# Bible proven by Fulfilled Prophecies



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

So waddaya think?

Does not the fact that the bible is supported by fulfilled prophecies verify it as a valid and accurate proof for God/Jesus?


----------



## bignick (Sep 10, 2004)

The bible does have prophecies, but specifically, what fulfilled ones are you referring to?


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 10, 2004)

List the prophecies and the fulfillment.  (since the bible has been extensively re-worked dozens of times, please use ancient prophecies and modern fulfillment, or provide a source that proves the prophesy was actually made prior to the event of fulfillment - for example, the King James Version was reworked/rewritten/recombined in the 1600's, so unless the fulfillment is more recent than that, please be able to demonstrate that the prophesy was in the older text)

Does not the fact that many of Nostradamus' prophecies have come true proof that he was god?


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

There have been described in the Old Testament over 300 prophecies of the first coming of the Messiah and over 500 of the second coming, all of them made hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus and fulfilled to the letter in Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

George Heron, a French mathematician, calculated that *the odds of one man fulfilling only 40 of those prophecies are 1 in 10 to the power of 157. That is a 1 followed by 157 zeros*. Compare it to this; *your odds on winning the state lottery are 14 followed by 6 zeros*. 

Another mathematician, Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, claims *t**he odds of being fulfilled only 60 of them by the only person *who claimed to be the Son of God, and who died on a "tree" on Calvary, and who rose the 3rd day are astronomical!... *not just one in one trillion, but one out of ten to the 895th power. That is a one over a one followed by 895 zeros.  *​ Still more, because every page of the Old Testament talks and prophecies and characterizes the coming of the Messiah, the Christ in Greek... so, there are actually thousands of prophecies on the coming of the Messiah, all of them fulfilled to the letter in Jesus Christ and His Church​​But you asked, "which ones?"...​​So here are a few for you, but realize that these are only from the Old Testament, and even then, are only those fulfilled by Jesus, I haven't even listed the New Testament prophecies...there are thousands of fulfilled prophecies within the bible....​​<FONT color=#000000><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN lang=en-us>*Messianic Prophecies 
Separated By Bible Book
Page 1
*​<DIV align=center>*Genesis Prophecies*

*OT Scripture*

*NT Fulfillment*

The Messiah would be born of the "seed" of a woman.

 Genesis 3:15a

 Luke 1:34-35

The Messiah would successfully defeat Satan.

 Genesis 3:15b

 1 John 3:8

The Messiah would suffer when redeeming man to God.

 Genesis 3:15c

 1 Peter 3:18

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Seth.

 Genesis 4:25

 Luke 3:23-38

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Shem.

 Genesis 9:26

 Luke 3:23-36

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Abraham.

 Genesis 12:3

 Matthew 1:1

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Isaac.

 Genesis 17:19

 Luke 3:23-34

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Abraham.

 Genesis 18:17-18a

 Matthew 1:1

The Messiah would be the redeemer for all nations.

 Genesis 18:17-18b

 Acts 3:24-26

The Messiah would come form the lineage of Isaac.

 Genesis 21:12

 Luke 3:23-34

The Messiah would be God's "Sacrificial Lamb".

 Genesis 22:8

 John 1:29
 Romans 8:3-4
 1 Corinthians 5:7

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Abraham.

 Genesis 22:18a

 Galatians 3:16

The Messiah would be the redeemer for all nations.

 Genesis 22:18b

 Galatians 3:14

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Isaac.

 Genesis 26:4

 Luke 3:23-34

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Jacob.

 Genesis 28:14a

 Luke 3:23-34

The Messiah would be the redeemer for all nations.

 Genesis 28:14b

 Galatians 3:26-29

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Judah.

 Genesis 49:10a

 Luke 3:23-33

The Messiah would gather all people before Him.

 Genesis 49:10b

 Luke 12:1 
Mark 1:45

The Messiah would be the "vine" of all living.

 Genesis 49:11

 John 15:1-5


*Exodus Prophecies:*

*
OT Scripture*

*
NT Fulfillment *

The Messiah's bones would not be broken during crucifixion.  Exodus 12:46  John 19:32-33 
*Numbers Prophecies:* *
OT Scripture* *
NT Fulfillment* The Messiah's bones would not be broken during crucifixion.  Numbers 9:12  John 19:32-33 The Messiah would be God's "Star."  Numbers 24:17  Revelation 22:16 *
Deuteronomy Prophecies:*

*
OT Scripture*

*
NT Fulfillment*

The Messiah would be a Prophet as man.

 Deut. 18:15

 Matthew 21:11

The Messiah would be a Prophet as man.

 Deut. 18:18a

 Matthew 21:11

The Messiah would speak God's "Will and Word."

 Deut. 18:18b

 John 12:49

The Messiah would become a curse for the redemption of man.

 Deut. 21:23

 Galatians 3:13

The Messiah would be worshiped by Angels and men at His birth.

 Deut. 32:43

 Luke 2:13-14

*
Ruth Prophecies:*

*
OT Scripture*

*
NT Fulfillment*

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Boaz & Ruth.

 Ruth 4:12-17

 Luke 3:23-32



<FONT color=#000080><B>
<FONT face="Times New Roman">1st. Samuel Prophecies:


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

aarrggg...

Just like i thought, my previous posted was far too long...

I'll make a couple of separate posts containing what I tried to present to you above.. but please consider them all one post...


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 10, 2004)

Parmandjack,

You are aware, of course, that there are sects of Judaism which believe that the Messiah will come -- and they're still waiting for him.

Don't see any Old Testament citations in your post.  Can you please add them, as that's what I read.


Senseibear,

Nostradamus, huh. (Good riposte IMHO).


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

AS I stated above, There have been described in the Old Testament over 300 prophecies of the first coming of the Messiah and over 500 of the second coming, all of them made hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus and fulfilled to the letter in Jesus Christ, the Messiah.

George Heron, a French mathematician, calculated that *the odds of one man fulfilling only 40 of those prophecies are 1 in 10 to the power of 157. That is a 1 followed by 157 zeros*. Compare it to this; *your odds on winning the state lottery are 14 followed by 6 zeros*. 



Another mathematician, Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, claims *t**he odds of being fulfilled only 60 of them by the only person *who claimed to be the Son of God, and who died on a "tree" on Calvary, and who rose the 3rd day are astronomical!... *not just one in one trillion, but one out of ten to the 895th power. That is a one over a one followed by 895 zeros. *​Still more, because every page of the Old Testament talks and prophecies and characterizes the coming of the Messiah, the Christ in Greek... so, there are actually thousands of prophecies on the coming of the Messiah, all of them fulfilled to the letter in Jesus Christ and His Church​​But you asked, "which ones?"...​​So here are a few for you, but realize that these are only from the Old Testament, and even then, are only those fulfilled by Jesus, I haven't even listed the New Testament prophecies...there are thousands of fulfilled prophecies within the bible....​​*Page 1​*

*Genesis Prophecies*

*OT Scripture*

*NT Fulfillment*

The Messiah would be born of the "seed" of a woman.

Genesis 3:15a

Luke 1:34-35

The Messiah would successfully defeat Satan.

Genesis 3:15b

1 John 3:8

The Messiah would suffer when redeeming man to God.

Genesis 3:15c

1 Peter 3:18

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Seth.

Genesis 4:25

Luke 3:23-38

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Shem.

Genesis 9:26

Luke 3:23-36

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Abraham.

Genesis 12:3

Matthew 1:1

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Isaac.

Genesis 17:19

Luke 3:23-34

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Abraham.

Genesis 18:17-18a

Matthew 1:1

The Messiah would be the redeemer for all nations.

Genesis 18:17-18b

Acts 3:24-26

The Messiah would come form the lineage of Isaac.

Genesis 21:12

Luke 3:23-34

The Messiah would be God's "Sacrificial Lamb".

Genesis 22:8

John 1:29 Romans 8:3-4 1 Corinthians 5:7

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Abraham.

Genesis 22:18a

Galatians 3:16

The Messiah would be the redeemer for all nations.

Genesis 22:18b

Galatians 3:14

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Isaac.

Genesis 26:4

Luke 3:23-34

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Jacob.

Genesis 28:14a

Luke 3:23-34

The Messiah would be the redeemer for all nations.

Genesis 28:14b

Galatians 3:26-29

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Judah.

Genesis 49:10a

Luke 3:23-33

The Messiah would gather all people before Him.

Genesis 49:10b

Luke 12:1 Mark 1:45

The Messiah would be the "vine" of all living.

Genesis 49:11

John 15:1-5

*Exodus Prophecies:*

*OT Scripture*

*NT Fulfillment *

The Messiah's bones would not be broken during crucifixion. 

Exodus 12:46 

John 19:32-33 

*Numbers Prophecies:* 

*OT Scripture* 

*NT Fulfillment* 

The Messiah's bones would not be broken during crucifixion. 

Numbers 9:12 

John 19:32-33 

The Messiah would be God's "Star." 

Numbers 24:17 

Revelation 22:16 

*Deuteronomy Prophecies:*

*OT Scripture*

*NT Fulfillment*

The Messiah would be a Prophet as man.

Deut. 18:15

Matthew 21:11

The Messiah would be a Prophet as man.

Deut. 18:18a

Matthew 21:11

The Messiah would speak God's "Will and Word."

Deut. 18:18b

John 12:49

The Messiah would become a curse for the redemption of man.

Deut. 21:23

Galatians 3:13

The Messiah would be worshiped by Angels and men at His birth.



​ 

​


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

Continued...



*Ruth Prophecies:*

*
OT Scripture*

*
NT Fulfillment*

The Messiah would come from the lineage of Boaz & Ruth.

 Ruth 4:12-17

 Luke 3:23-32



<FONT color=#000080><B>
1st. Samuel Prophecies:


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 10, 2004)

OK.  pamandjack, should you choose to ACTUALLY explore this methodically, be prepared for ACTUAL and SPECIFIC debate.  Given that this will be your thread and topic, should you decide to abandon the discussion or resort to illogical refutation, I will remove your posts,  this thread, and you will be left with a fool's reputation.  

I cannot imagine a more ridiculous endeavour, but this forum is for specific and logical debate, not preaching.  

Got it in you?  

Warning issued.  Proceed with caution.


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

Sorry fellas...

I think I'm hosing the server as there are too many listing jsut with Old Testament prophecies regarding Jesus... 

I was trying to cut and paste the prophecies I mentioned previously, because if your like me, you don't like chasing down embedded url links..

...but it looks like I hav'ta do that after all...

...have a look at what I was trying to get to you...

http://www.shalach.org/PropheciesTable/prophecieslst1.htm

http://www.shalach.org/PropheciesTable/prophecieslst2.htm


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 10, 2004)

Nope.  If you've got a topic, post it.  What, specifically, do you want to discuss?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 10, 2004)

Shakes Head and mutters oh my god! not this subject lol! Starts pulling out his reference materials and His Torah.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 10, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> So waddaya think?
> 
> Does not the *fact* that the bible is supported by fulfilled prophecies verify it as a valid and accurate proof for God/Jesus?


Fact - Defined:
*1* *:* a thing done: as *a* _obsolete_ *: [size=-1]FEAT[/size]* *b* *: [size=-1]CRIME[/size]* <accessory after the _fact_> *c* _archaic_ *: [size=-1]ACTION[/size]*
*2* _archaic_ *: [size=-1]PERFORMANCE[/size], [size=-1]DOING[/size]*
*3* *:* the quality of being actual *: [size=-1]ACTUALITY[/size]* <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
*4 a* *:* something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_> *b* *:* an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
*5* *:* a piece of information presented as having objective reality

According to definition 4 a, a fact is "something that has actual existence". 

Stating that 'angels' did anything (Gal 3:13) belies 'fact',
Or that 'Satan' was defeated (Luke 1:34-35), 
Or that any person is a 'vine' (Luke 12:1),
Or that any person is a 'star' (John 19:32-33).

First, you have to prove to me that 'angels' or 'satan' exist.
Second, you have to show that an animal is actually a plant, or that a biological organism is actually is a nuclear reactions.

Said, another way, Belief in the Bible validates itself; a circular argument. Sorry, not allowed in thoughtful discussion about things 'proven' or not.

Mike


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 10, 2004)

Actually I have to agree with Mike here. Trying to disprove or approve ones faith is like trying to teach a blind man what the colors of the rainbow looks like. It is nearly impossible. 

We could go around and around and around and make each other extremely angry with each other lol. 

One of the forbidden subjects in public discourse is Religion.


----------



## bignick (Sep 10, 2004)

the problem that your argument has is that the only proof that those prophecies were fulfilled are found in the bible, the same book that has the prophecies themselves...i'm a believing christian...you're just debating from a weak position

remind's me of the magic trick where you put something in your left hand and say, "I'm going to make it transport to my right hand....there i did it, and now i will make it teleport back to my left hand....done",    all without opening your hands

certainly could've happened...but you don't know for sure if it did or didn't...you have to believe...and it's very hard to convince others of your beliefs


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> OK. pamandjack, should you choose to ACTUALLY explore this methodically, be prepared for ACTUAL and SPECIFIC debate. Given that this will be your thread and topic, should you decide to abandon the discussion or resort to illogical refutation, I will remove your posts, this thread, and you will be left with a fool's reputation.
> 
> I cannot imagine a more ridiculous endeavour, but this forum is for specific and logical debate, not preaching.
> 
> ...


So let me get this straight!!!

....just as the discussion is starting, you jump right in swinging both fists declaring that you cannot imagine a more rediculous endeavour? and then further state that this forum is only for logical debate! are you stating then that debating FOR the Bible is automatically illogical and therefore does not give me the right, perhaps as a second class citizen, to hold and discuss that position?

As a "moderator" thats not quite the "moderate" position I would expect you to hold.. seeing as how as a moderator, you are supposed to maintain an impartiality due to your position as a "moderator"... especially considering many other of the "un-imaginably more ridiculous endeavour's" I have noted through many other strings throughout the site.

As for being left with a fools reputation? you imagine incorrectly that your opinion of me matters!

Now if others care to discuss this string, as I questioned at the start, lets go.. but don't for one minute think that I will not use the bible and history to support my position, regardless of whether or not you decide it is "preaching".

In your position of "Moderator", I would like to see you address your above "Warning" to those who will take a position opposite to mine, as quickly as you did to me.

Thank you very much for so quickly biasing the discussion against the validity of the Bible, with your "attempt" at moderation... thats pretty fair minded of you.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 10, 2004)

Can you say DING DING!!! lets see who loses this one lol!!  I would suggest looking at the posting rules once again sir. No one here is out to get you or to shame you in your beliefs. There are many different religions here but we all share one thing in common that is the Martial Arts and we endeavor to keep the subject to that item as best as we can. 

Sorry dude. There again if you wish to debate certain people go to private or go to any of the IM programs available.


----------



## bignick (Sep 10, 2004)

he was not attacking you...he was stating the purpose of this forum and making sure "everyone" knew to keep it civil...debating the validity of events that happened over 2000 years ago is a "ridicolous endeavor" in the fact that the main evidence you have to go on is the Bible...and "logical" people like to have their information verified by second, outside sources...not to say there is absolutely no historical evidence for the events in the Bible, but those scraps of evidence are often few and far between...also, you will not be able to prove the events in the Bible, just as people that will be opposite your position will not be able to disprove it...this is where faith is required...if we had total proof that one religion is the true one...why are all these other ones around


----------



## bignick (Sep 10, 2004)

So let's keep it civil...and this discussion may just be interesting and fulfilling


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Parmandjack,
> 
> You are aware, of course, that there are sects of Judaism which believe that the Messiah will come -- and they're still waiting for him.


You are 100% correct kenpo... however, I would reason that simply because there are Jews who determined not to recognize Him when he did come, that that does not prove He didn't... Further, many other Jews of His time did recognize Him



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Don't see any Old Testament citations in your post. Can you please add them, as that's what I read.


I'm not sure kenpo if you managed to figure out the mess i initially tried to cut and paste, can't blame you if you didnt, but all of that material was from the OT.

I hope that addresses your request..


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 10, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> don't for one minute think that I will not use the bible and history to support my position, regardless of whether or not you decide it is "preaching".
> 
> In your position of "Moderator", I would like to see you address your above "Warning" to those who will take a position opposite to mine, as quickly as you did to me.
> 
> Thank you very much for so quickly biasing the discussion against the validity of the Bible, with your "attempt" at moderation... thats pretty fair minded of you.



Relax, relax, relax!

I suppose you can use the bible, but I won't accept it.  The orignal texts of the new testament have been re-translated, re-edited, and re-worked so many times - the oldest extant copies probably exist in a vatican vault somewhere.  You sure don't know whats in them, not to mention the dozens of books left out.

The old testament originals have been lost in the mists of time.  You could maybe get close by comparing and combining the torah, the bible, and the koran - but i'm not sure how many prophecies would survive.

Question for you - How many books of the new testament were written by people who had ever met jesus?  How about by people who were actually alive at the same time jesus was?

That is why I asked for ancient prophecies with modern fulfillment.  Old testament prophecies with new testament fulfillment isn't proof, it is the second half of the same story (oh my god, a prophesy from the first harry potter was fulfilled in the third - fictional witchcraft is the TRUTH)


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

No worries guys, I'm cool...

It just appeared that the discussion was having a bias imposed on it from the start, and that I was being told I couldn't present my proofs for my side of the debate... which doesnt make it a debate anymore right?

Anyways, it is obvious that you guys will be able to barrage me with valid questions and doubts, as well as what you feel is proof for your argument...

Obviously I wont be able to keep up (daresay I "against") you all  so I will keep moving forward through your responses answering them as best and as quickly as I can...

I also have two small babies yelling daddy daddy at me constantly, so all my attention cant be focused here too fast...

So, you see me addressing your points in order as best I can, but at a much slower pace than you can present them to me...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2004)

I had a rather long discussion with someone recently on the subject of Biblical predictions...the short summary is that those predictions, like those of Nostradamas were about -current- events, not future.

Also, outside of the Christian Bible, there is no proof of Jesus' existance. There is a rather long thread kicking around here somewhere that goes into more depth on that one. Summary - No census data, dates/times/people don't line up, etc. Additionally, much of the Old Testiment is derived from Babylonian and Sumarion (sp) mythos.

Believe what you will, but there's little historical evidence for much of what any of us believe.


Please don't take that as an attack...I'd personally love to see more info on the subject.  New data = new ideas I believe.


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 10, 2004)

oh yea, 

one more thing...

...as I answer your points, considering my first dismal attempt at cutting and pasting large quantities of text earlier, I will address your points, but then give you a url to take you to much more details, which will explain much better than I can, each point I am addressing... that way you guys can see for yourselves the supporting evidences, and perhaps pursue them further.

.... and guys, whether y'believe it or not, Jesus Loves ya


----------



## bignick (Sep 10, 2004)

as for the historical evidence...i do find the instance of the ossuary found with the inscription of "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" an interesting side note...

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 10, 2004)

I believe there was a debate on the age of the inscription, but my be remembering wrong.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 10, 2004)

Dear Monterey Jack (just letting you know):

All of your "confirmed," prophecies rest ujpon unproved and unprovable assumptions about Jesus' divinity.

Since you mentioned your kids, you might want to consider just how repugnant it is to some of us to read that, "the Jews did this," or, "the Jews did that." Gross, dude.

The arrogance of some Christians never fails to amaze me. If I were the Big Kahuna, and I weren't busy with intelligent planets, I'd be notin' those presumptuous enough to make claims about what I had in mind.

But the big question: why do you need the tools of science and reason to confirm your faith? Looks like either you've bought into the modern world, or are shaky about your beliefs.

Cheeze-louise. Read some Henry Vaughan ("I saw Eternity the other Night..."), some Gerald Manley Hopkins ("My heart is stirred by the grandeur of God/It will shine out, like sun from shook foil...") some John Donne, fer crissake, willya?

'Course, dem old Debbil moon can quote Scripture...


----------



## bignick (Sep 10, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> I believe there was a debate on the age of the inscription, but my be remembering wrong.


i believe you are right...but i never heard on the results of that debate...anyone hear anything else about this?


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 10, 2004)

I will state to you an absoulte fact there are Orthodox Rabbis that would have a heart attack if you used the words Jews and Jesus in the same sentence in reference to him being the Messiah. 

Maaa Get out the Heavy Torah from the Synagouge we are going to squash these pesky varmits LOL LOL!!


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 11, 2004)

Dear Ronald McDonald, I mean R. McRobertson (Just letting you know I can do it too)..

I was on another thread guys (I think it was the proof of higher power one), someone had asked me why I converted and I was explaining it.. then as I'm heading to bed I thought I'd quickly stop in and see what points you may have brought up so i could start preparing stuff tomorrow... and I saw my buddies "offended" post below... so I thought i'd quickly address his points, then tomorrow will start at the beginning of the thread with your points. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Dear Monterey Jack (just letting you know):
> 
> All of your "confirmed," prophecies rest ujpon unproved and unprovable assumptions about Jesus' divinity.


I'll cover this when I get back to this point in the thread - but this raises a question in my mind... if you are a religious Jew, on what information do you base your faith? And if you are, how can YOU prove YOUR assumptions to be true? Wouldn't your paperwork be theoretically as unproved and unprovable as mine? or anyone elses for that matter? including those who hold to the belief in the theory of evolution? - chew on that - but I'll expect you to defend and answer that point if you are in fact religious.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Since you mentioned your kids, you might want to consider just how repugnant it is to some of us to read that, "the Jews did this," or, "the Jews did that." Gross, dude.


Just so you know, it is very repugnant to some of us that some of you thin skinned types take offense at any opportunity for items that are as irrelevent as a mouse in a field who may happen to fart in your direction... For some reason, I've noticed through other threads, that you seem to take offense very very quickly, no matter what is said.. well I take offense to you taking offense to me so lets stop all this I'm offended crap...and discuss this like adults... would you prefer I did this "j-w"? ...too bad.. its not gonna happen... oh and by the way, my children will know what the word Jew means, as well as a whole spectum of other words, don't bother inferring anythign else into the discussions about their upbringing.

If you're a Jew, then you're a Jew, if you're a Christian, then you're a Christian, if you're a Muslim, then you're a Muslim, if you're an Atheist then you're an Atheist... get the picture? they are none offensive and none dirty words, unless the meaning is twisted by people like yourself who try to infer something other than what was originally intended... so..deal with it...if you cannot discuss this without complaining and being all "offended" about everything, then I'll just chalk it up to your being incapable of discussing something without your emotions getting in the way, and ignore your comments on this thread.

And just so YOU know, I am a friend of Israel (I guess some people call us Christian Zionists these days), and support "EXODUSII", buying airline tickets for Jewish immigrants to move home to Israel (the re-gathering if you will, correction of the diaspora)...look it up my friend... you're barking at the wrong guy.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The arrogance of some Christians never fails to amaze me. If I were the Big Kahuna, and I weren't busy with intelligent planets, I'd be notin' those presumptuous enough to make claims about what I had in mind.


LOL... where did you get that I make claims as to what He is thinking? I read the bible and therefore know what He has told us.. thats it, no more ! oh and I guess I should take offense at being called a Christian right about here right? I mean, you did about being called a Jew.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But the big question: why do you need the tools of science and reason to confirm your faith? Looks like either you've bought into the modern world, or are shaky about your beliefs.


LOL - wrong on both accounts... is having faith mutually exclusive to wanting knowledge? You demand proofs for my position... and even though I have pure faith in Jesus, I attempt to answer your request for proofs, then when I attempt to provide you with proof, you then assault the strength of my faith by stating that I'm either weak in it or believe in the world, which is the reasons for my needing proof?!?!?! thats funny circular logic...

So what do you want? should I just say then that I believe, then shut up? If i did that you'd ask me why i believe.. then when I can give you evidences for that belief, you'd tell me to shut up 'cause my faith is weak!

whew...

Anyways, I would prefer that antagonism and personal attacks were not part of this discussion... can we keep it that way?

I have a lot of cool stuff for you all to see as we go forward...


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 11, 2004)

I thought the Ronald McDonald and Monteray Jack comments were funny, but otherwise, this is gonna get ugly.  

Parmanjack, I belive bignick already pointed this out, but when trying to prove a document, it's generally not wise to rely upon the document to prove itself.  Specifically, calling upon events from the Bible to prove events in the Bible is quite foolish.  It would be better if you actually correlated some of the predictions with verifiable events in the real world.  

G'night.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 11, 2004)

*LOL... where did you get that I make claims as to what He is thinking? I read the bible and therefore know what He has told us.. thats it, no more ! * 

Others read the Bible and see the writings of Jewish priests.  No more.


*Anyways, I would prefer that antagonism and personal attacks were not part of this discussion... can we keep it that way?*

Probably not, given the topic of discussion.  

*I have a lot of cool stuff for you all to see as we go forward...*

Sounds like you're going Evangelical on us.  Do you honestly think you can introduce anything here that people haven't seen before?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 11, 2004)

Wow, there is so much that is offensive in this post, and it has nothing to do with religion, just arrogance and prejudice. I will point out a specific parts of your post with letters, and respond to them below.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> Dear Ronald McDonald, .....
> 
> *A)*. . . . .but this raises a question in my mind... if you are a religious Jew, on what information do you base your faith? And if you are, how can YOU prove YOUR assumptions to be true?. . . .
> 
> ...


A) - It seems that you are making an assumption as to Robert's belief system, and once that assumption is made, it is poisoning the rest of your thought process. If you are looking to gain knowledge, as you suggest, it is best to discard such assumptions as soon as they manifest.

B) - Here is the first representation of your assumption leading you astray. Perhaps, it would be helpful if you learned a little bit of history concerning the Jewish people. You may recall something called 'World War II', in which, persecution of the Jewish people reached a horrible nadir, with some 6 million being executed. Of course, some believe that these people were killed because of what the "Jews did".

C) - While there is certainly nothing offensive about any person being any faith, it is offensive to some that others must display their 'superiority' of the 'Jews' ... which leads us right back to the History of the World, Part I, you remember, 'The Holocaust'.

D) - And here your argument becomes complete. You support bringing all the Jews back together. Can we speculate on Why? Oh, yeah, if we look to the Bible, there is an insanity induced chapter called 'Revelation', in which all the Jews are going to come back together and die. So much for the 'No greater love hath a man but this, that he lay down his life for another", eh? With friends like that, who needs enemies.

Mike


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 11, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> but this raises a question in my mind... if you are a religious Jew, on what information do you base your faith? And if you are, how can YOU prove YOUR assumptions to be true? Wouldn't your paperwork be theoretically as unproved and unprovable as mine? or anyone elses for that matter? including those who hold to the belief in the theory of evolution? - chew on that - but I'll expect you to defend and answer that point if you are in fact religious.



I expect they would be.  That is the thing about religions and God - you have to have FAITH, cause there is no PROOF.  



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> ... is having faith mutually exclusive to wanting knowledge? You demand proofs for my position... and even though I have pure faith in Jesus, I attempt to answer your request for proofs, then when I attempt to provide you with proof, you then assault the strength of my faith by stating that I'm either weak in it or believe in the world, which is the reasons for my needing proof?!?!?! thats funny circular logic...



YOU introduced the proof idea with this topic.  No one came to you demanding proof.  So AFTER you definitively prove your topic, then ask others for their proof.  Otherwise you are just avoiding the issue by counter-attacking.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> Anyways, I would prefer that antagonism and personal attacks were not part of this discussion... can we keep it that way?
> 
> I have a lot of cool stuff for you all to see as we go forward...



I keep hearing this.  and I keep asking you to produce it.  You keep ignoring.  I'm still waiting for proof.


----------



## Mathusula2 (Sep 11, 2004)

Man, I've been lurking for a while, I really didn't want to post on this.
Look, I'm a Christian and have to agree with Big Nick on this whole matter... the definition of faith itself implies there is not tangible proof.  If you want to quote the bible to show our faith supports that statement, one only has to understand where the phrase "doubting Thomas" came from, where Jesus said, "blessed be those who have not seen, yet still believe".  Anyways, enough of that.

Parmandjack, I have to say this is exactly why I do not associate with the evangelist types, such as your own.  If I were not Christian, and were reading your posts, I would probably dismiss Christianity as a crock.  You obviously have no idea as to how you come across -- evangelism is supposed to be about inviting people to your beliefs, not badgering them and condemning them.

To the others on this thread and the 15 pager that preceded it, please understand that Parmandjack DOES NOT represent true Christianity... he lacks most of all, humbleness.

To michaeledward who implied Christianity was behind the holocaust, it was HITLER... a truely deranged and mad man who murdered 6 million mostly jews... my grandfather was in a nazi death camp, and he was a Catholic Sicilian.  While we weep for that tragedy, remember that that was NOT CHRISTIAN.

One last thing... I don't know if any of you like Comedians, but I love Lewis Black (a jew, btw) who made me laugh so hard I fell out of my chair.  He said," Jerry Fallwell had stated God had talked to him and told Jerry that he let 911 happen because of homosexuals and femanists... that's funny, 'cause God called me up 12 hours earlier and told me that 911 happened because of people like Jerry Fallwell."  I'm laughing as I type this, and I hope it doesn't lose most of its effect trough this wonderful medium.

Peace


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 11, 2004)

Mathusula2 said:
			
		

> To michaeledward who implied Christianity was behind the holocaust, it was HITLER... a truely deranged and mad man who murdered 6 million mostly jews... my grandfather was in a nazi death camp, and he was a Catholic Sicilian. While we weep for that tragedy, remember that that was NOT CHRISTIAN.


First, welcome, and thanks for stepping out of the closet, so to speak. 

Second, I did not mean in any way to imply that 'Christianity' was behind the holocaust, and if that's what I said I apologize. 

What I meant to say, or if your prefer, imply, is that the Holocaust happened because people felt superior to the Jewish people; they were not part of the 'Master Race'.

I *was* linking the holocaust generating superiority complex to parmajacks' comments. 
I *was not* linking parmajack's superiority complex to Naziism.

Mike


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 11, 2004)

Previous Discussion on Historical Jesus
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10609


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 11, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight!!!
> 
> ....just as the discussion is starting, you jump right in swinging both fists declaring that you cannot imagine a more rediculous endeavour? and then further state that this forum is only for logical debate! are you stating then that debating FOR the Bible is automatically illogical and therefore does not give me the right, perhaps as a second class citizen, to hold and discuss that position?


OK, I've thought about this all morning.  Maybe I did come on a little heavy there, and if you took offense, I apologise.  Here's what I think.

I think that I was a little annoyed that in the previous thread (Proof of a higher power), you tended not to actually debate what was being said, rather, you came off a bit preachy.  That bothered me a bit.

Secondly, I think that using the bible to prove its own validity or accuracy is fallacious at the onset, ergo I referred to it as a ridiculous endeavour.  However, if you are now able to provide proof of the Bible's accuracy using real world evidence, I'm open to hear it.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> As a "moderator" thats not quite the "moderate" position I would expect you to hold.. seeing as how as a moderator, you are supposed to maintain an impartiality due to your position as a "moderator"... especially considering many other of the "un-imaginably more ridiculous endeavour's" I have noted through many other strings throughout the site.


  I moderate only the Study and the JKD forum, and so am mainly unconcerned with things you may have said elsewhere.  It is my job, however, to help everyone play nice.  This is a topic that is almost guaranteed to fire up some emotions.  If we can all remain civil, we may accomplish something.  Let's see.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> As for being left with a fools reputation? you imagine incorrectly that your opinion of me matters!


My opinion of you doesn't matter.  Actually, I haven't formed one yet.  In the study, what you say and how you present it will tend to follow you around for awhile.  Credibility can be gained or lost.  I was trying to warn you of that fact, however badly I may have put it.  Once again, my apologies.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> Now if others care to discuss this string, as I questioned at the start, lets go.. but don't for one minute think that I will not use the bible and history to support my position, regardless of whether or not you decide it is "preaching".


There is a clear difference between preaching and debating.  Don't be preaching, because that's all talking and no listening.  If you can remain open to the logic behind the arguments which refute your position, you'll come off as less preachy.  Once again, let's see.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> In your position of "Moderator", I would like to see you address your above "Warning" to those who will take a position opposite to mine, as quickly as you did to me.


Believe me, they already know that I will, should the need arise.  





			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> Thank you very much for so quickly biasing the discussion against the validity of the Bible, with your "attempt" at moderation... thats pretty fair minded of you.


Bear in mind, please, that Moderators are people too.  I am entitled to my opinion, and if you look around at some of the other topics, I express it when I want to.  This is a topic that I've pondered for a long time, and have some pretty clear opinions on.  So if I take a Mod action, it will look quite official.  Otherwise, it is an expression of my opinion.  It's a difficult line to walk, but I live on the edge.

So, I await your discussion.  :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 11, 2004)

Side Note: Staff when acting in an official capacity will indicate such.  Otherwise, they have a right to express their own opinion. They are required to sign those official actions in a manner similar to the below.

Bob Hubbard
MartialTalk Owner and Technical Administrator.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 11, 2004)

We did not kill Christ - Mel Gibson notwithstanding - historically shown that the Romans did.

I will not comment on what other conclusions were drawn from your statement concerning your support of Exodus II and _aliyah_ (return to the homeland) for Jews.  We as a people yearn for return to what we consider our homeland (no sidebars about Palestinians - another time, another thread, please).  Indeed, we say it as part of the Passover service - _Next year in Jerusalem_.  That it would be a fulfillment of a dastardly prophecy is not in our belief structure.

Just by-the-by.  Have you ever visited Israel?  Fascinating place.  You could even see the Dead Sea Scrolls there...  in the Israel Museum, hard by _Yad VaShem_, the Holocaust memorial.  Ever been there, or to the one in our nation's capital?

What you ARE compelling me to do is recall my many many years of Hebrew school lessons - and yes, I was Bat Mitzvah.  In fact, my Torah commentary is next to me on the desk.  And THAT is what proves my beliefs to me.  That I still find my religion and religious training cogent to my daily life.

One other thing.  The 'lines' of Isaac and Jacob to which you refer are really one in the same:  we are descendants of Abraham.  Read Exodus and all those 'begats'.  In fact, the Moslems trace themselves back exactly the same way.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Sep 11, 2004)

you know......at one time the greeks and then the romans believed in a whole army of gods, all ruled by one "super" god, sometimes they disagreed and awful things happened. "what rot!", you say...."a whole army of gods for this or that?"
flash forward to 2004..... 1 "super"god to rule us all?

shawn


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 11, 2004)

Now my head hurts...  it's Greek to me.  What prophecy does that fulfill?


----------



## pete (Sep 11, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> We did not kill Christ - Mel Gibson notwithstanding - historically shown that the Romans did.


as i was taught, 'we' did kill christ, and it had to happen in order for him to fulfill the scripture and rebuild the temple in 3 days. the 'we' being the human race... romans, jews, greeks, and just about anybody else...


----------



## bignick (Sep 11, 2004)

good point...

however, i am actually interested in an intelligent debate on this subject...Parmandjack, do you have any evidence outside the Bible for the fulfilled prophecies....since we're all agreeing that using the Bible to prove the Bible is not the strongest platform on which to debate...


----------



## Mathusula2 (Sep 11, 2004)

Mr. Edwards,
     My appologies.  Say no more -- I understand your point of view now.

Pete,
     Yes, you are absolutely right.  We ALL are sinners, we've ALL had a hand in killing Christ, according to our beliefs.  No finger pointing about who killed Christ... it's bad, un-informed theology.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 11, 2004)

With the convening of the Council of Nicaea in 325 Jesus was officially declared the Son of God (by vote), this making him the seventeenth slain saviour God up to that time in history.  He wasn't the first to be resurrected, either.

I've listed some interesting info from a Christian web site somewhat related to the topic below.  It has to do with Mithraism, a competing religion to Roman Christianity that came from Persia.  I'm sure others have touched upon this in other threads:

"Mithraism is the worship of Mithra. The original source of the cult is unknown but argued to be of Persian, Indian or Chinese descent. It has been called an offshoot of Zorastrianism but that is also contested and not much literary evidence of the cult has survived. According to Persian legends, Mithra was born of a rock and a virgin mother called the "Mother of God" and was first attended by shepherds. Mithra was called "the Light of the World." They believed in a heaven and hell and the dualism of good and evil, a final day of judgment, the end of the world as we know it and a general resurrection. Long before Jesus, Dec. 25th was celebrated as the date of Mithra's birth. Mithra was also associated with the sun, and his followers marked Sunday as his day of worship, they called it the Lord's Day. A few of the extra-biblical traditions seem to have found its way to Christianity through Roman Mithraism.

Among the milder ceremonies of the followers of Mithra were baptism in holy water and a partaking of a sacred meal of bread and wine. After passing several ordeals the converts were "reborn" as a new man in Mithra. Though Mithra had ascended into heaven he had promised to return and bring life everlasting to his loyal followers."

http://latter-rain.com/ltrain/mith.htm

The Catholic Encyclopedia points out that Mithraism might have borrowed from Christianity, rather than the reverse.  The fact that Mithraism predates it doesn't necessarily mean the traditions went from older to younger.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10402a.htm

And another:

http://members.aol.com/MercStG/ChriMithPage1.html


Regards,



Steve


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 11, 2004)

Balderdash.  David and Joseph as Christ figures?  Yee gads.  I've heard some pretty interesting interpretations of Biblical stories, but that's got to be the best so far.

Since when are messianic figures warriors (yes, I feel David was one)?

Sorry for ranting, but I love these 'religions' which put forth so much information and expend so much effort to 'prove' themselves.

Steve, a great read, as always.  [Making me think on a weekend -- ten lashes with a wet noodle for you, sir!]  KT


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 11, 2004)

A recent discussion I had with a Biblical researcher suggests that Moses was really the son of the Pharoh who attempted to stage a coup through a slave revolt, and that the hebrews 'rewrote history' after being driven out.  It was a very interesting twist on things.

Another part of the same discussion indicated an archiological find of almost an armys worth of equipment buried in ancient sea bottom by the Red Sea....

I'd be interested in seeing the Egyptian histories of the same time period.  Considering how little we really know, an independant source could add another face to the biblical historys.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 11, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Balderdash.  David and Joseph as Christ figures?  Yee gads.  I've heard some pretty interesting interpretations of Biblical stories, but that's got to be the best so far.




KT,

"Christ" is Greek for "Anointed One" or "Messiah".  I think the author on that page was trying to point to the connection between David, Joseph and Jesus by using the Greek term for "Messiah".  His using the term "Christ" in describing David and Joseph has probably caught some Christians by surprise as well.   

In looking this up I came a cross an interesting reference that outlines the different Jewish interpretations of the Messiah.  Before any of you suggest this is O.T., remember that this is the main prophesy fulfillment alleged by Christians (and one I assume Parmandjack will get to).  On this page below the Jewish messianic prophesies are discussed and the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform views of the Messiah are given.

http://www.fact-index.com/j/je/jewish_messiah.html

Linking to this page (scroll to the bottom) gives the contrast between Jewish and Christian views of the Messiah:  http://www.fact-index.com/j/je/jesus_christ_as_the_messiah.html

This discusses how the Septuagint and Tanakh versions of the Hebrew scriptures have one passage in Isaiah (7:14) that list the Messiah's mother as being a virgin (Septuagint) or a young woman (Tanakh).  Many of you, I know, are well aware of this discrepancy.

The Septuagint was a Greek translation of the scriptures and was not used by the Jewish community outside of Alexandria.  Scholars believe the author of Matthew used the Septuagint in referencing his "prophecy" of the virgin birth of Jesus/Immanuel.  The idea that Jesus was born of a virgin caught on.

The virgin birth concept was not new.  Pagan religions up to that time used the idea rather freely.  Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, was born of the god Mars and the vestal virgin Sylvia.  In Greek mythology the stories of Semele, Danae, Melanippe, Auge and Antiope all contained virgin birth narratives.  Danae was impregnated by Zeus and via a shower of gold and gave birth to Perseus.  Semele was impregnated by Zeus via a bolt of lightining and later gave birth to Dionysius.  Augustus and Alexander also had virgin birth stories attached to them.  Augustus was deified later in life, and according to Plutarch and others, Alexander was the son of God (Zeus...he DID get around, didn't he?)

Scipio Africanus, the Roman General who conquered Carthage, was said to be the son of God and a previously sterile mother.  His mother apparently was not a virgin, but was impregnated by a god.  This son of a god theme is fairly common in the ancient world, whether it was attended by virgin births or not.  But back to the virgins, shall we?

The Egyptian god Horus was born of the virgin Isis (in a stable, no less).  Phoenician mythology had Adonis being born of the virgin Myrrh.  Mithra, of course, was supposedly conceived by God who entered a virgin in the form of light.  Krishna was also said to have been born of a virgin.  Mut-em-ua, the virgin queen of Egypt, gave birth to the man-god Amenkept III about 2,000 years BCE.  She was impregnated by the god Kneph, who held a cross (the symbol for life) to her mouth.  The Gautama Buddha and his followers never claimed he had a miraculous birth...but that legend grew after his death.

Celsus, a pagan critic of early Christianity, wrote around 178 CE that Christians were borrowing the idea of virgin birth from pagan religions.  He wrote:  "[a]fter all, the old myths of the greeks that attribute a divine birth to Perseus, Amphion, Aeacus and Minos are equally good evidence of their wondrous works. . . and are certainly no less lacking in plausibility than the stories [of the Gospels]" 

http://members.aol.com/ps418/miracles.html

The site above also lists some other pagan parallels with Christianity.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 11, 2004)

First, reading Old Testament figures as forerunners of Christ is in fact rather common in Christian interpretation--it's called, if memory serves, a "typological," reading.

Second, Monterey Jack or whoever has made it clear that he belongs to that part of fundamentalist Protestantism that supports Israel because they believe the Last Days--which include the expansion of Greater Israel and the rebuilding of the Temple--are fairly near. 

Third--Christianity is indeed a syncretic religion. For some, that means just another myth; for others, that means the fulfilled truth of what previous religions dimly glimpsed. 

Fourth: science, as an aspect of humanism, evolved within Christianity. Regrettably, these days some Christians produce arguments that are based on absurd science and shaky theology.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 11, 2004)

Okay I do not know if I have shared these facts with you before. 


You can not use the so called New Testament to make your point with Jewish People. They do not recongize its validity or authority.
Jewish People have a different guideline or template on what the Messiah does or is to do for the Human Race. Where he comes from and what qualifications he is to have, etc......
Besides It is our right to complain and whine it is our natural right to do so. LOL!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




We get real edgy when you use the title OLD TESTAMENT in referring to our Torah.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 11, 2004)

Mark Weiser said:
			
		

> We get real edgy when you use the title OLD TESTAMENT in referring to our Torah.




When I refer to the "Old Testament" I'm referring to those translations of Jewish scripture found in Christian Bibles, some versions of which contain Ben Sira, Judith, Tobith, and the books of I & II Maccabbees.  Those books were thrown out of your Canon in the second century.  

When I refer to the Torah, I refer to those texts and translations used in Judaism.

If I was going to refer to the Muslim version of the Torah, I'd think it best to call it the "Tarwat", so as to distinguish it from yours.  I don't think you'd want any confusion there, would you?



Regards,


Steve


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 12, 2004)

Mathusula2 said:
			
		

> Man, I've been lurking for a while, I really didn't want to post on this.
> Look, I'm a Christian and have to agree with Big Nick on this whole matter... the definition of faith itself implies there is not tangible proof.  If you want to quote the bible to show our faith supports that statement, one only has to understand where the phrase "doubting Thomas" came from, where Jesus said, "blessed be those who have not seen, yet still believe".  Anyways, enough of that.


I respect that.  My wife is christian, and I support her faith, though I don't share it.  Sometimes I envy it.  everyone is welcome to their beliefs.  

and I honestly am interested in discussion.  I have noticed enough things in the world that I do not feel are sufficiently explained by science that it makes me suspect there may be more to life than we know.  I think we should turn attention that way - cause I'd love to know.


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 12, 2004)

Apologies accepted Flatlander, thanks, please accept mine too.. I came back at you rther sharp also......

I have tonights entry gentlemen.. and ladies, should there be any amongst us...

Let me first say though, that I am truly mazed at the group berating I get when I respond to someone elses uninitiated derogatory comments towards me... and that everything I say is tossed back at me as arrogance!?!? Why? I have no idea...other than that I think it stems for your contempt for the christian faith, which you naturally overlay on me... and therefore anything I say...

Oh well... personally attack me all you want with your inuendos and such... it matters not... heres a thought though, what would probably work really well though, is if certain amongst you stopped taking my words and twisting them to say what they don't, and then adding in what you believe my real motives are... and instead, simply accept that I'm honest and stating what I really mean...hmmm???

And BTW Methusala, I do represent "true" christianity as you put it... because believing in every word of the bible, and then accepting Jesus as your Saviour is what being a "real" Christian means... but that is the subject of perhaps an offline discussion if you wish.

Anyway, I know a lot of you approach this topic with an already closed mind... but have a look anyway... if we are are going to look at prophecy as proof of the bible, I think we wold need to first start with proving the bible as a valid and accurate document.

...I agree that people have been predicting the end of the world for a long time. Indeed, that comes as no surprise to those who eschew the "real truth of science" ("man will never fly" - "bloodletting will cure disease" - both once scientific truths) for the "myths" of the Bible. How many people do you think have tried to prove the Bible wrong in the last 20 centuries? Philosophers, thinkers, scientists and doctors from every generation, on every continent, for 2000 years have tried to conclusively disprove the Bible - archeologically, historically, medically, scientifically - the one person who cound find a single provably incorrect statement in any of these fields would prove that the Book was written by a man. 

Such a person would utterly destroy the underpinnings of the Judeo Christian ethic and would be the most famous person who ever lived. The man who proved the Bible wrong! WOW... Surely history records such a person - it's not like the Bible and its precepts haven't been under constant attack throughout history. But, sadly, there is no record of our historical genius. 

You can't really believe you are the first people to question it. I challenge you to conclusively disprove the Bible. While you're at it, can you conclusively prove evolution? Science demands empirical evidence that can be re-created in a laboratory before it labels something as "fact." Consequently, we teach evolution as fact in schools, but call it the "theory" of evolution. Look up "theory" and you'll find it means "a supposition" - an unproved fact. 

On the other hand, the Bible is made up of 66 books, written by at least 40 different men in different cultures, different continents and places over a period of 2,000 years. Yet the message is perfectly consistent, homogenous, connected and progressive. 

The Bible details history, medical information, scientific information (the Book of Job tells us, among other things, the world is round, wind moves in cyclonic patterns rather than a straight line and that light is in motion), without contradicting the latest findings of science. Archeological information has never disproved but rather confirmed the details of the Bible. Archeology has proven the existence of such key figures as Pontius Pilate, Caiaphas the High Priest, and we also have the record of Flavius Josephus, the secular Roman historian who mentioned the life of Jesus.

The Bible has more manuscript evidence supporting its reliability and accuracy that any ten pieces of ancient literature combined. According to McDowell, there are over 5,500 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, over 10,000 of the Latin Vulgate, and at least 9,300 other early versions, and we have more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today.


No other document of antiquity even comes close to such numbers or attestation. In comparison, another ancient writing, Homer's Iliad, is second with only 643 manuscripts that still survive. The accuracy of translation and the massive amount of manuscripts in existence, gives tremendous credence to the divine authorship and preservation of the Bible.

One of the most famous objections to the Bible is that it is corrupt, edited, and unreliable and therefore cannot be trusted. Again, this statement only reveals a person's bias and/or lack of knowledge. You can also note here the Dead Sea Scrolls - some of the books dated at approx 150 B.C. and showing that our "modern" Bible is still identical to the original document over 2000 years old - unchanged as many like to claim.

There are 5,500 ancient Greek manuscripts that agree 99.5%, this insures that what we have been handed down is reliable and faithful to the original inspired autographs, which were, "GOD breathed." That .5% has nothing to do with the fundamentals of our faith, but minor issues which in no way, affect Christianities unique claims and precepts.

As you can see by the graph below, in order to dismiss the Bible as "corrupt", they/you must also dismiss Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, and Homer. Our biblical copies are far superior in number and accuracy, so as you can see, skeptics have no footing on which to stand, we might as well dismiss all of history if we deny the Bibles accuracy as we have it.

WORKS-----------Date Written----Earliest Copy----# Manuscripts

Aristotles poetics--384-322 B.C.----1100 A.D.-----------49
Platos tetralogies--427-347 B.C.----900 A.D.------------7
Herodotus---------488-428 B.C.----900 A.D.------------8
Tacitus------------100 A.D.--------1100 A.D.-----------20
Thucydides--------460-400 B.C.----900 A.D.------------8
Homers lliad--------800 B.C.--------400 B.C.------------643
Caesars Gallic War--58-50 B.C.------900 A.D.------------10
Livy roman history--59B.C.-17 A.D.--900 A.D.------------20
New Testament----48-95 A.D.------200 A.D.------------5,500+
Old Testament-----1500-200 B.C----125 B.C.------------1000+

Not only that, but Secular Historians of the time such as Josephus, the Roman Tacitus, The Roman Suetonius, The Roman Governer Pliny the Younger, confirm the many events, people, places, and customs chronicled in the New Testament*.*

*...and here is something for further reading shol you be interested.*

*http://iwhome.com/spiritualquest/tracts/hpbibtrs.htm*


Well lads, thats it for tonight.

G'night...


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> Well lads, thats it for tonight.
> 
> G'night...


I just want you to know, I don't even know where to start. There is so much, that is so wrong with your statements. I find it very scary. 

Enjoy your beliefs .... I really don't want to live in your world.

Mike


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 12, 2004)

I have tonights entry gentlemen.. and ladies, should there be any amongst us...

Parmand,

If I am nothing else, I _am_ a lady at all times. 
I'm just not a night owl like you all. Need my beauty sleep.

Did you read Mark's entry upthread?  Also, HardheadJarhead's regarding the Greeks, who you also cite.  No attacks there, just common sense and logic, which both of these gentlemen have in abundance.  Just read their posts elsewhere.

I doubt any of the men participating in this debate are attacking you personally.  This coterie of debaters tends to get a bit testy when they respond to posts they disagree with.  That doesn't mean they hate you, just that they've temporarily placed their manners aside (or taken the gloves off, whichever you prefer).  Personally, I find what you have to say interesting in that it presents a viewpoint I'm not normally privy to.  We don't have many like you in the East, especially NY.

I also am probably immune to prostelyzing of any type, including that of my fellow religionists.  Yes, we have fundamentalists too, and they don't include my branch of Judaism as part of our religion.  They don't anger me, and neither do you.  I find it curious that you (and they) are so passionate about your personal beliefs that _everyone_ should share them.  Why, if it's enough for you to know that you aren't going straight to Hell with the rest of us?

I asked you earlier if you've ever visited the Holy Land.  As a true believer in your faith, it would be (assuming you have not) an experience for you to walk the Via Dolorosa and visit Gesthemene and Bethlehem.  I lived there and those places were part of my everyday experience, along with those of my faith.  It was inspiring to actually see the places mentioned in both Bibles.

So, Revelations says we're all going to return to Ha-Eretz (The Land, literally translated), build the temple for yet another time in order to have it destroyed.  That wasn't quite the way it was taught to me.  Please explain the logic behind this prophecy.  It intrigues me.  KT


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 12, 2004)

The link that parmandjack provided appears to be the reference for his argument, containing all the figures which he used. It is by no means a proof, as the justifications are weak and illogical. One line particularly struck me, a reference to the men who wrote the various books of the bible: 





> Either these men were deluded, intentionally lying, or they were right.


 The argument itself admits there is an "either", as opposed to an "is" or "was".

By no means concrete enough for me to change my entire belief structure.

Is it possible that in accepting the bible as literal truth, the message of Jesus has been missed?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 12, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> The link that parmandjack provided appears to be the reference for his argument, containing all the figures which he used. It is by no means a proof, as the justifications are weak and illogical. One line particularly struck me, a reference to the men who wrote the various books of the bible: The argument itself admits there is an "either", as opposed to an "is" or "was".
> 
> By no means concrete enough for me to change my entire belief structure.
> 
> Is it possible that in accepting the bible as literal truth, the message of jesus has been missed?


Which bible?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 12, 2004)

Old and or New Testament.  I'm unfamiliar with any of the Jewish texts, or what they have to say.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 12, 2004)

heh. 

Recent discussion I had suggested that each version of the christian bible was only an inaccurate reflection of gods words, and to truely understand them, you must 'listen to the silence between the notes, found only in your own heart'.  That those writen words are close, but not exact, due to the 'hearing defects' in those who wrote them down, and 'vision defects' in those who have translated them.

Now, what I have to wonder is, are there different 'versions', translations, etc of other religions holy books?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 12, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> heh.
> 
> Recent discussion I had suggested that each version of the christian bible was only an inaccurate reflection of gods words, and to truely understand them, you must 'listen to the silence between the notes, found only in your own heart'. That those writen words are close, but not exact, due to the 'hearing defects' in those who wrote them down, and 'vision defects' in those who have translated them.
> 
> Now, what I have to wonder is, are there different 'versions', translations, etc of other religions holy books?


Kaith,
I'd be willing to bet there are.  It's like anything else.  One passes along one's knowledge according to one's understanding of it.  Therefore, interpretation does happen.  KT


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 12, 2004)

Kaith I am impressed with your statement. The Rabbis that I have talked with have mentioned this very line of thought. Congrats!!


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 12, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> The link that parmandjack provided appears to be the reference for his argument, containing all the figures which he used.


...actually flatlander, that url was not the reference for my figures, it just happened to contain some of them also... i presented it because I liked some of the other statements it presented. You will find those figures readily available at hundreds of sites... and will also note, that no "modern" scholar, philosopher etc... even attempts to refute those facts, as they are common knowledge and would be easily refuted if they were made up. But they haven't been denied by critics or skeptics who actually know...



			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> It is by no means a proof, as the justifications are weak and illogical.


...proof of what? that the bible is more solidly documented than other ancient texts?.. well I put to you that the evidence is in front of you stating otherwise... and agreed upon by by sides.

...I can only present the facts to you as they are... only you can decide what to do with them once you have them in front of you...



			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> One line particularly struck me, a reference to the men who wrote the various books of the bible: The argument itself admits there is an "either", as opposed to an "is" or "was".


...exactly.. and the same argument as Jesus was either a liar or a lunatic.. or exactly who he claimed to be....




			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> By no means concrete enough for me to change my entire belief structure.


...how much supporting evidence would then be enough for you showing that the bible has not been corrupted... at some point in time, you have to simply confess that you simply will not accept a fact, regardless of amount of evidence in front of you. 



			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> Is it possible that in accepting the bible as literal truth, the message of Jesus has been missed?


...good question...but i don't believe so, and I dont believe so because the Bible is Gods revelation to us, and Jesus is God, thereby He gave us exactly what He wanted us to know...I don't believe that an omnipotent creator sitting up there would be slapping his knees and chuckling over intentionally injecting confusion into a text he gave us... and then basing our salvation on whether we corectly "re-interpreted it"


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 12, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I just want you to know, I don't even know where to start. There is so much, that is so wrong with your statements. I find it very scary.


...not knowing where to start is quite ok michael ... but make a blanket statement like that and then not backing it up is not. You would have a difficul time disproving those numbers, which is why no skeptics can or do... the count is in regardling the manuscripts, the numbers are correct... contrary to you stement.



			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> Enjoy your beliefs ....


...thank you, and you yours also.



			
				flatlander said:
			
		

> I really don't want to live in your world.


..you have that option...God gave you free will my friend... the choice and right to do so is yours, and who am i to argue... have a wonderful life my friend.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 12, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> and I dont believe so because the Bible is Gods revelation to us, and Jesus is God, thereby He gave us exactly what He wanted us to know


This is the main conflict between Jewish and Christians. Judaism does not accept any portion that Jesus was or is the Messiah. If in fact they accept that he even existed they may say that he was killed due to the polictial climate in which he lived. 

Caesar which claimed to be divine and the only source for power would not tolerate a man running around his empire claiming to be God. The People in charge of that piece of Land would have known this and would have done everything in his power to keep his own head. So he had to stop this from getting out of hand.  

Traditionally the Jewish People when rebellion was the order of the day usually tried to overthrow the oppessor during this time of the year. The Romans knew this due to Historical records. So let us put two and two together. Interesting point to ponder.  Some Jewish Scholars think if he existed he would have been a good or even a great Rabbi during his time.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Sep 12, 2004)

Parmandjack:

I suppose, then, you could point out the person that has proven the Bible to be truthful?  Because as famous as you claim that someone who disproved the Bible would be, I'll betcha that someone who proved the Bible true would be quite more famous.  Especially among the Christian fundamentalist; they'd probably elevate him to near-messiac levels.


----------



## AaronLucia (Sep 12, 2004)

Hasn't Jesus already proved the Bible is true?


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 12, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Did you read Mark's entry upthread? Also, HardheadJarhead's regarding the Greeks,


.. yes I did... always an fun and interesting read that stuff...



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> ...just common sense and logic, which both of these gentlemen have in abundance. Just read their posts elsewhere.


...of their abilities i have no doubt



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I doubt any of the men participating in this debate are attacking you personally. This coterie of debaters tends to get a bit testy when they respond to posts they disagree with. That doesn't mean they hate you, just that they've temporarily placed their manners aside (or taken the gloves off, whichever you prefer).


... i can accept this...



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Personally, I find what you have to say interesting in that it presents a viewpoint I'm not normally privy to. We don't have many like you in the East, especially NY.


...that thump you heard was me falling on the floor in shock... thats a nice refreshing statement you make, thank you.



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> ...I find it curious that you (and they) are so passionate about your personal beliefs that _everyone_ should share them. Why, if it's enough for you to know that you aren't going straight to Hell with the rest of us?


... well... this one is easy, and is actually for two reasons...

First of all Jesus "commands" His followers to go in to the world and spread his Word.... this though, is a truth of the bible that most christians choose not to notice or accept, because it makes them feel uncomfortable, and puts them into a position of conflict with an unbelieving society... therefore, you see many posts (or voices in real life) stating that this person or that person doesnt represent true christianity etc... simply because they are evangelising and spreading God Word, something which they were commanded to do...

The second reason is love... and I know this one will take a lot of heat from numerous people, but think of it like this.... if i don't believe in Jesus, or the bible, but instead am an avid participating member of our modern humanistic society, i really don't care what happens to you in the afterlife, if there was one at all...blah blah blah as long as I and you life a "good life" and don't hurt anybody, etc.. (but thats for another thread), ..... *BUT*.... because I DO believe in Jesus and what the bible sez.... I do care about your afterlife....WHY? well... if my belief is correct... then what God is offering is the single most fantastic thing in the myriads of universes he "may" have created (my injection there for emphasis)...and the wonders of it are totally unimaginable and incomprehensible to man even with the descriptions of New Jerusalem in the Bible... and then taking this further... if the life we are going to have after this one is true, as God states in the bible... then why wouldnt I want YOU to have it also? AS you can see, it is because true born-again christians (who have Jesus within them) love you, that they/we/I want to tell you about our faith.. so that all of you don't miss out and can share in its wonder also...etc... we are excited about the future and want to share it with everyone....

Kinda long answer, and probably not articulated as well as it should be.. but thats the gist...



			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> I asked you earlier if you've ever visited the Holy Land. As a true believer in your faith, it would be (assuming you have not) an experience for you to walk the Via Dolorosa and visit Gesthemene and Bethlehem. I lived there and those places were part of my everyday experience, along with those of my faith. It was inspiring to actually see the places mentioned in both Bibles.


...s'funny you brought this up again.. I actually remembered this question after i turned off my computer... but figured I'd wait until next time on line...

No we haven't been there yet... but boy are we chompin at the bit to do so... we are planning on going with an organized tour group.... but with two young babes (2 years and the other 7 months) travel for another couple of years is not in the picture... But yes, we can't wait to get there. I did at one point in time, try to convince my wife that we should move there permanently... but.. instead, we are now sitting up in Canada...oh well :ultracool 




			
				kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> So, Revelations says we're all going to return to Ha-Eretz (The Land, literally translated), build the temple for yet another time in order to have it destroyed. That wasn't quite the way it was taught to me. Please explain the logic behind this prophecy. It intrigues me. KT


...well... if your wondering the "why's" of why God is doing this, I can't tell you what God's reasoning is other than what he tells us in the bible.

...basically though, as you have read, it is a time of re-gathering of His people in to their land (His Land). The numerous parts of this prophecy are to be a sign to all peoples of His strength, and to call as many of them to himself... he allowed his people to be scattered thousands of years ago, and is now, despite much world opinion and efforts to the contrary, is gathering them back again and given them again their holy language (the re-birth of israel as prophesied thousands of years ago, and is one of the most astonishing things to happen in history. This is a sign of his control to all the world, again calling his people to himself. Furthermore, he will allow the temple to be rebuilt, and then allow the enemy to take it over. This again, is to show himself to his people, because this act, will display for all the peole of israel that this "false-messiah" who sits in the temple is actually the abomination... which was fortold long ago.. this is another obvious sign to his peole and a call to them to accept him. This abomination will be the very person who arises out of the revived roman empire to coordinate a 7 years peace treaty with israel. (its interesting to note here the re-gathering and revival of the holy roman empire (which never died) "aka" European Union, at the very same time in history that Israel was re-born and the jewish peole are regathering in their very own land once again...hmmm...)...I could talk a lot more on this topic.. but for now....

Anyway, this regathering, temple building etc... is Gods love for his people in showing them once and for all, in front of the whole modern world, that He is in charge, so that as many as possible will accept Him as He presents himself to us... 

There are many more items conencted with this we could discuss, but I hope I got the basic idea behind it all...and again.. WHY did GOD choose to do it this way? I have no idea.. except for what He chooses to tell us in the bible...

I hope this helps you KP.

Jack.


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 12, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> Parmandjack:
> 
> I suppose, then, you could point out the person that has proven the Bible to be truthful? Because as famous as you claim that someone who disproved the Bible would be, I'll betcha that someone who proved the Bible true would be quite more famous. Especially among the Christian fundamentalist; they'd probably elevate him to near-messiac levels.


...unless I'm mistaken RP, I think you've missed the point, and that is that the BIBLE ITSELF has proven itself to be truthful (and GOD made it that way).... unless of course, that you can definitively prove, with actual verifiable evidences showing where the bible is false, the only other option is that it is true... just like a court of law.. innocent until proven guilty... therefore by extrapolation... true until proven false.. and that has not happened in 2000 years of constant attacks by people much smarter that you or I. Furthermore, modern scientific investigation and archeology etc.. are constantly finding informaitn that further supports the bibles accuracy... and which was writtne thousands of years ago...

I have provided information which clearly and undeniably shows that the bible is the most verifiably accurate manuscript in existance, meaning that it has not changed etc...it is then up to you to disprove this, and 2000 years of trying has thus far been unsuccessful.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 12, 2004)

> Hasn't Jesus already proved the Bible is true?


Whhheeerrghhh?!?? I'm sorry, I don't follow that.




> AS you can see, it is because true born-again christians (who have Jesus within them)


It is statements like this that concern me. I do not appreciate someone telling me "I am saved, you are not", like they received a "get out of jail free" card, and as long as I say the right words, I too can have that card, or a membership to the club. And, as a Christian, I have no desire to say that to other people. That means I am presuming to know how GOD will judge others, and I cannot know that, and it is arrogant to think that. 

I think being a Christian (or, in fact, a member of any faith) requires daily practice and committment. And it's not easy. That doesn't mean the journey isn't worth it (kind of like MA in that way), but to say, "I'm in, you're out" doesn't sit well with me. Do my or your or someone else's actions not matter, then? Our intent as to how we go through life? If a born-again Christian passes a homeless person on the street and does not try to feed them or care for them, but a Jewish person or Buddist or Muslim does - who is actually living the way we are told to in the parable of the good Samaritan, for example?

I understand that you want to spread your faith because it gives you happiness. I respect that. But I do not understand the means. The best form of prostelytizing, I think, is by being a good person, and "leading by example". I don't want someone to convert to Orthodoxy out of fear, or exclusion, but out of willingness and love.

My $0.02.

ETA:



> just like a court of law.. innocent until proven guilty... therefore by extrapolation... true until proven false.. and that has not happened in 2000 years of constant attacks by people much smarter that you or I.


That's not how it works, at least in science.  Things aren't true until proven false.

All this "proving" is also getting under my skin.  Faith is an issue, after all, as well.  And I haven't seen "proof" offered.  Referring to nameless people who must be smarter than any of us doesn't help, either.


----------



## bignick (Sep 12, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> ...unless I'm mistaken RP, I think you've missed the point, and that is that the BIBLE ITSELF has proven itself to be truthful (and GOD made it that way).... unless of course, that you can definitively prove, with actual verifiable evidences showing where the bible is false, the only other option is that it is true... just like a court of law.. innocent until proven guilty... therefore by extrapolation... true until proven false.. and that has not happened in 2000 years of constant attacks by people much smarter that you or I.
> 
> I have provided information which clearly and undeniably shows that the bible is the most verifiably accurate manuscript in existance, meaning that it has not changed etc...it is then up to you to disprove this, and 2000 years of trying has thus far been unsuccessful.


honestly...this is some of the most round-about logic i've ever heard..."innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here...there is just as much burden on you to prove the Bible is true as their is on your opponents to disprove it.  Events that happened 2000 years ago are almost impossible to prove or disprove one way or the other..once again, saying the Bible proves the Bible is ridiculous.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 12, 2004)

There is no proof that -any- particular faith is 'right'.  That is why it is 'faith'.

My own faith predates all 3 of those mentioned here, whose traditions, names, and ideas have been adopted by those now in the 'dominant' position.

There is no historical proof that Jesus existed outside the Christian bible.
There is no historical proof (that I am aware of) that Moses existed.
Many stories (flood, creation, etc) have a great deal of things in common with older myths from Babylon and Sumaria.
The story of Noah has not been proven, the ark a rumor, not a fact.

One can not use the bible to prove any of this.  One must turn to other sources.

For example:
Why is Jesus' birthday celebrated in December, when all biblical scholars who have investigated the astrological events reported indicate he would have been born in October?  When did this event actually occur?  Who were the historical governmental figures at that time, and do they coincide with those stories in the bible?  When was the census actually done?  Does that also correlate with both the reported astrological signs as well as the govermental information previously determined?

Upon examining the true historical evidence, and comparing it with that writen in holy scripture, do they equal, or is there a discrepency?  If so, why?  Can it be that it is all a fiction, a mythos based on even earlier legends and the prophacies of the region? If that is so, does it in fact actually invalidate that deeply held belief, or is it true that "Faith Manages"?

I have done some research into this, discussed things with biblical scholars, preachers, priests and "born again's."  If you examine the thread I listed above, you'll find much of that information. 

To argue this point, one must reach beyond and tap historical fact.  One cannot depend on just the one, however good it may be.  (Also, refering to "The Christ Commission" by Og Mandino doesn't count either.  It is an excellent book, and I highly recomend it, however it is not 'proof' in this case.)

:asian:


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 12, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> It is statements like this that concern me. I do not appreciate someone telling me "I am saved, you are not", like they received a "get out of jail free" card, and as long as I say the right words, I too can have that card, or a membership to the club.


..ok feisty... so as a "christian, you believe the very source of your salvation to be lieing?

Jesus Himself said in John 3:3-83In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[1] " 
4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!" 
5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[2] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[3] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit." 

So... given that (amongst other verses)... whixh part of the bible do you base your claim to christianity on, and how do you know the part you chose is correct and not someother part?



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> And, as a Christian, I have no desire to say that to other people. That means I am presuming to know how GOD will judge others, and I cannot know that, and it is arrogant to think that.


...again.. you are saying that Jesus was arrogant and by implication, wrong, by his above statement, as well as his statement when hew declared:

"...I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6. 

Unfortunatley, those who would rather believe anything but the "truth", will find their own "way" to explain "life", and that, feisty, seems to be the category you fall into...



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I think being a Christian (or, in fact, a member of any faith) requires daily practice and committment. And it's not easy. That doesn't mean the journey isn't worth it (kind of like MA in that way), but to say, "I'm in, you're out" doesn't sit well with me. Do my or your or someone else's actions not matter, then? Our intent as to how we go through life? If a born-again Christian passes a homeless person on the street and does not try to feed them or care for them, but a Jewish person or Buddist or Muslim does - who is actually living the way we are told to in the parable of the good Samaritan, for example?
> 
> I understand that you want to spread your faith because it gives you happiness. I respect that. But I do not understand the means. The best form of prostelytizing, I think, is by being a good person, and "leading by example". I don't want someone to convert to Orthodoxy out of fear, or exclusion, but out of willingness and love.


...and with the above, you highlight again that your beliefs are not biblically based, considering that everything in your above statement referst o your "good works"..

...and again, this is clearly in total contradiction to the bible and Jesus, which states:

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourself; it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8, 9).

Once again, I put to you, base your belief in being a christian on what teh bible actually sez, not what you would liek it to say...

But this "I'm a christian and your not" stuff is way off topic... please stay focused...



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> That's not how it works, at least in science. Things aren't true until proven false.


not so... the "theory" of evolution and how it is presented quickly refutes your statement...

but that again is off topic at this point...



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> All this "proving" is also getting under my skin. Faith is an issue, after all, as well. And I haven't seen "proof" offered. Referring to nameless people who must be smarter than any of us doesn't help, either.


hmmm...if you want to dispute the manuscript evidence, investigate it, don't simply dismiss it out of hand, being a "christian" and all, i'd think that would be solid evidence for bible accuracy and textual validity...


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 12, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> honestly...this is some of the most round-about logic i've ever heard..."innocent until proven guilty" does not apply here...there is just as much burden on you to prove the Bible is true as their is on your opponents to disprove it. Events that happened 2000 years ago are almost impossible to prove or disprove one way or the other..once again, saying the Bible proves the Bible is ridiculous.


...so bignick, a this point in time I am attwempting to establish the fact that the bible has not been changed, and incontradiction to previous stetement you made actually is quite well document, with lots fo copies etc... 

The "round-about" logic, was used as an example, but can go around a little further... simply because you and no one else has as of todays date ... proven teh bible to be incorrect in ANY statement...

Given that fact... I don't know where you are arguing from... what I do see though, is a lot of effort being expended to side step those facts with comments like it is illogical, round-about, etc... but nothing to prove contrary...

tell ya what though, moving forward, Disprove the accuracy and validity of the bible as a document for me... prove the information I provided earier to be wrong... as  "christian", I am surprisd at your gleeful attempt to negate the very book that christianity is founded on.. do you and feisty goto the same church".

If it is in general agreement though that none of you can prove the previous information I provided as wrong, then we can move on... but if your just going to sit here and churn water providing no evidence to the contary, then we are wasting our time...


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 12, 2004)

Please see tha comments by Kaith and big nick which also address the "Bible proves the Bible" problem.

I base my faith on the entire Bible, not snippets here and there (that tends to be a more Protestant way of dealing with the text), and the Mothers and Fathers of the Church and their teachings.  



> ..ok feisty... so as a "christian, you believe the very source of your salvation to be lieing?


I have no idea what you mean by that.  



> Jesus Himself said in John 3:3-83In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.[1] "
> 4"How can a man be born when he is old?" Nicodemus asked. "Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"
> 5Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit[2] gives birth to spirit. 7You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You[3] must be born again.' 8The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."


Sounds like baptism to me, and yes, Christians tend to be baptized into their particular faith.  



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Feisty Mouse*
> _And, as a Christian, I have no desire to say that to other people. That means I am presuming to know how GOD will judge others, and I cannot know that, and it is arrogant to think that. _
> 
> ...again.. you are saying that Jesus was arrogant and by implication, wrong, by his above statement, as well as his statement when hew declared:


Wow, way to misinterpret.  I'm saying YOU are arrogant, NOT Jesus.  Please address my example, rather than putting words into my mouth.  If a Christian is standing on a street corner, proclaiming their faith, and across the street, someone else (Christian or non) is helping people and loving their neighbor as they would love themselves, who is acting in the manner that Jesus directed?  



> Unfortunatley, those who would rather believe anything but the "truth", will find their own "way" to explain "life", and that, feisty, seems to be the category you fall into...


Again, I have no idea what you mean.  Because I don't believe as you do, I'm wrong?  Nice try.



> ...and with the above, you highlight again that your beliefs are not biblically based, considering that everything in your above statement referst o your "good works"..
> 
> ...and again, this is clearly in total contradiction to the bible and Jesus, which states:
> 
> "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourself; it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8, 9).


So we should ignore the rest of Jesus's teachings, to do good to one another, and ONLY base our evaluations of each other on faith?  This is total selective bias.  I'm not saying faith isn't important - I think it is, most certainly.  But I think faith and action go hand-in-hand.  



> But this "I'm a christian and your not" stuff is way off topic... please stay focused...


I never said that.  Thanks for the deliberate misinterpretation again.  I *am* focused - you simply do not like my argument.  



> not so... the "theory" of evolution and how it is presented quickly refutes your statement...


How so?  Evidence, please?



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Feisty Mouse*
> _All this "proving" is also getting under my skin. Faith is an issue, after all, as well. And I haven't seen "proof" offered. Referring to nameless people who must be smarter than any of us doesn't help, either._
> 
> hmmm...if you want to dispute the manuscript evidence, investigate it, don't simply dismiss it out of hand, being a "christian" and all, i'd think that would be solid evidence for bible accuracy and textual validity...


Look, I have, and I do.  YOU are the one coming to this board, telling people something has been proven, and when they question you, offer nothing but general statements.  

Thanks for belittling my faith by putting Christian in quotes.  Because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm not a Christian.  It's means I'm not a "born-again".


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 12, 2004)

And the hits just keep on comin' .... 

I just want to point out what I said before.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I just want you to know, I don't even know where to start. There is so much, that is so wrong with your statements. I find it very scary.
> Enjoy your beliefs .... I really don't want to live in your world.


parmajack, if you slow down for a minute or two, and think about how you are doing in that 'command' to spread the 'Word', you might realize, based on the responses you are seeing in this thread, that you are turning people away from your school of belief. So, I guess I would have to ask ... do you think somebody keeps score?


----------



## bignick (Sep 12, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> ...so bignick, a this point in time I am attwempting to establish the fact that the bible has not been changed, and incontradiction to previous stetement you made actually is quite well document, with lots fo copies etc...
> 
> The "round-about" logic, was used as an example, but can go around a little further... simply because you and no one else has as of todays date ... proven teh bible to be incorrect in ANY statement...
> 
> ...


The only proof you've provided that your information comes from the Bible itself, which is where you get your information in the first place. Let's see you prove the information you provided earlier to be right using a source outside a religious text, preferably a modern fulfillment of the prophecies as someone requested earlier.

I also don't appreciate having my faith called into question just because I don't agree with your stance on these views...the title of your thread was
*Bible proven by Fulfilled Prophecies*...

so far the only "prophecies"have been old testament statements proven by new testament statements...i'm not saying the Bible is a baseless book of crazy old mythology...merely that your arguments have little merit.

I believe I read somewhere that you are in the computer field, if you've done any programming you are most likely familiar with the term "recursive definiton" defining something in terms of itself...it can be a useful tool, but unless you provide a way out it just keeps going around and around not doing anything...which is starting to resemble your argument...you want proof that your information is wrong, we want proof that it's right...going back and forth "churning the water" as you state. There are pieces of evidence outside the Bible that offer tantalizing proof of it's validity, the ossuary as i mentioned that contained the inscription with Jesus' name...whether or not it's a hoax or not...there are others...this is what i was hoping for when this thread started a logical debate on trying to prove the Bible by using outside, secondary sources. I've posted this quote twice now, but i think it needs posting again...

*"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei*

God gave us the wonderful gift of reason and intelligent thought and analysis, if we cannot use his gifts to question things, what's the point of having them...for me, everytime I question my religion, it makes my faith that much stronger, because there are things science can't explain, no matter how advanced our technology and understanding of the universe has become...

If i never question how can i be truley sure that what i'm doing is right?


----------



## pete (Sep 12, 2004)

two thousand years later and people still don't get it... the message of jesus is love forgiveness and faith.  i ain't gonna quote chapter and verse, but his message was:
 love: toss aside all the stuff and live as i do, love one another as i have loved you.
 forgiveness: nailed to the cross, he asked his father to forgive all those involved in his toture and death, they know not what they do.
 faith: after the resurrection, he said that the blessed are those who believe without actually seeing.

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? why are ya so caught up on being saved, when all his children are forgiven? why are ya looking to prove something, when it all comes down to faith?

i'm outa here...

pete.


----------



## Mark Weiser (Sep 12, 2004)

Well Kaith once again dude you are impressing the you know what out of me lol. 

If Jesus was born according to historical calenders and timetables to concide with the Passover and his death and resurrection. He (Jesus) would have had to be born during the Feast of Booths. Very Interesting point.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 12, 2004)

Thank you Pete.... you pretty much said something that has missed alot of folks.

The "Proof" isn't what is important.... it is the message.

Weither we can or can't prove Jesus's existance is irrelivant....but the message that is in that text is.

It doesn't say "Thou shalt be an *******.", "Kill everyone who disagrees" etc.
It's about peace, and love.

and, so I believe are the texts of the Jewish faith, and the Moslem faith.

If we must look for proof, I believe of the 3, only the Moslems can prove their prophet existed...I believe they have the body, as well as that of verified relations, companions, etc.  It's definately interesting, ne?


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 12, 2004)

> "Thou shalt be an *******.",


 :roflmao: That was excellent.

Thanks Kaith, pete.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 12, 2004)

Thank you Mark.  I've had alot of experience debating various issues with folks.  The histories, facts, mythos etc. revolving around the worlds religions is, a hobby.   One of my friends is starting his own ministry.


----------



## Dr. Kenpo (Sep 12, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> So waddaya think?
> 
> Does not the fact that the bible is supported by fulfilled prophecies verify it as a valid and accurate proof for God/Jesus?


Must be, we're still getting more rope to hang ourselves with. And when it comes, are we gonna get rocked!:deadhorse


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 12, 2004)

Couple of things here - 


			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> ......how much supporting evidence would then be enough for you showing that the bible has not been corrupted... at some point in time, you have to simply confess that you simply will not accept a fact, regardless of amount of evidence in front of you.


I would require evidence in the form of personal, current evidence.  You want me to believe in a sky god?  Show him to me.  Not that I completely reject your religeon - I think that the teachings of the character Jesus in the Bible are probably some of the most valuable personal and interpersonal lessons that mankind possesses at htis point.  I say character, as opposed to actual person, because the only evidence of His existence is the book.  And using the book to prove it's validity, regardless of whether or not it has been changed through the various transcriptions over the millenia, is unscientific and illogical.  And so not proof.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> I am surprisd at your gleeful attempt to negate the very book that christianity is founded on.. do you and feisty goto the same church".


This was unnecessary, don't you think?



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> tell ya what though, moving forward, Disprove the accuracy and validity of the bible as a document for me... prove the information I provided earier to be wrong.


Wrong.  Remember the premise of the thread?
*Bible proven by Fulfilled Prophecies*
Your premise, your claim, yours to prove, everyone else's to either refute or hepl you prove.  You seem to be all alone on this one, however, all we need to do in this thread is refute your evidence presented, not disprove your theory.  Your evidence has been refuted as illogical, and unsubstantiated.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Sep 12, 2004)

Personally, I just love it when I see that a long tradition of self-questioning and struggle with God has shrunk into a recitation of smug certainty about one's salvation. 

Sheesh--at least read Bunyan and Herrick and Augustine and Dante and Merton, willya?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 12, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> ..ok feisty... so as a "christian, you believe the very source of your salvation to be lieing?
> <snip>
> Unfortunatley, those who would rather believe anything but the "truth", will find their own "way" to explain "life", and that, feisty, seems to be the category you fall into...
> <snip>
> hmmm...if you want to dispute the manuscript evidence, investigate it, don't simply dismiss it out of hand, being a "christian" and all, i'd think that would be solid evidence for bible accuracy and textual validity...




Bigot.

Now, before I am admonished by the Mods for being rude, let me provide the definition for the word, and plead truth as a defense:

_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._

I fell in love with that word when the late Herb Caen, a columnist, used it unflinchingly to describe a person who rated it.  Since then in twenty years I have not had a chance to use it in print--until today.  I use it, as Caen did, without regret and with confidence in the accuracy of the word.

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_


I leave the arguments to the rest of you.  Due to extreme anger, I find tonight I can only offer an assessment and accept the consequences for it.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 12, 2004)

Parmand, you said:

"...basically though, as you have read, it is a time of re-gathering of His people in to their land (His Land). The numerous parts of this prophecy are to be a sign to all peoples of His strength, and to call as many of them to himself... he allowed his people to be scattered thousands of years ago, and is now, despite much world opinion and efforts to the contrary, is gathering them back again and given them again their holy language (the re-birth of israel as prophesied thousands of years ago, and is one of the most astonishing things to happen in history. This is a sign of his control to all the world, again calling his people to himself. Furthermore, he will allow the temple to be rebuilt, and then allow the enemy to take it over. This again, is to show himself to his people, because this act, will display for all the peole of israel that this "false-messiah" who sits in the temple is actually the abomination... which was fortold long ago.. this is another obvious sign to his peole and a call to them to accept him. This abomination will be the very person who arises out of the revived roman empire to coordinate a 7 years peace treaty with israel. (its interesting to note here the re-gathering and revival of the holy roman empire (which never died) "aka" European Union, at the very same time in history that Israel was re-born and the jewish peole are regathering in their very own land once again...hmmm...)...I could talk a lot more on this topic.. but for now....

Anyway, this regathering, temple building etc... is Gods love for his people in showing them once and for all, in front of the whole modern world, that He is in charge, so that as many as possible will accept Him as He presents himself to us... "


So, by this logic, Jews are, indeed, G-d's Chosen People. Thank you for clearing that up.

You've managed to drag some people into this, uh, discussion who would normally just lurk and read - and I can say that with impunity. You've also managed to anger just about everyone with your statements.

I will hear you, and everyone else, out because it's your right to present your case and defend it. As I stated earlier, I am immune to your prostelytizing because I am secure in my own faith and my way of practicing it. That you feel that G-d, in whatever interpretation, loves us all and wants us all to view and experience all that is to come doesn't quite fit with the scenario I accept. As Feisty pointed out, it is in this life that we make a difference by showing our love and _tolerance_ of others and do not turn away from that which is repugnant but embrace it (Pete pointed this out). I would no more try to convert you to my faith than anyone else would to theirs.

I read an interesting op ed piece in the Times today which spoke of the 350th anniversary of Jews coming to America. We, like the Pilgrims, came to these shores in search of religious freedom, and, indeed, our forefathers ensured same when founding our country. It was also stated that the name of our country is apt - United States - in that it defines the entity as many (different peoples and faiths) and one (nation under G-d, with liberty and justice for all) at the same time. Isn't that who we are - one big family of man?

And good night to all.


----------



## Mathusula2 (Sep 12, 2004)

Man, Parmandjack.  You totally missed the boat on this one. 



> First of all Jesus "commands" His followers to go in to the world and spread his Word.... this though, is a truth of the bible that most christians choose not to notice or accept, because it makes them feel uncomfortable, and puts them into a position of conflict with an unbelieving society... therefore, you see many posts (or voices in real life) stating that this person or that person doesnt represent true christianity etc... simply because they are evangelising and spreading God Word, something which they were commanded to do...



In a nutshell Jesus said, and pardon me for not knowing chapter and verse, Evangelize, spread the good news with words _only when necessary_.  Now I will admit this medium is entirely of words, so wouldn't you think you'd use kind ones to represent the Son of Man?  You're not, let me be frank.  Welcome people into the faith... don't continue to turn them away.  

I have a friend, Dennis, who became Christian because of his grandmother.  He thought of how kind, gentle, generous, all around great human being she was, and noted how strong her faith was... and how she drew strength from that faith.  He thought to himself, "if a person who followed the faith so strongly could be such a wonderful person, there must be something to this faith."  He explored Christianity further due to this woman living the faith, and eventually converted to Catholicism.  This is the greatest story of evangelization I've ever heard... and not one word was spoken in order to convert Dennis.  

My point is, my friend was converted through TRUE Christianity, which is love, faith, and forgiveness (thanks, Pete).  Your words do not represent any of these characteristics... they are arrogant and rude (2 things Jesus was not, mind you).  Hence my statement: you do not represent true Christianity.



> I understand that you want to spread your faith because it gives you happiness. I respect that. But I do not understand the means. The best form of prostelytizing, I think, is by being a good person, and "leading by example". I don't want someone to convert to Orthodoxy out of fear, or exclusion, but out of willingness and love.



Good stuff, Feisty.  Does my anecdote and Feisty's way with words make any sense to you as to where we are coming from?

The charasmatic movement and "evangelists" as it were have missed the boat big time.  Good idea - to evangelize - but how about not alienating others in the process?


----------



## Nightingale (Sep 12, 2004)

Do you have any other sources, besides the Bible itself?

A single source cannot validate itself.  Can you confirm any of what you've posted with an additional source?

And what about the way Constantine eliminated many books originally included?


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 13, 2004)

Also, parmandjack, in this post you attributed a couple of quites to me which were not mine.  Please don't do that.  I believe those were michaeledwards'.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 13, 2004)

Parm,

You do realize that none of your 'quotes' from Torah have anything to do with a messiah don't you?


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 13, 2004)

Nightingale said:
			
		

> Do you have any other sources, besides the Bible itself?
> 
> A single source cannot validate itself.  Can you confirm any of what you've posted with an additional source?
> 
> And what about the way Constantine eliminated many books originally included?



Well, in all fairness to Parm, there are 66 books in the Bible, many written by different authors and spanning hundreds of years.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 13, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Well, in all fairness to Parm, there are 66 books in the Bible, many written by different authors and spanning hundreds of years.


Yes, and compiled by whom?  Translated by whom?  Edited by whom?  I ask because I don't know.  Does anyone?  

Are you saying that the fact the individual "books" were written by different people that this is sufficient verification of truth?


----------



## JPR (Sep 13, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Also, outside of the Christian Bible, there is no proof of Jesus' existance.


Acctually, there are two outside of the Bible that reference Jesus.  One is Tacitus and the other is Josephus.

http://www.fact-index.com/t/ta/tacitus_on_jesus.html
http://www.fact-index.com/j/jo/josephus_on_jesus.html

JPR


----------



## JPR (Sep 13, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> For example:
> Why is Jesus' birthday celebrated in December, when all biblical scholars who have investigated the astrological events reported indicate he would have been born in October?


This is an invention of the church.  I believe in Constantine's time, many "pagans" were converting.  There was/is a ritual on the winter solstice that the people celebrated.  The church didn't wish to deny people their celebration (thus being very unpopular and risk loosing converts) so a mass was institued.  It was the Christ's Mass.  The pagan celebration was one that looked forward to new life (as the day became longer), the Christ's Mass celebrated the new spiritual life.  To my understanding, modern Christmas is a blend of these traditions.

All Saint's Day is akin to this as it preceeds All Hallow's Eve.  

JPR


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 13, 2004)

Hello,
  Josephus was addressed in another thread. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=163562&postcount=29
Another bit: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=79782&postcount=266

Relevant bits copied below:



> *From http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html
> *
> In the closing years of the first century, Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, wrote his famous work on "The Antiquities of the Jews." In this work, the historian made no mention of Christ, and for two hundred years after the death of Josephus, the name of Christ did not appear in his history. There were no printing presses in those days. Books were multiplied by being copied. It was, therefore, easy to add to or change what an author had written. The church felt that Josephus ought to recognize Christ, and the dead historian was made to do it. In the fourth century, a copy of "The Antiquities of the Jews" appeared, in which occurred this passage: "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."




Regarding Tacitus, there is some question on the authenticity of the works associated with him.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=165190&postcount=84

:asian:


----------



## JPR (Sep 13, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> Hello,
> Josephus was addressed in another thread. Regarding Tacitus, there is some question on the authenticity of the works associated with him.


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


----------



## MisterMike (Sep 13, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Yes, and compiled by whom?  Translated by whom?  Edited by whom?  I ask because I don't know.  Does anyone?
> 
> Are you saying that the fact the individual "books" were written by different people that this is sufficient verification of truth?



Here is some info on a popular translation.

http://www.gospelcom.net/ibs/niv/background.php

I'm saying the books are all individual witness testimony. Allthough the Bible is bound in one book, it was compiled from many scrolls over many years.

If you open one, you'll see the thousands of cross-references between books, many supporting the prophecies.

IF this were a court of law, we would weigh the evidence and witness testimony, determine what is admissable, and what is in deed fact. But it's not. It's about faith.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 13, 2004)

> IF this were a court of law, we would weigh the evidence and witness testimony, determine what is admissable, and what is in deed fact. But it's not. It's about faith.


 I think that is the kernel of the discussion here.  If I posted a thread and said, "This is my faith, and my faith is based on the Bible", I think not too many people here would challenge that or go after me.  If, however, I posted saying, "The Bible is the most verifiable and true religious text out there, and it has been proven to be true", THEN people are going to ask me to back it up.


----------



## parmandjack (Sep 13, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> Couple of things here -
> I would require evidence in the form of personal, current evidence. You want me to believe in a sky god? Show him to me. Not that I completely reject your religeon - I think that the teachings of the character Jesus in the Bible are probably some of the most valuable personal and interpersonal lessons that mankind possesses at htis point. I say character, as opposed to actual person, because the only evidence of His existence is the book. And using the book to prove it's validity, regardless of whether or not it has been changed through the various transcriptions over the millenia, is unscientific and illogical. And so not proof.
> 
> This was unnecessary, don't you think?
> ...


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...

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...

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.

Feisty, YOU prove evolution, I dont have to, you claim it is true, thereby, the onus i son you to prove it (and it has yet to be done)... and you never answerred why it is labelled as 'theory". And whether or not you like having your claim to christianity challenged (or belittled as you stated), that is ANOTHER thing we are told and show how to do  in the bible... have you read ANY of it?

Bignick, rather than stating anything constructive either for your claimed faith or for the other side, you simply keep reiterating the same old tired statement of bible proving bible etc... stop it.. look up a fact and then contribute it...

...consider this if you will. If i told You all that JFK was killed by an arrow, you'd all (quite righlty too) argue because their were too many witnesses to contradict my claims...

Well the same holds true to the claims of the bible... all the things that are written, had far to many witnesses to contradict them if they were true... which means nobody could prove them false... which is another reason why after 2000 years the bible still stands as the Word of God, True, until proven false, which many have attempted to do, and all of which have failed....

...the premise of this string was to be discussions around fulfilled prophecies proving the bible... but I coldn't get there because I couldnt move you all past simply even proving the bibles reliability as a document(investigated and proven to be unchanged and still accurate today as it was thouseands of years ago)... i have had nothing given in response (a few of you provided other information and urls, thanks) but personal opinion posed as argument, and I am consitantly being told to prove a point as I am the only one required to do so (a debate holds to both sides providing supportive evidences of their respective positions), but that doesnt work, because as you can see fiesty still believes she is a christian based not on what the facts say, but on her own interpretation and refusal to read the whole bible... she does in fact, chose snippets of the Word (contrary to her claim) to try to support her position...and bignick what can i say......big nick keeps challenging me to prove prophecies fulfilled in recent time.. which of course I already noted a couple of in the re-birth of israel, rise again of the holy roman empire.. but he chose to ignore them... I simply don't have time for this nonesense. I tried to have a real discussion, instead, (not from all) got flippant and unsubstantiated dismissals, arrogance, close-mindedness, and ignorance of the charactization of a debates/discussions processes. If I claimed to be a Muslim, truly following the Islamic faith, and then proceeded to expouse love and belief towards jewish peole and christians and that Jesus was God, and that He was the saviour and that He was killed on a cross and that He was born of a virgin and that He and all other jewish fore-fathers like Moses and Abraham were infact NOT muslims... do you think for one minute I would be allowed to continue to claim I was a musliM.... not for a heartbeat..... then why do you mistakenly think that you can claim to be a christian, and then proceed to disagree with the tenants and fundamental teachings of christianity, and still call yourselves a christian? you can't... case closed... pick a side, then subscribe to that side...

So.. where does that leave me... frustrated to be truthful... ignorance of facts is one thing, until someone shows you something, it is unreasonable to assume you know about it.. but when a fact is presented (such as available manusripts supporting a document or period in question), you have only two choices.. either accept it (investigate it) , or close your eyes and talk until you convince yourself it doesnt exist.. however, until you prove that fact as incorrect, you cant move on spouting trivial dismissal's...I'm assuming you all still beilive the history you have ben given by the others on that list I provided right? even though the supporting evidences as to the accuracy of the documents history (as you know it) is based on is no way near as reliable as the bible... how many math books did it take you to convice you of a math theory... did you ever notice a mistake in a school book.... how many scientific theories have been promoted us unadulterated fact.. only to be recinded later as a mistake and a new theory taken its place... etc.. well that has never happened with any statement in the bible... by anyone... in all of the time it has been attempted... flippant comments and dismissals will not change that fact...

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 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...

...i know, from reading other threads, that the smug characterizations will most likely now commence, however, that doesnt mean you are right... you have still yet to disprove the bible... and again, greater minds than ours for the past two thosand years have attempted this and failed... why... because they cannot.. the Bible is God Breathed... you cant even disprove teh historical record of available manuscripts, for the bible and other ancient texts I mentioned... idle rhetoric will not do.

Heres one for you in parting feisty.. (but shock of shocks...you'll have to read the bible to find it)... the bible tells us the that the word of the God is foolishness to men, and that the cross is foolishness  to those who are perishing... find that scripture it and twist it to say other than what it does.. or accept what it sez and realize that you have to change and live by what God sez in the bible, the bible doesnt change to allow you to live like you say, Read and accept the whole bible, not parts you choose...

..for people who state they are open to proofs (some didnt even state that much, but instead the exact opposite), I see a lot of close-mindedness...

An open discuss of thoughts I was prepared for, a close minded attack I am not.


Adios...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Sep 13, 2004)

JPR said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 13, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> 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.


			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> 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?


			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> 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.  



			
				parmandjack said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 13, 2004)

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 (Sep 13, 2004)

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 (Sep 13, 2004)

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


----------



## bignick (Sep 13, 2004)

parmandjack said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 13, 2004)

> 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 (Sep 13, 2004)

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 (Sep 13, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 13, 2004)

Kaith Rustaz said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 13, 2004)

bignick said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 14, 2004)

pete said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 14, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> 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._
> 
> ...


Bravo!


----------



## SenseiBear (Sep 14, 2004)

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 (Sep 14, 2004)

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 (Sep 14, 2004)

Raisin said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 14, 2004)

Raisin said:
			
		

> 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 (Sep 14, 2004)

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 (Sep 14, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> 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,
> ...


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


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 14, 2004)

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.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 14, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> 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.



The Jewish Messiah will ne a man who will do many things, bringing peace on earth beeing one of them. Jesus did not fulfill any of the criterion for beeing the Jewish messiah.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 14, 2004)

CanuckMA said:
			
		

> The Jewish Messiah will ne a man who will do many things, bringing peace on earth beeing one of them. Jesus did not fulfill any of the criterion for beeing the Jewish messiah.


Of course not.  We can't even agree upon those criteria.  The Satmar community believes Rebbe Schneerson will come back as the Messiah.  [I personally don't buy that, but that's their take on it.]  Look at how long the Diaspora has lasted - and how many places we've been chased out of.


----------



## Raewyn (Sep 15, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


 Thank you for your answer Steve, much appreciated!!! Im going for a look now

Raewyn


----------



## Raewyn (Sep 15, 2004)

JPR said:
			
		

> Raisin,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Thanks JPR for your input as well, I like to try and keep and open mind and to try and get a grasp on all the aspects.


----------



## loki09789 (Sep 15, 2004)

If the "Bible" has been proven by Fulfilled Prophecies, does that also mean that the Torah, Koran and any other Mid-East/Original Five books of the OT source has been 'proven?'

I still don't get what it has been 'proven' to be in the end. Divine? The ONE and only true religious guiding text? What?

The multiple (admittedly translate into English) texts of Buddhist philosophy, Toranical, Greek Mythological, Folktales.... that I have come across all have some spark of "Divine Message" IMO IF you read them for that meaning and for life lesson inspiration.

If God (fill in your version, even an ascended "Perfect" state consciousness) loves and created all, then why would he not leave a footprint trail for each unique culture to follow that was meaningful, Divine and specific to that culture. Heck, I live in the 21st century First World nation of USA, what do I REALLY know about the suffering of Jewish slave, or all the contextual sublties of slang and colloquealisms (yeah, love the spelling) that were intended for a specific Mid East audience for a specific time?


Even if I am holding the "ONE TRUE MESSAGE FROM GOD" in my hands, I won't be able to accurately be able to decipher it because of time, language, culture....not to mention laziness, greed, lust 

There is SO much of the current Judeo/Christian orthodoxy ( Please don't confuse that statement with Orthodox Jewish or Christians - just meaning rituals and practices) that are more cultural adaptations/interpretations/practicallities and came from "Judeo/Christian folklore" than came from Biblical Mandate.


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2004)

> The Jewish Messiah will ne a man who will do many things, bringing peace on earth beeing one of them. Jesus did not fulfill any of the criterion for beeing the Jewish messiah.



That's probably because the Christos --- as used by the earliest Christians such as Paul --- was more along the lines of a Divine Redeemer figure of the Pagan Mystery schools reworked in a more "Jewish" cultural guise. The Savior/Redeemer/Sacrificed One is essentially the nature of Osiris, Bacchus, Dionysus, Adonis, Atis, etc. to the various initiates. It is not traditional Judaism, but the more Hellenistic variety.

Of course, the trick didn't work, obviously. Most Jews at the time saw right through it.



> If God (fill in your version, even an ascended "Perfect" state consciousness) loves and created all, then why would he not leave a footprint trail for each unique culture to follow that was meaningful, Divine and specific to that culture.



I believe there is a passage in Qu'ran (sorry, I don't have it in front of me now) that says something to that effect --- that God sends each culture and time a different prophet. And not all prophets are alike.

Or something like that. Laterz.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 15, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I believe there is a passage in Qu'ran (sorry, I don't have it in front of me now) that says something to that effect --- that God sends each culture and time a different prophet. And not all prophets are alike.



The Ba'hai have an extremely (to these cynical eyes) enlightened view on all this stuff, by simply saying that all religions simply view different aspects of the same divinity.

The Ba'hai practitioners I know tend to spend a lot less time arguing about religious minutae and using religious justifications to get carry out real-world agends, and more time pursuing the "love others", "do good works", pronouncements than most other skygod worshippers I've met.

Anecdotally yours,

PM


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 15, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> The Ba'hai have an extremely (to these cynical eyes) enlightened view on all this stuff, by simply saying that all religions simply view different aspects of the same divinity.
> 
> The Ba'hai practitioners I know tend to spend a lot less time arguing about religious minutae and using religious justifications to get carry out real-world agends, and more time pursuing the "love others", "do good works", pronouncements than most other skygod worshippers I've met.
> 
> ...


This has been my experience with people of the Ba'hai faith as well.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Sep 15, 2004)

Peach and Dan -

What an interesting concept - and so simple.

So why isn't it universally accepted? (not arguing here - merely asking)  I have absolutely no clue as to the Ba'Hai religion.  Please give a brief precis?  Thanks.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 15, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Peach and Dan -
> 
> What an interesting concept - and so simple.
> 
> So why isn't it universally accepted? (not arguing here - merely asking)  I have absolutely no clue as to the Ba'Hai religion.  Please give a brief precis?  Thanks.



KT,

I'll follow up to this in another thread... I already gank threads too much as it is


----------



## PeachMonkey (Sep 15, 2004)

KT:

Ba'hai thread:

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17398


----------



## heretic888 (Sep 15, 2004)

> So why isn't it universally accepted?



Actually... outside of the "Big Three" (the mainstream versions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), the notion that "all religions lead to the same Path" or "all deities are manifestations of the One" is actually quite common. That's certainly the general attitude found in Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and the various Hellenistic philosophies.

Its also the general attitude held by the Kabbalists, Sufis, Sunnis, Gnostics, and Judeo-Christian mystics as a whole (re: Eckhart, Clement, Origen, etc).

My guess as to why it isn't generally accepted in the exoterica of the mainstream Western religions is for historical-political reasons.


----------

