is true, meaning what do they all agree about?

That none of them agree. Hey, at least Catholics and Protestants aren't killing each other any more.

At the Fundamental Level they all agree. It might be more difficult for an Atheist looking outside in to see what all 2.2 Billions of Christians in Christendom agree about. Roman Catholics and Protestants can still be agreed despite killing each other.

 

[Elihoenai]

Well, l can only speak for myself. IMO, the scriptures, from Genesis to Revelation, were inspired by God, and are inerrant.

If you believe the same, then it should be possible to discuss our differences using scripture as our standard of truth.

I'll give other clues to facilitate further consideration. All Ethnic Jews and 2.2 Billions of Christians in Christendom assert this to be True. @Redemptionsong Your teachings are asserting the same.


John the Baptist Water Baptism

Have you been Baptised according to the following video? You didn't answer this question.

What is Baptism?

Laying on of Hands

You said you can get the Holy Spirit by the Laying on of Hands. Are you saying you got the Holy Spirit by the Laying on of Hands?

Is the practical demonstration video below what you mean by the Laying on of Hands?

BT Daily: What Is the Laying on of Hands?

Practical demonstration of laying on of hands in Jesus' name

- John Mellor Ministries

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was common practice to have a scribe write down your record. It was much like using a typist. But just because you use a scribe, does not mean that the work should be attributed to the scribe. The work is attributed to the one who dictates the words. And we know that only a close disciple would have had such a detailed knowledge of Jesus' life.

And your dating of Matthew's Gospel is way out. It must have been written and circulated decades earlier, based on the chronology of events recorded in the NT.

But, this particular argument is about prophecy generally, and whether or not prophecy exists.

If you admit that Psalms 22-24 are of ancient origin, then we can begin to look at the wording.

What does that have to do with our discussion? And no, real Bible scholars are the ones that dated it to 90 CE at the earliest. And no, I do not care to discuss the Psalms. Psalm 22 is about Israel. It is not about Jesus. Reinterpretation after the fact is a trick that anyone can do with a vague enough poetic book. It does not count as "prophecy". If you set your bar that low for prophecy then other religions have them too. The Baha'i love to play the same silly game. By your standards you would have to accept them as a true religion as well.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I'll give other clues to facilitate further consideration. All Ethnic Jews and 2.2 Billions of Christians in Christendom assert this to be True. @Redemptionsong Your teachings are asserting the same.


John the Baptist Water Baptism

Have you been Baptised according to the following video? You didn't answer this question.

What is Baptism?

Laying on of Hands

You said you can get the Holy Spirit by the Laying on of Hands. Are you saying you got the Holy Spirit by the Laying on of Hands?

Is the practical demonstration video below what you mean by the Laying on of Hands?

BT Daily: What Is the Laying on of Hands?

Practical demonstration of laying on of hands in Jesus' name

- John Mellor Ministries

Yes, I have been water baptised (unto repentance) as an adult, and I have had the laying on of hands, with prayer for the anointing by the Holy Spirit. I believe I have received that anointing (though at exactly what point is difficult to tell), and am a witness to the power of the Spirit in ministry.

The question I ask you is, Do you walk by the Spirit of Christ in grace, or are you still seeking to establish your own righteousness under the law?

 

[Redemptionsong]

What does that have to do with our discussion? And no, real Bible scholars are the ones that dated it to 90 CE at the earliest. And no, I do not care to discuss the Psalms. Psalm 22 is about Israel. It is not about Jesus. Reinterpretation after the fact is a trick that anyone can do with a vague enough poetic book. It does not count as "prophecy". If you set your bar that low for prophecy then other religions have them too. The Baha'i love to play the same silly game. By your standards you would have to accept them as a true religion as well.

The 'real' Bible scholars you like to refer to are those who don't believe in prophecy! These same scholars are opposed by a host of other scholars who do accept prophecy, and who date the books of the NT differently.

In front of me is a dictionary of the Bible, by Richard Watson, printed in 1833, which states, 'Of the several dates assigned to the Gospel [of Matthew], which deserve any attention, the earliest is A.D.38, and the latest A.D.64.'

This widespread acceptance of early dating of Matthew's Gospel should give an indication of how 'higher criticism' in the late 19th century, by rationalist scholars, trampled on tradition.

The earlier dating makes perfect sense when one takes into account the historical 'markers' found in the NT, and how they match with extra-biblical sources of history. This is exactly what your scholars fail to recognise. The chief amongst these historical markers are the Jewish Wars of 66-73 CE, and particularly the siege of Jerusalem. Flavius Josephus, who lived through the wars, provides a pretty detailed history of the events that took place during these years.

As for the Psalms, I think it's worth investigating them carefully. Their ancient origins are beyond dispute, and they must have been available, and well known, to Jews of the first century.

Two Gospels, Matthew and Mark, record Jesus using the first words of Psalm 22: 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' when he was being crucified.

Do you think that the two Gospel writers put this in for effect? What deception were they trying to create, supposing the writers were liars?