The Veracity of Biblical Prophecy

The Old and New Testaments have a plethora of prophecies which have been fulfilled, what other book can claim such?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Poppycock. None of the "prophecies" of biblical mythology can be shown to be independently accurate or demonstrated to be actually "prophetic." The one or two that may even have some similarities to real events can't even be demonstrated to have been written before the events or the events were invented to "fulfill" the "prophecy."

Utter nonsense. If the bible wanted to be truly prophetic, it would have been a simple matter for clear, non-allegorical instructions to be written that could have cured cancer, explained the nature of the atom, provided ohm's law, Avagardo's number, or the number of moons around Jupiter.

No, Ice. The bible is far from "prophetic."

By the way, how many is a plethora? Are you prepared to list them each in a separate thread?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Over three hundred of them in the Old Testament, for instance, it was predicted that the Messiah would not defend Himself in court (Isaiah 53:7), that He would be pierced in his hands and feet (Psalm 22:16), that he would be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver, and that the money would be returned to be used for paupers' graves (Zechariah 11:12), that He would be executed with common criminals (Isaiah 53:12) , that he would come from Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), and many more, just google "prophecies about Christ's incarnation," or something like that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And the evidence that these things actually occurred is....? Oh, yeah. The very text that predicted them. Convenient, yes? Its called bullshit, Ice. Propaganda. Lies. If you want your text to have validity, you make it seem as though it was "prophesied."

If you have more, start a new thread on the veracity of bible prophecy. I'm sure there are many who are willing to burst your bubbles.

 

Those predictions were made many centuries before the Incarnation, as born out with the Dead Sea Scrolls which confirm that the Old Testament prophecies have not changed through the centuries, and make sure you google something like "prophecies fulfilled for Christ's first coming," very enlightening.

And skin man, go ahead and start up that thread, I'll be sure to post there.

 

Yes, but what is the evidence that they were "fulfilled?"

Done.

 

The accounts about Jesus' life were written by eye-witnesses, and when the Gospels were being distributed, early on, no one disputed the accountings of Jesus' life, physical death, and resurrection, written in those Gospels, so do we take your word, skin, or do we take the word of eye-witnesses?

 

They weren't eye-witnesses. If so, where is the evidence that they were. Moreover, if they were, they were the stupidest eye-witnesses since three out of four copied each other's work and one didn't even understand the geography of where he was at.

What you're saying is trust the word of my gods because my gods wrote that it was trustworthy.

This is called tautological bullshit.

 

Three copied each others work? Please tell us more.

And what geography was supposedly gotten wrong?

The Gospels were written between 20 and 50 years after Christ's Incarnation, and no one, from that time, disputed there contents, the people who had seen it all did not dispute it.

 

As someone who is not an atheist, I have to ask:

Why are so many christians threatened by atheists? Do they bring unsure and insecure feelings to the surface?

I've noticed many fundamentalist christians have this underlying "layer" of hostility within them. Then again perhaps this embrace of a God depicted as cruel,jealous ,jugdemental, and angry appeals to that.

And Skinwalker is correct. The so called prophecies are so full of holes it makes swiss cheese look like a diamond.
If these prophecies were so solid as you claim, they would be either impossible or near to impossible to refute., but of course they are not.

 

Many Christians aren't able to bask in the "tolerance" which is bestowed upon them.

And what "holes," nova900?

 

The first gospel, Mark, was written by an anonymous author at least 70 years after the alleged christ's death. This is apparent because of the mention of the destruction of the temple (Mark 13:2). Of course, the superstitious claim this to be a "prophecy" but when you look at 8:38-9:1, you see another "prophecy" that Jesus will return from death in the author's generation.

It didn't happen. Ergo, the "prophetic" ability of Mark's author is bunk and discarded. Ergo, the author witnessed the Temple destruction a full 70 years after Jesus' death. If the author was a witness to the life of Jesus he was an old bastard. Luke and Matthew are obviously written by authors that read Mark (even believing biblical scholars agree on this).

The author of Mark also states: Then he [Jesus] returned from the region of Tyre, and went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee (Mark 7:31).

What!? The passage makes no mention of a detour or prolonged trip by Jesus, but clearly implies that Sidon is between Tyre and the Sea of Galilee.

In 5:1, the anonymous author of Mark (surely if it were John Mark, he would have had enough personal experience in Palestinian geography to not make these mistakes) has Jesus cross the Sea of Galilee to reach Gerasa. Gerasa is a full 60-70 km from the sea and almost just as close to the Dead Sea on or near the Trans-Jordanian Plateau. From Gerasa, Jesus sent a legion of demons into the pigs that ran down a steep bank to the 60 km distant Sea of Galilee!

 

Complete bullshit. The passage is clear. It says that there will be a second coming in the author's generation. It didn't happen and all the apologetic B.S. in the world won't change it.

The gospels were written by anonymous authors, two of which copied their work from a third.

 

What kind of reply is that? Is that the best you can do insult my vast intelligence?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...so...can you provide irrefutable proof? Or perhaps another "non reply" from you is in order.

As usual, when a christian fundamentalist is presented with "give us proof" ..you can't, so you feel the need to lash out in a childish manner and post scripture and hellfire.


http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

 

It doesnt' say that He would return in that generation, bad try.

And He did predict that the Temple would be destroyed, and that all the building stones would be undone, which did happen, as the gold in the Temple melted as it burned, so the Romans disassembled the stones to get the gold.

 

There was no "prediction" but rather a reporting of the event after the fact.

The passage is clear. It says:

Anyone who argues this is seriously reaching for straws.

 

That was talking about the day of Pentecost, the coming of the Holy Spirit to empower the believers.

 

Jesus said he would return after the state of Israel had reformed after Rome destroyed it, and Israel was reformed in the 20th century.

 

That's not how the passages are worded. But even if they were. Even if we were to accept the nonsense you just said, if (hypothetically speaking) the anonymous author of Mark specified the Pentecost, we're still left with the glaring ignorance of Mark's anonymous author with regard to the geography of the Levant. Moreover, you're still using tautology to 'prove' veracity.

It might as well be permissible for the accused in a murder trial to write a diary after being accused of murder that shows he wasn't the murderer and giving himself an alibi. This is exactly the kind of bullshit we're expected to accept with regard to "biblical prophecy."

The Visitor,
Please stay on topic.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that the Old Testament prophecies were not altered to match the cirmumstances of Jesus' Incarnation, and when the Gospels began to be distributed in the 1st century, no one took issue with the accounts, so, as usual, skin, you're just blowing a bunch of hot air.