Bible proven by Fulfilled Prophecies

[Feisty Mouse]

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

:roflmao: That was excellent.

Thanks Kaith, pete.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

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]

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]

Couple of things here -

......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.

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?

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]

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]

..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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Parm,

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

 

[MisterMike]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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.

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...