A Final Proof Against Christianity

[anonymous2]

Can you just answer the question I asked? Digging skeletons won't bury the questions.

You're not going to get the answer you're looking for, because they don't have it, unless you want to believe that everyone God supposedly had killed was infected with an incurable VD or whatever the explanation is that is used. Yea, that makes loads of sense, like saying "I'm a loving omnipotent God, and I can't destroy the VD in these people, or I refuse to, instead I'll kill them, including the children and the animals". Yeah. "God is sovereign" is used to cover up apparent inconsistences in God's character. Yes, if there's an omnipotent God, sure, he's sovereign, but that still doesn't explain the apparent inconsistences in his character in the Bible. "God is sovereign", "God's thoughts are higher than ours", those types of thoughts can be used to justify anything basically. Why don't I just go ahead and write a book right now and say that God is loving and good and told me that everyone must contribute to my religious organization and serve me as his representative on earth? Why not? God is sovereign and his thoughts are higher than ours, right?

 

[SnakeLord]

The only word that stuck in my head as I read your post Snakelord was the spirit with which Jesus cried 'Eli', given that I too subscribe to that spirit and know it. How can you change that about me Snakelord?

Change what about you? My post wasn't about you.

The Christian is embued with a spirit which cries "Daddy". That Spirit intercedes on our behalf in prayer because we are so weak in our faith that we do not know how to pray and so it helps us.
I thought you may be interested in this Spirit just from an observers point of view SnakeLord? No?

Not particularly, as it has bugger all to do with my post. None of this would relate to jesus, who would have no excuse for being weak in faith, considering you would claim he's god.

I thought the scientist took all things into consideration. Why does the scientist despise and reject the witness of the individual in the case of the Christian faith?

You cannot be considered a "witness". That's the very point that you happily ignore. You have no evidence to show your honesty or validity, and no evidence to show you have witnessed anything other than your own self-created delusions.

Surely they know themselves better than you know them?

As a psychiatrist, I will openly refute this rhetorical question.

Why would you call them a liar?

I didn't, nor would I call anyone a liar. I would merely ask for evidence, which is what science and sanity demand.

I am starting to doubt the validity of science altogether now

Undoubtedly due to your ignorance of it.

 

[§outh§tar]

God can do whatever He wants to m8 cos He is far wiser than I am. I wouldn't dare judge God. He could squash me like a bug.

Thanks

c20

Again, I must ask you: ARE YOU AN IDIOT?

You said:

Hypocrite I may be, but answer me why you claim that a Christian lies? Why do that? There own witness should be sufficient for you no? They are people with eyes and a nose and a brain just like you unless you are claiming to be a better person than they are? Are you?

And I asked:
---
Tell me c2O.

Do Satanists lie?

If so, are you claiming to be a better person than they are?
---


There is NOTHING in my question about God, much less about judging Him so either you are trying to avoid the question or you are just plain illiterate. Either way do answer.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Again, I must ask you: ARE YOU AN IDIOT?

You said:



And I asked:
---
Tell me c2O.

Do Satanists lie?

If so, are you claiming to be a better person than they are?
---


There is NOTHING in my question about God, much less about judging Him so either you are trying to avoid the question or you are just plain illiterate. Either way do answer.

Ignoring your rudeness...

Yes Satanists lie about the Gospel. The Gospel is what it is however and the Word of God stands up on it's own to those who have ears to listen (as you once did apparently).
Am I better than the Satanist? I have no idea. God will have to judge on that one.

 

[okinrus]

1) the vagueness of the "prophecies" (if they were at all prophecies) detract from the integrity of the New Testament eisegeses.

Well, the prophesies were never meant to be a sign or proof. The messianic prophesies are well attested to in the OT, even though the meaning of each one may not have been precisely clear.

3) it is quite possible that the Gospel writers reconstructed the anecdotes of Jesus during their time to fit their views of the prophecies in Isaiah and so on. It is extremely arbitrary and naieve to discount this possibility, even on the basis of "faith".

The gospel accounts are all that we have. But there was, in that time, opponents to Christianity, and there is no testimony that the accounts of Jesus were wrong.

Matthew 1:22-23
And this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin is with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel-which means 'God is with us'".

Matthew is quoting the book of Isaiah (7:14) from the Septuagint. The word for virgin is rendered in the Greek Bible as parthenos. This word carries the explicit meaning of virgin. However, if we are to look at the Bible in its original Hebrew, from the massoretic text, the word used there is almah. Now the nearest English translation for almah is a young woman and does not carry with it any strong connotation of virginity.

First, no one is certain beyond doubt whether the Massoretic text is completely correct. The possibility exists that, at the time the Septuagint was translated, Almah did mean virgin; it's possible also that the hebrew text the Septugaint was translated from used the hebrew were bethulah for virgin.

Assuming the verse is correct, however, the text gives you no further infomation, because almah can be used in contexts where the girl is a virgin. (I believe there are cases in the Bible.) In fact, because Isaiah mentioned this passage as a sign, meaning something extraordinary, the suggestion is that the birth, itself, was extraordinary. Yet nothing is extraordinary if this birth was normal.

 

[anonymous2]

The gospel accounts are all that we have. But there was, in that time, opponents to Christianity, and there is no testimony that the accounts of Jesus were wrong.

So those "heretics" the alleged "church father" writings refer to who had different ideas of who Jesus was, from gnostic savior to Messiah but not God incarnate, etc, just got all of their ideas out of thin air while the "orthodox" were the only ones with the actual truth?

And as far as testimony to accounts of Jesus being wrong, there would have been little need to discount it. Miracles were accepted in that era, where was the Skeptical Society of Judea? It was simple to discount a person, just claim the miracles were from an evil power, or nature. If someone said "So and So did miracle A", it wouldn't have been particularly special. Vespasian supposedly cured a man's blindless I believe. Look at the tales of Apollonius. Look at what Josephus records as miraculous. It was pretty much commonplace. Who would have investigated the person's alleged historicity, let alone his alleged miracles? But today, if a person in a "technological" society were to make claims like Jesus supposedly made, and with the availability of close to instant news coverage, we'd all think the person was wacko.

Also, even if there were many testimonies that saying it was wrong, would the church who had control over Europe basically for a thousand years have allowed such writings to flourish, or even exist?

Even the alleged "church father" writings show that not everyone accepted the Gospel stories as completely accurate. Justin Martyr quotes Trypho as saying Christians accepted a groundless report and created a Christ for themselves. Doesn't sound like it was undisputed, does it?

 

[anonymous2]

Assuming the verse is correct, however, the text gives you no further infomation, because almah can be used in contexts where the girl is a virgin. (I believe there are cases in the Bible.) In fact, because Isaiah mentioned this passage as a sign, meaning something extraordinary, the suggestion is that the birth, itself, was extraordinary. Yet nothing is extraordinary if this birth was normal.

The sign was meant, in context, for Ahaz about a specific historical situation, that child from the parthenos (which doesn't always mean virgin by the way)/almah, who is with child (present tense), before he was old enough to know right from wrong, the two kings Ahaz dreaded will have left their lands. There was an historical context to this alleged prophecy. Isaiah 8 also speaks of this "Immanuel". You can claim double fulfillment if you wish though.

And the question we all want to know is, if the child was to be called Immanuel, and it was a prophecy of the Messiah, and Christians are right about who the Messiah is, why was the Messiah named Jesus and not Immanuel?

 

[§outh§tar]

Well, the prophesies were never meant to be a sign or proof.

Matthew 1: (KJV)

22 “Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.”

As even you can see, the contextual evidence clearly shows that the author intended for these "messianic fulfillments" to be corroboration for his evangelical message. Moreover, the italicized portion shows that you are indeed wrong: the prophecies were meant to be a "sign or proof" by the author.

The messianic prophesies are well attested to in the OT, even though the meaning of each one may not have been precisely clear.

And yet all Jewish scholars, virtually all Hebrew/English dictinaries and even most Christian Bible scholars insist vehemently otherwise. I am sure the Christians of today know more about the Jewish texts than even the Jews, but that's another issue..

Brings to mind a program I watched on History International, where some scholar said the very historical periods of struggle during which these 'prophecies' were written brings to question whether or not they indeed were prophecies and not just morale boosters for the hopeful.

The gospel accounts are all that we have. But there was, in that time, opponents to Christianity, and there is no testimony that the accounts of Jesus were wrong.

Close but no cigar.. I was not talking at all about the accounts of Jesus, but rather about the prophecies the writers claimed he fulfilled. We all know how Christians have an affinity for burning heretical works and how history is written by the winners. And we all know who the winners are...

Even if I did give you the benefit of the doubt, it doesn't mean in ANY way that they are right. The charges I have proffered however bring to light the dubiety of these claims.

First, no one is certain beyond doubt whether the Massoretic text is completely correct. The possibility exists that, at the time the Septuagint was translated, Almah did mean virgin; it's possible also that the hebrew text the Septugaint was translated from used the hebrew were bethulah for virgin.

The possibility also exists that Jesus was raised by aliens from Mars. It's also possible that the Bible was written by Muslim time travellers.

Speculation okinrus. Speculation. Are you trying to tell me that belief in the messiahship is based on speculation and baseless arbitrariness. Your absurdity here only serves to support the thread title.

Assuming the verse is correct, however, the text gives you no further infomation, because almah can be used in contexts where the girl is a virgin. (I believe there are cases in the Bible.) In fact, because Isaiah mentioned this passage as a sign, meaning something extraordinary, the suggestion is that the birth, itself, was extraordinary. Yet nothing is extraordinary if this birth was normal.

It is indisputable that the Hebrew text has the definite article “the” instead of “a” before “young woman” (KJV’s “virgin”) in Isaiah 7. The use of the definite article "the" shows definitively in context that Isaiah COULD NOT have been speaking about Mary, mother of Jesus. Unless you stupidly want to claim then that Isaiah meant to say his own wife (the young woman he refers to) is also going to have a virgin birth..

In the Hebrew, the verb for “shall be with child”, “harah”, is in the present tense. The proper translation of Isaiah 7:14 from Hebrew should be, “Look, the young woman is with child”. Unless you foolishly and baselessly want to claim without merit that Isaiah intended a double meaning , you had better concede that the claim by Christian apologists that Jesus fulfilled this prophecy is simply untenable.

In fact, because Isaiah mentioned this passage as a sign, meaning something extraordinary, the suggestion is that the birth, itself, was extraordinary. Yet nothing is extraordinary if this birth was normal.

This statement is of note so I will address it quickly.

Isaiah 7
13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [3] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [4] will call him Immanuel. [5]

As you can see there is simply NO implication whatsoever in this context that the birth itself was extraordinary. I challenge you here and now to provide contextual evidence that the birth itself was extraordinary. Failure to do so means not only are you intellectually dishonest and corrupt, but you are subject to speculations and baseless conjectures in an attempt to defend these castles in the sky.

 

[§outh§tar]

The sign was meant, in context, for Ahaz about a specific historical situation, that child from the parthenos (which doesn't always mean virgin by the way)/almah, who is with child (present tense), before he was old enough to know right from wrong, the two kings Ahaz dreaded will have left their lands. There was an historical context to this alleged prophecy. Isaiah 8 also speaks of this "Immanuel". You can claim double fulfillment if you wish though.

And the question we all want to know is, if the child was to be called Immanuel, and it was a prophecy of the Messiah, and Christians are right about who the Messiah is, why was the Messiah named Jesus and not Immanuel?

Yet again, how do Christians know then that the messiah was not the specific child Isaiah spoke of? More arbitrariness and baseless conjecturing you say?

 

[c20H25N3o]

This statement is of note so I will address it quickly.

Isaiah 7
13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [3] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [4] will call him Immanuel. [5]

As you can see there is simply NO implication whatsoever in this context that the birth itself was extraordinary. I challenge you here and now to provide contextual evidence that the birth itself was extraordinary. Failure to do so means not only are you intellectually dishonest and corrupt, but you are subject to speculations and baseless conjectures in an attempt to defend these castles in the sky

Contextual evidence

Err the 'virgin' will be with child. Now do you remember Southstar, a lady normally needs to do jiggy jiggy with a man in order to be 'with child' let alone give birth to a son. It is hardly suprising that called Him, "God with us".
Okinorus - remember that the God you believe in is Sovereign over all things. There is no need to apologise on his behalf but He knows you do this to honor him because you hate the tongue that speaks of unbelief.
It's better I think to humour the atheists They dont know He is listening you see.

peace

c20

 

[MarcAC]

"The genealogies of Jesus contradict. One is Mary and one is Joseph"

Jesus' genealogy,... he was a descendant of David the King (a prophetic requirement),... This... lineage indicates that the line of David was continued in Joseph, but if Mary was a virgin, then how could it be valid?

With regards to the question about Mary being a virgin;

Gen. 3:15 "You and this woman will hate each other; your descendants and hers will always be enemies. One of hers will strike you
on the head, and you will strike him on the heel.".

With regards to the apparent contradictions, many possible solutions have been put forward, to address the apparent discrepances between the lineages. However, the general idea they bring across is this; Jesus has a right to the throne of David. These solutions include the idea of a Levirate marraige;

Deut. 25:5-6 "5. If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

Others include adoption, as was the case with Joseph's father, Heli, and others earlier (in time) in the listing. Thus, the onus is that one should not narrowly focus on biological inheritance. There are legal (marraige) aspects, and regal (throne) aspects. If one has a basic knowledge of these possibilities then there is hardly any reason for him to foolishly turn his back on his Creator, God.

"The resurrection accounts of Jesus contradict. How?"

There were two people in the tomb, no one, no two angels, no wait...

Despite the trivial nature of this objection, why not address it anyway, just in case? I will attempt to highlight its trivial nature with an analogy;

Let's say three groups of planetary scientists independently measure (or estimate) the mass of Jupiter. One group obtains something like 1.91 x 10^27 kg. Another obtains 1.92 x 10^27 kg. Yet another obtains 1.89 x 10^27 kg. If the trivialites quoted above were to inherrently destroy a Christians faith in his Creator, God, then similarly, I would think, the scientists would listen to some critic who is saying; "It's 1.91... no... 1.89... no wait... 1.92..." and declare that Jupiter has no mass and abondon the scientific method??? I'm sure the least we can say is that Juptiter has a mass to the order 10^27 kg. Similarly, from the accounts, the least we can say is the Jesus was not in the tomb, and the stone was rolled away. Oh... what a significant blow to Christian doctrine... I shall become an atheist!

Now you see, this can be interpreted anyway the reader wants to, and that is why prophecies are not valid.

Terrible misconception. Prophecies cannot be interpreted any way the reader wants. There may be a range of interpretations, yes, therefore the onus on us is to figure which is correct. For example;

The path of an earth crossing object is forecasted and it determined that it will be on a collision path with the earth at some time. However, the methods used to determine the path leads to some uncertainty in wether it will slam into the earth or graze the atmosphere. Again; "No, it will graze the atmosphere... no it will slam into the earth." Again, it would seem that we should abondon the whole process used to determine the path altogether and develop a whole new theory on gravitation and a new science, hopefully before the time the asteroid stops us halfway through development, so as to elliminate all uncertainty? And I shall abandon all insights into prophecies!

Star, shove the scaly one over and make some space for me in that camp! I'm comin' in!

 

[MarcAC]

2) the historical context of the prophecies again splays the realm of interpretations concerning the prophecies far beyond Jesus.

Can you provide examples of other possible candidates. I think the Jews themselves are still wating, maybe you can help them?

3) it is quite possible that the Gospel writers reconstructed the anecdotes of Jesus during their time to fit their views of the prophecies in Isaiah and so on. It is extremely arbitrary and naieve to discount this possibility, even on the basis of "faith".

Do you think this possiblity is a justifiable reason for one to abandon their faith in Jesus altogether?

 

[§outh§tar]

Can you provide examples of other possible candidates. I think the Jews themselves are still wating, maybe you can help them?

Like I said it could have been the author was just boosting the morale of his people, it could have been he also genuinely believed a savior was coming immediately. These episodes of 'messianic fervor' occured especially during times of struggle (in this case, the early period of the war when Syrians and Ephraimites moved on Jerusalem). The possibility remains a strong candidate especially because research has suggested at least 3 different authors for the Book of Isaiah due to differences in style and vocabulary.

Let us look at one of Isaiah's prophecies, shall we:
----------
Look at the land of the Chaldeans! This is the people; it was not Assyria. They destined Tyre for wild animals. They erected their siege towers, they tore down her palaces, they made her a ruin. Wail, O ships of Tarshish, for your fortress is destroyed. From that day Tyre will be forgotten for seventy years, the lifetime of one king. At the end of seventy years, it will happen to Tyre as in the song about the prostitute: Take a harp, go about the city, you forgotten prostitute! Make sweet melody, sing many songs, that you may be remembered. At the end of seventy years, Yahweh will visit Tyre, and she will return to her trade, and will prostitute herself with all the kingdoms of the world on the face of the earth. Her merchandise and her wages will be dedicated to Yahweh; her profits will not be stored or hoarded, but her merchandise will supply abundant food and fine clothing for those who live in the presence of Yahweh.

Ezekiel clearly predicted that Tyre would be destroyed, become a bare rock and a place for spreading nets, and would be built no more forever (26:7-14, 21; 27:28; 28:19)

So Ezekiel predicted a permanent destruction of Tyre that would last forever, but Isaiah predicted just a temporary destruction that would last only 70 years or the estimated lifetime of one king. The fact is that neither prophecy was ever fulfilled. Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre forever, and it was never made desolate for a period of 70 years. Even when Alexander the Great succeeded in his campaign against Tyre in 332 B. C., the city was soon rebuilt (Wallace B. Fleming, The History of Tyre, Columbia University Press, p. 64) and has existed ever since. Matthew Hogan was objective enough in his consideration of the evidence to admit later that Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre had failed ("From the Mailbag," TSR, March/ April 1997, p. 12), but regardless of whether this prophecy failed or succeeded, it was impossible for both Isaiah's and Ezekiel's prophecies against Tyre to succeed. At least one of them had to fail, and so proponents of biblical prophecy fulfillment have a problem that they must explain. If the Bible was really inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, why would he have directed one prophet to predict a temporary destruction of Tyre and then later direct another prophet to predict that Tyre would be destroyed forever and never be rebuilt? A likely answer is that neither prophet was divinely inspired; they both simply blustered in the exaggerated rhetoric typical of biblical prophets and, working independently, contradicted each other.

See the rest here: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1998/3/983front.html
-------------

Do you think this possiblity is a justifiable reason for one to abandon their faith in Jesus altogether?

I know you certainly shall not faith is such a strong thing. Before my 'deconversion' I would have closed an eye and shrugged to this and kept on spouting "hallelujah's" so I am in no position to judge anyone.

It is however curious that an omnipotent God requires His believers to be arbitrary and aloof from these textual and historical difficulties.

 

[MarcAC]

Like I said... it could have been... it could have been... The possibility...

It could have been Jesus, and the possibility remains a very strong candidate. Would I now in all honesty to myself and my rationale be justified in abondoning my faith in God? The Jews still wait.

Let us look at one of Isaiah's prophecies, shall we:

Firstly I'm sure you know the symbolic use of the number 7. Secondly, with regards to the disparities between Isiah and Ezekiel, a prophecy is a word from God. I will refer you back to 2 Peter 3:8. Thirdly, there was mainland Tyre, and there was Tyre - the Island. The prophecy regarding Nebuchadnezzar referred to the mainland (Ezekiel 26:7-11). The rest referred to the island - prophecy fullfilled. I notice in the link you posted Tobin unwittingly admitted that Nebuchadnezzar did attack Tyre - I guess he saw it as a mere coincidence - or maybe he was just so focused he missed the point totally.

I know you certainly shall not faith is such a strong thing.

You do not know me; are you judging me? Of course you may feel free to do so as you think you are no longer subscribed to the Will of God. Rephrased; Based on your conjecture do you think a Christian would be justified in abandoning their belief in God?

It is however curious that an omnipotent God requires His believers to be arbitrary and aloof from these textual and historical difficulties.

Can you clarify this statement as to what God requires of His believers? These difficulties are tackled day in and day out be thelogians - some with faith, some without.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Let's take the spooky magic of the bible away.

Genesis 1:1

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now, you either A) believe this ^^ because in your self you have no other explanation for why you are here or B) you try and 'prove it wrong' with science and/or logic.
Let's say that the believer is cold because they have witnessed the world and have judged it to be meaningless i.e. they have seen life and death as void. Death has voided life and all of their loves and struggles will be swallowed as into a chasm of nothing. Death is the 'returning to dust' for the believer.
The believer is cold towards life let us say.

The one who does not believe the first line in Genesis i.e

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Let us say that the unbeliever is hot because they have looked very closely at their life and 'all that there is' and believe that life is great.

The believer accepts God therefore whilst the unbeliever does not.

There are two paths that emerge from this one line ...

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Path 1) The path of knowing God through faith. For the believer this is the only way to cancel out Death {The Great Void} since they first put their faith in the words "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" they then see God right at the end of the book and they have hope in the following words...

Revelation 22:20-21

20He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming soon."
Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.
21The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen.

Path 2) The other path. I do not wish to know. I do not know it.

Matthew 24

45"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

I shall shepard the weak in faith. I will do it. I will serve my God in this way. Defender of the Faith. Path No. 1. I will ensure they get their food on time.

Matthew 24

45"Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom the master has put in charge of the servants in his household to give them their food at the proper time?

Why? Cos there must be some reward right? I mean no one works for nothing right? Right!

Matthew 24

46It will be good for that servant whose master finds him doing so when he returns. 47I tell you the truth, he will put him in charge of all his possessions.

 

[§outh§tar]

It could have been Jesus, and the possibility remains a very strong candidate.

To one who has arbitrarily dismissed other viable possibilities, of course.

Would I now in all honesty to myself and my rationale be justified in abondoning my faith in God?

Just because the Gospel writer took the prophecy out of context does not mean a God does not exist. Come now, even you know that.

Firstly I'm sure you know the symbolic use of the number 7.

numerology
the study of the occult significance of numbers

Secondly, with regards to the disparities between Isiah and Ezekiel, a prophecy is a word from God.

Assuming baselessly that it was from God.

I will refer you back to 2 Peter 3:8.

The context of that verse reveals that he is actually defending Christianity against those who question why Jesus has not yet returned. See the thread: 'When Is Jesus Coming?'

Thirdly, there was mainland Tyre, and there was Tyre - the Island. The prophecy regarding Nebuchadnezzar referred to the mainland (Ezekiel 26:7-11). The rest referred to the island - prophecy fullfilled. I notice in the link you posted Tobin unwittingly admitted that Nebuchadnezzar did attack Tyre - I guess he saw it as a mere coincidence - or maybe he was just so focused he missed the point totally.[/color]

Perhaps you missed that Tobin did not put the proverbial cart before the horse. I also see nothing in the Tobin link about Nebuchadnezzar; the page is about the virgin birth??

Here is the quote from Farrell Till on Ezekiel's failure:
---
His prophecy against Egypt did show a clear awareness that he had botched his prediction that Nebuchadnezzar would decimate Tyre:

"Son of man, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon caused his army to labor strenuously against Tyre; every head was made bald, and every shoulder rubbed raw; yet neither he nor his army received wages from Tyre, for the labor which they expended on it. Therefore thus says Yahweh God: `Surely I will give the land of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; he shall take away her wealth, carry off her spoil, and remove her pillage; and that will be the wages for his army'" (29:18-19).

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html
----

Richard Carrier's exposition might be a little simpler:
---
Ezekiel was a captive of Nebuchadnezzar since the sack of Jerusalem in 597 B.C. and this explains the prediction: he is issuing propaganda favoring his captor, no doubt to get on his good side, and Ezekiel could easily have intelligence about the king's plans since he would see the preparations. While Ezekiel died sometime after 571 B.C. (the year of his last prophecy, cf. 40:1) and his book was edited shortly after that, the Tyrian prophecy was made, so Ezekiel claims, in 586 B.C. (26:1). As it happens, Nebuchadnezzar began the siege of Tyre a year later. Tyre came to terms with him in 573 and he did not sack the city after all--forcing Ezekiel to retract his prediction (29:18) and instead predict a victory against Egypt after Nebuchadnezzar turned against that country. So what do we have here? We have a man who sees the world's most powerful army besieging a city and then predicts it will be taken and destroyed--hardly something he could not guess would happen. Yet even his guess failed, and so did the prediction! A failed prediction can hardly be a miracle.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/indef/4d.html
------
This statement referred to Nebuchadnezzar's siege of Tyre as a completed act, which of course by this time it would have been (as the chronological analysis above clearly proves). That being true, it necessarily follows that the book of Ezekiel could not have been written, at least not in its entirety, until after the siege of Tyre was over. To say the least, then, serious questions must be raised about Ezekiel's credentials as a bona fide prophet. A prophet who completed his book after the facts he had prophesied about! What kind of prophet was that? And, in Ezekiel's case, we have a prophet who apparently didn't even have the good judgment to go back and revise his predictions after unfolding events had proven them wrong. Are we supposed to see this as compelling evidence that the Bible was inspired of God?
-------

You do not know me; are you judging me? Of course you may feel free to do so as you think you are no longer subscribed to the Will of God.

Are you judging me? How do you know I am not "subscribed" to the Will of the True God? Do you now see what a dumb question that is?

Rephrased; Based on your conjecture do you think a Christian would be justified in abandoning their belief in God?[/color]

There is nothing here that says Christians should abandon their belief in God. I don't care whether a Christian believes in God or not because of this thread; that is not the point. The point is whether or not the New Testament is at all useful for building a foundation of faith. Don't erroneously assume if the NT is wrong, then there is no God.

Can you clarify this statement as to what God requires of His believers? These difficulties are tackled day in and day out be thelogians - some with faith, some without.

According to the NT, faith.

 

[anonymous2]

How I view alleged Bible prophecy is this: I can see how someone could think the Bible is a book of prophecy fulfillment. Easily. I myself believed this. I think many Christians aren't really willing to thoroughly investigate and doubt them though. And I will not blame them. Such doubt is basically a sin in a Christian worldview, isn't it?

As far as the Tyre prophecy, we should remember that people in the past weren't necessarily idiots. They could see surrounding events and trends. Some prophecy may have simply been a reasonable educated guess. To predict a fall of a city in the past was easy. I'll predict right now that the United States of America will, at some point in history, cease to exist as a nation. I'd be willing to bet, but we may all be dead by the time that happens. There was nothing spectacular with predicting a fall of a city in the past. Many of the OT prophecies were that.

As for Tyre, I don't see any reason why the author of Ezekiel couldn't have known Nebuchadnezzar would attack Tyre, or that it was an educated guess which editors kept because it was true, or an addition later on by editors.

And the claim that Ezekiel supposedly predicted Alexander's attack on Tyre, that's most definitely not something definite. "Many nations" could have simply been a reference to Nebuchednezzar's army, which was indeed composed of many nations, those which he conquered. Vassal states were common, weren't they? And can it EVEN be proven that the book of Ezekiel, with the prophecy in question, existed before Alexander attacked Tyre? From my knowledge, no, it can't. I know of no ancient manuscript of Ezekiel which dates that far back.

And concerning Genesis 3, Jews and others understand it as a general reference to emnity between snakes and men. "Seed", which is "zera" or something like that, is a singular but can and was used as a plural in the Hebrew Bible. I don't think there even was a plural form of seed in reference to humans in the Hebrew Bible, so "zera" did not necessarily imply a singular person from my understanding. Humans will strike the snakes heads and snakes will strike the heels of the humans is the non-Christian viewpoint. "Seed of the woman" doesn't mean virgin birth. Seed meant offspring. Check it out. It's not unique to this verse. Sure, it can be SEEN as a prophecy of Jesus if you WANT, but is it really convincing?

What about the "alleged" FALSE prophecies in the Bible? Those are explained away or swept under the rug. If one wishes to do this, I have no problem with it.

To me, it boils down to this. There are things which could be believed as prophecy. But what's the reason for doing so? Doesn't it ULTIMATELY come down to the carrot and the stick, heaven and hell? Why would a truly LOVING God make people choose a confusing book or get the eternal torture pit if they don't? There are so many problems with the Bible that it's not even funny. Are all of these to be ignored, swept under the rug, etc, while the things which do appear right are believed? I don't have a problem with people doing exactly that if they wish though. Sure, there are things which appear to be patterns in the Bible. So what? Human authors do not need to be idiots. If someone thought 7 was a holy number, then they did. And if people implied that in a book, so what? Why is it at all amazing that there are patterns in a compliation of a book by human authors? Couldn't we find similar things in other writings, and even secular writings? Secular compilations of writings? Patterns/coincidences and even amazing coincidences are not just believable, they're to be EXPECTED. It's within mathematical possibility.

And, even IF there is genuine predictive prophecy in the Bible, what objective reason does anyone have of accepting it, over other claims of miracles/prophecies? Outside of what the Bible itself claims, why should anyone believe the other miracles/prophecies are of an evil source, while the Bible's isn't? Why not believe that someone had a time machine and went into the past and helped the Bible authors? Why not believe that an alien with superior knowledge visited them? Why not believe someone had the power through NATURAL, but unknown (to us) means in order to tap into the future? One needs to accept the Bible before accepting the viewpoint that the Bible's miracles/prophecies are from God, and the other religions are from another source. So it's circular.

 

[§outh§tar]

With regards to the question about Mary being a virgin;

Gen. 3:15 "You and this woman will hate each other; your descendants and hers will always be enemies. One of hers will strike you
on the head, and you will strike him on the heel.".

With regards to the apparent contradictions, many possible solutions have been put forward, to address the apparent discrepances between the lineages. However, the general idea they bring across is this; Jesus has a right to the throne of David. These solutions include the idea of a Levirate marraige;

Deut. 25:5-6 "5. If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. 6. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.

Others include adoption, as was the case with Joseph's father, Heli, and others earlier (in time) in the listing. Thus, the onus is that one should not narrowly focus on biological inheritance. There are legal (marraige) aspects, and regal (throne) aspects. If one has a basic knowledge of these possibilities then there is hardly any reason for him to foolishly turn his back on his Creator, God.[/color]

Haha!

In other words, one must rather be arbitrary and succumb to speculations in order to "understand" these contradictions for what they really are.

Tell me, have you actually READ the genealogy? Matthew makes a conscientious effort to link Jesus to David biologically. Unless you are going to foolishly ignore the contextual evidence, your baseless conjectures remain just that.

Matthew 1
1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham:
2Abraham was the father of Isaac,
Isaac the father of Jacob, ....

All the way to Jesus. This is first evidence of Matthew's primary intent of showing the Davidic line to Jesus.

Matthew 1
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

Second evidence.

Matthew 1
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David,

See a recurring them of linking Jesus to David by a biological line yet or still stubborn?

Let's 'luke' at the book of Luke

Luke 1
26In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David.

Luke 2:4
So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David.

42Still others asked, "How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family[4] and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?"

This is perhaps the most damning evidence. Unless you are willing to say the rabidly religious Jews of the time were somehow wrong on this issue that the Christ will come from David's family (as Matthew and now Luke have tried so hard to show).


In view of the immense contextual evidence, we see that your idle speculation is absolutely baseless and simply untenable. Only equal stubborness, dishonesty and indifference to this evidence can you at all make such a claim.

But I will like to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Why don't you go ahead and show me any contextual evidence from the Bible why you think a) the theory of the adoption b) the theory of a Levirate marriage are at all plausible when applied to this apparent contradiction.

 

[§outh§tar]

How I view alleged Bible prophecy is this: I can see how someone could think the Bible is a book of prophecy fulfillment. Easily. I myself believed this. I think many Christians aren't really willing to thoroughly investigate and doubt them though. And I will not blame them. Such doubt is basically a sin in a Christian worldview, isn't it?

As far as the Tyre prophecy, we should remember that people in the past weren't necessarily idiots. They could see surrounding events and trends. Some prophecy may have simply been a reasonable educated guess. To predict a fall of a city in the past was easy. I'll predict right now that the United States of America will, at some point in history, cease to exist as a nation. I'd be willing to bet, but we may all be dead by the time that happens. There was nothing spectacular with predicting a fall of a city in the past. Many of the OT prophecies were that.

As for Tyre, I don't see any reason why the author of Ezekiel couldn't have known Nebuchadnezzar would attack Tyre, or that it was an educated guess which editors kept because it was true, or an addition later on by editors.

And the claim that Ezekiel supposedly predicted Alexander's attack on Tyre, that's most definitely not something definite. "Many nations" could have simply been a reference to Nebuchednezzar's army, which was indeed composed of many nations, those which he conquered. Vassal states were common, weren't they? And can it EVEN be proven that the book of Ezekiel, with the prophecy in question, existed before Alexander attacked Tyre? From my knowledge, no, it can't. I know of no ancient manuscript of Ezekiel which dates that far back.

What about the "alleged" FALSE prophecies in the Bible? Those are explained away or swept under the rug. If one wishes to do this, I have no problem with it.

To me, it boils down to this. There are things which could be believed as prophecy. But what's the reason for doing so? Doesn't it ULTIMATELY come down to the carrot and the stick, heaven and hell? Why would a truly LOVING God make people choose a confusing book or get the eternal torture pit if they don't? There are so many problems with the Bible that it's not even funny. Are all of these to be ignored, swept under the rug, etc, while the things which do appear right are believed? I don't have a problem with people doing exactly that if they wish though. Sure, there are things which appear to be patterns in the Bible. So what? Human authors do not need to be idiots. If someone thought 7 was a holy number, then they did. And if people implied that in a book, so what? Why is it at all amazing that there are patterns in a compliation of a book by human authors? Couldn't we find similar things in other writings, and even secular writings? Secular compilations of writings? Patterns/coincidences and even amazing coincidences are not just believable, they're to be EXPECTED. It's within mathematical possibility.

And, even IF there is genuine predictive prophecy in the Bible, what objective reason does anyone have of accepting it, over other claims of miracles/prophecies? Outside of what the Bible itself claims, why should anyone believe the other miracles/prophecies are of an evil source, while the Bible's isn't? Why not believe that someone had a time machine and went into the past and helped the Bible authors? Why not believe that an alien with superior knowledge visited them? Why not believe someone had the power through NATURAL, but unknown (to us) means in order to tap into the future? One needs to accept the Bible before accepting the viewpoint that the Bible's miracles/prophecies are from God, and the other religions are from another source. So it's circular.

Pretty much summed it up. Unfortunately marcac thinks this thread is to bring Christians from their faith while it is not. It is for those who may every comtemplate Christianity to see that it really is circular and monstruosly arbitrary. Moreover, virtualy NONE of the proposed solutions to certain textual difficulties in any way respect the historical period and context of the verses.

For example Marcac now claims Jesus' Davidic ancestry may have been merely Davidic. But the context as I have shown, but THREE of the Synoptic authors stressing a biological inheritance. If anyone can actually shut their eyes to the context and postulate baseless eisegeses then can one really be expected to accept such a Book?

 

[MarcAC]

I have only a few responses as seem appropriate:

1. As a rational human being, I will not see the black dot on the white paper and assume then that the whole paper is black (even forgetting Chritianity for a minute).
2. The assignations of the possible solutions are quite far from arbitrary. Certainly no more arbitrary than one succumbing to conjecture about the 'insincerity of the biblical authors'. The first baseless base is this: Since Jesus was not Joseph's son, then Jesus was adopted. Since Joseph was Heli's son-in-law (not adopted after all),()... and the list goes on... You seem to arbitrarily assign the word 'son' in a biological sense - I will keep my mind open to the possible solutions - certainly nothing worth giving up on the Bible about, and therefore, not God. If scientists, in comparison, were to share such silly conjecture the scientific method would have long been abandoned.

Are you judging me? How do you know I am not "subscribed" to the Will of the True God? Do you now see what a dumb question that is?

Oh Star, you are confused, athough I would contend atheism is religious. You are an atheist are you not (or so it is claimed by those who take merit for your conversion - so good for them)? So as one who does not believe in God at all you sincerely believe your are subscribed to the will of any god? Seeing the Sun as a star is not a judgment, the Sun is simply a star by definition.

I would recommend you post a link to your thread "Jesus Is Not Coming"... or whatever it is called so that Christians can go there and realise the lengths to which people will go to try to disprove Christianity - I'm sure they will come away stronger in resolve, as I did (thank you) - and somewhat glad no atheist cardtrick hasn't brainwahsed them just yet.