-->
@PGA2.0
Please make your preferred definition of "evidence" explicit.Not according to the definition of what constitutes evidence
Become a theist
Posts
Total:
496
-->
@3RU7AL
My brother really loves Tom Skilling.
He's a meteorologist.
I don't get it.
But I think it's funny you reference this weatherman that I figured would be obscure outside of Chicago.
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no proof Jesus ever lived.It is not a reasonable statement. There is lots of proof. Nineteen extra-biblical sources from antiquity mention Jesus and some of these sources confirm some of the events of Jesus' life, such as the crucifixion and that His follower's believed He was resurrected.Historical evidence of the Jesus is moot.
That is your personal opinion and is a result of your worldview bias.
There is historical evidence of Siddhartha, does this make Buddhism true?
It makes it credible the teachings could come or are based on what he said, not that the texts are accurate/true.
Again, the problem with religions is that each one is contrary to the other in some major understanding of God/gods/lack of gods, Thus, logically only one, if you grant any is true to what is.
And if there is no ultimate revelation from God what makes your views any truer than any other view, after all, you are a limited, subjective, relative person? In other words, why should I value your personal opinion or preference?
There is historical evidence of Joseph Smith, does this make Mormonism true?
No. The book is contradictory to the Bible in which it recognizes as from God also.
There is historical evidence of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, does this make Scientology true?
No, Scientology is a cult that has been exposed by its inconsistencies.
-->
@Mopac
He's a meteorologist.I don't get it.
The point being made is he makes predictions that come true yet he is not supernatural.
-->
@PGA2.0
For example, if Democritus said, "There will be a terrible storm in two weeks time" and, verily, it came to pass exactly as he predicted, and then Democritus said, "Your wife will become pregnant and will bear a son" does this mean that Democritus is divinely inspired?No. The predictions above are nothing out of the ordinary.
What?! Are you kidding me? People went insane for this stuff in ancient times.
People prayed and begged and offered sacrifices and rituals to any god they could find to ask them for a son.
People literally thought Democritus was a living god because he could predict the weather.
Plus, these are only two predictions that are commonplace.
They are only commonplace NOW because we have SCIENCE.
The Bible has hundreds and hundreds of prophecies and many of them are not normal, plus they are very specific.
By "not normal" do you mean "unbelievable"?
Most of them are not very specific.
Would you, personally, drop everything and worship the great and powerful Demo?No. But the OT prophecies are not so general. Take Psalms 22, Zechariah 12:10, or Isaiah 53 for instance. Two of these speak of the act of crucifixion long before the act was known or common. All three contain specifics about what happened on the cross, as reported by the eyewitnesses.
Are you suggesting that the Jesus was the only human being in history that was ever crucified?
The qualifier, "when properly interpreted" is an awesome loophole.If you don't think there is a proper way of interpreting it provides a loophole. But do you really believe that? Are you understanding what I am saying? If you are you are correcting interpreting what I have said.
You don't have to convince me. There are literally thousands of so-called Christian denominations. Each one has their own "correct interpretation".
And don't forget that even stock traders can go on a hot streak, but, by law, they still need to inform the public that, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results".Therefore they correctly interpret the signs that they work with. So what.
The point is that, simply because someone makes a series of accurate predictions, this does not mean that they will always make accurate predictions, and in-fact, they are more likely to make an inaccurate prediction because of "reversion to the mean". Thusly, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results".
You not only have prophecies, but you also have every OT and NT writing speaking and revealing Jesus Christ, in the OT in a typology and shadow. Have you ever studied that aspect of the Bible?
I've never heard of this "typology and shadow". Is it anything like Kabbalah Numerology?
The Bible is a unity. It covers specific topics, not the whole of human history, just what is relevant in God's dealings with humanity. It concerns sin and separation of humans from God and God's solution. It deals with two very specific covenants and the way God relates to His covenant people.
I'm pretty sure none of that makes it any more likely to be true than any other religious belief.
-->
@keithprosser
I was referring to my brother really loving Tom Skilling specifically.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
None of them are viewed to be gods. Only one even addresses a god. No proof of Jesus does not negate his divinity.The entire point is that their historical existence AND THEIR CLAIMS have absolutely nothing to do with each other.It is not even claimed that a single letter of the holy scripture was written by the Jesus himself.Other people wrote down what they thought would make a good story.
In other words, the defendant never takes the stand.
-->
@Mopac
I was referring to my brother really loving Tom Skilling specifically.
Discovered here - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=world%27s+most+accurate+weatherman&t=h_&atb=v79-2&ia=web
-->
@3RU7AL
What does this have to do with the biblical God?It means that Nanna the Moon god is an older religion than Judaism. It also begs the question of why the "YHWH" would have been hiding-out up to this point.Have you ever considered that these religions were castoffs of the true faith that was proclaimed from Genesis 3 onward, that borrowed or corrupted these ancient accounts?If that is the case, I have the exact same question. Why did the "YHWH" wait so long to write anything down?
Except for the Ten Commandments, what is it you are claiming God wrote down?
The Gospels I would argue were written down fairly soon after the events, within a forty year time period. There are many internal indicators this is the case. One of the major references to late dating is the statement from Irenaeus which is very questionable as to its meaning, as brought forth by many biblical scholars and their points bear consideration when you consider the internal evidence, which is largely ignored.
For instance, have you considered how many time references there are in the NT?
Have you considered the many, many warnings, none of which have taken place or spoken of in the past tense?
Have you considered the many references to an existing temple and worship system still in place? Do you understand the significance of this?
Do you understand that the Messiah was prophesied to come to an OT people, that is a people in covenant relationship with God?
How can that relationship be fulfilled after AD 70?
Couldn't the "YHWH" have popped little "holy assassins" and "talking donkeys" down to earth in order to "reason with" the misguided followers of Ahura Mazda?
Why? Everything needed for salvation had been revealed through His covenant people and by Jesus. Nothing else needs to be said. You have what is needed for salvation. The teachings of Zoroastrianism is contrary to the Hebrew Bible and the NT. That means something does not ring true somewhere.
Yet Abraham turned to the biblical God from idols. So what?It also lends some credibility to the idea that Abraham's concept of god and heavenly hosts was very likely shaped by this pre-existing religion.Or their religion by his and those before him, but they corrupted the belief.Based on what? Wouldn't you need some historical basis for this perfectly bald assertion?
Once you understand the original you are better able to recognize counterfeits.
Based on what? The same that you are basing your assertions of Abraham on, your assumption, but more, the biblical account itself that teaches against gods as anything other than human constructs. The historical basis would be the Scriptures themselves.
You are assuming that these religions are being borrowed from rather than the other way around.
Psalm 115:4 (NASB)
4 Their idols are silver and gold,
The work of man’s hands.
The work of man’s hands.
Isaiah 2:8 (NASB)
8 Their land has also been filled with idols;
They worship the work of their hands,
That which their fingers have made.
They worship the work of their hands,
That which their fingers have made.
In that day men will cast away to the moles and the bats Their idols of silver and their idols of gold, Which they made for themselves to worship,
Shall I not do to Jerusalem and her images Just as I have done to Samaria and her idols?”
[ Message to Egypt ] The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the Lord is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; The idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, And the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.
They will be turned back and be utterly put to shame, Who trust in idols, Who say to molten images, “You are our gods.”
Every man is stupid, devoid of knowledge; Every goldsmith is put to shame by his idols; For his molten images are deceitful, And there is no breath in them.
Are there any among the idols of the nations who give rain? Or can the heavens grant showers? Is it not You, O Lord our God? Therefore we hope in You, For You are the one who has done all these things.
-->
@Mopac
OIC. But you're right - I'd never heard of him!
-->
@3RU7AL
It seems we both like duck duck go
Good show
-->
@PGA2.0
The only accounts are in myth. Nothing in any historical record.
-->
@PGA2.0
If that is the case, I have the exact same question. Why did the "YHWH" wait so long to write anything down?Except for the Ten Commandments, what is it you are claiming God wrote down?
The inspired "word of god".
I'm asking why the "YHWH" waited until the bronze age to communicate its message.
I'm asking why the "YHWH" didn't just send down one or more of its "holy hitmen" along with a "talking donkey" to "communicate with" or otherwise "reason with" the leaders of all those supposedly false religions?
Couldn't the "YHWH" have popped little "holy assassins" and "talking donkeys" down to earth in order to "reason with" the misguided followers of Ahura Mazda?Why? Everything needed for salvation had been revealed through His covenant people and by Jesus.
The followers of Ahura Mazda lived centuries before the Jesus was even born. How exactly were they supposed to know about Jesus?
Nothing else needs to be said. You have what is needed for salvation. The teachings of Zoroastrianism is contrary to the Hebrew Bible and the NT. That means something does not ring true somewhere.
The fact that Zoroastrianism is contrary to the Hebrew teachings does nothing to validate or invalidate either the Hebrew teachings or Zoroastrianism.
It also lends some credibility to the idea that Abraham's concept of god and heavenly hosts was very likely shaped by this pre-existing religion.Or their religion by his and those before him, but they corrupted the belief.Based on what? Wouldn't you need some historical basis for this perfectly bald assertion?Once you understand the original you are better able to recognize counterfeits.Based on what? The same that you are basing your assertions of Abraham on, your assumption, but more, the biblical account itself that teaches against gods as anything other than human constructs. The historical basis would be the Scriptures themselves.
You can't use your own scriptures to validate your own scriptures.
You are assuming that these religions are being borrowed from rather than the other way around.
You are assuming that Christianity is being borrowed from, even before it existed in the first place.
-->
@PGA2.0
Historical evidence of the Jesus is moot.That is your personal opinion and is a result of your worldview bias.
Historical evidence of the Jesus makes it credible the teachings could come or are based on what he said, not that the texts are accurate/true.
There is historical evidence of Siddhartha, does this make Buddhism true?It makes it credible the teachings could come or are based on what he said, not that the texts are accurate/true.Again, the problem with religions is that each one is contrary to the other in some major understanding of God/gods/lack of gods, Thus, logically only one, if you grant any is true to what is.And if there is no ultimate revelation from God what makes your views any truer than any other view, after all, you are a limited, subjective, relative person? In other words, why should I value your personal opinion or preference?
I've never suggested that any of this is merely "my opinion", I have instead, repeatedly harped on logical coherence and epistemological limits.
There is historical evidence of Joseph Smith, does this make Mormonism true?No. The book is contradictory to the Bible in which it recognizes as from God also.
I'm sure the Mormons have a litany of apologists who would gladly explain "the correct interpretation" to you.
There is historical evidence of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, does this make Scientology true?No, Scientology is a cult that has been exposed by its inconsistencies.
Are you absolutely certain those supposed "inconsistencies" are not simply "incorrect interpretations"?
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you assuming any credibility to the Abraham legend? There are many reasons to suppose he is no more real than Adam and Eve. Abram translates as 'Exalted Father' and is renamed by YHWH as Abraham ('father of many') (Gen 17:5). The aptness of the names can hardly be accidental!
I am very much a 'minimalist' - I think there is practically no reliable history in the pentateuch.
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, but does that mean, that hypothetically speaking, if you were convinced that some other religion (Judaism) had older and more reliable texts than yours (Christianity), that you would then convert? That is the crux.Not if the very texts you read speak of a Messiah that would come to the people and the people do not exist in covenant after AD 70. Not if your Scriptures describe a Messiah coming before Jerusalem is once again destroyed. Not if these NT authors appealed to your very OT scriptures and showed you how they all apply to Jesus, and were willing to go to their deaths proclaiming the Messiah had come, was put to death and had risen from the dead and to repent before the coming judgment that God continually warned these OT people would come if they did not repent and turn to them, then they crucify the Sent One, the Deliverer, as Moses forecasted.If the "evidence" is incontrovertible, why are the experts on the matter (the Jews), who have been diligently and rigorously studying this stuff for thousands of years, not convinced?
Some are. I worked with Jews for Jesus in Toronto on one of their campaigns during the 1990s.
The NT authors were largely Jewish.
The NT was written first with the Jew in mind.
The Jews were looking for a Messiah to rescue them from Roman oppression, not One that would save them completely from their sins. They did not see the suffering Servant applying to the Messiah.
Throughout the NT gospels, Jesus identifies the hardness of their hearts in acknowledging their Messiah because He did not fit their expectations. Yet, He most definitely is the only One who can fulfill the prophecies.
The site is confirming not denying the Messiah.
Regarding Jesus’ birth—Isaiah 7:14: “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” Isaiah 9:6: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” Micah 5:2: “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”This could be literally any child. Even in the story, Joseph himself was not convinced that Mary was a virgin. This is unfalsifiable.
The NT authors identify these verses as referring and applying to Jesus.
There is a discussion about the word for virgin we could have, but I don't want to do the leg work right now. Glenn Miller (Christian Think Tank) has done a lot of work on this issue, as has J.P. Holding (Tektonics) and James White (Alpha and Omega Ministries).
Concerning Jesus' ministry and death—Zechariah 9:9: “Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”This could literally be any person riding a baby donkey who claimed to be a king. The Jesus didn't even qualify as a king, the Jesus was never a head of state.
Sure He did. The promises God gave to King David apply to Jesus. This can be demonstrated with a bit of work.
-->
@3RU7AL
Psalm 22:16-18: “Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.”This could literally be anyone who was crucified.
Do you know of anyone else that claimed to be the Jewish Messiah that was crucified while crucifixion was still used???
The Roman's used crucifixion. It would have to take place during the time of the Romans, per Daniel 2 and the fourth kingdom. There are numerous reasons why this is most reasonable to believe, one of which is the Daniel 9:24-27 passage. Daniel is speaking of his own people. Who are Daniel's people? They are an old covenant people. That people no longer live under the OT economy after AD 70. Thus there can be no Messiah after this time frame.
Notice the audience of address and the time frame for the Messiah:
Seventy Weeks and the Messiah
24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the
most holy place.
25 So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress. 26 Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.”
This prophetic passage is loaded and would take ages to elaborate on in detail but I will give you an outline of the time frame and audience of address.
1. "Your people" and "your holy city" refers to Daniel and his people and city, Jerusalem (as made clear later in the text). Daniel is in a covenant with God, which is made clear from the breaking of that covenant in Daniel 9:1-26.
2. There is a list of six things that would take place at this time, and the NT identifies all of them as fulfilled in Jesus. For instance, "to finish the transgression" suggests the transgression will continue up to the appointed time. It also suggests that God will again judge these people for their transgressions and put an end to them. Another for instance, "to make an end to sin." What was required under the Mosaic Law for the sins of the people? It was an animal sacrifice administered by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement. Where do you see that happening today? Where do you see the Levitical Priesthood performing this ritual today? Where is the sacred temple? They are all gone, disappeared in AD 70. The NT says a better sacrifice has been made, one that is pleasing to God since it addresses sin once and for all, whereas the sacrifice of animals could never do this. (Hebrews 9:11-28)
28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
So, sin is done away with IN Christ, it is ended with Christ, for those who believe.
I could go on and explain the fulfillment of all six conditions but I think you see what I'm getting at.
3. After the time frame specified the Messiah will be killed, but notice the order, it is not after the city and temple are destroyed, but BEFORE. Thus the NT timeline is in line with this prophecy.
4. The Prince to come (i.e., Titus for he was not yet Ceasar or king) would destroy the city and temple. This prophecy ties in with Daniel telling the king what will happen in LATTER days:
28 However, there is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and He has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will take place in the latter days...40 Then there will be a fourth kingdom...
The Divine Kingdom
44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.
44 In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.
-->
@3RU7AL
Continued:
The NT eyewitness accounts describe how the Roman's fought over His garments, how He was pierced by a Roman spear. They tell how Jesus said His kingdom was near, even right at the door. They tell how Jesus' or God's kingdom, the kingdom of heaven is not a physical kingdom but a spiritual kingdom. It is most reasonable to understand that kingdom coming into its own once the old covenant with Israel is fulfilled in AD 70.
Hebrews 8:13
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.
Even during the writing of Hebrews with no mention of an already destroyed temple and many descriptions of the OT ritual system and many warnings of soon coming wrath, the author makes the point that the old is becoming obsolete and will soon disappear. That happened in AD 70.
So, the prophecies fit a specific time frame and they are not vague. I could go on and on tying Daniel and the OT to the NT times of Jesus. For instance, Revelation is another NT writing that is focused on the Old Covenant people. There are more references to the OT than any other NT writing. Some have listed around 289 citations or quotes to the OT Scriptures, some have identified and explained more. Many of these prophecies tie quite specifically to Daniel. And the time references in Revelation are specific to a particular period of history, before Jerusalem fell and what was to happen when it fell. The references to the Great City, Babylon can be no other city other than Jerusalem and this can be very convincingly demonstrated. The references to the kings can very convincingly be traced to Nero during the Roman occupation of Israel. The whole Revelation speaks of judgment on these Old Covenant people.
-->
@keithprosser
Are you assuming any credibility to the Abraham legend? There are many reasons to suppose he is no more real than Adam and Eve. Abram translates as 'Exalted Father' and is renamed by YHWH as Abraham ('father of many') (Gen 17:5). The aptness of the names can hardly be accidental!I am very much a 'minimalist' - I think there is practically no reliable history in the pentateuch.
Ah, well, um, I kinda think it's moot.
It turns into a wild-goose-chase (red-herring) if you try to dispute "historical evidence".
I think one of these guys made the point for me, which is, even if the Epic of Gilgamesh is historically accurate and super old, and corroborated by independent sources, that does not mean any of the "miracles" or "amazing feats" or "gods" or anything else described therein is strictly accurate or "true".
-->
@3RU7AL
Your very oldest and most accurate transcripts are from "The Dead Sea Scrolls" and the overwhelming majority of that goldmine does not support the modern christian viewpoint.There is both Masoretic text and Septuagint text found in the caves. With the book of Isaiah, there are only a few minor transmission errors until the earliest full Masoretic text is found. This shows the great degree of care taken in copying the text from generation to generation. The Christian copyists were not quite as careful, but we have more manuscript evidence from an earlier timeframe than any other ancient manuscript evidence.The Masorah - from 900 CEThe oldest extant manuscripts date from around the 9th century.[3] The Aleppo Codex (once the oldest-known complete copy but now missing the Torah) dates from the 10th century. The Masoretic Text defines the Jewish canon and its precise letter-text, with its vocalization and accentuation known as the Masorah.
Yet, we have the OT and NT that date to the fourth century at the time of Jerome that uses the same text.
Recent discoveries from the Dead Sea Scrolls, however, suggest that there were several different versions of many biblical books in the Second Temple period. Some of these versions differed only slightly from each other, but some versions were very different. After the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Romans in 70 C.E., Jewish groups dispersed across the ancient world, preserving these versions of the Hebrew Scriptures in their communities. One of these groups preserved the texts that would later become the Masoretic Text. Others are preserved in versions such as the Septuagint, the earliest Greek translation.
In the 10th century C.E., the ben Asher scribal family of Tiberias produced a manuscript of the Hebrew Bible that Maimonides, a famous Jewish scholar, declared to be the best known version of the sacred text. Soon after, the Tiberian Masoretic text and its particular version of vowels and annotations became the standard, authoritative text of the Hebrew Bible for rabbinic Judaism. The most important Masoretic medieval manuscripts are the Aleppo Codex, which dates to the 10th century C.E., and the Leningrad Codex, which dates to 1009 C.E.
The Masoretic Text is the version held as authoritative and used liturgically in most synagogues today. The Catholic Church since the time of Jerome (fourth century C.E.) and most Protestant Christian churches use this version as their source text for modern translations.
In the 10th century C.E., the ben Asher scribal family of Tiberias produced a manuscript of the Hebrew Bible that Maimonides, a famous Jewish scholar, declared to be the best known version of the sacred text. Soon after, the Tiberian Masoretic text and its particular version of vowels and annotations became the standard, authoritative text of the Hebrew Bible for rabbinic Judaism. The most important Masoretic medieval manuscripts are the Aleppo Codex, which dates to the 10th century C.E., and the Leningrad Codex, which dates to 1009 C.E.
The Masoretic Text is the version held as authoritative and used liturgically in most synagogues today. The Catholic Church since the time of Jerome (fourth century C.E.) and most Protestant Christian churches use this version as their source text for modern translations.
Dead Sea Scrolls - from 300 BCEDead Sea Scrolls (also Qumran Caves Scrolls) are ancient Jewish religious, mostly Hebrew, manuscripts found in the Qumran Caves in the West Bank near the Dead Sea.[1] Scholarly consensus dates these scrolls from the last three centuries BCE and the first century CE.[2][wiki]
Some of the works found within date back further, some say to the eighth century BCE according to one site on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The earliest translation of the Hebrew Bible is the Old Greek (OG), the translation made in Alexandria, Egypt, for the use of the Greek-speaking Jewish community there. At first, just the Torah was translated, in the third century B.C.E.; the rest of the biblical books were translated later. The whole Hebrew Bible was likely translated into ancient Greek by the middle of the second century B.C.E.
We now know from discoveries in the Dead Sea region that these alternate Hebrew versions were circulated alongside the versions that became the MT. It is not clear that one Hebrew version was preferred over the others. In any event, the OG translators sometimes chose versions very similar to those later chosen for the MT version, and other times the translators chose versions that were very different.
At the time the Bible was translated into Greek, there was no MT or any official or authorized Bible in existence. There were merely multiple editions of many scrolls of various perceived levels of sacredness.
So, the Septuagint may very well have been translated from a purer form that the Masoretic texts. It is debatable. Regardless, Jesus, or at least those who quote Jesus used the Septuagint in many NT passages.
But the point is that Christians have the Hebrew Bible, (OT) by the 350's CE in preserved writings.
-->
@PGA2.0
Concerning Jesus' ministry and death—Zechariah 9:9: “Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.”
What is jesus riding on? Luke clears it up that just one animal is involved: Lk 19:30 "He told them, “Go into the next village, where you will find a young donkey that has never been ridden. Untie the donkey and bring it here. 31 If anyone asks why you are doing that, just say, ‘The Lord[a] needs it.’” Which makes sense; Zechariah is using poetic repetition.
But in Mathew we read "They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on." Quite clearly two animals. Not only that but jesus sits on them both - presumbly like some sort of circus act! It seems likely that Matthew didn't identify the poetic aspect and took Zechariah literally. In other words he wasn't a witness but adapted what he found in the old scripture to construct his tale.
That is how there are so many 'fulfilled prophesies' - Matthew picked something out of t"he OT (such as casting lots for jesus cloak) and added a suitable "fulflment" into the narrative. It's not a fulfilled prophesy that, for example, judas received 30 pieces of silver as per OT prophecy - Matthew simply copied the amount given in Zechariah (he mistakenly says jeremiah, but there is nothing like that in jeremiah).
-->
@3RU7AL
Wow, I was wondering when you might ask me this... Let me introduce you to, Tom Skilling - https://www.facebook.com/pg/TomSkilling/posts/What is it you want me to glean from this link since I receive a popup that wants me to give my name and email address which I refuse to do. I am not a member of Facebook.Please list some of the specifics.
Again, it does not list any prophecies/predictions except vaguely and that in regards to Groundhog Day. It gives no stats on the 100% accuracy rate that you cited in your previous post. It also describes how he uses the latest weather technology, yet how does he predict things that will happen years, decades, centuries in advance, and how would you verify he could since he lives in our day and age. And how do his predictions tell of the fall of a people or the specifics that would take place before this happened, sometimes hundreds of years before the fact?
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, it does not list any prophecies/predictions except vaguely and that in regards to Groundhog Day. It gives no stats on the 100% accuracy rate that you cited in your previous post. It also describes how he uses the latest weather technology, yet how does he predict things that will happen years, decades, centuries in advance, and how would you verify he could since he lives in our day and age. And how do his predictions tell of the fall of a people or the specifics that would take place before this happened, sometimes hundreds of years before the fact?
You're moving the goal-posts. You only stipulated,
Show me a human/humans who has/have made hundreds of prediction before the facts that have come to pass.
You never said, "inspired by a god" or "years and or centuries in advance" or "100% accuracy".
Really, if you're just going to change you criteria every time I give you an answer, this is going to be a very lolong conversation.
I mean, sea-level rise was predicted "years in advance" and "before it came to pass", does that count?
-->
@3RU7AL
Not according to the definition of what constitutes evidencePlease make your preferred definition of "evidence" explicit.
I listed it earlier. I just used standard dictionaries including legal dictionaries. You can also use historical, and philosophical definitions on the subject.
Standard Dictionary
Definition of evidence
(Entry 1 of 2)
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: an outward sign : INDICATION
b: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
b: something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness especially : one who voluntarily confesses a crime and testifies for the prosecution against one's accomplices
***
Legal
evidence
n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial). It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. ***
Historical Evidence
Accounts of the past are derived from historical evidence. Historical evidence can take a variety of forms. Among the most important types of historical evidence are primary sources. Primary sources consist of original documents, artifacts, or other pieces of information that were created at the time under study.
Philosophical Evidence
In epistemology, evidence is often taken to be relevant to justified belief, where the latter, in turn, is typically thought to be necessary for knowledge.
Philosophical Evidence
In epistemology, evidence is often taken to be relevant to justified belief, where the latter, in turn, is typically thought to be necessary for knowledge.
In the philosophy of science, evidence is taken to be what confirms or refutes scientific theories, and thereby constitutes our grounds for rationally deciding between competing pictures of the world.
In philosophy, evidence has been taken to consist of such things as experiences, propositions, observation-reports, mental states, states of affairs, and even physiological events, such as the stimulation of one's sensory surfaces.
In philosophy, evidence has been taken to consist of such things as experiences, propositions, observation-reports, mental states, states of affairs, and even physiological events, such as the stimulation of one's sensory surfaces.
Scientific
Test results and/or observations that may either help support or help refute a scientific idea. In general, raw data are considered evidence only once they have been interpreted in a way that reflects on the accuracy of a scientific idea.
-->
@3RU7AL
For example, if Democritus said, "There will be a terrible storm in two weeks time" and, verily, it came to pass exactly as he predicted, and then Democritus said, "Your wife will become pregnant and will bear a son" does this mean that Democritus is divinely inspired?No. The predictions above are nothing out of the ordinary.What?! Are you kidding me? People went insane for this stuff in ancient times.People prayed and begged and offered sacrifices and rituals to any god they could find to ask them for a son.People literally thought Democritus was a living god because he could predict the weather.
And how accurate was his weather reports and what evidence do you have to verify your assertions?
Plus, these are only two predictions that are commonplace.They are only commonplace NOW because we have SCIENCE.The Bible has hundreds and hundreds of prophecies and many of them are not normal, plus they are very specific.By "not normal" do you mean "unbelievable"?Most of them are not very specific.
No, by not normal I mean the general everyday kind of thing like the weather or whether the sun will rise or not. What I mean is the depth of the prophetic utterances, the many specifics regarding them, like how Someone will die, where They will be born, when He would come, and many matters of His life, plus the life of Israel in relation to Him.
Would you, personally, drop everything and worship the great and powerful Demo?No. But the OT prophecies are not so general. Take Psalms 22, Zechariah 12:10, or Isaiah 53 for instance. Two of these speak of the act of crucifixion long before the act was known or common. All three contain specifics about what happened on the cross, as reported by the eyewitnesses.Are you suggesting that the Jesus was the only human being in history that was ever crucified?
No, not at all. What I am getting at is the Messiah would come at a specific time in history and would be put to death before the fall of Jerusalem. This Person would be put to death in a particular manner that is not used as a form of death after a certain period of history and by a specific people (the Romans). So, the Messiah would meet all this criterion and more.
The qualifier, "when properly interpreted" is an awesome loophole.If you don't think there is a proper way of interpreting it provides a loophole. But do you really believe that? Are you understanding what I am saying? If you are you are correcting interpreting what I have said.You don't have to convince me. There are literally thousands of so-called Christian denominations. Each one has their own "correct interpretation".And don't forget that even stock traders can go on a hot streak, but, by law, they still need to inform the public that, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results".Therefore they correctly interpret the signs that they work with. So what.The point is that, simply because someone makes a series of accurate predictions, this does not mean that they will always make accurate predictions, and in-fact, they are more likely to make an inaccurate prediction because of "reversion to the mean". Thusly, "past performance is not a guarantee of future results".
The biblical prophecy is over and the evidence is most reasonable they came about as prophesied. Hundreds and hundreds of prophecies.
You not only have prophecies, but you also have every OT and NT writing speaking and revealing Jesus Christ, in the OT in a typology and shadow. Have you ever studied that aspect of the Bible?I've never heard of this "typology and shadow". Is it anything like Kabbalah Numerology?
The OT has a description of a physical people, worship system, and land that have a greater meaning in pointing to a specific Person in history, Jesus Christ. So these people are a shadow or reflexion of a greater person, Jesus Christ. I can give you a trillion examples if you like, but take for instance Moses and the Exodus. Moses, in Deuteronomy 18:15-18; counter with Acts 3, says that God would raise up a prophet like him that the people are to listen to and follow.
So, as Moses leads his people out of Egypt, the land of bondage, during a forty-year exodus to the Promised Land, an earthly country, so Jesus leads His people out of bondage to the Promised Land, the heavenly country, during a forty-year period (AD 30-70). I can list perhaps twenty to thirty comparisons between the two exoduses. And many historical figures are pictures, types in the OT as a shadow of a greater truth, David for example. There are many things about David and promised to David that is fulfilled in Jesus Christ, like His kingdom. That is why many asked if Jesus was He who was to come as the son of David (Matthew 9:27). Abraham about to sacrifice his Son is a picture of a greater truth of what was coming. Descriptions of the latter days point to Jesus and what He would do, etc.
The Bible is a unity. It covers specific topics, not the whole of human history, just what is relevant in God's dealings with humanity. It concerns sin and separation of humans from God and God's solution. It deals with two very specific covenants and the way God relates to His covenant people.I'm pretty sure none of that makes it any more likely to be true than any other religious belief.
That is because you don't understand how intricately united and deep prophecy is.
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Not true. There are 19 extra-biblical accounts from historians and others that treat Jesus as a historical person, as do the various eyewitness accounts, the early church fathers and others.The only accounts are in myth. Nothing in any historical record.
-->
@3RU7AL
If that is the case, I have the exact same question. Why did the "YHWH" wait so long to write anything down?Except for the Ten Commandments, what is it you are claiming God wrote down?The inspired "word of god".I'm asking why the "YHWH" waited until the bronze age to communicate its message.
Because God wanted humanity to experience life without Him and the consequences. Yet He was in communication with some throughout this period.
I'm asking why the "YHWH" didn't just send down one or more of its "holy hitmen" along with a "talking donkey" to "communicate with" or otherwise "reason with" the leaders of all those supposedly false religions?
I don't know, but people have a way of justifying their wrongful actions and ignoring correction. God punished the world during Noah's time and promised not to go there again.
Couldn't the "YHWH" have popped little "holy assassins" and "talking donkeys" down to earth in order to "reason with" the misguided followers of Ahura Mazda?Why? Everything needed for salvation had been revealed through His covenant people and by Jesus.The followers of Ahura Mazda lived centuries before the Jesus was even born. How exactly were they supposed to know about Jesus?
God gave witness of Himself through the nation of Israel. These other religions, do you really think they were interested in God? They probably showed the same interest that many atheists do today, scorn and unbelief.
Nothing else needs to be said. You have what is needed for salvation. The teachings of Zoroastrianism is contrary to the Hebrew Bible and the NT. That means something does not ring true somewhere.The fact that Zoroastrianism is contrary to the Hebrew teachings does nothing to validate or invalidate either the Hebrew teachings or Zoroastrianism.
True, the verification or lack thereof comes from the teachings and evidence from the teaching.
It also lends some credibility to the idea that Abraham's concept of god and heavenly hosts was very likely shaped by this pre-existing religion.Or their religion by his and those before him, but they corrupted the belief.Based on what? Wouldn't you need some historical basis for this perfectly bald assertion?Once you understand the original you are better able to recognize counterfeits.Based on what? The same that you are basing your assertions of Abraham on, your assumption, but more, the biblical account itself that teaches against gods as anything other than human constructs. The historical basis would be the Scriptures themselves.You can't use your own scriptures to validate your own scriptures.
That is like saying you can't use science to verify science. The Scriptures provide many external pieces of evidence of what they communicate. Supposing (for your benefit) that the Scriptures are from God, then is it reasonable to think I can get something more authoritative from other sources?
You are assuming that these religions are being borrowed from rather than the other way around.You are assuming that Christianity is being borrowed from, even before it existed in the first place.
Christianity is a progressive carryon of Judaism. What is contained in the OT or Hebrew Scriptures is made known more fully in the NT.
-->
@PGA2.0
No writer saw Jesus they all either wrote stories they heard or about believers.
-->
@3RU7AL
Historical evidence of the Jesus is moot.That is your personal opinion and is a result of your worldview bias.Historical evidence of the Jesus makes it credible the teachings could come or are based on what he said, not that the texts are accurate/true.
Provided He is not who He claimed to be. If He is God and Man then what He says (My words will never pass away) will be true.
There is historical evidence of Siddhartha, does this make Buddhism true?It makes it credible the teachings could come or are based on what he said, not that the texts are accurate/true.Again, the problem with religions is that each one is contrary to the other in some major understanding of God/gods/lack of gods, Thus, logically only one, if you grant any is true to what is.And if there is no ultimate revelation from God what makes your views any truer than any other view, after all, you are a limited, subjective, relative person? In other words, why should I value your personal opinion or preference?I've never suggested that any of this is merely "my opinion", I have instead, repeatedly harped on logical coherence and epistemological limits.
Based on your limited knowledge and your coherency of any given thing. So why should I trust your opinion because you think what you say is more logical?
There is historical evidence of Joseph Smith, does this make Mormonism true?No. The book is contradictory to the Bible in which it recognizes as from God also.I'm sure the Mormons have a litany of apologists who would gladly explain "the correct interpretation" to you.
I have read it and I find it nonsense, both it and its claims, which are inconsistent in relation to the Bible.
There is historical evidence of Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, does this make Scientology true?No, Scientology is a cult that has been exposed by its inconsistencies.Are you absolutely certain those supposed "inconsistencies" are not simply "incorrect interpretations"?
There are many articles on the Net that expose the inconsistencies.