-->
@keithprosser
Now, take a look at a biblical prophecy and the specifics of it:Like where it says '70 weeks' you mean?
If you like?
A classic: From creator god ==> Specific God
Posts
Total:
1,007
-->
@3RU7AL
The Kalacakra tantra prophesies that when the world declines into war and greed, and all is lost, the 25th Kalki king will emerge from Shambhala with a huge army to vanquish "Dark Forces" and usher in a worldwide Golden Age. Using calculations from the Kalachakra Tantra, Alex Berzin puts this date at 2424. [LINK]Guess who's going to be laughing in approximately 404 years!!!!!!!
So you have nothing regarding prophecy that can be verified as yet? It all applies to that age? The supposed mythical city of Sambhala/Shangrila will be build sometime in the future, correct?
You're right, I'm laughing.
You're right, I'm laughing.
-->
@PGA2.0
So you have nothing regarding prophecy that can be verified as yet? It all applies to that age? The supposed mythical city of Sambhala/Shangrila will be build sometime in the future, correct?You're right, I'm laughing.
Give me a call when the messiah returns. What's the exact date you're expecting them again?
-->
@PGA2.0
So you're proving my point: the biblical prophesy isn't in any version of the bible and relies on something outside the bible to make it work. It is therefore not STRICTLY a biblical prophesy, then, is it? Why is (of years) added there parenthetically, is that what Gabriel said, or is that something the cited author, who is not the author of the bible, adds?
Why not just say "rome" instead of some fourth kingdom strong as iron that requires interpretation and definitely invites misinterpretation? I'm sorry dude, but those aren't specific prophesies. A specific prohpesy would be "Rome is going to come in here and tear this temple down 490 years from now." Not something about a statue and what it's made of and a lion with five heads on it each with two faces...that's a fever dream. Not prophesy. Honestly that passage is ridiculous.
A better real world example. I can prophesy "the Packers will beat the Bears when they first play during the 2019 regular season." We have a defined result on a defined day. OR, I can say:
"A team from Wisconsin will take on a team from the east of its city, and will one day be victorious." This now opens up my prophesy to be correct much more easily. It's far less impressive if one day the Wisconsin Badgers beat the PEnn State Nitanny Lions eventually, or the Bucks beat the Magic eventually. Both prophesies are true, but one is specific and not subject to interpretation. The other is basically the same thing as a cold reading medium, playing percentages to make sure I'm right.
-->
@PGA2.0
The very fact that it would be the Romans and not someone else who did this is significant.
So it is somehow supernaturally significant that the occupying force from the biggest army on earth did to Jerusalem exactly what they'd done to hundreds of cities and cultures BEFORE Jerusalem and after? Sorry, but I don't see how. Nor do I see how this somehow means your god created the universe. Connect the two.
-->
@PGA2.0
With two conflicting accounts of Himself?Do you mean like this? [LINK]
No, I don't even understand the point.
Well, how about 3 conflicting accounts? ie God the father, God the son and the other one? That's not much different from God the yhwh, God the vishnu and God the Buddha is it?
-->
@3RU7AL
Luke 21:20-2420 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near.Generally, when you are surrounded by unspecified armies, you are in a heap of trouble. This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".
Who does the pronoun "you" refer to?
21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city;Mountains are almost always a safe bet in wartime. Flee the city and stay away from the city. This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".
Your logic is flawed. First, those in Judea (specific place) were to flee. Next, they in the Judean countryside are not to enter the city. What city? It is the same city that will be surrounded by armies. When did that take place? It took place with the Romans.
22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.Did you just pretend to predict "war"? War will happen and it's not going to be fun!!!!
Josephus writes about the Jewish wars with ROME.
23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.People will be distressed and people will die. This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".
It will be the time of trouble of Jacob's people - i.e., Israel. It would be in relation to all that was written about them being fulfilled. God promised them a judgment for their disobedience. The NT contains warnings throughout about this soon, near, quick, shortly coming judgment. Not only this, they would die by the sword. So Jerusalem had to be surrounded, the people would have to be captured and many killed and exiled once again, as Josephus recorded as happening.
Lastly, "this people" no longer exist in covenant as specified in the Law of Moses after AD 70. The judgment can relate to no other period of history.
So all prophecy had to be fulfilled by AD 70 and that is the witness of Scripture and much is confirmed by history and common sense.
This prophecy is very specific.No it isn't.
Sure it is.
1. It relates to specific people.
2. It relates to a specific timeframe.
3. It relates to a specific event.
It names a historical city and specific people (the pronouns "you" and "your" plus "they" and "those" applies to the disciples and the Jewish people under the Mosaic Covenant during the 1st-century), a specific region(Judea) and a specific time frame (when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies once again) and things that do not apply to us today (they will fall by the edge of the sword).What time frame are you talking about? This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".
What time frame is obvious to you?
You sidestepped my questions as is a common deflection by those who are trying to escape the inquiry.
Who do the pronouns address?
What is the timeframe given in the text?
What event is being discussed?
So, what information does the text disclose (exegesis), not what you read into it (eisegesis)?
The sword is not used in modern warfare today. Not only this, everything written would incorporate the OT scriptures and quite possibly some NT scriptures (what was written at the time of this author writing - i.e., the OT).I'm pretty sure people still get beheaded and sliced into quarters with machetes even today. This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".
Your people, that does not mean a solitary few but many. Where do you see this happening in large numbers? Not only this what does the context disclose of the timeline and events?
The same can be said of Daniel 9:24-27. It is a very specific prophecy concerning very specific people (Daniel's people who are in a covenant relationship with God) plus a very specific time frame in which specific events will happen.Even if this stuff is 100% accurate, it does not prove the "YHWH" had anything to do with it.
It is a confirmation that what is said is credible and accurate on this topic. And who do you know who is able to foretell accurately detailed history before it decades and centuries before it happens with countless prophecies?
Don't you believe other nations were able to reasonably predict which cities and towns were most likely to be attacked by enemies?
Not to that detail and not hundreds of years before these kingdoms/nations even existed. The prophecies are even detailed regarding their kings or Caesars.
These predictions are not rocket science. This is basic military strategy.
Describe something about a specific people that will happen to them one week from now, mentioning the event and specific details, let alone a month, a year, a decade, or a century later and let's see how accurate you are. Predict a city that will be attacked and destroyed within the next year that is not in danger right now. Now multiply that number by many more predictions.
-->
@keithprosser
With two conflicting accounts of Himself?Do you mean like this? [LINK]No, I don't even understand the point.Well, how about 3 conflicting accounts? ie God the father, God the son and the other one?
Why is that conflicting? You are human. You are different than me yet we are both members of the one humanity. I am no less human than you are. You are a separate person than I am but you share the same nature that I do. We are both humans.
God is three distinct persons, just like humanity is many distinct persons. The Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit yet each one of these Beings has the same nature, that of God, each one is to be worshiped as Lord and God.
That's not much different from God the yhwh, God the vishnu and God the Buddha is it?
But it is a big difference in what has been revealed about the Hindi god and the Christian God.
-->
@3RU7AL
So you have nothing regarding prophecy that can be verified as yet? It all applies to that age? The supposed mythical city of Sambhala/Shangrila will be build sometime in the future, correct?You're right, I'm laughing.Give me a call when the messiah returns. What's the exact date you're expecting them again?
Already happened. AD 70.
27 For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds.
28 “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
How did God "come in glory" during OT times? Did He even manifest physically or did He use other nations as an instrument of judgment? Give biblical proof for your answer.
What did Jesus say regarding His kingdom? Was it a physical kingdom on earth?
There's quite a big difference between yhwh and the christian god - ask any Jew.But it is a big difference in what has been revealed about the Hindi god and the Christian God.
But they are the same in that neither exists!
-->
@3RU7AL
The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated in a variety of ways, including radiocarbon and by linguistics experts. Most tests agree that they were written at different times between 150 BCE and 70 BCE. [LINK]
If the documents found in the caves were dated before the first century, as the OT writing were, then they would logically date much earlier to their originals because these are copies found in the caves, not the originals. The language of Daniel in one document was said to be the same vernacular as used during the 8th-century BCE.
Don't you think it's a little strange that parts of the gospels and the story of the messiah were written down before the Jesus was born?
Such as (other than prophecy)?
Nevertheless, there are some similarities between the two groups and their writings, which make for interesting comparisons. For example, a list of miracles appears in both Luke 7:21–22 of the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scroll known as the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521). In Luke 7, Jesus gives these miracles to the disciples of John the Baptist as proof that he is the messiah. In the Messianic Apocalypse, which was written approximately 150 years before Luke’s Gospel, the Lord is the one who will perform these miracles. The source for both of these lists is Isaiah chapters 35 and 61. While not all of the same miracles appear in Luke 7 and the Messianic Apocalypse, the miracles that do appear in both are listed in the same order. [LINK]
The accounts show a common interpretation. So what?
What makes you think Luke was written after the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70? What indications do you have in Luke of an already destroyed temple or city or covenant? Do you realize the significance of the temple and not one mention of it already destroyed? So, the question is who borrowed from whom? Did they both borrow from Isaiah or did Luke borrow from the Messianic prophecy which you are insinuating?
Why, the article even gives you insight into why they are both similar in their INTERPRETATION (i.e., they used the same source and had the same understanding).
The curious thing is that not all of these miracles, such as “raising the dead,” appear in the passages from Isaiah, which were the source material for the lists—the prophecies being fulfilled. Yet the miracle of “raising the dead” appears in both Luke 7 and the Messianic Apocalypse right before bringing “good news to the poor.” Rather than suggesting that the writer of Luke 7 copied from—or was even aware of—the Messianic Apocalypse, this similarity suggests that both groups shared certain “interpretive and theological traditions on which writers in both communities drew.”
Isaiah 35
Behold, your God will come with vengeance;
The recompense of God will come,
But He will save you.”
5 Then the eyes of the blind will be opened
And the ears of the deaf will be unstopped.
6 Then the lame will leap like a deer,
And the tongue of the mute will shout for joy.
Luke 7
21 At that very time He cured many people of diseases and afflictions and evil spirits; and He gave sight to many who were blind. 22 And He answered and said to them, “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, the poor have the gospel preached to them. 23 Blessed is he who does not take offense at Me.”
the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.
-->
@PGA2.0
Don't you think it's a little strange that parts of the gospels and the story of the messiah were written down before the Jesus was born?Such as (other than prophecy)?
From the moment of their discovery, some scholars suggested that at least some of the scrolls may be the work of early Christians. After all, a certain “Teacher of Righteousness” is mentioned as a persecuted figure and there is also a “Wicked Priest” and other characters that seem to mirror early Christianity. Most scholars, however, have dismissed any connection between the community that hid their scroll library some 2,000 years ago in caves at Qumran and the earliest followers of Jesus. Now, I’ve made a discovery that may change all this. Put simply, I believe that one of the fragments called by scholars by the very unappealing name of “4Q541” explicitly refers to Jesus. [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
Maybe god appeared to the Jews as yhwh and to the Indians as vishnu.With two conflicting accounts of Himself?Is that wrong? I'm not really sure about the rules.If conflicting reports discredit each other, then please explain,
Conflicting accounts that are diametrically opposite and state the OPPOSITE can't both be true.
Matthew 2:1-23 tells us that Mary and Joseph lived in a house in Bethlehem where Mary gave birth to Jesus and the couple received the magi. Later, the family fled to Egypt and after Herod’s death returned to Judea and settled in Nazareth. But according to Luke 2:1-7, Joseph and Mary already lived in Nazareth. They went to Bethlehem to enroll in a census, and Jesus was born there in a manger. The family later returned to Nazareth without making any trip to Egypt. [LINK]
These APPARENT contradictions have been explained many times. There are all kinds of links that show they do not conflict.
Although not explicitly stated, the implication here is: This is the first time the family has ever been to Nazareth. Therefore, they did not live there before; therefore, Matthew and Luke disagree. But do they?
In fact, we see tension, but not outright contradiction, and this is easily explainable in terms of the evangelists' respective sources. Luke and the family sources would of course have all of the records straight.
But Matthew's magi? They would find the child in Bethlehem and they would inquire of the family, "Was he born here in Bethlehem?", and they of course would answer yes. Enough said - and the fact that the family actually lived in Nazareth, under normal circumstances, would go by the wayside (or, if nothing else, avoided as a topic of conversation to keep from spilling the beans to a jealous Herod).
So, Matthew had this before him: His source told him that Jesus was born in Bethlehem; but he knew Jesus and his family were from Nazareth. How did they happen to get to Nazareth, then?
From here, the answer depends on where you stand. Inerrantists of course may maintain that Matthew was inspirationally informed of Joseph's dreams to stay away from Judea and get back home; it is also possible that this was another case where Jesus informed the disciples for the sake of the prophecy-fulfillment paradigm. Those more skeptical may say that Matt simply used a typical OT dream motif.
Perhaps both are true. The bottom line is that since Matt does not explicitly say that the family did not come from Nazareth, we do not have a case of contradiction at all - but a quite understandable tension that is easily resolved critically.
The last question we might ask is, what were Joseph and Mary doing in Bethlehem at all two years later?
In fact, we see tension, but not outright contradiction, and this is easily explainable in terms of the evangelists' respective sources. Luke and the family sources would of course have all of the records straight.
But Matthew's magi? They would find the child in Bethlehem and they would inquire of the family, "Was he born here in Bethlehem?", and they of course would answer yes. Enough said - and the fact that the family actually lived in Nazareth, under normal circumstances, would go by the wayside (or, if nothing else, avoided as a topic of conversation to keep from spilling the beans to a jealous Herod).
So, Matthew had this before him: His source told him that Jesus was born in Bethlehem; but he knew Jesus and his family were from Nazareth. How did they happen to get to Nazareth, then?
From here, the answer depends on where you stand. Inerrantists of course may maintain that Matthew was inspirationally informed of Joseph's dreams to stay away from Judea and get back home; it is also possible that this was another case where Jesus informed the disciples for the sake of the prophecy-fulfillment paradigm. Those more skeptical may say that Matt simply used a typical OT dream motif.
Perhaps both are true. The bottom line is that since Matt does not explicitly say that the family did not come from Nazareth, we do not have a case of contradiction at all - but a quite understandable tension that is easily resolved critically.
The last question we might ask is, what were Joseph and Mary doing in Bethlehem at all two years later?
And why would Matthew mention Herod’s slaughter of the innocents and Luke skip it altogether?
And why would Matthew say Magi visited the baby Jesus and Luke says it was shepherds? [LINK]
What is contradictory there? They share different aspects of the birth narrative.
And why would Luke mention a census, but Matthew leave that out?
And, how do you "follow a star"?
People use stars for navigation even to this day but I can speculate other reasons like the possibly the illumination of the star because of its position in the heaven had something to do with them following it, i.e., the brightness of the star would be the time when the Savior was ready to be born.
-->
@keithprosser
We know that Daniel and other OT Scripture was written before the 1st-century.Yes, we do. Which mean it could be read in the first century and bits copied out to make it look like prophecy.
But how do you orchestrate the destruction of the city, the coming of the Messiah, the six conditions, wars, and the abomination of desolation?
What would be the motive?
Isaiah 7 has nothing to with the birth of jesus 600 years afterward but Matthew used it to make it appear that jesus was not only born of a virgin but it was foretold- ooh!
I would argue it does, that every OT writing is a type and shadow of what was to come and I can demonstrate this over and over again. There is a unity from the OT Scriptures that is explained and makes sense from the NT perspective. Prophecy and its fulfillment make sense from the NT perspective.
-->
@keithprosser
Is that a reasonable hypothesis?How intensely have you looked into biblical prophecy?I would say 'Sufficiently'. But we could examine one or two. I know here are dozens but dealing with long lists in forum post forum format doesn't work because answers are alway harder and longer than questions. I'm not getting involved if its a gish gallop.
I would suggest the Olivet Discourse as to its plausibility since it covers so many OT writings and Josephus verifies many of its teachings as happening.
I could break it down, section by section and ask whether you agree with the reasoning and logic to the fulfillment or not, starting with verses Matthew 24:1-2.
-->
@3RU7AL
No, I don't even understand the point.Imagine an ocean liner. A child is playing on some deck chairs and falls overboard.Ten people see this happen and a rescue team is deployed immediately.When the child is returned safely, one of the witnesses shouts out, "I prayed to Ahura Mazda to safely rescue the child, and since the child is unharmed, that is proof that Ahura Mazda heard my prayer!!!"Each of the remaining nine witnesses all prayed to a different god and they all believed that the rescued child was proof of their gods existence.So which god is the real god?
One thing is clear, they both can't if the beliefs conflict each other in what God is. One of the beliefs is an idol.
-->
@3RU7AL
Why would I not use the Bible and instead go with your particular bias and worldview slant???As a thought experiment.Step one, (IFF) I start with the assumption that A is true (THEN) do the apologetics for belief A seem adequate and reasonable?Step two, (IFF) I start with the assumption that B is true (THEN) do the apologetics for belief B seem adequate and reasonable?Step three, (IFF) I start with the assumption that C is true (THEN) do the apologetics for belief C seem adequate and reasonable?The answer is yes.
No, the answer is not necessarily yes. The answer could be based on the factuality and logical consistency and coherency of the evidence of A, B, or C, or the number of contradictions and inconsistencies in making sense of A, B, or C.
-->
@PGA2.0
I would argue it does, that every OT writing is a type and shadow of what was to come and I can demonstrate this over and over again. There is a unity from the OT Scriptures that is explained and makes sense from the NT perspective. Prophecy and its fulfillment make sense from the NT perspective.
I'm familiar with type theory - I don't accept it. But this thread is crowded so I'll wait for another occasion to revisit this stuff .
-->
@PGA2.0
And that time frame is 70 weeks. Show me a different time frame in that prophesy.The same can be said of Daniel 9:24-27. It is a very specific prophecy concerning very specific people (Daniel's people who are in a covenant relationship with God) plus a very specific time frame in which specific events will happen.
-->
@PGA2.0
Does the empire state building exist, is it mentioned or depicted in spiderman comics? That then is evidence that spiderman exists irl.If what the claims said is confirmed by historical evidence, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple yet once again, that would be evidence that confirms and verifies the claim.
-->
@PGA2.0
The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 as one.
Allegedly prophesied to occur 388yrs earlier, fail.
The destruction of the Jewish OT economy in AD 70 as another.
Where was that prophesied?
The predicted coming of the Jewish Messiah to a Mosaic Covenant people as another.
The Jews do not accept that this has been fulfilled, in fact it is still something they pray for.
Three strikes...............you're OUT.
-->
@PGA2.0
Now show where any of this exists in the prophesy you quote. Dan 9 24:27.
Your claim is that if the prophesy said something else then it's fulfilled, oh durrr.
-->
@PGA2.0
So which god is the real god?One thing is clear, they both can't if the beliefs conflict each other in what God is. One of the beliefs is an idol.
So you don't have an answer to this either? You're just restating the point of the experiment.
If only one of the people could potentially be right, how do you rule out the nine who are wrong? I
There's an even more difficult version. What if all ten of the people prayed to different gods, none of those gods were your gods, and the child was saved?
-->
@ludofl3x
If you pray to the wrong god, does he not hear it or does he just ignore it?
-->
@keithprosser
Obviously an omniscient god would definitely hear it, and ignore it, as he does with so many of the prayers pointed directly at him, apparently. I mean he wouldn't act on it, but if it's the god of the bible, he'd hear it, not act on it, AND put your ass on the 'make sure to torture this person forever' list.
I think the most likely answer from any theist, but specifically I've HEARD this answer from a number of Christians, is the god somehow understands that you meant to be praying to him, not your false god, and he grants your wish so that maybe you come to realize the error of your ways somehow. Of course, without showing up properly and saying "By the way, I'm the Bible God, I'm the one that did that. Just call me direct next time." I would imagine if he attempts an answer, PGA will end up somewhere near this mark.
-->
@ludofl3x
So it's best to pray to a generic 'God' and not be too specific which god?Obviously an omniscient god would definitely hear it, and ignore it, as he does with so many of the prayers pointed directly at him, apparently. I mean he wouldn't act on it, but if it's the god of the bible, he'd hear it, not act on it, AND put your ass on the 'make sure to torture this person forever' list.
-->
@keithprosser
So it's best to pray to a generic 'God' and not be too specific which god?
Provided the correct answer isn't the god of the bible, maybe. If any god were real (and again, I don't think they are, this is purely hypothetical) and you weren't sure which one it was, I think it's probably safest not to pray at all. It would leave you the most wiggle room. Like when my mom complains I never call her, I always tell her she never calls me. Phones work both ways, and i'm the one who's not retired and has a 15 hour schedule day to day with kids.
It's half joking. :) I have to put that there because religious people are famously humorless about stuff like that, they might not be able to identify it.
-->
@PGA2.0
I'm willing to accept you at your word on this (for the sake of this particular argument).There is a unity from the OT Scriptures that is explained and makes sense from the NT perspective. Prophecy and its fulfillment make sense from the NT perspective.
Let's say the scriptures as you understand them are 100% irrefutable pure uncut truth.
What practical and actionable advice does this give you?
-->
@disgusted
Does the empire state building exist, is it mentioned or depicted in spiderman comics? That then is evidence that spiderman exists irl.
Phenomenal point.
-->
@PGA2.0
The answer could be based on the factuality and logical consistency and coherency of the evidence of A, B, or C, or the number of contradictions and inconsistencies in making sense of A, B, or C.
You seem to be suffering from the "objectivity" delusion.
The evidence is never 100% coherent. That's why you need apologetics to explain how 70 weeks turns into 490 years or whatever.
The ancient text is not "self-evident". It is not sola scriptura. [LINK]
(IFF) you presume that your personally preferred sola scriptura is true (THEN) everyone who disagrees with you is either insincere, stupid, intellectually blind and deaf, or purely evil.
(IFF) you presume that sola scriptura of another religion is true (THEN) everyone who disagrees with you is either insincere, stupid, intellectually blind and deaf, or purely evil.