Bible Prophecy as Evidence of a bible writers trustworthiness

[viole]

If I may ask…what beliefs, specifically, did you analyze?

Christian belief. The one I had.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ElishaElijah]

So religious motives must be pure, and atheist motives must be depraved. I don't think such obvious bias requires too much emphasis. Only to point out the fact that anyone making any claims of a prophesy, carries the entire burden of proof on themselves. this would involve 3 separate claims.

1. A prediction of a future event so specific that there could be absolutely no room for doubt, and the event so unlikely or rare that there was literally no room for such a chance event.

2. Unequivocal objective evidence that the event occurred exactly as described, and in a time that leaves absolutely no doubt it was predicted accurately beforehand.

3. Sufficient objective evidence that the prediction and the later event could only have been known and caused by divine inspiration.

I have yet to see a claim satisfy either of the first 2 criteria, let alone provide any objective evidence for the 3rd.

However since you have ratcheted up the hyperbole for biblical prophesy in a public debate forum, seem pretty confident you think you can, so off you go. I shall read your claim with an open mind, and avoid the obvious bias your posts have indullged, at least.

Just to give you a heads up, God does what you are asking for, He opens blind eyes, gives people understanding and insight or some remain blind, sometimes people repent and end up in a relationship with Him, some harden their hearts and continue on.
As far as prophecy for example Isaiah 53, who is the prophet talking about at around 700-800 BC?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I simply read the words. They are attributed to Jesus in all three versions. They say the Kingdom of God on earth will be instituted in the lifetime of some of Jesus' audience.

So EITHER there are some 2000 year old Judeans living quietly in Tel Aviv or New York and still expecting the Second Coming OR the prophecy is a dud, a complete failure ─ which I suggest is why the author of John in the 90s CE avoids mentioning it.
The Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel according to both Jewish and Christian scholars.

Likewise the young woman who shall conceive a son in Isaiah 7:14 does so in that chapter and the son is born and also mentioned in Isaiah 8. That isn't Jesus, whose name is Yeshua rather than Immanuel into the bargain.
In the NT, the Jesus of Paul pre-exists in heaven with God, creates the material universe, and arrives on earth in an unexplained manner, but since he's said to be descended from David we can assume he had Jewish parents.

The Jesus of Mark, by contrast, is just an ordinary Jew until he's baptized, at which point the heavens open and God adopts him as [his] son on the model of Psalm 2:7. He's not descended from David.

The Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke did not pre-exist in heaven, are born from the divine insemination of a virgin (and therefore have God's Y-chromosome), and are the subject of incompatible and false genealogies saying, absurdly, that Joseph is their father.

And the Jesus of John, like the Jesus of Paul, also pre-existed in heaven, also created the material universe, also came to earth in an undescribed manner and also is said to be a descendant of David.
No, they provide two incompatible and imaginary genealogies which tread on their own toes since those Jesuses are the genetic son of God.
Nope. That's an unhistorical perversion of the story of the Suffering Servant. And as I said, no Jew would have any reason to recognize Jesus as a messiah of any kind.
Because they had an armed rebellion against Rome. And theologically, I dare say because at the time they must have lacked a messiah, since one thing a messiah is good for is liberating the Jews from subjugation and restoring their national independence.
As I keep pointing out to you, the Jews had no reason at all to think a person of Jesus' description was a messiah.

And you haven't explained to me why God would send a messiah to found a religious sect that would rapaciously and murderously persecute [his] chosen people for two thousand years and counting.

There's a harmony to the Gospels that your analysis fails to see. You talk about the synoptic Gospels, and the Gospel of John, as if they speak about completely distinct individuals, which is nonsense. The role of the Messiah is a fulfilment of all aspects of the Law and prophets, and in time we shall see all come to completion in Christ.

The Gospel of Matthew highlights those aspects of Jesus' life and ministry that show him to be the anointed king of the Jews.

The Gospel of Mark focuses on Jesus as the Servant of God (without a genealogy).

The Gospel of Luke offers the perspective of the Son of man, with a genealogy extending back to Adam.

The Gospel of John is the Gospel of the Son of God, and provides a divine perspective. God does not have a genealogy.

The Christian understanding of Jesus Christ is that he is both fully man and fully God. This is the only conclusion that can be reached when all the scriptures are pooled, and none ignored. As Jesus said, 'scripture cannot be broken'.

Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God as 'at hand' because he knew that he had been anointed as king. Following Jesus' ascension to heaven, and crowning glory, his kingdom became a reality. This reality is not yet evident on earth as a visible kingdom, but is evident to those 'born again' of the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ is already King to those who belong to him in faith.

At his return, Christ will establish a visible kingdom on earth, and he will bring his saints with him (so scripture tells us). The saints of God do not die the second death (of the soul), and it is quite legitimate to talk about a living soul as not experiencing death. If, therefore, you alter your understanding of what 'death' means, you will see that Jesus' words are faithful and true!

As for the condemnation of Christians for the suffering of Jews, l can only say that this is a gross misrepresentation of the truth of history. It was the Christian minority that suffered persecution in the early days of the Church, and the persecution of Jews in Europe in later centuries usually occurred with the authority of the state. As we well know, just because a person is labelled as a Christian, does not mean they follow the 'way of the Spirit', which is the way of love and truth as found in Jesus Christ.

 

[Audie]

Do you mean as eager as you are to criticize Christians? No. ...and no. I am not eager to criticize Atheists.
Eager to speak the truth, and my thoughts concerning this, yes.
What did I make up... that Atheists here keep applying the here and now to ancient times? That's true. Not made up.
That it baffles me? That's true too.
That they think they know everything? That's true in a relative sense, but I didn't make that up. I

The old " turn it back on me" trick.
I criticize ( debate) falsehoods and illogic.
Christian or druid or frogman is irrelevant

"Thats true in a relative sense" will stand nicely for the rest
of your statements

Try it in court, after you make a statement of fact.

 

[blü 2]

There's a harmony to the Gospels that your analysis fails to see. You talk about the synoptic Gospels, and the Gospel of John, as if they speak about completely distinct individuals, which is nonsense.

You may call it nonsense if that helps you ignore it, but the three different models of Jesus which I've set out for you are each clearly evidenced by their respective texts.

The role of the Messiah is a fulfilment of all aspects of the Law and prophets, and in time we shall see all come to completion in Christ.

You haven't addressed the fact that Jesus would be unrecognizable as a messiah to a 1st century Jew.

The Christian understanding of Jesus Christ is that he is both fully man and fully God.

The Jesus of Paul, the Jesus of Mark, the Jesus of Matthew, the Jesus of Luke and the Jesus of John each expressly deny that they're God and never claim to be God. The Trinity doctrine isn't invented until the 4th century, in response to political pressure to elevate the chief character of the Christian religion to god status. If there was an historical Jesus, he'd never heard of it.

Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God as 'at hand' because he knew that he had been anointed as king.

When was Jesus anointed by the Jewish priesthood as king?

Following Jesus' ascension to heaven, and crowning glory, his kingdom became a reality.

That has nothing to do with the Kingdom on earth, which he promised would be established in the lifetime of some of his audience. Make all the excuses you like, that is a dud prophecy and an egregious FAIL.

As for the condemnation of Christians for the suffering of Jews, l can only say that this is a gross misrepresentation of the truth of history.

What, you deny that the Christians persecuted the Jews across two thousand years of Western history? You deny the Inquisitions? The imposition of ghettos and pogroms? Hitler's gas chambers?

The God of the Jews sent Jesus to institute all of this? Surely you're joking?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If that is true, how did these writings gain such deep respect?

Swordpoint conversion, mostly.

A LOT of murder.

Contemporaries would have discarded them!

Most contemporaries did.

 

[Sheldon]

Just to give you a heads up, God does what you are asking for, He opens blind eyes, gives people understanding and insight or some remain blind, sometimes people repent and end up in a relationship with Him, some harden their hearts and continue on.
As far as prophecy for example Isaiah 53, who is the prophet talking about at around 700-800 BC?

I am an atheist, so I haven't asked any deity for anything. You need to evidence your "example" and the explain how you believe it evidences any extant deity. If you're asking to believe a claim then I would need it to be supported by sufficient objective evidence. This would apply to all claims, I don't treat religious claims any differently than any other claims.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I am an atheist, so I haven't asked any deity for anything. You need to evidence your "example" and the explain how you believe it evidences any extant deity. If you're asking to believe a claim then I would need it to be supported by sufficient objective evidence. This would apply to all claims, I don't treat religious claims any differently than any other claims.

I asked you if you’re familiar with Isaiah 53 and asked you who you believe this prophecy is talking about? If not read it and answer or don’t, doesn’t matter to me either way.

 

[Sheldon]

As for the condemnation of Christians for the suffering of Jews, l can only say that this is a gross misrepresentation of the truth of history. It was the Christian minority that suffered persecution in the early days of the Church, and the persecution of Jews in Europe in later centuries usually occurred with the authority of the state. As we well know, just because a person is labelled as a Christian, does not mean they follow the 'way of the Spirit', which is the way of love and truth as found in Jesus Christ.

That is a no true Scotsman fallacy if ever I saw one. Jews have suffered persecution at the hands of European Christians for centuries, and a strong and virulent antisemitism had exited for just as long. Now of course one doesn't assume this about all Christians, but trying to pretend the Christians who did this were not really Christians is irrational, since it involves that fallacy.

The established church has been over centuries been complicit in religious persecutions as well, and not just directed at Jews obviously.

 

[Sheldon]

I asked you if you’re familiar with Isaiah 53 and asked you who you believe this prophecy is talking about? If not read it and answer or don’t, doesn’t matter to me either way.

I'm not doing your research for you, if you think you can evidence a prophecy do so, if you think that prophecy is evidence for a deity then explain why, if not then why make the claim? If doesn't matter to you, then responding to my post with that claim was odd? I also already explained in detail what I would consider as sufficient as a starting point for such claims?

1. A prediction of a future event so specific that there could be absolutely no room for doubt, and the event so unlikely or rare that there was literally no room for such a chance event.

2. Unequivocal objective evidence that the event occurred exactly as described, and in a time that leaves absolutely no doubt it was predicted accurately beforehand.

3. Sufficient objective evidence that the prediction and the later event could only have been known and caused by divine inspiration.

Simply making an unevidenced claim that someone made a prediction is obviously not evidence that it happened, and the timeline would have to be objectively evidenced as well. You may believe whatever you wish of course, as may anyone, but I am not obliged to share your beliefs if I find insufficient evidence to support them.

 

[ElishaElijah]

I'm not doing your research for you,

Ok, so all you have to do is click on the link Isaiah 53, the text will come up, then you read the text and let me know who you believe it is talking about.

 

[Sheldon]

Ok, so all you have to do is click on the link Isaiah 53, the text will come up, then you read the text and let me know who you believe it is talking about.

Read my post, I am not doing the research for you. You made a claim:

Just to give you a heads up, God does what you are asking for,

Now can you demonstrate any objective evidence for this claim? If you think any text in that link evidences your claim then post it, and I will read it, that is how debate works, I also asked right at the outset "how does prophesy evidence any deity?" So far no answer.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Read my post, I am not doing the research for you. You made a claim:



Now can you demonstrate any objective evidence for this claim? If you think any text in that link evidences your claim then post it, and I will read it, that is how debate works, I also asked right at the outset "how does prophesy evidence any deity?" So far no answer.

It’s better if you let people come to their own conclusions and there is no research to be done.
But to answer your question on how does prophesy evidence God? Because He is the only one who knows the future and can foretell events like He did in for example Isaiah 53.
Who else could foretell future events 700 years from now?

 

[SkepticThinker]

It’s better if you let people come to their own conclusions and there is no research to be done.
But to answer your question on how does prophesy evidence God? Because He is the only one who knows the future and can foretell events like He did in for example Isaiah 53.
Who else could foretell future events 700 years from now?

Whoa there. So you're saying there's a prophecy there that took 700 years to fulfill? What kind of crappy prophecy is that??

 

[Sheldon]

But to answer your question on how does prophesy evidence God? Because He is the only one who knows the future and can foretell events

You can't simply assume an attribute for your deity, in an argument for that deity, this is called a begging the question fallacy. So your argument is also a circular reasoning fallacy, which is quite a common logical error I have seem many theists make.

like He did in for example Isaiah 53.
Who else could foretell future events 700 years from now?

You have yet to demonstrate any objective evidence that anything was "foretold", or that it later came true exactly as predicted. The last part is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, you must evidence your claim, logically no one needs to offer contrary evidence or explanations.

So you have not demonstrated any objective evidence any deity exists, or that it can predict the future. Repeating your claim about that passage is not evidence of any sort, and if individuals can come to their own conclusion about it, then infers the conclusions are entirely subjective.

1. What specific event are you claiming was unequivocally "predicted"?
a) What objective evidence supports this claim?
2. What event occurred later that exactly matched this prediction, how are you eliminating it being nothing but serenity, chance or simple coincidence.
b) What objective evidence supports this claim?
3. What objective evidence can you demonstrate that divine agency was involved?

 

[ElishaElijah]

You can't simply assume an attribute for your deity, in an argument for that deity, this is called a begging the question fallacy. So your argument is also a circular reasoning fallacy, which is quite a common logical error I have seem many theists make.



You have yet to demonstrate any objective evidence that anything was "foretold", or that it later came true exactly as predicted. The last part is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, you must evidence your claim, logically no one needs to offer contrary evidence or explanations.

So you have not demonstrated any objective evidence any deity exists, or that it can predict the future. Repeating your claim about that passage is not evidence of any sort, and if individuals can come to their own conclusion about it, then infers the conclusions are entirely subjective.

1. What specific event are you claiming was unequivocally "predicted"?
a) What objective evidence supports this claim?
2. What event occurred later that exactly matched this prediction, how are you eliminating it being nothing but serenity, chance or simple coincidence.
b) What objective evidence supports this claim?
3. What objective evidence can you demonstrate that divine agency was involved?

I asked you your opinion on Isaiah 53 and who else could foretell events in the future 700 years in advance.
You got a whole lot of words while you avoid answering a couple simple questions.

 

[Sheldon]

I asked you your opinion on Isaiah 53 and who else could foretell events in the future 700 years in advance.
You got a whole lot of words while you avoid answering a couple simple questions.

Firstly it was you who interjected in a post I had made asking another poster to evidence his claim. In that post you made an unevidenced claim, and I have asked you to evidence it, and you have failed to do so several times. So physician heal thyself...

I already answered your question, which is not simple at all, and explained why it is not simple, because as I explained it is a logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam, it seems you think you can wave all that away, and pretend your question is logically valid, and demand that I answer it the way you'd like. However whilst it is up to you if you want to ignore logical principles, and make irrational claims or ask irrational questions, no one is obliged to play along.

So again since I asked first, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for your original claim, beyond your irrational request, that I offer an alternative conclusion to something in a link you have provided, that can't even be bothered to post?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I asked you your opinion on Isaiah 53 and who else could foretell events in the future 700 years in advance.
You got a whole lot of words while you avoid answering a couple simple questions.

So this vague prophecy (supposedly) took 700 years to come true, and we're supposed to be impressed by that?
Sounds like a crappy prophecy to me.

 

[ElishaElijah]

@SkepticThinker, @Sheldon,
Yes I did interject myself and was interested in who you thought Isaiah 53 was talking about and who could possibly prophesy 700 years in advance?
I will assume neither want to answer those 2 questions.

 

[Sheldon]

So this vague prophecy (supposedly) took 700 years to come true, and we're supposed to be impressed by that?
Sounds like a crappy prophecy to me.

Well we don't actually know anything was prophesied at all, just because the bible contains a claim, and then later claims it happened is hardly compelling evidence, and even were that not the case, how would this evidence a deity? No one seems to have an answer.