Bible proven by Fulfilled Prophecies

[BlackCatBonz]

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]

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

 

[pete]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

1. You can not use the so called New Testament to make your point with Jewish People. They do not recongize its validity or authority.
2. 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......
3. Besides It is our right to complain and whine it is our natural right to do so. LOL!!
   
4. We get real edgy when you use the title OLD TESTAMENT in referring to our Torah.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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?